A powerful and emotive thread by Rory Smith aimed at those fans calling on billionaire owners involved in the Super League to show contrition by showering even greater largesse on their clubs
https://twitter.com/RorySmith/status/13 ... 2447831043
It is a subject he tackles again in this long and detailed piece in the New York Times about what comes next following the collapse of Super League, but are fans really ready to accept the consequences of their demands
The Super League Is Gone. What Now?
APRIL 23, 2021
Sign up for Rory Smith’s weekly newsletter on world soccer, delivered every Friday, at nytimes.com/rory.
After all that, there is one thing we still do not know. We know what the dozen venture capitalists and industrialists and petrochemical princelings behind the Super League intended to do. We know what the future they had mapped out would have looked like. We know, or we can at least imagine, the damage they might have done.
What we do not know, not really, is why.
We have the platitudes, of course, the blandishments offered by Florentino Pérez, the president of Real Madrid, in that brash appearance on a gaudy Spanish talk show: that this was the only way to save soccer, that the rising tide lifts all boats, that there was no other option.
And we have the presumption, too, the Occam’s razor explanation: that deep down this was about nothing more than money, the relentless, insatiable, metastasizing pursuit of it, a cynical and grasping attempt to hoard as much of it as possible, made by those who already have far more than most, and far more than they need.
But while one of those points is considerably more valid than the other, neither quite satisfactorily explains what united these 12 disparate club owners behind a single, slapdash scheme like the Super League. They have, after all, spent much of the last decade quarreling among themselves. Their motivations, priorities and concerns are all quite different. They are, in the cold light of day, not so much one another’s solutions as they are one another’s problems. So the question stands: Why?
It is easiest, perhaps, to divide the 12 into three groups. In one, there are the English teams under American, or American-inflected, ownership: Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham. Their aim is not just to make more money, it is also to spend less of it. They want cost controls, salary caps, financial regulation. They want stable income, and restricted expenditures.
Their issue is the presence, in European soccer, of the second group: the outlier teams, Manchester City and Chelsea, backed by owners who would favor the abolition of such limitations. Their principal interest is in using their private wealth to gain a competitive edge. They are not involved in soccer to make money. They care little for the bottom line. They are here to win popular acclaim, and, through it, obtain cultural and political legitimacy.
And then there is the third group, comprising the six Spanish and Italian teams. Their problem is not only the bottomless wealth of Manchester City and Chelsea and a few others, but also the existence of the first group. The financial juggernaut that is the Premier League has inflated salaries around Europe. It has placed Real Madrid, Barcelona and the rest at a disadvantage in the transfer market. It has forced them to build up mountains of debt, leaving teams that believe themselves to be in soccer’s front rank facing a second-class future.
Clearly, they all decided — some with rather more consideration than others — that a superleague was their way out. The first group could write in various cost-control measures, denting the power of the second group, leveling their private playing field; in exchange, City and Chelsea would get the prestige that made their projects work. The third group, meanwhile, would no longer have to gaze longingly at the Premier League’s broadcasting deals.
That it did not work is a blessing, of course. That it was scuttled within 48 hours of its launch — undone, almost immediately, by a startling combination of amateurish planning, botched communications and underestimated backlash — was greeted as a victory for the sport as a whole, a blow delivered by the masses to the aristocrats, a bloody nose for the forces of global capitalism.
And, to some extent, that is precisely what it was. The threat of a superleague, in one form or another, has hung like a cloud over European soccer for decades. It has been wheeled out every few years, surfacing in every negotiation over how the money generated by the Champions League, in particular, should be divided.
Now that has gone. It is possible that, by the end of this weekend, as either Manchester City or Tottenham celebrates winning the League Cup, as Bayern Munich inches ever closer to yet another Bundesliga title, as Inter Milan closes in on a Serie A crown, all of this will feel like a fever dream. On the surface, it will be behind us. The insurrection will have been defeated, condemned to the past. Everything will be back to normal.
But that is an illusion, because though the Super League never had a chance to play a game — it barely had time to build out a website — it may yet prove the catalyst to the salvation of soccer. It has, after all, stripped the elite of their leverage. They played their cards, and the whole thing became a bluff. Now, for the first time in years, power resides in the collective strength of the game’s lesser lights.
They will need to use it. The Super League was wrong on almost every level, but though its architects never quite had the nerve to come out and say it, they did get one thing right. Soccer’s economy and ecosystem, as they stand, do not work.
This was recognition of what ultimately explains how 12 teams, in those three distinct groups, could stand together under the same flag, albeit briefly, albeit without seeming to notice that it was adorned with a skull-and-crossbones.
The status quo does not work for the American owners who need cost controls. It does not work for the grand old houses of continental Europe, who cannot compete with the Premier League’s riches. And infinitely more important, it does not work for almost everyone else.
It does not work for the teams condemned to life as cannon fodder for Manchester City or Paris St.-Germain, or for the domestic competitions withering in the long shadows of the Premier League, La Liga and the Bundesliga, or for the famous names — Ajax and Benfica and Red Star Belgrade — reduced to bit-part roles in European tournaments, ever farther from a return to their glory days.
Aleksander Ceferin, the president of UEFA and the man who led the counterattack in what will come to be known as the Sunday-Tuesday War, knows that. The issue of competitive balance is the one that animated his rise to his current position. One of the many ironies of this whole sorry farrago is not only that those whom Ceferin fought know it, too, but that they have given him the perfect opportunity to do something about it.
Those governing bodies that resisted the Super League make for unlikely heroes. UEFA has, after all, been no less complicit than the domestic leagues and national federations in selling out soccer to the highest bidder. It has, for decades, not only sat by and watched but also actively encouraged the influx of money into the game, never once questioning where it might all be heading.
A charitable interpretation would be that all of them were in thrall to, or in fear of, the elite teams. Suddenly, though, there is no longer need to be afraid. Behind Ceferin there is a confederation of governments and executives and players and fans, all of whom have made plain their objection to soccer’s inexorable journey down this same path.
Now there is the impetus and the appetite for change: not their change, the kind that would barricade the elite in their palaces, insulating them from the currents and the crisis outside their gates, but change that might allow more teams to benefit from the rewards the breakaway clubs sought to cordon off for themselves.
What form that might take is open for discussion. The rolling back of the reforms to the Champions League, passed this week while soccer was engulfed by civil war? A rebalancing of the way money is shared in the Premier League, after years of gradual erosion of the egalitarian principle that stands as the competition’s bedrock? Increased solidarity payments from UEFA across the Continent?
Whatever the next move is to be, it requires more than the commitment of all of those who stood against the Super League and the willingness of lawmakers to take action, rather than just to score cheap political points. It also needs fans to establish, among themselves, quite how far they are willing to go, exactly what they mean by change.
In those first few hours after the Super League was announced, a narrative took hold, particularly in England. This was, it went, an attempt by American owners to remake soccer in their own image: They wanted a closed league, one more like the N.F.L. or the N.B.A., one in which stability of place brought security of income.
The parallel was imperfect, of course; it was, really, nothing more than a shorthand to explain and to demonize the structure of the proposed breakaway. Indeed, if anything, it is the suggestions for changes made in the aftermath of the Super League’s launch and swift collapse that might remake European soccer along more American lines.
The prime difference between sports in the United States and soccer in Europe is dynasty. Dominant teams will, occasionally, surface in the major leagues of North America: The Golden State Warriors will win three championships in four seasons; the New England Patriots will sustain their success over nearly two decades.
But as a rule, there are checks and balances in place — through player drafts and the presence of a salary cap — to ensure that today’s weak have at least a chance to become tomorrow’s strong.
Soccer has no such mechanisms. It is, instead, driven by a desire not just for success now, but for success in perpetuity. It is a sport defined by dynasty. It is that which encourages not just teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid — owned, in theory, by members, and therefore run by presidents who must seek re-election — but also private entities, like Juventus and Manchester United, to spend recklessly in the pursuit of success.
It is not possible, the executives of those teams know, to sit out a season. It is not possible to rebuild slowly and carefully toward some distant aim. Teams are expected to compete now, to contend now, to win now. If they do not, managers are fired and players are sold and new managers are hired and new players are bought.
A season in which Bayern Munich does not win the Bundesliga is a disaster. Juventus, this summer, might fire a rookie coach because he has not won Serie A — not just in his first season at the club, but in his first season, full stop. Liverpool has been treated, at times, as a laughingstock because a lengthy injury list stopped it from winning a second Premier League title a year after claiming its first in 30 years.
This is the sport’s dominant ethos: That, as Alex Ferguson used to put it, once a trophy is won, you forget about it and seek to win the next. But while that is part of soccer’s appeal — that one victory is never enough — it gives those that run its clubs a problem: There is always another triumph to plan, always another peak to conquer, always another player to buy. That is, ultimately, what fans have been conditioned to expect, and so that is what they demand.
Pérez, instinctively, understands that. It is why, in his second television appearance of the week, he mentioned that, without a Super League, Real Madrid could not countenance signing players like Kylian Mbappé or Erling Haaland. The finances, in his eyes, simply do not work (though that has, in fact, never stopped him before).
It was a transparent ploy, a form of emotional blackmail. Pérez knows that what matters most to Real Madrid fans is that the club should be making the sort of signings, building the sorts of teams, that can win the Champions League — not just this year, but next, as well. Give us what we want, he said, and we can give you what you want.
But that approach is not sustainable in a model where wealth is spread more evenly. That does not make it bad; it does not even make it worse than what soccer has now. But that does make it different and, without changes in the way the sport is governed and in fan expectations, might also make it unsustainable.
It would not be possible, of course, for the elite to be forced to relinquish more of their revenue in a game that was still open to investments of the sort that supercharged the rise of Chelsea and Manchester City. It would not hold: All that would happen is that Everton or Newcastle United or Harrogate Town, with the aid of new backers, would trample unencumbered across the landscape.
More complex is that fans would have to redefine what success looks like. When Manchester United fans ask for the introduction of the admirable 50+1 rule — borrowed from German soccer — are they prepared to tolerate what follows? A watering-down of their own team’s chances of trophies?
Will the Liverpool fans sincerely decrying their owners’ greed be happy to have a year or two of seventh-place finishes as the team rebuilds? Do the Chelsea fans on the streets want a world where a good decade means one league title? It is this that Pérez was driving at: He has to spend money because his fans demand it, so to meet that demand, he needs more money.
The desire to share more of the lavish fruit of soccer’s growth is sincerely held, and it is morally sound. The idea of a dozen or more teams harboring genuine championship hopes at the start of every season — rather than the handful of clubs that do so now — sounds faintly idyllic, like a return to soccer’s roots.
But it would come at a cost: It would mean that at the end of the campaign, your traditionally elite team would be less likely to be the one standing tall. The redistribution of wealth means the redistribution of success, too.
Here, then, is another thing we do not know: Do those fans who stared down their owners this week for their greed and their ambition and their hubris want this to be the start of something new, or simply the safeguarding of the old? How much soccer can ever change will depend on the answer.
Football's Magic Money Tree
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Sky Italia take a leaf out of Canal+ book and are seeking to block Serie A's deal with DAZN in the courts - from SportsBusiness.com
Sky appeals award of Serie A rights to DAZN
Martin Ross April 23, 2021
Italian pay-television broadcaster Sky Italia has moved to block the recent award of domestic Serie A broadcast rights to DAZN, the subscription streaming broadcaster, in an appeal lodged with a Milan court.
The appeal is to be heard on May 5, according to Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, with Sky said to be arguing that Lega Serie A has disproportionately allocated the rights packages and placed the balance of power with a single operator.
Last month, DAZN secured the majority of domestic rights to Serie A from 2021-22 to 2023-24 after finally receiving the necessary backing from clubs. DAZN will hold rights to seven exclusive fixtures per matchweek and co-exclusive rights to three matches after submitting the leading offer of €840m per season.
DAZN has teamed up with Telecom Italia, the Italian telecoms operator, on the Serie A project and will also end its linear carriage deal with Sky for the DAZN1 satellite channel before the new rights deal kicks in.
Ahead of the award of rights to DAZN, Sky sought to increase pressure on the clubs by flagging concerns over the effect on market competition of the DAZN-TIM proposal.
A letter from Sky, seen by the Italian news agency Ansa, claimed that TIM would “benefit from preferential treatment in the distribution of DAZN, despite TIM being the incumbent operator with greater market strength in Italy, in particular in the broadband segment”.
Maximo Ibarra, the Sky Italia chief executive, wrote that “such a preferential distribution agreement could therefore generate potential competitive and compatibility issues with the Melandri Law”.
Lega Serie A clubs were meeting this afternoon as they looked to award a second package comprising non-exclusive live rights to three fixtures per matchweek.
A recent offer from Sky worth an average of €87.5m per season failed to secure the necessary backing from the clubs. The league said at the end of last month that it would issue a new invitation to tender for that second package of rights.
Serie A’s existing domestic rights deals with Sky and DAZN (from 2018-19 to 2020-21) are worth €973m per year.
Following on from the loss by Sky of the majority of domestic Serie A rights, Ibarra has resigned to take up a new role at Engineering Ingegneria Informatica, the Italian technology company backed by private equity firm Bain Capital.
Jobs cuts at Sky Italia were also communicated by national unions in Italy earlier this month.
It is thought that Sky is preparing to cut its total workforce by 25 per cent as part of a wider four-year transformation plan. The unions said the job cuts intend to save Sky around €300m at a time when the broadcaster is facing increasing competition in the Italian market from streaming services such as DAZN, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.
Sky appeals award of Serie A rights to DAZN
Martin Ross April 23, 2021
Italian pay-television broadcaster Sky Italia has moved to block the recent award of domestic Serie A broadcast rights to DAZN, the subscription streaming broadcaster, in an appeal lodged with a Milan court.
The appeal is to be heard on May 5, according to Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, with Sky said to be arguing that Lega Serie A has disproportionately allocated the rights packages and placed the balance of power with a single operator.
Last month, DAZN secured the majority of domestic rights to Serie A from 2021-22 to 2023-24 after finally receiving the necessary backing from clubs. DAZN will hold rights to seven exclusive fixtures per matchweek and co-exclusive rights to three matches after submitting the leading offer of €840m per season.
DAZN has teamed up with Telecom Italia, the Italian telecoms operator, on the Serie A project and will also end its linear carriage deal with Sky for the DAZN1 satellite channel before the new rights deal kicks in.
Ahead of the award of rights to DAZN, Sky sought to increase pressure on the clubs by flagging concerns over the effect on market competition of the DAZN-TIM proposal.
A letter from Sky, seen by the Italian news agency Ansa, claimed that TIM would “benefit from preferential treatment in the distribution of DAZN, despite TIM being the incumbent operator with greater market strength in Italy, in particular in the broadband segment”.
Maximo Ibarra, the Sky Italia chief executive, wrote that “such a preferential distribution agreement could therefore generate potential competitive and compatibility issues with the Melandri Law”.
Lega Serie A clubs were meeting this afternoon as they looked to award a second package comprising non-exclusive live rights to three fixtures per matchweek.
A recent offer from Sky worth an average of €87.5m per season failed to secure the necessary backing from the clubs. The league said at the end of last month that it would issue a new invitation to tender for that second package of rights.
Serie A’s existing domestic rights deals with Sky and DAZN (from 2018-19 to 2020-21) are worth €973m per year.
Following on from the loss by Sky of the majority of domestic Serie A rights, Ibarra has resigned to take up a new role at Engineering Ingegneria Informatica, the Italian technology company backed by private equity firm Bain Capital.
Jobs cuts at Sky Italia were also communicated by national unions in Italy earlier this month.
It is thought that Sky is preparing to cut its total workforce by 25 per cent as part of a wider four-year transformation plan. The unions said the job cuts intend to save Sky around €300m at a time when the broadcaster is facing increasing competition in the Italian market from streaming services such as DAZN, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.
-
Wile E Coyote
- Posts: 8852
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 3021 times
- Has Liked: 1868 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
A truly great read. Informative and thought provoking.much better to be concise than listen to arsenal fans chanting "what do we want" ad infinitum. Admirable post.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Regular readers of this thread in the last few months will be aware of the 11 - 9 splits in Serie A over the Domestic TV rights deal and the the proposed commercial partnership with Private Equity. Well it has emerged again as one side seek retribution against Juventus, AC Milan and Inter Milan.
https://twitter.com/_GIFN/status/1386037416360808450
https://twitter.com/_GIFN/status/1386037416360808450
-
GodIsADeeJay81
- Posts: 14918
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3526 times
- Has Liked: 6428 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Sorry if I've missed it, but have you seen what's going on at Bordeux?
Owners have announced they're no longer bank rolling the club and its been placed into administration
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/bor ... nistration
Owners have announced they're no longer bank rolling the club and its been placed into administration
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/bor ... nistration
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
yes posted late on Thursday night, no problem with that - there was a big protest about it in the centre of Bordeaux yesterdayGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:25 pmSorry if I've missed it, but have you seen what's going on at Bordeux?
Owners have announced they're no longer bank rolling the club and its been placed into administration
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/bor ... nistration
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
Wile E Coyote
- Posts: 8852
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 3021 times
- Has Liked: 1868 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
during todays match on BBC, the commentator mentioned how we had spent just 2 million during summer.
He was referring to our presence in the premier league .
Just out of interest, can anyone shed a bit of light on how we compare with our peers in this division and even in the championship. It seems beyond incredible that with the imbalances financially, we can muster a decent showing considering how little we have at our disposal.
Brings into focus that the super league fiasco is not the only debacle regarding clubs spending powers.
He was referring to our presence in the premier league .
Just out of interest, can anyone shed a bit of light on how we compare with our peers in this division and even in the championship. It seems beyond incredible that with the imbalances financially, we can muster a decent showing considering how little we have at our disposal.
Brings into focus that the super league fiasco is not the only debacle regarding clubs spending powers.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Sean Dyche said this week we only spent £750k last summerWile E Coyote wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:36 pmduring todays match on BBC, the commentator mentioned how we had spent just 2 million during summer.
He was referring to our presence in the premier league .
Just out of interest, can anyone shed a bit of light on how we compare with our peers in this division and even in the championship. It seems beyond incredible that with the imbalances financially, we can muster a decent showing considering how little we have at our disposal.
Brings into focus that the super league fiasco is not the only debacle regarding clubs spending powers.
West Ham and Brighton made profits on last summers trading and officially Wolves broke even
West Ham have since completed the transfer of Benrhama taking them into a positive transfer net spend
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
There are reports suggesting that Ed Woodward's meeting with Downing St officials in the week prior to the Souper League announcement included discussion of Super League and that he was given an ok by then - you always hope in these circumstances that someone was actually recording the conversation
https://twitter.com/cazjwheeler/status/ ... 5871827970
https://twitter.com/cazjwheeler/status/ ... 5871827970
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Sometimes it is useful to get a distant perspective on events that are close to home - The article from ABC news Australia's The Ticket does a good job of bring the events of last week into the wider web that we have been following for years now on this thread
ANALYSIS
The European Super League may be on hold, but it will be back
By Tracey Holmes for The Ticket - Posted 2 days ago, updated 15hours ago
There was a time when British cricket authorities described Australian media mogul Kerry Packer as the brash leader of a sporting circus.
That was because under their noses he devised, signed, sealed and delivered a rebel competition called World Series Cricket that revolutionised the game.
He had hit on something that has grown in value every year since – a sporting contest designed for television audiences.
Twenty years later, war was proclaimed in rugby league.
Packer’s rival, Rupert Murdoch, bankrolled a rebel competition called the Super League, designed to attract subscribers to his Fox pay-TV network.
It was in opposition to the established competition backed by Packer and Optus Vision.
The two sides faced off in drawn-out court battles that ended lifelong friendships.
The negotiated peace was the highly successful NRL competition that has been in existence since.
The outcry was loud and predictable
This past week, 12 of the most successful and powerful football clubs in Europe announced they had formed a made-for-television competition called the European Super League (ESL).
The outcry was loud, swift, and effective. It was also predictable.
People, generally, do not like change – sports fans especially.
If the ESL went ahead, said fans and other critics, it would signal the "death of football". They claimed it was akin to "a declaration of war", and the game was being "stolen by the rich", led by a group of "liars and snakes".
It was emotional stuff providing the type of fertile ground politicians crave, allowing them to be painted as a man or woman of the people.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson seized the moment.
The new competition, he said, offended "the basic principles of competition" and he would take "whatever action necessary" to prevent it from taking place.
"These clubs, these names, originate from famous towns and cities in our country," he said.
"I don't think that it is right that they should be somehow dislocated from their home towns, home cities, taken and turned into international brands and commodities that just circulate the planet, propelled by the billions of banks, without any reference to fans and to those who have loved them all their lives."
Could this be just another power play?
The cheering was so loud it was difficult to find a pause long enough to consider what had actually been said.
The English Premier League clubs the British PM was referring to were Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham — half of the 12 teams named as "foundation members" of the ESL.
All of them, with the exception of Tottenham, have been owned by foreigners for years.
The clubs have been "international brands and commodities" for some time owned by Americans, a Russian and an Emirati, who have injected millions of dollars into making them the most successful teams in the world’s number one domestic football competition.
They have fans and supporter groups right around the world.
The ESL had made no mention of ripping the teams away from their loyal fans.
“Our 12 founder clubs represent billions of fans across the globe and 99 European trophies," a statement read, adding the plan was to create “a regular flow of headline fixtures”.
It said little else, leaving many close observers to wonder whether this was just another power play on the twisting road of football politics designed to eke out a greater share of the next broadcast deal being negotiated by the European governing body, UEFA.
Away from the headlines, a different story was unfolding
What was at stake, if the new league actually went ahead, was the certain relegation of the top-tier English Premier League — itself created from top teams breaking away from the Football League as they chased a more lucrative television deal.
Fans, convinced their teams were being hijacked by billionaires in private jets tearing them from the clubs they’d been reared to support, became the public face of the latest in a history of so-called rebel leagues.
They have since been congratulated widely for the collapse of ESL only hours after it was floated.
Privately, away from the media headlines, a different story was unfolding.
The full facts might never be known, such is the multi-billion-dollar reality of opaque sports governance where conflicts of interest are the norm rather than the exception.
While the UK Prime Minister was at one with the fans during the week, some of his staff and trusted advisors were busy behind the scenes.
According to The Times, Mr Johnson’s most trusted aide and envoy to the Gulf, Lord Udny-Lister, told officials in the United Arab Emirates that participation in the ESL would damage bi-lateral relations.
The Emiratis were quick to respond.
Almost immediately, Manchester City, owned by the UAE’s Sheikh Mansour, announced it was withdrawing from the ESL.
Rumours began circulating that European Super League signatories would not be welcome at certain grounds, that security and policing at games would not be provided, and visas for international players would be difficult to obtain.
One by one, each of the Premier League teams that had signed up, withdrew.
It won't be 'the last chapter'
Dr Katarina Pijetlovic, author of EU Sports Law and Break Away Leagues in Football, believes anybody involved in the formation of the ESL "would have instantly foreseen practical, legal and political risk".
She told The Ticket it was "partly, at least, a hoax".
“This wasn’t a serious or genuine attempt because any serious breakaway league or alternative league of any kind, particularly the Super League where the money involved – we're talking billions and we’re talking powerful investors such as JP Morgan behind them – everybody would do their due diligence," she said.
“[This] hasn't happened, not even the basics were covered.
“I can’t see that this was a genuine attempt … if this was a serious project then it was extremely badly planned, organised, executed, communicated … and so on every level it has not been thought through."
Dr Pijetlovic said that while it would not be the "last chapter we are going to see", it was unlikely the ESL would go ahead "in the form that it was proposed".
Now, a government review into English football might consider restricting foreign ownership of teams and hand some of the power to fans, as is the norm in Germany where clubs operate under what is known as the "50+1 rule".
Put simply, investors can buy into German teams, but more than 50 per cent of the shares must always be held by the club's members.
The Law in Sport knowledge hub, with more than 21,000 members globally, held a two-hour webinar midweek discussing the European Super League with experts from commercial law, employment law, broadcast deals and more.
Almost without dissent, the panellists agreed the ESL proposition was not dead and there was more to come.
Asked whether he could dispel the idea that the ESL announcement was a stunt designed to wrestle power from the controlling body UEFA, Law in Sport CEO Sean Cottrell said: "I’m not sure you can".
“I wouldn’t dispel anything at the moment," he said.
“One of the problems in all of this, for me, has been the lack of transparency across the board.
“Most of the analysis … is based on a lot of assumptions … as we see who does or does not take [legal] action on either side we will have a much clearer idea of what’s actually happened.
“I do think there's real tensions between ownership, between clubs in the ECA (European Clubs Association) structure, the ECA’s power and influence in UEFA, and power and influence in world football. I think that’s part of the story.”
Household names in Australia
Until this week, the Chairman of the ECA had been Andrea Agnelli, the president of Italian club Juventus, recognised as the driving force behind the ESL cartel.
At the same time he was representing the collective of European clubs in negotiations with UEFA, he was plotting with 11 others to announce the European Super League.
His position being untenable, he resigned.
The void was filled by Qatari Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the president of French powerhouse club Paris St Germain, fanning geo-political flames further.
Khelaifi is the chairman of beIN Media, with a large portfolio of global football rights, including the UEFA Champions League.
He is the chairman of Qatar Sports Investments, the Qatar Tennis Federation and is a member of the organising committee for the Club World Cup.
His country will host the FIFA Men’s World Cup in 2022 but it is also at the centre of a diplomatic crisis and blockade with other Gulf States, notably the UAE – owners of Manchester City.
Gulf entities have become household names in Australia, too, through sports investments and sponsorships.
It’s not unusual to see the logos of Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad Airways on team uniforms and sponsors boards at Australian sports grounds.
But it’s not only the Gulf region making inroads.
Sport is 'low-hanging fruit'
China has stated its intention not only to host a future edition of the FIFA Men’s World Cup, but to win it.
The chairman of Chinese conglomerate Suning, Steven Zhang, owns Inter Milan – another one of the clubs that signed up to the ESL.
China is waiting on the sidelines, according to Professor of International Security Studies at the USAF Air War College in Alabama, Dr Amit Gupta.
He says the amount of money China plans to spend will dwarf anything else in sport.
“If you're talking money, [President] Xi Jinping has laid out a sports plan for China," he said.
“He said, ‘we want to set up an 850-billion-dollar sports industry’.”
That is double the size of the current worth of the global sports industry.
China is strategically going about its World Cup plans, Dr Gupta says.
“They have gone to Portugal, which is a country that punches above its weight in European football, and they’ve told the second division 'take two Chinese players into each team, and three coaches, so that we can raise our standards'," he said.
“They are pumping money in there just as they are pumping money into Portuguese telecommunications and ports and so on.”
According to Gupta, sport is "low-hanging fruit".
“These things can be picked up quite easily and I know the Chinese are looking for sports, the Qataris are looking, Dubai and Abu Dhabi are looking because this is part of soft power and brand imaging," he said.
Clubs are global commodities
Gone are the days when players belonged to a local club for life. Now, they are bought and sold as global commodities and supporters essentially follow the club shirt, more than those who wear it.
Back in the 1970s when Kerry Packer was looking for made-for-TV sport and hit on World Series Cricket, he went about shoring up three things – the players, the venues and, crucially, the support of influential politicians.
Former Australian player Bruce Francis was part of the inner sanctum at the time working for Packer.
“The difference between the government and the ESL, and Kerry Packer, is that Kerry Packer had [Prime Minister] Malcolm Fraser in his pocket and he had [NSW Premier] Neville Wran in his pocket, so he knew there wasn’t going to be interference," he said.
“One time I was sitting in the office with Kerry, and I asked how the visas were going with players coming into Australia and he said, 'Look I don’t know, I’ll make the phone call'.
“He phoned and asked to speak to Malcolm Fraser who was tied up. I think Phillip Lynch was the deputy PM at the time and he wanted to speak to him, but he wasn’t available either.
At the time, South Africa was banned from international sport because of its apartheid regime.
Francis says the voice at the end of the line was then foreign affairs minister Andrew Peacock.
The concept is far from dead
While much has changed in global sport since then, some truths remain the same.
In his 1979 book, A Pitch in Both Camps, author Alan Lee recalled what Packer had told him about the value of a television audience.
“The crowds at the ground are of secondary importance," he said.
“Certainly it’s great when they come, but it’s television that counts.”
It’s an observation that has been given new life as sport emerges from the global COVID pandemic playing in mostly empty stadiums.
UK broadcaster of the English Premier League, Sky, reported increased interest in "big games".
The proposed ESL was all about the "big games".
While the proposal has been put on ice, for now, the concept is far from dead.
ANALYSIS
The European Super League may be on hold, but it will be back
By Tracey Holmes for The Ticket - Posted 2 days ago, updated 15hours ago
There was a time when British cricket authorities described Australian media mogul Kerry Packer as the brash leader of a sporting circus.
That was because under their noses he devised, signed, sealed and delivered a rebel competition called World Series Cricket that revolutionised the game.
He had hit on something that has grown in value every year since – a sporting contest designed for television audiences.
Twenty years later, war was proclaimed in rugby league.
Packer’s rival, Rupert Murdoch, bankrolled a rebel competition called the Super League, designed to attract subscribers to his Fox pay-TV network.
It was in opposition to the established competition backed by Packer and Optus Vision.
The two sides faced off in drawn-out court battles that ended lifelong friendships.
The negotiated peace was the highly successful NRL competition that has been in existence since.
The outcry was loud and predictable
This past week, 12 of the most successful and powerful football clubs in Europe announced they had formed a made-for-television competition called the European Super League (ESL).
The outcry was loud, swift, and effective. It was also predictable.
People, generally, do not like change – sports fans especially.
If the ESL went ahead, said fans and other critics, it would signal the "death of football". They claimed it was akin to "a declaration of war", and the game was being "stolen by the rich", led by a group of "liars and snakes".
It was emotional stuff providing the type of fertile ground politicians crave, allowing them to be painted as a man or woman of the people.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson seized the moment.
The new competition, he said, offended "the basic principles of competition" and he would take "whatever action necessary" to prevent it from taking place.
"These clubs, these names, originate from famous towns and cities in our country," he said.
"I don't think that it is right that they should be somehow dislocated from their home towns, home cities, taken and turned into international brands and commodities that just circulate the planet, propelled by the billions of banks, without any reference to fans and to those who have loved them all their lives."
Could this be just another power play?
The cheering was so loud it was difficult to find a pause long enough to consider what had actually been said.
The English Premier League clubs the British PM was referring to were Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham — half of the 12 teams named as "foundation members" of the ESL.
All of them, with the exception of Tottenham, have been owned by foreigners for years.
The clubs have been "international brands and commodities" for some time owned by Americans, a Russian and an Emirati, who have injected millions of dollars into making them the most successful teams in the world’s number one domestic football competition.
They have fans and supporter groups right around the world.
The ESL had made no mention of ripping the teams away from their loyal fans.
“Our 12 founder clubs represent billions of fans across the globe and 99 European trophies," a statement read, adding the plan was to create “a regular flow of headline fixtures”.
It said little else, leaving many close observers to wonder whether this was just another power play on the twisting road of football politics designed to eke out a greater share of the next broadcast deal being negotiated by the European governing body, UEFA.
Away from the headlines, a different story was unfolding
What was at stake, if the new league actually went ahead, was the certain relegation of the top-tier English Premier League — itself created from top teams breaking away from the Football League as they chased a more lucrative television deal.
Fans, convinced their teams were being hijacked by billionaires in private jets tearing them from the clubs they’d been reared to support, became the public face of the latest in a history of so-called rebel leagues.
They have since been congratulated widely for the collapse of ESL only hours after it was floated.
Privately, away from the media headlines, a different story was unfolding.
The full facts might never be known, such is the multi-billion-dollar reality of opaque sports governance where conflicts of interest are the norm rather than the exception.
While the UK Prime Minister was at one with the fans during the week, some of his staff and trusted advisors were busy behind the scenes.
According to The Times, Mr Johnson’s most trusted aide and envoy to the Gulf, Lord Udny-Lister, told officials in the United Arab Emirates that participation in the ESL would damage bi-lateral relations.
The Emiratis were quick to respond.
Almost immediately, Manchester City, owned by the UAE’s Sheikh Mansour, announced it was withdrawing from the ESL.
Rumours began circulating that European Super League signatories would not be welcome at certain grounds, that security and policing at games would not be provided, and visas for international players would be difficult to obtain.
One by one, each of the Premier League teams that had signed up, withdrew.
It won't be 'the last chapter'
Dr Katarina Pijetlovic, author of EU Sports Law and Break Away Leagues in Football, believes anybody involved in the formation of the ESL "would have instantly foreseen practical, legal and political risk".
She told The Ticket it was "partly, at least, a hoax".
“This wasn’t a serious or genuine attempt because any serious breakaway league or alternative league of any kind, particularly the Super League where the money involved – we're talking billions and we’re talking powerful investors such as JP Morgan behind them – everybody would do their due diligence," she said.
“[This] hasn't happened, not even the basics were covered.
“I can’t see that this was a genuine attempt … if this was a serious project then it was extremely badly planned, organised, executed, communicated … and so on every level it has not been thought through."
Dr Pijetlovic said that while it would not be the "last chapter we are going to see", it was unlikely the ESL would go ahead "in the form that it was proposed".
Now, a government review into English football might consider restricting foreign ownership of teams and hand some of the power to fans, as is the norm in Germany where clubs operate under what is known as the "50+1 rule".
Put simply, investors can buy into German teams, but more than 50 per cent of the shares must always be held by the club's members.
The Law in Sport knowledge hub, with more than 21,000 members globally, held a two-hour webinar midweek discussing the European Super League with experts from commercial law, employment law, broadcast deals and more.
Almost without dissent, the panellists agreed the ESL proposition was not dead and there was more to come.
Asked whether he could dispel the idea that the ESL announcement was a stunt designed to wrestle power from the controlling body UEFA, Law in Sport CEO Sean Cottrell said: "I’m not sure you can".
“I wouldn’t dispel anything at the moment," he said.
“One of the problems in all of this, for me, has been the lack of transparency across the board.
“Most of the analysis … is based on a lot of assumptions … as we see who does or does not take [legal] action on either side we will have a much clearer idea of what’s actually happened.
“I do think there's real tensions between ownership, between clubs in the ECA (European Clubs Association) structure, the ECA’s power and influence in UEFA, and power and influence in world football. I think that’s part of the story.”
Household names in Australia
Until this week, the Chairman of the ECA had been Andrea Agnelli, the president of Italian club Juventus, recognised as the driving force behind the ESL cartel.
At the same time he was representing the collective of European clubs in negotiations with UEFA, he was plotting with 11 others to announce the European Super League.
His position being untenable, he resigned.
The void was filled by Qatari Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the president of French powerhouse club Paris St Germain, fanning geo-political flames further.
Khelaifi is the chairman of beIN Media, with a large portfolio of global football rights, including the UEFA Champions League.
He is the chairman of Qatar Sports Investments, the Qatar Tennis Federation and is a member of the organising committee for the Club World Cup.
His country will host the FIFA Men’s World Cup in 2022 but it is also at the centre of a diplomatic crisis and blockade with other Gulf States, notably the UAE – owners of Manchester City.
Gulf entities have become household names in Australia, too, through sports investments and sponsorships.
It’s not unusual to see the logos of Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad Airways on team uniforms and sponsors boards at Australian sports grounds.
But it’s not only the Gulf region making inroads.
Sport is 'low-hanging fruit'
China has stated its intention not only to host a future edition of the FIFA Men’s World Cup, but to win it.
The chairman of Chinese conglomerate Suning, Steven Zhang, owns Inter Milan – another one of the clubs that signed up to the ESL.
China is waiting on the sidelines, according to Professor of International Security Studies at the USAF Air War College in Alabama, Dr Amit Gupta.
He says the amount of money China plans to spend will dwarf anything else in sport.
“If you're talking money, [President] Xi Jinping has laid out a sports plan for China," he said.
“He said, ‘we want to set up an 850-billion-dollar sports industry’.”
That is double the size of the current worth of the global sports industry.
China is strategically going about its World Cup plans, Dr Gupta says.
“They have gone to Portugal, which is a country that punches above its weight in European football, and they’ve told the second division 'take two Chinese players into each team, and three coaches, so that we can raise our standards'," he said.
“They are pumping money in there just as they are pumping money into Portuguese telecommunications and ports and so on.”
According to Gupta, sport is "low-hanging fruit".
“These things can be picked up quite easily and I know the Chinese are looking for sports, the Qataris are looking, Dubai and Abu Dhabi are looking because this is part of soft power and brand imaging," he said.
Clubs are global commodities
Gone are the days when players belonged to a local club for life. Now, they are bought and sold as global commodities and supporters essentially follow the club shirt, more than those who wear it.
Back in the 1970s when Kerry Packer was looking for made-for-TV sport and hit on World Series Cricket, he went about shoring up three things – the players, the venues and, crucially, the support of influential politicians.
Former Australian player Bruce Francis was part of the inner sanctum at the time working for Packer.
“The difference between the government and the ESL, and Kerry Packer, is that Kerry Packer had [Prime Minister] Malcolm Fraser in his pocket and he had [NSW Premier] Neville Wran in his pocket, so he knew there wasn’t going to be interference," he said.
“One time I was sitting in the office with Kerry, and I asked how the visas were going with players coming into Australia and he said, 'Look I don’t know, I’ll make the phone call'.
“He phoned and asked to speak to Malcolm Fraser who was tied up. I think Phillip Lynch was the deputy PM at the time and he wanted to speak to him, but he wasn’t available either.
At the time, South Africa was banned from international sport because of its apartheid regime.
Francis says the voice at the end of the line was then foreign affairs minister Andrew Peacock.
The concept is far from dead
While much has changed in global sport since then, some truths remain the same.
In his 1979 book, A Pitch in Both Camps, author Alan Lee recalled what Packer had told him about the value of a television audience.
“The crowds at the ground are of secondary importance," he said.
“Certainly it’s great when they come, but it’s television that counts.”
It’s an observation that has been given new life as sport emerges from the global COVID pandemic playing in mostly empty stadiums.
UK broadcaster of the English Premier League, Sky, reported increased interest in "big games".
The proposed ESL was all about the "big games".
While the proposal has been put on ice, for now, the concept is far from dead.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
No surprise that the story of Ed Woodward's meeting with Downing St officials is getting more press and political scrutiny - this from the GuardianChester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:33 pmThere are reports suggesting that Ed Woodward's meeting with Downing St officials in the week prior to the Souper League announcement included discussion of Super League and that he was given an ok by then - you always hope in these circumstances that someone was actually recording the conversation
https://twitter.com/cazjwheeler/status/ ... 5871827970
Boris Johnson urged to reveal if he endorsed Super League plans
PM pressed to explain nature of meeting with Manchester United CEO days before ill-fated launch
Aubrey Allegretti
Sun 25 Apr 2021 22.30 BST
Boris Johnson has been urged to reveal whether he signalled his endorsement of the European Super League (ESL) when he met the chief executive of one of the English football clubs leading the breakaway in Downing Street days before it was unveiled.
After the ESL plan was officially announced, the prime minister said he was firmly against the idea of what he said amounted to a “cartel”, and has said he found out the surprise news at the same time as everyone else.
However, it was later revealed that Ed Woodward, the chief executive of Manchester United, was invited for a meeting with the prime minister’s chief of staff, Dan Rosenfield, in No 10 days before the announcement, and briefly spoke to Johnson.
After the Sunday Times reported that sources said Woodward departed with the wrong impression that Johnson was in favour of the proposal, Labour has said the prime minister has “questions to answer”.
Jo Stevens, the shadow culture secretary, has written to the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, to renew her call for any minutes and correspondence concerning the meeting to be made public.
She has asked when the meeting was arranged, why, who else was present, and whether Johnson or other government figures have recently met representatives of the other five clubs that were poised to join the Super League before they pulled out following a fierce public backlash: Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City.
Stevens said: “Yet again, Johnson’s integrity and honesty are in question,” adding: “The public has a right to know what exactly was promised to Manchester United by both officials and the prime minister.
“If Johnson gave the European Super League his backing and then publicly turned on the plan then the British people deserve a full, clear and immediate explanation and apology.”
Government sources have strenuously denied Johnson had any knowledge of the plan and said the prime minister’s conversation with Woodward was a short, chance encounter as they bumped into each other in a corridor in No 10.
In the days of controversy before the six clubs U-turned on their breakaway, Johnson was keen to burnish his opposition to the idea, threatening to drop “a legislative bomb” to forcibly prevent one of the biggest challenges ever seen to the footballing pyramid.
He said: “How can it be right when you have a situation where you create a kind of cartel that stops clubs competing against each other?”
Johnson condemned the idea that clubs could be “dislocated from their home cities, taken and turned into international brands and commodities that just circulate the planet, propelled by the billions of banks, without any reference to the fans and those who have loved them all their lives”.
Downing Street also said Johnson had sent his “unwavering support” to football authorities over the issue, and condemned the ESL’s “closed shop” plan, under which 15 of the 20 league members would have permanent status and be free from the risk of relegation.
It added that the prime minister “was clear that no action is off the table and the government is exploring every possibility, including legislative options, to ensure these proposals are stopped”.
Labour had stood poised to support plans to introduce legislation, if it were necessary and the clubs had refused to heed the wishes of an overwhelming number of fans. “If the government is determined to do something about it, we will back them,” said the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. “There is no block in parliament to action if action is needed.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
A key financial stat of the weekend for the Premier League
Immediate promotion of Norwich and Watford from the EFL Championship will result in a saving of about £83 million in parachute payments by the Premier League over two years. This will be shared by clubs in the Premier League.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0640683010
once of a day this money would have been added to the EFL distribution pot, that was stopped quite some time ago. You wonder if the Premier League will:
- be rooting for Bournemouth to come up via the play offs so that figure rises to over £130m
- be using those monies to offset the losses on the China deal now rather than distributing them to the Premier League next season and the season after (which is how it would normally work)
Immediate promotion of Norwich and Watford from the EFL Championship will result in a saving of about £83 million in parachute payments by the Premier League over two years. This will be shared by clubs in the Premier League.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0640683010
once of a day this money would have been added to the EFL distribution pot, that was stopped quite some time ago. You wonder if the Premier League will:
- be rooting for Bournemouth to come up via the play offs so that figure rises to over £130m
- be using those monies to offset the losses on the China deal now rather than distributing them to the Premier League next season and the season after (which is how it would normally work)
-
Vegas Claret
- Posts: 34908
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12714 times
- Has Liked: 6322 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
is that equal distribution or 70 million between the super league clubs and 13 for the rest of us ?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:40 amA key financial stat of the weekend for the Premier League
Immediate promotion of Norwich and Watford from the EFL Championship will result in a saving of about £83 million in parachute payments by the Premier League over two years. This will be shared by clubs in the Premier League.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0640683010
once of a day this money would have been added to the EFL distribution pot, that was stopped quite some time ago. You wonder if the Premier League will:
- be rooting for Bournemouth to come up via the play offs so that figure rises to over £130m
- be using those monies to offset the losses on the China deal now rather than distributing them to the Premier League next season and the season after (which is how it would normally work)
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Equal distributions that should be paid over the seasons the parachute monies were to be paid, it is one of the things that has regularly confused us about published central distributions and TV revenues in the annual accounts down the years (an occasional discussion point on this thread), along with UEFA solidarity payments, EPPP Academy payments and FA Cup/League Cup payments.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:05 amis that equal distribution or 70 million between the super league clubs and 13 for the rest of us ?
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
@SwissRamble looks at some of the financial reasons the Dirty Dozen sought to break away and form Super League
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8417593349
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8417593349
Last edited by Chester Perry on Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The last week has caused a lot of people to look at differing models of Football Club ownership, with many citing the 50%+1 rule in Germany - like many I had fallen into the trap that was about ownership - it is not it is about voting rights as Union Berlin's English pages explain
http://union-berlin.com/2021/04/25/expl ... -football/
@Honigstein also explained the system to BT viewers last week
https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/sta ... 3685046285
There is also this piece in the Guardian about how it has been possible to get round the rule
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -the-rules
and it shouldn't be forgotten that that the 50% + 1 rule is built on a socio-economic idea that his now all but lost in this country (despite attempts to regenerate the co-operative ideals since the Financial Crisis of 2008)
https://twitter.com/AdrianTempany/statu ... 5773560834
of course the German model while admired does not mean that the league is competitive - in fact it is totally and utterly dominated by the success of one club as this Tifo Football piece showed last week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB9cpKlBVKQ
http://union-berlin.com/2021/04/25/expl ... -football/
@Honigstein also explained the system to BT viewers last week
https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/sta ... 3685046285
There is also this piece in the Guardian about how it has been possible to get round the rule
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -the-rules
and it shouldn't be forgotten that that the 50% + 1 rule is built on a socio-economic idea that his now all but lost in this country (despite attempts to regenerate the co-operative ideals since the Financial Crisis of 2008)
https://twitter.com/AdrianTempany/statu ... 5773560834
of course the German model while admired does not mean that the league is competitive - in fact it is totally and utterly dominated by the success of one club as this Tifo Football piece showed last week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB9cpKlBVKQ
Last edited by Chester Perry on Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
There are of course fan owned clubs in this country, most famously AFC Wimbledon the club that was created by fans that were subjected to the English games dalliance with franchising, an event that created such a backlash from fan groups that it has not happened again (of course rumours post the orient game had it that our then board had looked into doing the same thing with Cardiff).
Last summer the Wimbledon Way blog published this proposal for fan led clubs - by ex Supporters Direct officer Dave Boyle - it came at a time divisions had appeared the club over financing of the new stadium the previous season (which had been reported in this thread)
https://wimbledonway.home.blog/2020/08/ ... wimbledon/
A PROVOCATIVE PROPOSAL FOR FAN OWNERSHIP AT AFC WIMBLEDON
Posted on August 7, 2020 by thewimbledonway
THE PURPOSE FOUNDATION & DONS TRUST ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN A NEW FUTURE-PROOF STRUCTURE
By Dave Boyle, with input from Graeme Price, Charlie Talbot, Damian Woodward & Xavier Wiggins.
A) Initial Thoughts
The benefits of being fan-owned are long-term.
The purported benefits of significant cash injections are short-term. Football, especially in the second tier and upper echelons of the third tier, has normalised clubs spending way beyond their means, with the rewards accruing to those who can pull this off with the most aplomb.
This creates a disconnect in fan discussions around this subject. In the short term it can result in a largely negative perception that fan-ownership is largely what is holding the club back, eg losing out in signing a player, or being out-bid on a player’s wages by a rival prepared to spend more money now. On the other hand, the benefits of club ownership over a long-term basis offer a more distant sense of satisfaction and long term stability.
B) German Lessons – why can’t we just copy them?
The 50%+1 model prevalent in Germany is consistently cited as an ‘ideal’ position on which to settle. It balances the long-term fan ownership for current and future generations, but also allows commercial/private influence to augment the club’s finances.
It is hard to overstate the central importance of the fact that the Bundesliga rule is a rule. It is enforced by the league and breaching it carries significant penalties – this means no-one breaches it.
This in turn creates a level playing field which means since no club is stealing a march on you by selling equity, you don’t have to match them. Furthermore, since no club can sell equity, each club must acquire funding from third parties on the basis of those parties’ funding being treated as revenue, not capital.
Since we don’t have that rule in English football or English law, if we simply vote to allow the trust to move to a 50%+1 ownership rather than 75% it will simply move similar debates to the ones we are currently having to a new battleground. Namely, from those prepared to chase immediate success on the pitch right now above all else, there will be a clamour for more investment through any means necessary, even if it means dropping the ownership percentage down further. Since the minority shareholders will have more ability to try to force changes through any PLC votes, eventually this debate will be be lost (or won, depending on your preference) and the club will cease to be fan owned.
Furthermore, in doing this, the individuals who have provided the money will have bought a long-term asset – equity in the plc – when we simply needed short and medium-term money. We sold a one-off for something we need every year. This need to repeat also creates a further pressure to have to keep on selling equity.
But could we achieve something like this in our own way?
C) Systemic alterations
We contend that any system at AFCW that sought to guarantee the majority ownership of fans/the DT would be worthless unless it was genuinely beyond debate that this could be changed. In other words, even if fans of a German club want a magic oligarch to come in and buy their club, there is no way it can happen. The strongest weapon in the hands of would-be club purchasers – the biddability of the club’s fans – is taken off the table as a weapon.
Taking sale of shares off the table removes the ‘easy’ way out for the plc and Trust to fudge the issue of how to generate value, as any board can always go to the cupboard, have a rummage and find some shares to pass over. We saw this with our own board with regard to the funding shortfall in late 2019 – selling control was presented as the only sensible way out (a unique solution to a unique problem, if you will).
Indeed it is precisely this inability to “sell out” which makes German clubs comparatively more commercial, more aggressive and more innovative. So, taking the shares off the table preserves something the majority want, whilst also making the club leaner and hungrier and more innovative.
D) How could we do this?
Clearly, the FA or respective leagues we play in will not perform the same role that the Bundesliga performs. So any mechanism to put the sale of the club’s shares beyond use must be found in the corporate structure, rather than the operating environment of English football.
E) The Purpose Foundation
The Purpose Foundation is an organisation based in Berlin with a brief to promote and support ‘steward ownership’. This is broadly defined as the ownership of an enterprise in the interests of the longer-term interests of its core stakeholders, usually employees. Some employee-owned firms have determined that if the immediate financial interests of employees can be served through accepting an offer for a company, then the company can and should be sold, regardless of the impact on the future employment conditions of those employees. The short-term interests of the employees trump their longer-term interests.
The Purpose Foundation has therefore created a Trust based in Switzerland which has a single mandate: to always act in defence of the continuation of steward ownership in any company in which it has been given rights.
Steward-owned enterprises create a separate class of shareholding which acquires certain rights over the company’s constitutional and governance arrangements. It operates as a silent party, taking no active role save that at any general meeting, should a proposal seek to dilute or otherwise reduce the steward ownership of the company, it will vote against it.
The board of the Purpose Foundation is elected from members of the Foundation who comprise the various organisations who have consented to have the Foundation operate in it.
F) AFCW and the Purpose Foundation
The Purpose Foundation would be issued shares in AFCW Plc which gave it rights to block any issue of equity beyond a number that preserved the DT at 50%+1 of voting power, and block any transfer of shares from the DT to another body.
We then need to decide how to preserve or adapt the DT’s role and the question of how to ensure the ability of fans to be involved in certain decisions through the DT or Purpose Foundation oversight committee.
G) Existing share classes and minority stakes
A shift in structure utilising the steward ownership of the Purpose Foundation would also enable the club and Trust to address some of the confusion arising from the two classes of shares available in AFCW plc currently. Currently there are shares with three votes attached and others that grant only a single vote: clearly the three vote shares are more valuable although not on a linear basis. The Purpose Foundation would potentially allow us to also tidy up this mess and confusion: any voting equalisation could sit outside the holding of the Foundation.
Thus far many of the current Dons Trust Board appear relaxed about diluting the DT shareholding in AFCW plc below 75% (though most want to keep it over 50%) but it’s worth a small aside looking at the potential future threats from aggressive minority shareholders, as between 75% and 50% is the killing zone of complacent shareholders.
Any acquisitive investor can leverage their position massively once in situ. Ask any private equity investor and they will tell you that you do not need to hold the majority of shares to control a business. Control comes in a variety of forms: one classic example is the lending of money to a business, which when repayment difficulties emerge is then turned into equity, either directly or via an insistence on a rights issue under the guise of protecting pre-emption rights of existing shareholders. When not all of them take up their allotment, the individual (or entity) with the debt can act as the underwriter and hoover up all the rights to new shares that are not taken up.
The other method to exert control is to block progress – namely to utilise restricted actions in reverse of how we currently envisage them being used. If an acquisitive individual or individuals have over 25% in total, these tactics can be deployed to gain extra seats on the board or to block what may be necessary to keep everything in its agreed format. In this example think of in property a ransom strip or someone buying a property and allowing to fall into disrepair to increase their chances of getting change of use planning permission.
In short if we were to stay with a purely UK company structure, we would need to be comfortable not only with our investors now, but also certain about who might buy or accumulate shares in the future – especially as the votes allocated through the Seedrs share issue are a single voting block wielded by Seedrs itself. And we would also need to be certain that we had a sufficiently robust structure to ensure that we will remain fan-owned even after an initial drop below 75%. This is fraught with potential future problems – all removed if we switch to the Purpose Foundation model.
H) Raising finance for the club within a new structure
In tandem, the club would have to seek to develop a system where individuals who wished to make significant injections into the club were awarded some rights but those rights were not transferable. Our imagination needs to be expansive here in designing this.
For example, it could be that people buy the right to sit on the (plc) board for 10 years for a certain price, and that should they wish to give up this right, the club can sell it on to a third party, but the person to whom it is sold firstly can’t be introduced by the current owner of the right, and secondly, must be reimbursed in full for their amount paid, but the surplus on top of the sum paid is distributed 25%-75% to them and the club.
So, individuals would purchase a right which had value, and could see the value returned to them, but they couldn’t be the person who did the identification of their replacement. They could suggest, certainly, but the club would be forced to undertake a beauty contest, rather than enter a sweetheart deal.
Alternatively, the value of the right might degrade by 10% per year, so that by year 10, it’s worth 1/10th of the original value, meaning the replacement of them as a leading light gets easier as time goes on, and they can’t hold out for a certain value as a form of ransom.
The remaining equity would sit outside with the DT to be sold to whomever fits the bill, with the profits on subsequent sale to be split in the agreed portion with the DT and the seller of the shares. The DT would have first refusal to purchase and at the point of sale should make offers to small shareholders to enable them exit at the agreed price if they so wished.
There are doubtless other ways we could do this. All start from the recognition that firstly, we have a scarce supply of, and therefore a market price for, the right to be involved in decision-making at the club, and secondly, that this right must not supercede the overall ownership structure of the club that places the DT in the box seat.
I) Final thoughts – Changing Role of the DT Board
The Purpose Foundation taking on ones of the current core tenets of the DT’s existence and externalising it for protection of fan ownership would remove all threats to club ownership in the future.
There is then a second crucial question around who we want to sit on which boards and by which means we want our club and Trust to be run and governed.
As a club, we have three levels of governance – the club, the plc and the DT. This is two more than most clubs, and one more than most fan-owned clubs. If Bayern Munich get by with two boards, then we can too.
To continue the German model, the DT could be the Supervisory Board, which is needed to approve revenue plans each year, and oversee things like intellectual property (club colours, crest etc) and signed off on all exploitations of these, and would also undertake to provide advice on season ticket prices etc.
In this scenario, what the Purpose Foundation would be defending is the right of those fans who are decision-makers to veto and make certain decisions that affect their experience of the club – to ensure the club’s spending plans and player budgets aren’t fantastical or threatening medium and longer-term sustainability. That the club was not neglecting the AFC Wimbledon Foundation, nor pricing itself in such a way as to make the club unaffordable to its community.
There is still a debate to be had around exactly what role the DT Board takes in this and, more importantly, how it consults and reflects the views of its members. And, to look at how club growth and financial support is provided by increased Dons Trust membership (akin to how Australian clubs have grown their membership bases). This is a topic to which we will return.
The crucial point is for us to decide what we want fan ownership to mean, and then, what is the best way to make that fan-ownership deployed in the pragmatic and messy set-up of the club. Once we have defined what that is, we then get the Purpose Foundation to stand behind it.
Comments welcomed below and a copy of this proposal has been sent to all DTB, AFCW plc and AFCW Ltd Board members.
By Dave Boyle, with input from Graeme Price, Charlie Talbot, Damian Woodward & Xavier Wiggins
7th August 2020
Last summer the Wimbledon Way blog published this proposal for fan led clubs - by ex Supporters Direct officer Dave Boyle - it came at a time divisions had appeared the club over financing of the new stadium the previous season (which had been reported in this thread)
https://wimbledonway.home.blog/2020/08/ ... wimbledon/
A PROVOCATIVE PROPOSAL FOR FAN OWNERSHIP AT AFC WIMBLEDON
Posted on August 7, 2020 by thewimbledonway
THE PURPOSE FOUNDATION & DONS TRUST ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN A NEW FUTURE-PROOF STRUCTURE
By Dave Boyle, with input from Graeme Price, Charlie Talbot, Damian Woodward & Xavier Wiggins.
A) Initial Thoughts
The benefits of being fan-owned are long-term.
The purported benefits of significant cash injections are short-term. Football, especially in the second tier and upper echelons of the third tier, has normalised clubs spending way beyond their means, with the rewards accruing to those who can pull this off with the most aplomb.
This creates a disconnect in fan discussions around this subject. In the short term it can result in a largely negative perception that fan-ownership is largely what is holding the club back, eg losing out in signing a player, or being out-bid on a player’s wages by a rival prepared to spend more money now. On the other hand, the benefits of club ownership over a long-term basis offer a more distant sense of satisfaction and long term stability.
B) German Lessons – why can’t we just copy them?
The 50%+1 model prevalent in Germany is consistently cited as an ‘ideal’ position on which to settle. It balances the long-term fan ownership for current and future generations, but also allows commercial/private influence to augment the club’s finances.
It is hard to overstate the central importance of the fact that the Bundesliga rule is a rule. It is enforced by the league and breaching it carries significant penalties – this means no-one breaches it.
This in turn creates a level playing field which means since no club is stealing a march on you by selling equity, you don’t have to match them. Furthermore, since no club can sell equity, each club must acquire funding from third parties on the basis of those parties’ funding being treated as revenue, not capital.
Since we don’t have that rule in English football or English law, if we simply vote to allow the trust to move to a 50%+1 ownership rather than 75% it will simply move similar debates to the ones we are currently having to a new battleground. Namely, from those prepared to chase immediate success on the pitch right now above all else, there will be a clamour for more investment through any means necessary, even if it means dropping the ownership percentage down further. Since the minority shareholders will have more ability to try to force changes through any PLC votes, eventually this debate will be be lost (or won, depending on your preference) and the club will cease to be fan owned.
Furthermore, in doing this, the individuals who have provided the money will have bought a long-term asset – equity in the plc – when we simply needed short and medium-term money. We sold a one-off for something we need every year. This need to repeat also creates a further pressure to have to keep on selling equity.
But could we achieve something like this in our own way?
C) Systemic alterations
We contend that any system at AFCW that sought to guarantee the majority ownership of fans/the DT would be worthless unless it was genuinely beyond debate that this could be changed. In other words, even if fans of a German club want a magic oligarch to come in and buy their club, there is no way it can happen. The strongest weapon in the hands of would-be club purchasers – the biddability of the club’s fans – is taken off the table as a weapon.
Taking sale of shares off the table removes the ‘easy’ way out for the plc and Trust to fudge the issue of how to generate value, as any board can always go to the cupboard, have a rummage and find some shares to pass over. We saw this with our own board with regard to the funding shortfall in late 2019 – selling control was presented as the only sensible way out (a unique solution to a unique problem, if you will).
Indeed it is precisely this inability to “sell out” which makes German clubs comparatively more commercial, more aggressive and more innovative. So, taking the shares off the table preserves something the majority want, whilst also making the club leaner and hungrier and more innovative.
D) How could we do this?
Clearly, the FA or respective leagues we play in will not perform the same role that the Bundesliga performs. So any mechanism to put the sale of the club’s shares beyond use must be found in the corporate structure, rather than the operating environment of English football.
E) The Purpose Foundation
The Purpose Foundation is an organisation based in Berlin with a brief to promote and support ‘steward ownership’. This is broadly defined as the ownership of an enterprise in the interests of the longer-term interests of its core stakeholders, usually employees. Some employee-owned firms have determined that if the immediate financial interests of employees can be served through accepting an offer for a company, then the company can and should be sold, regardless of the impact on the future employment conditions of those employees. The short-term interests of the employees trump their longer-term interests.
The Purpose Foundation has therefore created a Trust based in Switzerland which has a single mandate: to always act in defence of the continuation of steward ownership in any company in which it has been given rights.
Steward-owned enterprises create a separate class of shareholding which acquires certain rights over the company’s constitutional and governance arrangements. It operates as a silent party, taking no active role save that at any general meeting, should a proposal seek to dilute or otherwise reduce the steward ownership of the company, it will vote against it.
The board of the Purpose Foundation is elected from members of the Foundation who comprise the various organisations who have consented to have the Foundation operate in it.
F) AFCW and the Purpose Foundation
The Purpose Foundation would be issued shares in AFCW Plc which gave it rights to block any issue of equity beyond a number that preserved the DT at 50%+1 of voting power, and block any transfer of shares from the DT to another body.
We then need to decide how to preserve or adapt the DT’s role and the question of how to ensure the ability of fans to be involved in certain decisions through the DT or Purpose Foundation oversight committee.
G) Existing share classes and minority stakes
A shift in structure utilising the steward ownership of the Purpose Foundation would also enable the club and Trust to address some of the confusion arising from the two classes of shares available in AFCW plc currently. Currently there are shares with three votes attached and others that grant only a single vote: clearly the three vote shares are more valuable although not on a linear basis. The Purpose Foundation would potentially allow us to also tidy up this mess and confusion: any voting equalisation could sit outside the holding of the Foundation.
Thus far many of the current Dons Trust Board appear relaxed about diluting the DT shareholding in AFCW plc below 75% (though most want to keep it over 50%) but it’s worth a small aside looking at the potential future threats from aggressive minority shareholders, as between 75% and 50% is the killing zone of complacent shareholders.
Any acquisitive investor can leverage their position massively once in situ. Ask any private equity investor and they will tell you that you do not need to hold the majority of shares to control a business. Control comes in a variety of forms: one classic example is the lending of money to a business, which when repayment difficulties emerge is then turned into equity, either directly or via an insistence on a rights issue under the guise of protecting pre-emption rights of existing shareholders. When not all of them take up their allotment, the individual (or entity) with the debt can act as the underwriter and hoover up all the rights to new shares that are not taken up.
The other method to exert control is to block progress – namely to utilise restricted actions in reverse of how we currently envisage them being used. If an acquisitive individual or individuals have over 25% in total, these tactics can be deployed to gain extra seats on the board or to block what may be necessary to keep everything in its agreed format. In this example think of in property a ransom strip or someone buying a property and allowing to fall into disrepair to increase their chances of getting change of use planning permission.
In short if we were to stay with a purely UK company structure, we would need to be comfortable not only with our investors now, but also certain about who might buy or accumulate shares in the future – especially as the votes allocated through the Seedrs share issue are a single voting block wielded by Seedrs itself. And we would also need to be certain that we had a sufficiently robust structure to ensure that we will remain fan-owned even after an initial drop below 75%. This is fraught with potential future problems – all removed if we switch to the Purpose Foundation model.
H) Raising finance for the club within a new structure
In tandem, the club would have to seek to develop a system where individuals who wished to make significant injections into the club were awarded some rights but those rights were not transferable. Our imagination needs to be expansive here in designing this.
For example, it could be that people buy the right to sit on the (plc) board for 10 years for a certain price, and that should they wish to give up this right, the club can sell it on to a third party, but the person to whom it is sold firstly can’t be introduced by the current owner of the right, and secondly, must be reimbursed in full for their amount paid, but the surplus on top of the sum paid is distributed 25%-75% to them and the club.
So, individuals would purchase a right which had value, and could see the value returned to them, but they couldn’t be the person who did the identification of their replacement. They could suggest, certainly, but the club would be forced to undertake a beauty contest, rather than enter a sweetheart deal.
Alternatively, the value of the right might degrade by 10% per year, so that by year 10, it’s worth 1/10th of the original value, meaning the replacement of them as a leading light gets easier as time goes on, and they can’t hold out for a certain value as a form of ransom.
The remaining equity would sit outside with the DT to be sold to whomever fits the bill, with the profits on subsequent sale to be split in the agreed portion with the DT and the seller of the shares. The DT would have first refusal to purchase and at the point of sale should make offers to small shareholders to enable them exit at the agreed price if they so wished.
There are doubtless other ways we could do this. All start from the recognition that firstly, we have a scarce supply of, and therefore a market price for, the right to be involved in decision-making at the club, and secondly, that this right must not supercede the overall ownership structure of the club that places the DT in the box seat.
I) Final thoughts – Changing Role of the DT Board
The Purpose Foundation taking on ones of the current core tenets of the DT’s existence and externalising it for protection of fan ownership would remove all threats to club ownership in the future.
There is then a second crucial question around who we want to sit on which boards and by which means we want our club and Trust to be run and governed.
As a club, we have three levels of governance – the club, the plc and the DT. This is two more than most clubs, and one more than most fan-owned clubs. If Bayern Munich get by with two boards, then we can too.
To continue the German model, the DT could be the Supervisory Board, which is needed to approve revenue plans each year, and oversee things like intellectual property (club colours, crest etc) and signed off on all exploitations of these, and would also undertake to provide advice on season ticket prices etc.
In this scenario, what the Purpose Foundation would be defending is the right of those fans who are decision-makers to veto and make certain decisions that affect their experience of the club – to ensure the club’s spending plans and player budgets aren’t fantastical or threatening medium and longer-term sustainability. That the club was not neglecting the AFC Wimbledon Foundation, nor pricing itself in such a way as to make the club unaffordable to its community.
There is still a debate to be had around exactly what role the DT Board takes in this and, more importantly, how it consults and reflects the views of its members. And, to look at how club growth and financial support is provided by increased Dons Trust membership (akin to how Australian clubs have grown their membership bases). This is a topic to which we will return.
The crucial point is for us to decide what we want fan ownership to mean, and then, what is the best way to make that fan-ownership deployed in the pragmatic and messy set-up of the club. Once we have defined what that is, we then get the Purpose Foundation to stand behind it.
Comments welcomed below and a copy of this proposal has been sent to all DTB, AFCW plc and AFCW Ltd Board members.
By Dave Boyle, with input from Graeme Price, Charlie Talbot, Damian Woodward & Xavier Wiggins
7th August 2020
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
As ever John Nicholson has lots of ideas, though few that I can totally agree with, following the (temporary?) collapse of Super League
https://www.football365.com/news/opinio ... table-fans
if you missed his rant last Monday you will see he has calmed down a bit today, but as always remains essentially very peeved off with he game and most people in general - and no I do not necessarily link this to the fact he is a life long Middlesbrough fan
last Monday's rant - https://www.football365.com/news/big-si ... -nicholson
between those two columns was this one on the "self Serving greed merchants" in the game
https://www.football365.com/news/uefa-p ... -nicholson
His message over the years is relatively consistent, the tone varies between dismay and despair sprinkled with frequent eruptions of volcanic anger or white hot rage. I may rarely fully agree with him but I will always listen to what he has to say.
https://www.football365.com/news/opinio ... table-fans
if you missed his rant last Monday you will see he has calmed down a bit today, but as always remains essentially very peeved off with he game and most people in general - and no I do not necessarily link this to the fact he is a life long Middlesbrough fan
last Monday's rant - https://www.football365.com/news/big-si ... -nicholson
between those two columns was this one on the "self Serving greed merchants" in the game
https://www.football365.com/news/uefa-p ... -nicholson
His message over the years is relatively consistent, the tone varies between dismay and despair sprinkled with frequent eruptions of volcanic anger or white hot rage. I may rarely fully agree with him but I will always listen to what he has to say.
-
Vegas Claret
- Posts: 34908
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12714 times
- Has Liked: 6322 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The 50 + 1 thing is why I posted the Stephen Howson and Kieren Maguire interview the other day, KM explains the value of it in terms of voting on key issues so the owners can't do whatever the **** they want
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I am still trying to get to the bottom of whether or not that is really true, given that:Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:00 pmThe 50 + 1 thing is why I posted the Stephen Howson and Kieren Maguire interview the other day, KM explains the value of it in terms of voting on key issues so the owners can't do whatever the **** they want
- The commercial spin-off that can own the physical and playing assets of the club can be bought and sold in a free market and UK business Law is different
- RB Leipzig is a small membership club that are effectively at the behest of the commercial business owner who employs the very small number of members
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
As we know Downing Street have been denying that anyone spoke to Ed Woodward about a Super League let alone gave it the ok when he met with them to discuss the return of fans - however and yes it could be coincidental but how about this for a piece of investigative work from @TariqPanjaChester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:33 pmThere are reports suggesting that Ed Woodward's meeting with Downing St officials in the week prior to the Souper League announcement included discussion of Super League and that he was given an ok by then - you always hope in these circumstances that someone was actually recording the conversation
https://twitter.com/cazjwheeler/status/ ... 5871827970
his last 3 posts on this thread
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 1915156480
A Daily Mail article from the 25th of April https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eague.html names Dan Rosenfeld (No 10's Chief of Staff) as meeting with Ed Woodward prior to the Super League announcement
a quick search on Rosenfeld revealed this https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 68/photo/1 his father in law is Daily Mail journalist Alex Brummer
on the night of the Super League announcement Brummer published an article in full support of the Super League idea https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eague.html
as I said it is all fantastic coincidence
These 2 users liked this post: HunterST_BFC Anonymous
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Over the weekend in an interview UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin, reflecting on the resistance of fans to the Super League said it was perhaps right to have fans represented with in UEFA, in the way, Associations, Leagues, Clubs. Players and Commercial Partners are. Almost at the same time fans groups from across Europe were meeting to discuss their desire to stop the expansion of the Champions League
https://www.fanseurope.org/en/news/news ... ction.html
The change was ratified by UEFA the day after the announcement of Super League, at a point where fans had already clearly voiced their disapproval of those plans (along with Leagues and players). On Monday morning their voice and thinking was deemed irrelevant, by the weekend after "fans saved Football" or was that even UEFA they have a a right to be heard. The scale and the power of the reaction by fans, not only got the clubs to backdown and swayed politicians to seriously get involved but also got a lot of commercial partners very twitchy, with at least one ditching Liverpool as a direct result - there is still potential for more to do the same once they have scrutinised the small print of their contracts and assessed the reputational damaged.
Fans currently have a moment to be heard, but such scale of unity and visible ferocity as witnessed last week over Super League will be much more difficult to achieve on this issue, the target needs to be the broadcast and commercial partners, mass organised boycotts are probably the only way forward - lets learn from the German experience that ended Monday night football over there.
https://www.fanseurope.org/en/news/news ... ction.html
The change was ratified by UEFA the day after the announcement of Super League, at a point where fans had already clearly voiced their disapproval of those plans (along with Leagues and players). On Monday morning their voice and thinking was deemed irrelevant, by the weekend after "fans saved Football" or was that even UEFA they have a a right to be heard. The scale and the power of the reaction by fans, not only got the clubs to backdown and swayed politicians to seriously get involved but also got a lot of commercial partners very twitchy, with at least one ditching Liverpool as a direct result - there is still potential for more to do the same once they have scrutinised the small print of their contracts and assessed the reputational damaged.
Fans currently have a moment to be heard, but such scale of unity and visible ferocity as witnessed last week over Super League will be much more difficult to achieve on this issue, the target needs to be the broadcast and commercial partners, mass organised boycotts are probably the only way forward - lets learn from the German experience that ended Monday night football over there.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This is a deeply fascinating article about gambling sponsorship in the Premier League
https://theathletic.com/2517118/2021/04 ... ed-article
While we hope that our current shirt sponsors liquidity problems and new owners personal beliefs will see the end of the club's association with gambling, it is still going on, just changing. Particularly that targeting the Chinese market in the way LoveBet has done. Such gambling is illegal in China and new crackdowns are making it harder for the Chinese to bet (possibly a contributory factor to LoveBet's problems. The new generation of sponsors that are coming through are offering something different though, something much more difficult to trace and consequently much more open to fraud and money laundering - crypto gambling.
If you cannot read the article then it's writer has produced this thread
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status ... 0556730369
What is surprising is that the first major sponsor focusing on these markets has a deal with Chinese owned Southampton - the same owner that past speculation suggested was directly influenced by the Chinese State.
Even more surprising is the fact that mo one is talking about this in terms of match fixing - with match ficing, betting patterns are assesed and the perpetrators are found by following the money trails - how do you do that with crypto-currency?
https://theathletic.com/2517118/2021/04 ... ed-article
While we hope that our current shirt sponsors liquidity problems and new owners personal beliefs will see the end of the club's association with gambling, it is still going on, just changing. Particularly that targeting the Chinese market in the way LoveBet has done. Such gambling is illegal in China and new crackdowns are making it harder for the Chinese to bet (possibly a contributory factor to LoveBet's problems. The new generation of sponsors that are coming through are offering something different though, something much more difficult to trace and consequently much more open to fraud and money laundering - crypto gambling.
If you cannot read the article then it's writer has produced this thread
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status ... 0556730369
What is surprising is that the first major sponsor focusing on these markets has a deal with Chinese owned Southampton - the same owner that past speculation suggested was directly influenced by the Chinese State.
Even more surprising is the fact that mo one is talking about this in terms of match fixing - with match ficing, betting patterns are assesed and the perpetrators are found by following the money trails - how do you do that with crypto-currency?
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Not sure how I managed to miss this over the weekend from the Telegraph - it just goes to show how fearful the Premier League is about going to market for domestic rights in the next cycle - this proposal helps the broadcast partners maximise ROI with surety while the Premier League no doubt hopes that it will minimise the impact of rebates, it is also repeats a successful strategy recently employed with BeIN Sport for the MENA rights deal. There is still a competition authority hurdle regarding it not being an open tender - though there are likely to be no more than a couple of organisations that could meaningfully bid for games
Premier League scrambles to avoid TV rights crash
BEN WOODS APRIL 24, 2021
The Premier League is in talks to scrap its television rights auction in favour of rolling over existing deals with Sky, BT and Amazon, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Football bosses are in sensitive discussions with the broadcasters and the Government about the potentially controversial move as they seek to avoid the risk of a hefty blow to the value of the rights from Covid.
Under its normal schedule the Premier League is due to auction domestic rights spanning three seasons to 2025 before May.
But Sky and BT were widely expected to rein in their spending, prompting sports rights experts to predict the value of those games to fall by more than £900m.
Football and media sources said a private sale is among the options being pursued as a means of securing greater financial security. Broadcasters are said to be open to the idea, which may deliver a small discount and would provide more certainty for their own businesses.
A deal could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10pc to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.
However insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said earlier this month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.
The Premier League has been in discussions with the Government about the legal implications of a private sale.
It has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster.
It is understood the implications for a private sale of domestic rights are being considered at the Treasury in light of Brexit. One senior source said the failed breakaway bid by the competition's “big six” clubs last week “has further complicated matters”.
The Premier League’s boss Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore.
However, a channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.
Mr Masters is seeking to skewer any future attempt by a Premier League club to join a breakaway European league by overhauling the sport’s rules.
He has teamed up with the FA to carry out a governance review to stop the so-called “big six” – Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea – from threatening to undermine the league by pursuing more lucrative opportunities with rival competitions.
Those clubs joined the Super League last Sunday before carrying out a volte-face days later when confronted with a furious backlash from fans, players, and the Prime Minister. It prompted a string of apologies from the club owners and architects of the new competition.
JP Morgan, which was primed to furnish the clubs with £4.3bn of debt financing, said it “misjudged how this deal would be viewed by the wider football community”.
The Premier League, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
Premier League scrambles to avoid TV rights crash
BEN WOODS APRIL 24, 2021
The Premier League is in talks to scrap its television rights auction in favour of rolling over existing deals with Sky, BT and Amazon, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Football bosses are in sensitive discussions with the broadcasters and the Government about the potentially controversial move as they seek to avoid the risk of a hefty blow to the value of the rights from Covid.
Under its normal schedule the Premier League is due to auction domestic rights spanning three seasons to 2025 before May.
But Sky and BT were widely expected to rein in their spending, prompting sports rights experts to predict the value of those games to fall by more than £900m.
Football and media sources said a private sale is among the options being pursued as a means of securing greater financial security. Broadcasters are said to be open to the idea, which may deliver a small discount and would provide more certainty for their own businesses.
A deal could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10pc to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.
However insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said earlier this month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.
The Premier League has been in discussions with the Government about the legal implications of a private sale.
It has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster.
It is understood the implications for a private sale of domestic rights are being considered at the Treasury in light of Brexit. One senior source said the failed breakaway bid by the competition's “big six” clubs last week “has further complicated matters”.
The Premier League’s boss Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore.
However, a channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.
Mr Masters is seeking to skewer any future attempt by a Premier League club to join a breakaway European league by overhauling the sport’s rules.
He has teamed up with the FA to carry out a governance review to stop the so-called “big six” – Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea – from threatening to undermine the league by pursuing more lucrative opportunities with rival competitions.
Those clubs joined the Super League last Sunday before carrying out a volte-face days later when confronted with a furious backlash from fans, players, and the Prime Minister. It prompted a string of apologies from the club owners and architects of the new competition.
JP Morgan, which was primed to furnish the clubs with £4.3bn of debt financing, said it “misjudged how this deal would be viewed by the wider football community”.
The Premier League, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The vultures may still be at the door
An interesting piece from OffthePitch.com that speculates that the events of the last week may spur more American Investors to come into European football rather than put them off
Super League collapse proves no deterrent to American investors – they might even be hungrier than ever
25 April 2021 9:30 PM
The pattern of new American owners entering European football set over the past few years is set to continue, despite the dramatic collapse of European Super League just days after its announcement.
American investors do still see great value in European football clubs, and they have not been scared by the events of the past week.
Off The Pitch have talked to a number of sources familiar with M&A-trends in the football industry and all of them are convinced that deals involving US capital, funds and individuals are unaffected by the chaos that took place last week.
“The Super League [break down] will have no impact on American investors considering buying a European football club. The value of American sports franchises have risen during the pandemic and MLS teams still obtain 10x revenue in value (enterprise value/revenue), so if you are looking for value and growth in sports, European football is still the place to invest where you can invest at less than 1x revenue,” says Paul Conway, who has bought no less than six European clubs the last couple of years through Pacific Media Group.
Unpredictable manner
Conway’s view is backed up by Charles Baker, co-chair of the Sports Industry Group at New York-based law firm O’Melveny. Baker has been working as an advisor for investors in European football in 30 years.
“We are still seeing strong interest by US investors in European football investment. If anything, the breakdown of the Super League should give US investors even more confidence in the stability of the European system to buck any transformative change that would significantly impact financials in an unpredictable manner for the vast majority of clubs.”
Baker explains that while in the US, there’s still a lot of “dumb money” chasing European football clubs, the “smart money” recognises the underlying value and the historic compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of investment in these clubs over the last five, 10 and 20 years.
“Not surprisingly, we’re advising both private equity and high net worth investors on these deals now. Also, with the Covid-19 impact on club’s revenue and liquidity, many clubs are in need of capital infusions, which is where the smart money can play a strategic role,” he says.
Passive approach
A very experienced M&A-source explains that at this stage the whole system is in a state of shock, but once everything has calmed down US investor interest would be the same as it was before last Sunday when the European Super League plans were first officially revealed.
“The interest from institutional investors is there – and it will also be there in the future. Maybe last week’s events might even lead to ownership changes taking place.
"Some big clubs with significant financial problems could have had a passive approach because they thought the European Super League could save them. That didn’t happen – and now they might need to look for new owners,” says the source who would like to speak under anonymity.
The M&A-advisor says that if some of the giants in European football suddenly became available for sale then a new type of US investors could enter the market.
At the moment it looks as if the European Super League is a vision that will never happen. Nevertheless, Real Madrid President Florentino Perez seems confident that sooner or later the Super League will see the light, because the demographic and financial development in football would force the biggest clubs to create a new league better suited for the future football fan.
Juventus chairman, Andrea Agnelli, also seems convinced that the founding clubs at some stage would be able to create a solution that could work alongside the domestic leagues and UEFA’s Champions League.
Too risky a sector
The question is whether the events last week should be seen as a long-term acceptance that you can’t develop a American kind of league in Europe, with no relegation and promotion, or whether things are just on hold for now.
Another question would be if prospective American investors considering a purchase of buying a European club might now be scared off if the dismissal of the Super League is seen as a proof that European football is too risky a sector as promotions and relegations will always be there.
The prospect of relegation or not being able to qualify for international club competition could be seen as too hard a prospect for certain owners in relation to their revenue and market position.
Charles Baker can’t see a scenario where US investors would back off because they had hoped that the European League-system would transform into the same structure that they know in the US.
On the contrary he is convinced that the strong reaction from fans all over Europe could have an even bigger investor interest.
“We often cite the passion and loyalty of sports fans as one of the key reasons why a group or individual would want to invest in a sports team. Here, we have a great example of just how strong that passion is for European football. As a result of the situation leading to the collapse of Super League, it’s certainly possible we see revenues increase across the board as fans become empowered to participate in the “governance” of the leagues through their activism.”
Just plain stupid
Paul Conway, the club owner from Pacific Media Group, says that last week’s events should just be seen as a reminder to American investors that they should only acquire a European club if they are willing to spend significant time in the local community to better appreciate local history and values.
“I would advise foreign investors to improving the commercial revenue of a football club as it is still a very sustainable way to grow a club, its budget and make it more competitive. Ignoring the beliefs and values of your supporters, many who have been dedicated to their club for generations is just plain stupid.”
Conway says that the biggest issue with foreign investors is that they tend to be absentee owners.
"If investors were more involved in the communities that they invest in Europe they would know that any American-style restructuring of a very traditional European pyramid sporting structure would be met by a huge backlash from their supporters.
"We have invested in clubs in England, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark and two clubs in France. All of these countries have different customs and languages,” he explains.
Not a revenue-issue
Another source recognizes the perception from Conway that there is a lot of revenue building to be done – but overall he believes that clubs would have to lower theirs costs instead of trying to increase income.
“There is a cost-issue in European football. Not a revenue-issue. They simply need to spend less money. That is the problem they need to solve if they want to be long-term profitable businesses.”
Despite the strong investor appetite – what about prices. Would they be affected short-term because of the Super League break-down?
“Values will not be down materially, however it will be difficult for investors in European clubs to get liquidity for their shares in the next year as most investment opportunities will be primary capital invested in a club to fund deficits, some created by the pandemic.
"Some large clubs have this capital need for the first time in their history, which will attract some new American investors,” says Paul Conway.
Charles Baker could even see prices go up.
“The new opportunity for increased revenue, not to mention the attendant publicity that the Super League triggered, and a number of other factors, should invite a new group of investors. The fans’ passion has never been higher and investors may see the fury surrounding the Super League as an opportunity to capitalize on that passion,” adds Baker
An interesting piece from OffthePitch.com that speculates that the events of the last week may spur more American Investors to come into European football rather than put them off
Super League collapse proves no deterrent to American investors – they might even be hungrier than ever
25 April 2021 9:30 PM
- Both institutional investors and private individuals from the US would still be very keen to purchase clubs in Europe. The Super League meltdown could be seen as a stabilizing factor in the industry.
- Revenues might even take a jump if fans feel empowered to protect the structure of leagues and competitions they like.
- European sports teams are extremely cheap compared to US franchises – but one source points out that the financial problems in European clubs are massive.
- Super League failure may see new type of US investors enter the industry as certain clubs may seek new owners.
The pattern of new American owners entering European football set over the past few years is set to continue, despite the dramatic collapse of European Super League just days after its announcement.
American investors do still see great value in European football clubs, and they have not been scared by the events of the past week.
Off The Pitch have talked to a number of sources familiar with M&A-trends in the football industry and all of them are convinced that deals involving US capital, funds and individuals are unaffected by the chaos that took place last week.
“The Super League [break down] will have no impact on American investors considering buying a European football club. The value of American sports franchises have risen during the pandemic and MLS teams still obtain 10x revenue in value (enterprise value/revenue), so if you are looking for value and growth in sports, European football is still the place to invest where you can invest at less than 1x revenue,” says Paul Conway, who has bought no less than six European clubs the last couple of years through Pacific Media Group.
Unpredictable manner
Conway’s view is backed up by Charles Baker, co-chair of the Sports Industry Group at New York-based law firm O’Melveny. Baker has been working as an advisor for investors in European football in 30 years.
“We are still seeing strong interest by US investors in European football investment. If anything, the breakdown of the Super League should give US investors even more confidence in the stability of the European system to buck any transformative change that would significantly impact financials in an unpredictable manner for the vast majority of clubs.”
Baker explains that while in the US, there’s still a lot of “dumb money” chasing European football clubs, the “smart money” recognises the underlying value and the historic compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of investment in these clubs over the last five, 10 and 20 years.
“Not surprisingly, we’re advising both private equity and high net worth investors on these deals now. Also, with the Covid-19 impact on club’s revenue and liquidity, many clubs are in need of capital infusions, which is where the smart money can play a strategic role,” he says.
Passive approach
A very experienced M&A-source explains that at this stage the whole system is in a state of shock, but once everything has calmed down US investor interest would be the same as it was before last Sunday when the European Super League plans were first officially revealed.
“The interest from institutional investors is there – and it will also be there in the future. Maybe last week’s events might even lead to ownership changes taking place.
"Some big clubs with significant financial problems could have had a passive approach because they thought the European Super League could save them. That didn’t happen – and now they might need to look for new owners,” says the source who would like to speak under anonymity.
The M&A-advisor says that if some of the giants in European football suddenly became available for sale then a new type of US investors could enter the market.
At the moment it looks as if the European Super League is a vision that will never happen. Nevertheless, Real Madrid President Florentino Perez seems confident that sooner or later the Super League will see the light, because the demographic and financial development in football would force the biggest clubs to create a new league better suited for the future football fan.
Juventus chairman, Andrea Agnelli, also seems convinced that the founding clubs at some stage would be able to create a solution that could work alongside the domestic leagues and UEFA’s Champions League.
Too risky a sector
The question is whether the events last week should be seen as a long-term acceptance that you can’t develop a American kind of league in Europe, with no relegation and promotion, or whether things are just on hold for now.
Another question would be if prospective American investors considering a purchase of buying a European club might now be scared off if the dismissal of the Super League is seen as a proof that European football is too risky a sector as promotions and relegations will always be there.
The prospect of relegation or not being able to qualify for international club competition could be seen as too hard a prospect for certain owners in relation to their revenue and market position.
Charles Baker can’t see a scenario where US investors would back off because they had hoped that the European League-system would transform into the same structure that they know in the US.
On the contrary he is convinced that the strong reaction from fans all over Europe could have an even bigger investor interest.
“We often cite the passion and loyalty of sports fans as one of the key reasons why a group or individual would want to invest in a sports team. Here, we have a great example of just how strong that passion is for European football. As a result of the situation leading to the collapse of Super League, it’s certainly possible we see revenues increase across the board as fans become empowered to participate in the “governance” of the leagues through their activism.”
Just plain stupid
Paul Conway, the club owner from Pacific Media Group, says that last week’s events should just be seen as a reminder to American investors that they should only acquire a European club if they are willing to spend significant time in the local community to better appreciate local history and values.
“I would advise foreign investors to improving the commercial revenue of a football club as it is still a very sustainable way to grow a club, its budget and make it more competitive. Ignoring the beliefs and values of your supporters, many who have been dedicated to their club for generations is just plain stupid.”
Conway says that the biggest issue with foreign investors is that they tend to be absentee owners.
"If investors were more involved in the communities that they invest in Europe they would know that any American-style restructuring of a very traditional European pyramid sporting structure would be met by a huge backlash from their supporters.
"We have invested in clubs in England, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark and two clubs in France. All of these countries have different customs and languages,” he explains.
Not a revenue-issue
Another source recognizes the perception from Conway that there is a lot of revenue building to be done – but overall he believes that clubs would have to lower theirs costs instead of trying to increase income.
“There is a cost-issue in European football. Not a revenue-issue. They simply need to spend less money. That is the problem they need to solve if they want to be long-term profitable businesses.”
Despite the strong investor appetite – what about prices. Would they be affected short-term because of the Super League break-down?
“Values will not be down materially, however it will be difficult for investors in European clubs to get liquidity for their shares in the next year as most investment opportunities will be primary capital invested in a club to fund deficits, some created by the pandemic.
"Some large clubs have this capital need for the first time in their history, which will attract some new American investors,” says Paul Conway.
Charles Baker could even see prices go up.
“The new opportunity for increased revenue, not to mention the attendant publicity that the Super League triggered, and a number of other factors, should invite a new group of investors. The fans’ passion has never been higher and investors may see the fury surrounding the Super League as an opportunity to capitalize on that passion,” adds Baker
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
@SwissRamble looks at Aston Villa's 2019/20 Financial results - (year end 31 May 2020)Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:13 pmAston Villa have announced their 2019/20 Financial Results (in a season where a historically unique goal line technology failure at Villa Park meant they avoided relegation) - nothing to see here though just a £99m loss
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2021/april/ ... -Accounts/
the full accounts can be found here https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 6275812354
One for the accountants - Is it possible to surmise here that in a pre pandemic/current cycle of TV deals season the first two (of 3) Premier League central distributions added up to £78m?
as ever these days he has done a summary sheet too
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 9898233862
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Last week NSWE owners of Aston Villa chucked another £10m at the club in the form of share capital
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
That is over £280m in loan conversions and cash injections that they have pumped into shares at the club since they took over in July 2018 not including the ground sale
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
That is over £280m in loan conversions and cash injections that they have pumped into shares at the club since they took over in July 2018 not including the ground sale
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
A good piece n the Athletic today picking up on that piece I posted last night from OffthePitch.com - The American Super League team owners are extremely unlikely to be leaving and there is mixed opinion about whether more vultures are coming. Everyone believes that the Americans will still seek to stabilise revenues and seek cost controls that provides a route to regular and consistent profit, and the prime reason why? Equity value increases, less than 10 times equity value increases under their tenure is likely to be regarded as abject failure by the owners themselves.
https://theathletic.com/2543613/2021/04 ... ed_article
Matt Slater put it a little differently in this tweet https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 5844643842
https://theathletic.com/2543613/2021/04 ... ed_article
Matt Slater put it a little differently in this tweet https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 5844643842
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Liverpool release their 2019/20 Financial report (year end 31st May 2020) £46m loss before tax looks relatively healthy given how much revenue was not booked
https://d3j2s6hdd6a7rg.cloudfront.net/i ... ements.pdf
club statement
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announ ... ay-31-2020
https://d3j2s6hdd6a7rg.cloudfront.net/i ... ements.pdf
club statement
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announ ... ay-31-2020
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Just wanted to post the 7000 post
This user liked this post: Vegas Claret
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This user liked this post: Zlatan
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Get this in April last year Liverpool tried to furlough a couple of hundred staff, until their fans had something to say about it, at the end of may last year they had £149.3m in cash at the bank - this is the same ownership that worked so hard to pursue the marketing gold of being a people's club with the "We are one" marketing campaignChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:28 pmLiverpool release their 2019/20 Financial report (year end 31st May 2020) £46m loss before tax looks relatively healthy given how much revenue was not booked
https://d3j2s6hdd6a7rg.cloudfront.net/i ... ements.pdf
club statement
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announ ... ay-31-2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK2BgRfwILE
following last weeks debacle and that of Project Big Picture you do wonder if John Henry has actually seen this stuff his club have produced
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This would suggest that the Premier League has gotten over it;s regulatory hurdle and confirmed that the next domestic cycle is the same value and deal as the current domestic cycle - https://twitter.com/clmmcrthy/status/13 ... 2201515010Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:31 amNot sure how I managed to miss this over the weekend from the Telegraph - it just goes to show how fearful the Premier League is about going to market for domestic rights in the next cycle - this proposal helps the broadcast partners maximise ROI with surety while the Premier League no doubt hopes that it will minimise the impact of rebates, it is also repeats a successful strategy recently employed with BeIN Sport for the MENA rights deal. There is still a competition authority hurdle regarding it not being an open tender - though there are likely to be no more than a couple of organisations that could meaningfully bid for games
Premier League scrambles to avoid TV rights crash
BEN WOODS APRIL 24, 2021
The Premier League is in talks to scrap its television rights auction in favour of rolling over existing deals with Sky, BT and Amazon, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Football bosses are in sensitive discussions with the broadcasters and the Government about the potentially controversial move as they seek to avoid the risk of a hefty blow to the value of the rights from Covid.
Under its normal schedule the Premier League is due to auction domestic rights spanning three seasons to 2025 before May.
But Sky and BT were widely expected to rein in their spending, prompting sports rights experts to predict the value of those games to fall by more than £900m.
Football and media sources said a private sale is among the options being pursued as a means of securing greater financial security. Broadcasters are said to be open to the idea, which may deliver a small discount and would provide more certainty for their own businesses.
A deal could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10pc to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.
However insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said earlier this month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.
The Premier League has been in discussions with the Government about the legal implications of a private sale.
It has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster.
It is understood the implications for a private sale of domestic rights are being considered at the Treasury in light of Brexit. One senior source said the failed breakaway bid by the competition's “big six” clubs last week “has further complicated matters”.
The Premier League’s boss Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore.
However, a channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.
Mr Masters is seeking to skewer any future attempt by a Premier League club to join a breakaway European league by overhauling the sport’s rules.
He has teamed up with the FA to carry out a governance review to stop the so-called “big six” – Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea – from threatening to undermine the league by pursuing more lucrative opportunities with rival competitions.
Those clubs joined the Super League last Sunday before carrying out a volte-face days later when confronted with a furious backlash from fans, players, and the Prime Minister. It prompted a string of apologies from the club owners and architects of the new competition.
JP Morgan, which was primed to furnish the clubs with £4.3bn of debt financing, said it “misjudged how this deal would be viewed by the wider football community”.
The Premier League, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More on this meeting between Ed Woodward and Downing St officialsChester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:54 pmAs we know Downing Street have been denying that anyone spoke to Ed Woodward about a Super League let alone gave it the ok when he met with them to discuss the return of fans - however and yes it could be coincidental but how about this for a piece of investigative work from @TariqPanja
his last 3 posts on this thread
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 1915156480
A Daily Mail article from the 25th of April https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eague.html names Dan Rosenfeld (No 10's Chief of Staff) as meeting with Ed Woodward prior to the Super League announcement
a quick search on Rosenfeld revealed this https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 68/photo/1 his father in law is Daily Mail journalist Alex Brummer
on the night of the Super League announcement Brummer published an article in full support of the Super League idea https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eague.html
as I said it is all fantastic coincidence
1 he did not inform Premier League it was happening
2 the DCMS were unaware
3 EW has not discussed fans return even with the Premier League...
From the Times
Ed Woodward kept meeting at Downing Street a secret
Martyn Ziegler, Henry Zeffman
Tuesday April 27 2021, 12.01am, The Times
The Manchester United executive Ed Woodward did not inform the Premier League that he was meeting officials at No 10 in the days leading up to the launch of the European Super League.
Woodward, United’s executive vice-chairman, met Boris Johnson’s chief of staff, Dan Rosenfield, at Downing Street on April 14, four days before the launch of the Super League, which collapsed less than 48 hours later.
Downing Street has insisted that Rosenfield and Woodward discussed only the return of fans to stadiums, and that the Super League proposals were not raised.
However The Sunday Times has quoted sources saying that Woodward felt “emboldened” after the meeting, which included a brief introduction to Johnson, to proceed with the Super League’s launch, which precipitated the biggest crisis in the game for decades.
The suggestion that Woodward was talking about the return of fans came as a surprise to Premier League chiefs, according to sources, given that the United executive has not pushed the issue with them significantly, is not on any of the working groups planning for their return and did not inform the league of what could potentially have been such an important meeting.
It is understood that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which has taken the lead on the return of fans, was also unaware of the meeting.
Woodward resigned from his United position last Tuesday with the Super League proposals collapsing as Chelsea and Manchester City became the first of England’s “big six” clubs to pull out. The government, including Johnson, had threatened a “legislative bomb” to prevent the breakaway.
A No 10 spokeswoman said: “Ed Woodward had a meeting in Downing Street last week with officials. The meeting was to discuss the safe return of fans and Covid certification, as part of ongoing work on events pilots. The Super League was not discussed.”
At a separate briefing for reporters, Johnson’s spokesman was asked whether Rosenfield knew about the Super League plans before they became public. “No,” the spokesman replied. Asked about the possibility that Rosenfield told Woodward the government would not oppose the Super League plan, the spokesman answered: “No, that’s not correct”.
Sources said that Woodward had been introduced to the prime minister only briefly when he and Rosenfield bumped into Johnson in a corridor. One source said that Rosenfield was as angered as the rest of the government when the plans were unveiled, and that it was his idea for Johnson to meet fan groups last Tuesday.
Before the No 10 briefing, Labour’s Jo Stevens said Johnson needed to explain exactly what had transpired during Woodward’s visit.
The shadow culture secretary said: “If Boris Johnson gave the European Super League his backing and then publicly turned on the plan, then the British people deserve a full, clear and immediate explanation and apology.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
It seems that Seri A is still struggling to sell that 2nd package of domestic rights for the next cycle - with a huge difference in the League's expectations and the best offer they have received to date - from SportsBusiness.com
Serie A ‘reduces asking price’ for second live rights package
Imran Yusuf
April 26, 2021
Lega Serie A, the governing body of the top division of Italian club football, is thought to have lowered the asking price for its second package of live domestic rights for the 2021-22 to 2023-24 period.
Italian pay-television broadcaster Sky Italia had offered an average of €87.5m ($106m) per season for exclusive direct-to-home and digital terrestrial rights, and co-exclusive OTT rights, to three games per round. However, this bid failed to secure the necessary backing from Serie A clubs.
The clubs held a virtual meeting on Friday at which it was agreed reduce the asking price for the package from €250m per season to €150m per season, according to multiple reports in Italy.
Last month DAZN secured the main package of live rights to seven exclusive fixtures per matchweek and co-exclusive rights to three matches after submitting the leading offer of €840m per season.
Sky Italia has moved to block this by lodging an appeal, reportedly due to be heard on May 5, with a Milan court. Sky is said to be arguing that Lega Serie A has disproportionately allocated the rights packages and placed the balance of power with a single operator.
Serie A’s existing domestic rights deals with Sky and DAZN (from 2018-19 to 2020-21) are worth €973m per year.
Sky Italia’s broadcast rights for the current rights cycle are comprised of two packages, the first of which, Package 5, includes rights to three matches per weekend for a total of 114 per season, including the 8.30pm (CET) game on Sunday. Sky also acquired Package 6 – four matches per weekend or 152 per season, including the 8.30pm match on Mondays.
DAZN has teamed up with Telecom Italia, the Italian telecoms operator, on the Serie A project and will also end its linear carriage deal with Sky for the DAZN1 satellite channel before the new rights deal kicks in.
Ahead of the award of rights to DAZN, Sky sought to increase pressure on the clubs by flagging concerns over the effect on market competition of the DAZN-TIM proposal. A letter from Sky, seen by the Italian news agency Ansa, claimed that TIM would “benefit from preferential treatment in the distribution of DAZN, despite TIM being the incumbent operator with greater market strength in Italy, in particular in the broadband segment”.
Maximo Ibarra, the Sky Italia chief executive, wrote that “such a preferential distribution agreement could therefore generate potential competitive and compatibility issues with the Melandri Law”.
Serie A ‘reduces asking price’ for second live rights package
Imran Yusuf
April 26, 2021
Lega Serie A, the governing body of the top division of Italian club football, is thought to have lowered the asking price for its second package of live domestic rights for the 2021-22 to 2023-24 period.
Italian pay-television broadcaster Sky Italia had offered an average of €87.5m ($106m) per season for exclusive direct-to-home and digital terrestrial rights, and co-exclusive OTT rights, to three games per round. However, this bid failed to secure the necessary backing from Serie A clubs.
The clubs held a virtual meeting on Friday at which it was agreed reduce the asking price for the package from €250m per season to €150m per season, according to multiple reports in Italy.
Last month DAZN secured the main package of live rights to seven exclusive fixtures per matchweek and co-exclusive rights to three matches after submitting the leading offer of €840m per season.
Sky Italia has moved to block this by lodging an appeal, reportedly due to be heard on May 5, with a Milan court. Sky is said to be arguing that Lega Serie A has disproportionately allocated the rights packages and placed the balance of power with a single operator.
Serie A’s existing domestic rights deals with Sky and DAZN (from 2018-19 to 2020-21) are worth €973m per year.
Sky Italia’s broadcast rights for the current rights cycle are comprised of two packages, the first of which, Package 5, includes rights to three matches per weekend for a total of 114 per season, including the 8.30pm (CET) game on Sunday. Sky also acquired Package 6 – four matches per weekend or 152 per season, including the 8.30pm match on Mondays.
DAZN has teamed up with Telecom Italia, the Italian telecoms operator, on the Serie A project and will also end its linear carriage deal with Sky for the DAZN1 satellite channel before the new rights deal kicks in.
Ahead of the award of rights to DAZN, Sky sought to increase pressure on the clubs by flagging concerns over the effect on market competition of the DAZN-TIM proposal. A letter from Sky, seen by the Italian news agency Ansa, claimed that TIM would “benefit from preferential treatment in the distribution of DAZN, despite TIM being the incumbent operator with greater market strength in Italy, in particular in the broadband segment”.
Maximo Ibarra, the Sky Italia chief executive, wrote that “such a preferential distribution agreement could therefore generate potential competitive and compatibility issues with the Melandri Law”.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
DCMS again showing why have little faith in their ability to do things properlyChester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:33 pmNaturally the FSA have taken this weeks events as an opportunity to further their cause and seek significant involvement in the review of the game
https://thefsa.org.uk/news/fsa-statemen ... ce-review/
I have no issue with that, fans must be equally involved as should all the other stakeholders (and that includes billionaire remote owners). My issue with this review is that almost everyone is approaching it from within their own narrow perspectives with solutions that suit them. I would also add that this level of government interest and commitment appears to result from the slight the Prime Minister feels after being in a meeting with Ed Woodward just days before the Super League announcement
My experience (and I used to do this for a living after first getting a MSc that was hugely focused on the subject) is that no right and proper solutions (it will not be a single of solution but a range of solutions) can be found to a problem without first defining it clearly, that in itself will require extensive input from all stakeholders, and more importantly no one dismissing any of that input, This is a time for empathy not recrimination.
Today's announced terms of reference for this review https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... governance are in my view overly defining. Many will say years of DCMS hearings have provide structure to this review, I have watch a number of those hearings. and nothing I have seen has significantly contributed to the overall problem definition
I fear for any outcome when so many are approaching this with pre-determined notion of problem and solution, which is what I am seeing a lot of.
There is also something else to remember, acting in isolation can have a detrimental effect internationally, what about the power brokers at UEFA, FIFA and the other confederations? We saw on Monday that UEFA ignored the European Leagues, by ratifying an agreement with the the ECA, an agreement brokered by club executives that resigned from the ECA and UEFA roles that very morning. It was also significant that FIFA President Gianni Infantino who has previously spoken openly of working with Florentino Perez on a Global Super League/World Club Cup and has been championing African and North American Super Leagues this year did not speak on the subject until the direction of travel was known. With populist isolationism being a theme of our current government there is so much to be wary about.
Chris Sutton "DCMS now asking Gordon Taylor about the European Super League on a concussion and brain injury discussion after not asking questions they should have. What an absolute farce..."
https://twitter.com/chris_sutton73/stat ... 1666000899
-
Vegas Claret
- Posts: 34908
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12714 times
- Has Liked: 6322 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Gordon Taylor and the word farce are synonymous aren't they ?
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Another article on the Super League that touches on a number of issues I posted about on this thread down the years, I will follow it with one about a survey last week that suggest some of these thoughts are mistaken - This from the Yorkshire Evening Post
European Super League idea arose because global fans not interested in tradition
Outrage. Complete and utter outrage. That’s how the notion of the European Super League was greeted earlier this week.
By Nick Westby
Saturday, 24th April 2021, 6:11 am
How dare 12 of the biggest clubs in Europe, six of them right here in England, act like they are so big that they have become immune to the principles of competition the beautiful game was founded on a century and a half ago.
For once, fans of rival clubs were united in protest. Players got together to make their voices heard. The media was angry and demanded blood. The noise was deafening.
The chutzpah of the ‘greedy dozen’ was maddening, which made the unravelling of it all on Tuesday night all the sweeter.
But – and there should be a but here – was there merit in what these clubs were, and still are, looking for?
In the interests of balance The Yorkshire Post has sought the opinion of two leading academics who, while not necessarily agreeing with the manner in which the concept of the European Super League was introduced, can at least see the reasons behind it.
Dr Paul Widdop, a sports business lecturer at Leeds Beckett University, believes these breakaway clubs are no longer community clubs, but global brands with fanbases that extend far beyond the cities where they belong.
“Sport is an entertainment industry and that’s how a lot of businesses see it,” says Dr Widdop. “The way we look at the world is changing, media consumption is changing rapidly, and football will change with that.
“I’m not going to use the word ‘legacy fans’ because that’s an awful concept but inside these clubs they’ll be thinking ‘we already have a core supporter base that is socialised into the culture of the pyramid system, familiar with the Wimbledon's rising to the top etcetera’. That’s a way of life to us, a norm that has been created, it’s our European system and we will fight to save that system.
“But if you think of someone like Real Madrid, they’ve got millions of fans around the world, a lot of those fans haven’t been brought up in that tradition of the pyramid system, sense of place, sense of community and the sense of localised history.
“Young people from China, India, the Middle East, they’re not socialised into the tradition.
“These are global clubs, in global cities in a globalised world. Different fans have different needs and values. I don’t think we’ve talked about it enough how there’s new fandom and that fandom has rapidly changed the way we consume content.”
Dr Widdop’s colleague at Leeds Beckett University, Dr Renan Petersen-Wagner, falls into the category of academic but also this breed of ‘new fan’.
For his PhD, he studied Liverpool supporters in his homeland of Brazil and also in Switzerland. He now follows Liverpool because of that.
“Some of the people I interviewed were Liverpool fans because they liked playing video games,” says Dr Petersen-Wagner. “They saw Michael Owen score against Argentina in France ’98 and wanted to play with him on their video game so they ended up supporting Liverpool.
“They then want to see Liverpool against the best teams. They don’t want to see them against West Brom.
“People cite the German model of 50+1 of fan ownership. But who is that fan? Is that local ownership or is it a million people from China who became members of Liverpool, and now suddenly they are owners of Liverpool.
“These international fans are the ones they are trying to attract.”
Another motivation of the breakway 12, believes Dr Petersen-Wagner, is the saturation of football and the increased competition football faces from other content streams. The new 36-team Champions League format was approved by UEFA only this week, at the height of the outcry over the Super League. But what the bigger clubs want is more games between the top teams and fewer, if possible zero games, against unmarketable opposition.
“If there’s so much there you lose the value,” argues Dr Petersen-Wagner.
Dr Widdop feels that with international owners, particularly American owners bred on the closed shops of the NFL and the NBA, it is inevitable that football will continue to explore this route. “They want stability in the market so they can invest in talent, knowing that you will not be penalised if you fall out having spent big,” he says.
“A super league would be huge, it would rival the NBA, the NFL, there’s no doubt about it.
“We’re so outraged now, and yet you, me, every fan that has watched Sky Sports and paid money for replica shirts is complicit in this move towards where we’re going.
“We’ve sleep-walked into this situation for the last 30 years.”
European Super League idea arose because global fans not interested in tradition
Outrage. Complete and utter outrage. That’s how the notion of the European Super League was greeted earlier this week.
By Nick Westby
Saturday, 24th April 2021, 6:11 am
How dare 12 of the biggest clubs in Europe, six of them right here in England, act like they are so big that they have become immune to the principles of competition the beautiful game was founded on a century and a half ago.
For once, fans of rival clubs were united in protest. Players got together to make their voices heard. The media was angry and demanded blood. The noise was deafening.
The chutzpah of the ‘greedy dozen’ was maddening, which made the unravelling of it all on Tuesday night all the sweeter.
But – and there should be a but here – was there merit in what these clubs were, and still are, looking for?
In the interests of balance The Yorkshire Post has sought the opinion of two leading academics who, while not necessarily agreeing with the manner in which the concept of the European Super League was introduced, can at least see the reasons behind it.
Dr Paul Widdop, a sports business lecturer at Leeds Beckett University, believes these breakaway clubs are no longer community clubs, but global brands with fanbases that extend far beyond the cities where they belong.
“Sport is an entertainment industry and that’s how a lot of businesses see it,” says Dr Widdop. “The way we look at the world is changing, media consumption is changing rapidly, and football will change with that.
“I’m not going to use the word ‘legacy fans’ because that’s an awful concept but inside these clubs they’ll be thinking ‘we already have a core supporter base that is socialised into the culture of the pyramid system, familiar with the Wimbledon's rising to the top etcetera’. That’s a way of life to us, a norm that has been created, it’s our European system and we will fight to save that system.
“But if you think of someone like Real Madrid, they’ve got millions of fans around the world, a lot of those fans haven’t been brought up in that tradition of the pyramid system, sense of place, sense of community and the sense of localised history.
“Young people from China, India, the Middle East, they’re not socialised into the tradition.
“These are global clubs, in global cities in a globalised world. Different fans have different needs and values. I don’t think we’ve talked about it enough how there’s new fandom and that fandom has rapidly changed the way we consume content.”
Dr Widdop’s colleague at Leeds Beckett University, Dr Renan Petersen-Wagner, falls into the category of academic but also this breed of ‘new fan’.
For his PhD, he studied Liverpool supporters in his homeland of Brazil and also in Switzerland. He now follows Liverpool because of that.
“Some of the people I interviewed were Liverpool fans because they liked playing video games,” says Dr Petersen-Wagner. “They saw Michael Owen score against Argentina in France ’98 and wanted to play with him on their video game so they ended up supporting Liverpool.
“They then want to see Liverpool against the best teams. They don’t want to see them against West Brom.
“People cite the German model of 50+1 of fan ownership. But who is that fan? Is that local ownership or is it a million people from China who became members of Liverpool, and now suddenly they are owners of Liverpool.
“These international fans are the ones they are trying to attract.”
Another motivation of the breakway 12, believes Dr Petersen-Wagner, is the saturation of football and the increased competition football faces from other content streams. The new 36-team Champions League format was approved by UEFA only this week, at the height of the outcry over the Super League. But what the bigger clubs want is more games between the top teams and fewer, if possible zero games, against unmarketable opposition.
“If there’s so much there you lose the value,” argues Dr Petersen-Wagner.
Dr Widdop feels that with international owners, particularly American owners bred on the closed shops of the NFL and the NBA, it is inevitable that football will continue to explore this route. “They want stability in the market so they can invest in talent, knowing that you will not be penalised if you fall out having spent big,” he says.
“A super league would be huge, it would rival the NBA, the NFL, there’s no doubt about it.
“We’re so outraged now, and yet you, me, every fan that has watched Sky Sports and paid money for replica shirts is complicit in this move towards where we’re going.
“We’ve sleep-walked into this situation for the last 30 years.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Much was made, especially by Florentino Perez that Super League was effectively being demanded by Gen Zers, this study reported by SportsProMedia suggests otherwise
Study: European Super League opposed by 80% of Gen Z soccer fans
Supporters felt breakaway competition was ‘out of step’ with what they wanted from soccer.
Posted: April 26 2021By: Ed Dixon
Plans for the breakaway competition featuring 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs were unveiled last week, but the proposal collapsed some 48 hours later after a fierce backlash from across soccer.
Real Madrid president Florentino Perez, one of the ESL’s leading architects, had said the league was created because young people are “no longer interested in football” due to “a lot of poor quality games”.
However, Ear to the Ground’s research is at odds with Perez’s comments. The percentage of Gen Z fans opposing the ESL rises to 90 per cent in Western Europe, North America and South America. Supporters in those regions felt the league was ‘out of step’ compared to what they wanted from soccer.
In Nigeria, China, Japan and Indonesia, 72 per cent of Gen Z fans were against the ESL.
For the study, Ear to the Ground used its fan intelligence model to collect data from 11,000 18 to 28-year-old soccer fans across six contents. According to the agency, the group does want to see more matches between top clubs but ‘not at the expense of what they value about football’. It added that Gen Z ‘wants to be on the right side of societal issues’, but feels the ESL goes against that.
“It’s about knowing what your audiences care about, and the role you play for them,” said Owen Laverty, director of fan intelligence at Ear to the Ground.
“We know there are smart people working across all of these clubs, but it feels like these decisions about a breakaway league were made in boardrooms by individuals who were disconnected from the real world and potentially misunderstood the values of the people that this mattered to the most, the fans who they needed to follow it.”
Despite the negative reaction to the ESL, Laverty added that younger fans were still keen for the game to evolve, but in a more effective way.
“This isn't a sign that fans want things to stay the same, it's that they want them to get better,” he said.
“It feels like the worst thing that could come from this for fans, is the game doesn’t improve and innovate, but in a positive way.”
The ESL fallout has also seen supporters from several of the 12 breakaway clubs call for a change in ownership. Now, according to The Telegraph, Daniel Ek, the co-founder of audio streaming giant Spotify, is preparing a takeover offer for English top-flight side Arsenal.
Ek, who has an estimated net worth of US$4.5 billion and is a fan of the Gunners, is reportedly working with three former Arsenal legends – Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp and Patrick Viera – on a bid to buy the club from Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE).
A tweet from Ek on 23rd April read: ‘If KSE would like to sell Arsenal I'd be happy to throw my hat in the ring.’
However, a separate report from The Times said that Arsenal are sceptical about the seriousness of the offer. Club director Josh Kroenke, the son of principal owner Stan Kroenke, told a fan forum last week that KSE are not looking to sell.
According to The Times, KSE values Arsenal at about UK£2 billion (US$2.8 billion).
Meanwhile, Inter Milan, another of the clubs who initially signed up to the ESL, are in advanced talks with US-based Oaktree Capital Group over a €150 million (US$181 million) loan to shore up their finances, according to Bloomberg.
The report added that a deal with Inter could also lead to Oaktree becoming a minority shareholder in the Serie A leaders.
Inter posted losses of €102.4 million (US$124 million) for the 2019/20 financial year and speculation has mounted over the continued involvement of current owner Suning Holdings Group. In February, the Chinese conglomerate said it would be doubling down on its retail business, suggesting it was looking to step back from its involvement with Inter.
In January, Inter chief executive Giuseppe Marotta said that the club’s owners were “considering the opportunities in the interest of Inter and in respect of the history of the club”.
Amidst all of this, Perez is refusing to give up on the ESL and has said the 12 clubs that agreed to join have “binding contracts” and “cannot leave”.
“Some of them, due to pressure, have said they're leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon,” Perez told Spanish newspaper AS. He added that it was “not true” that JP Morgan, which was the financial backer of the league, had walked away.
Ten of the 12 teams have withdrawn from the ESL. Real Madrid and Barcelona have not yet officially turned their backs on the project.
Study: European Super League opposed by 80% of Gen Z soccer fans
Supporters felt breakaway competition was ‘out of step’ with what they wanted from soccer.
Posted: April 26 2021By: Ed Dixon
- 90% of Gen Z fans in Western Europe, North America and South America against ESL
- Real Madrid president Florentino Perez insists project is not dead and clubs have “binding contracts”
Plans for the breakaway competition featuring 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs were unveiled last week, but the proposal collapsed some 48 hours later after a fierce backlash from across soccer.
Real Madrid president Florentino Perez, one of the ESL’s leading architects, had said the league was created because young people are “no longer interested in football” due to “a lot of poor quality games”.
However, Ear to the Ground’s research is at odds with Perez’s comments. The percentage of Gen Z fans opposing the ESL rises to 90 per cent in Western Europe, North America and South America. Supporters in those regions felt the league was ‘out of step’ compared to what they wanted from soccer.
In Nigeria, China, Japan and Indonesia, 72 per cent of Gen Z fans were against the ESL.
For the study, Ear to the Ground used its fan intelligence model to collect data from 11,000 18 to 28-year-old soccer fans across six contents. According to the agency, the group does want to see more matches between top clubs but ‘not at the expense of what they value about football’. It added that Gen Z ‘wants to be on the right side of societal issues’, but feels the ESL goes against that.
“It’s about knowing what your audiences care about, and the role you play for them,” said Owen Laverty, director of fan intelligence at Ear to the Ground.
“We know there are smart people working across all of these clubs, but it feels like these decisions about a breakaway league were made in boardrooms by individuals who were disconnected from the real world and potentially misunderstood the values of the people that this mattered to the most, the fans who they needed to follow it.”
Despite the negative reaction to the ESL, Laverty added that younger fans were still keen for the game to evolve, but in a more effective way.
“This isn't a sign that fans want things to stay the same, it's that they want them to get better,” he said.
“It feels like the worst thing that could come from this for fans, is the game doesn’t improve and innovate, but in a positive way.”
The ESL fallout has also seen supporters from several of the 12 breakaway clubs call for a change in ownership. Now, according to The Telegraph, Daniel Ek, the co-founder of audio streaming giant Spotify, is preparing a takeover offer for English top-flight side Arsenal.
Ek, who has an estimated net worth of US$4.5 billion and is a fan of the Gunners, is reportedly working with three former Arsenal legends – Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp and Patrick Viera – on a bid to buy the club from Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE).
A tweet from Ek on 23rd April read: ‘If KSE would like to sell Arsenal I'd be happy to throw my hat in the ring.’
However, a separate report from The Times said that Arsenal are sceptical about the seriousness of the offer. Club director Josh Kroenke, the son of principal owner Stan Kroenke, told a fan forum last week that KSE are not looking to sell.
According to The Times, KSE values Arsenal at about UK£2 billion (US$2.8 billion).
Meanwhile, Inter Milan, another of the clubs who initially signed up to the ESL, are in advanced talks with US-based Oaktree Capital Group over a €150 million (US$181 million) loan to shore up their finances, according to Bloomberg.
The report added that a deal with Inter could also lead to Oaktree becoming a minority shareholder in the Serie A leaders.
Inter posted losses of €102.4 million (US$124 million) for the 2019/20 financial year and speculation has mounted over the continued involvement of current owner Suning Holdings Group. In February, the Chinese conglomerate said it would be doubling down on its retail business, suggesting it was looking to step back from its involvement with Inter.
In January, Inter chief executive Giuseppe Marotta said that the club’s owners were “considering the opportunities in the interest of Inter and in respect of the history of the club”.
Amidst all of this, Perez is refusing to give up on the ESL and has said the 12 clubs that agreed to join have “binding contracts” and “cannot leave”.
“Some of them, due to pressure, have said they're leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon,” Perez told Spanish newspaper AS. He added that it was “not true” that JP Morgan, which was the financial backer of the league, had walked away.
Ten of the 12 teams have withdrawn from the ESL. Real Madrid and Barcelona have not yet officially turned their backs on the project.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Simon Chadwick (who it should be noted often partners with Dr Widdop in his research) was much less certain about the last studies findings
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 5019823106
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 5019823106
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More from the Telegraph on the extension of the current Premier League domestic rights deal with all live broadcast partners - not unsurprisingly given it has now found a populist position for itself with football, the government may seek some populist guarantees if it allows regulatory hurdles to be skipped says the TelegraphChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:16 pmThis would suggest that the Premier League has gotten over it;s regulatory hurdle and confirmed that the next domestic cycle is the same value and deal as the current domestic cycle - https://twitter.com/clmmcrthy/status/13 ... 2201515010
Government to demand pyramid payment assurances over Premier League TV rights deal
Exclusive: While any deal is unlikely to now involve an open-market auction, Whitehall may intervene to redistribute money through the game
By Tom Morgan, SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT and Ben Woods
27 April 2021 • 5:56pm
The Government will demand guarantees from the Premier League over pyramid solidarity in return for approving surprise plans to roll over TV rights deals.
Sensitive talks could conclude within days over proposals - first disclosed by The Telegraph - to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to continue screening games on broadly the same three-year £4.5billion term.
Whitehall is being given input and must sign off the plans, with senior figures within Government pushing for a response which could be "creatively helpful" amid the recently triggered fan-led review of the game.
The Telegraph reported on Sunday how the Premier League and broadcasters were in advanced talks over agreeing a deal without going to open-market auction.
Values were estimated to fall for the next term, but an immediate renewal by next month has some appeal to senior broadcasting executives due to post-pandemic market uncertainties. One source close to talks said on Tuesday that there may be a minor reduction in value under the terms, and that the new deal could be arranged pro-rata over two years rather than three while the market readjusts.
The Government, meanwhile, has significant clout to intervene amid the current furore around the so-called Big Six club owners following the Super League breakaway fiasco.
With tougher regulation looming, senior figures within broadcasting and sport are keen to keep ministers on side, with a plan being considered in Whitehall to redistribute money through the pyramid.
The Premier League had been due to auction domestic rights spanning three seasons to 2025 by May, but Sky and BT were widely expected to rein in their spending. Some rights experts predicted the value of the package could fall by more than £900m - to an overall sale of around £3.9billion.
The competition has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said then that the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster. Now, in the post-Brexit landscape, advice and competitions approval from Government on the deal is key.
Broadcasters may yet secure a small discount which could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10pc to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.
Insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said earlier this month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.
The implications for a private sale of domestic rights are being considered at the Treasury predominantly in light of Brexit. One senior source said the failed breakaway bid by the competition's “big six” clubs last week “has further complicated matters”.
The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore. Masters declared in February that he was confident in values, but BT chiefs admitted the trajectory was flat to down. A channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.
Masters, who is also seeking to skewer any future attempt by a Premier League club to join a breakaway European league by overhauling the sport’s rules, has teamed up with the FA to carry out a governance review.
The scrapping of parachute payments is being championed by EFL chairman Rick Parry, who told Telegraph Sport the “best of Project Big Picture” should be reconsidered following the collapse of The Super League. Under that plan, payments would have been replaced with a cash injection that would have seen the EFL given £250m immediately, plus 25 per cent of revenue from future top-tier TV deals. The EFL is currently asking for a share of Norwich City and Watford’s £83 million parachute payments following their immediate return to the Premier League.
The Premier League, Sky, BT and Amazon are yet to comment.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Financial Times add a bitt extra to the extension on Premier League domestic rights by private sale - apparently the big clubs have stalled on this idea for a few months - yet when looking at that Telegraph piece and adding in the Super League nonsense last week it could cost all the clubs at lot more in revenue share - the big clubs will not be bothered about losing parachute payments too much as it doesn't affect them, but you have to suspect the delay was in part about having broadcasters either not suing for the debaluation of Super League, or having money to spend on Super League rights
Premier League seeks government approval to scrap TV rights auction
NIC FILDES APRIL 27, 2021
The Premier League is seeking UK government approval to scrap its upcoming domestic media rights auction, and instead roll over its existing £5bn broadcasting deal with Sky, BT and Amazon.
English football’s top division is pushing for the move, according to people familiar with the talks, after clubs involved in the failed European Super League had sought to “stall” the decision as their focus switched towards the money-spinning breakaway tournament.
The Premier League’s attempt to scrap its planned auction represents a marked change from its past tactics of pitting broadcasters against each other in regular rights sales, helping stoke the steady inflation of its multibillion-pound television deals. This money has fuelled huge increases in transfer fees paid to buy star players and pay their multimillion-pound wages.
Instead of the planned auction, the Premier League hopes to conduct a private sale to its existing partners Sky, BT and Amazon, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.
It would then be able to offer deals for the three seasons between 2022 and 2025 on terms broadly similar to those signed in 2018.
The aim is to provide financial stability to elite English clubs that have faced steep revenue shortfalls due to the lack of gate receipts.
Meanwhile, rival national leagues in Germany and Italy have recently suffered a fall in the value of their screening deals over the past year.
English football’s top division still needs approval to scrap the rights auction from ministers, who have the power to block the move on competition grounds. But the government is considering the proposal due to exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic, according to people close to the talks.
Premier League executives have wanted to move ahead with the plan for several months, but some of its biggest clubs sought additional time to review the proposals, according to other executives familiar with recent talks across the division.
That decision to stall the media rights sale caused further anger last week when England’s so-called “Big Six” clubs; Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, announced they would join a European Super League.
Rival club chiefs were furious with the Super League concept, which was quickly scrapped in the face of mass protests from fans and politicians, believing it would damage the value of Premier League TV rights contracts.
A key part of the Premier League’s appeal to broadcasters is the intense battle between teams to qualify for European competition — a race that would be made redundant by a Super League in which clubs would be guaranteed their places each season.
Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, has also warned that clubs are set to miss out on £2bn of revenues across the two seasons disrupted by the pandemic, due to lost ticket sales and rebates paid to TV companies for postponed fixtures.
Across Europe, a combination of advertising losses during the pandemic and the “cord-cutting” of younger viewers switching to digital services is leading traditional broadcasters to rein in spending on sports rights.
Simon Green, head of BT Sport, told the Financial Times Business of Football Summit in February that “there’s certainly going to be a rights correction and it may be seen and interpreted by many as rights deflation”.
Italy’s Serie A last month approved a domestic media rights sale, led by sports streaming service DAZN, worth about €810m a season between 2021-2024, a roughly 20 per cent drop on its existing deal.
The Premier League, UK government, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
Premier League seeks government approval to scrap TV rights auction
NIC FILDES APRIL 27, 2021
The Premier League is seeking UK government approval to scrap its upcoming domestic media rights auction, and instead roll over its existing £5bn broadcasting deal with Sky, BT and Amazon.
English football’s top division is pushing for the move, according to people familiar with the talks, after clubs involved in the failed European Super League had sought to “stall” the decision as their focus switched towards the money-spinning breakaway tournament.
The Premier League’s attempt to scrap its planned auction represents a marked change from its past tactics of pitting broadcasters against each other in regular rights sales, helping stoke the steady inflation of its multibillion-pound television deals. This money has fuelled huge increases in transfer fees paid to buy star players and pay their multimillion-pound wages.
Instead of the planned auction, the Premier League hopes to conduct a private sale to its existing partners Sky, BT and Amazon, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.
It would then be able to offer deals for the three seasons between 2022 and 2025 on terms broadly similar to those signed in 2018.
The aim is to provide financial stability to elite English clubs that have faced steep revenue shortfalls due to the lack of gate receipts.
Meanwhile, rival national leagues in Germany and Italy have recently suffered a fall in the value of their screening deals over the past year.
English football’s top division still needs approval to scrap the rights auction from ministers, who have the power to block the move on competition grounds. But the government is considering the proposal due to exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic, according to people close to the talks.
Premier League executives have wanted to move ahead with the plan for several months, but some of its biggest clubs sought additional time to review the proposals, according to other executives familiar with recent talks across the division.
That decision to stall the media rights sale caused further anger last week when England’s so-called “Big Six” clubs; Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, announced they would join a European Super League.
Rival club chiefs were furious with the Super League concept, which was quickly scrapped in the face of mass protests from fans and politicians, believing it would damage the value of Premier League TV rights contracts.
A key part of the Premier League’s appeal to broadcasters is the intense battle between teams to qualify for European competition — a race that would be made redundant by a Super League in which clubs would be guaranteed their places each season.
Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, has also warned that clubs are set to miss out on £2bn of revenues across the two seasons disrupted by the pandemic, due to lost ticket sales and rebates paid to TV companies for postponed fixtures.
Across Europe, a combination of advertising losses during the pandemic and the “cord-cutting” of younger viewers switching to digital services is leading traditional broadcasters to rein in spending on sports rights.
Simon Green, head of BT Sport, told the Financial Times Business of Football Summit in February that “there’s certainly going to be a rights correction and it may be seen and interpreted by many as rights deflation”.
Italy’s Serie A last month approved a domestic media rights sale, led by sports streaming service DAZN, worth about €810m a season between 2021-2024, a roughly 20 per cent drop on its existing deal.
The Premier League, UK government, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have talked about this as being a greater issue for clubs since early last summer, no fans and rebates, mean these outstanding liabilities on transfer fees become a much heavier burden.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7804037122
Before our club was burdened with debt and had a chunk of it's cash holding given away, the club was in prime position for a strong exit from the pandemic (though I am still far from convinced that next season will start or even finish with full matchday attendances). It would not (and perhaps should not) all happen in a single window, there is still too much doubt, but it would I allowed for significant squad additions.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7804037122
Before our club was burdened with debt and had a chunk of it's cash holding given away, the club was in prime position for a strong exit from the pandemic (though I am still far from convinced that next season will start or even finish with full matchday attendances). It would not (and perhaps should not) all happen in a single window, there is still too much doubt, but it would I allowed for significant squad additions.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This is an interesting article in the Telegraph looking at the next step in player development, AI has been a pretty obvious area for this kind of development for some time and some clubs are already investing in the early stage technology (including Norwich https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-ci ... ol-7790656)
Arsene Wenger on the future of football - the next step is to train a player's brain
JEREMY WILSON APRIL 28, 2021
After pioneering a 25-year revolution in the physical preparation of footballers, Arsene Wenger has predicted that neuroscience will unlock the next major evolution in professional players.
Now 71, Wenger said that he was still trying to “anticipate the next step” in the ongoing improvement of footballers and he believes that vast advancements around diet and physical fitness have left one obvious untapped area for specialist coaches.
“We have gone from the football player to the athlete-football player with the measurement of the physical performances,” said Wenger. “All the players who could not produce the quantity demanded have been kicked out of the game. Because of the physical qualities, the space available and the time available to make decisions has been reduced.
“We have seen from feet to head everything has improved. The physical time dedicated to improve is now limited. Maybe the next step is to see what's going on in the brain. The next step could be speed of decision-making, quality of information taken and the flexibility of decision making.”
In that, Wenger said he had already been shown three-dimensional technology which enables players to train their brains so that their anticipation, vision and split-second choices are sharpened.
“I see the next step being technology used to train our brain,” he said. “We could see that in three-dimensional training. [Where] you can put your ‘cask’ on and see the game in your position, and practice your brain to make quick decisions, to anticipate what's going on. It looks quite impressive when you are in. You can put the right-back in his position, and see the exact same vision as he has when he is in the game.
“The vision factor, and the quality of information you get before you get the ball, will certainly be a decisive evolution. The modern manager has to be very open minded to all kinds of influence that can make him better. You must always try to move forward.”
Wenger was previously among the first coaches to use psychologists and mannequins in training sessions, before famously overhauling the diets and physical training of players at Arsenal when he arrived in England in 1996.
He will be speaking on Thursday alongside basketball legend Magic Johnson and former Netflix director Patty McCord during a summit about learning and development. For all the innovation, Wenger believes that people-management and human interaction remain the most important single factors in leadership.
“You must detect a person’s qualities and aspirations and make sure their needs are met,” he said. “We all want to know where we could be and where we could go. We all want to be better. We underestimate communication.
“Sometimes you feel the individual initiative is reduced in favour of everybody being absolutely 100 percent in the model. I think to get that balance right you have to consider as well the potential of players.
“If someone has a very creative part and limited stamina and power — and you make him run like mad every time you lose the ball — he will not be capable to express his talent anymore. The game is to find the right balance between the global collective rules and individual freedom to express yourself.”
Wenger also says that a key managerial challenge is to “accept the stress” in making decisions — by mixing intuition, experience and data — without ever knowing if your choices are correct. “At some stage you have to decide and accept making the decision,” he said. “I tried always to be rational but you never completely know. The rationality of a decision has increased phenomenally. At the start of my career, it was all down to my subjectivity. At the end of my spell at Arsenal, you were surrounded by science and had more objective measuring. You also manage more downwards at the start. At the end you manage the team around the team and you have to manage upwards as well to convince the fans and the media.”
In his current role as Fifa’s chief of global football development, Wenger has been creating an online platform to educate coaches in pursuit of what is now his overriding purpose. “The goal is to give a chance to every child in the world to play football in good conditions - to give a chance to talented people to achieve something,” he said. “For example. [Kylian] Mbappe, is one of the best players in the world. If he was born in Cameroon, would he have the same possibilities to raise to the potential of now?
“The untapped potential is unbelievable. We have 211 countries [in Fifa]. Of those, 133 countries have never been at the World Cup. A country for example like Finland has never been. I think I can use what I have learned in my life in a positive way. There is a time for everything. I will certainly not have times to finish the work, but I will start it. There is huge work to do.”
Arsene Wenger on the future of football - the next step is to train a player's brain
JEREMY WILSON APRIL 28, 2021
After pioneering a 25-year revolution in the physical preparation of footballers, Arsene Wenger has predicted that neuroscience will unlock the next major evolution in professional players.
Now 71, Wenger said that he was still trying to “anticipate the next step” in the ongoing improvement of footballers and he believes that vast advancements around diet and physical fitness have left one obvious untapped area for specialist coaches.
“We have gone from the football player to the athlete-football player with the measurement of the physical performances,” said Wenger. “All the players who could not produce the quantity demanded have been kicked out of the game. Because of the physical qualities, the space available and the time available to make decisions has been reduced.
“We have seen from feet to head everything has improved. The physical time dedicated to improve is now limited. Maybe the next step is to see what's going on in the brain. The next step could be speed of decision-making, quality of information taken and the flexibility of decision making.”
In that, Wenger said he had already been shown three-dimensional technology which enables players to train their brains so that their anticipation, vision and split-second choices are sharpened.
“I see the next step being technology used to train our brain,” he said. “We could see that in three-dimensional training. [Where] you can put your ‘cask’ on and see the game in your position, and practice your brain to make quick decisions, to anticipate what's going on. It looks quite impressive when you are in. You can put the right-back in his position, and see the exact same vision as he has when he is in the game.
“The vision factor, and the quality of information you get before you get the ball, will certainly be a decisive evolution. The modern manager has to be very open minded to all kinds of influence that can make him better. You must always try to move forward.”
Wenger was previously among the first coaches to use psychologists and mannequins in training sessions, before famously overhauling the diets and physical training of players at Arsenal when he arrived in England in 1996.
He will be speaking on Thursday alongside basketball legend Magic Johnson and former Netflix director Patty McCord during a summit about learning and development. For all the innovation, Wenger believes that people-management and human interaction remain the most important single factors in leadership.
“You must detect a person’s qualities and aspirations and make sure their needs are met,” he said. “We all want to know where we could be and where we could go. We all want to be better. We underestimate communication.
“Sometimes you feel the individual initiative is reduced in favour of everybody being absolutely 100 percent in the model. I think to get that balance right you have to consider as well the potential of players.
“If someone has a very creative part and limited stamina and power — and you make him run like mad every time you lose the ball — he will not be capable to express his talent anymore. The game is to find the right balance between the global collective rules and individual freedom to express yourself.”
Wenger also says that a key managerial challenge is to “accept the stress” in making decisions — by mixing intuition, experience and data — without ever knowing if your choices are correct. “At some stage you have to decide and accept making the decision,” he said. “I tried always to be rational but you never completely know. The rationality of a decision has increased phenomenally. At the start of my career, it was all down to my subjectivity. At the end of my spell at Arsenal, you were surrounded by science and had more objective measuring. You also manage more downwards at the start. At the end you manage the team around the team and you have to manage upwards as well to convince the fans and the media.”
In his current role as Fifa’s chief of global football development, Wenger has been creating an online platform to educate coaches in pursuit of what is now his overriding purpose. “The goal is to give a chance to every child in the world to play football in good conditions - to give a chance to talented people to achieve something,” he said. “For example. [Kylian] Mbappe, is one of the best players in the world. If he was born in Cameroon, would he have the same possibilities to raise to the potential of now?
“The untapped potential is unbelievable. We have 211 countries [in Fifa]. Of those, 133 countries have never been at the World Cup. A country for example like Finland has never been. I think I can use what I have learned in my life in a positive way. There is a time for everything. I will certainly not have times to finish the work, but I will start it. There is huge work to do.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have posted previously about my grave doubts about offering solutions ahead of the governments football review - here is another example that smells of bandwagon jumping to further a groups own interests and importance, there is no one solution that fits all, and even AFC Wimbledon have difficulties in getting their fans to agree a course of action, most of the issues up for discussion in the review could be managed with in game regulations from what I have seen - from the Independent
Government must create £400m fund to help fans buy football clubs, new report claims
The government has put fan ownership on the table as part of their fan-led review into football’s governance following the launch and subsequent collapse of the European Super League
Ben Burrows 3 hours ago
The government must create a community fund to enable fans to buy and take back control of their football clubs in the wake of the failed European Super League, a new report has claimed.
The report from Power to Change – which supports communities to take ownership of the buildings, places and businesses that matter to them – calls for authorities to put a Community Club Ownership Trust at the heart of reforms to the game.
The government has put fan ownership on the table as part of their fan-led review into football’s governance following the launch and subsequent collapse of the breakaway competition last week.
Supporters, including those at Arsenal and Manchester United, have protested the proposal by their club owners in the days since it fell to pieces with a move towards a more German model of ownership gaining support in political circles.
The trust would be “funded through broadcast revenue or a levy on the gambling industry” with the £400m figure able to support it for a decade.
The report calls for changes to football through the fan-led review process to ensure better financial management throughout the game, ending the “casino culture that incentivises short-term gambling over long-term sustainability.”
It hopes the creation of such a fund would give fans a chance to purchase clubs when they come up for sale as well as giving a viable alternative to liquidation in many cases.
Vidhya Alakeson, CEO of Power to Change, said: “Coming from Wimbledon, where our beloved football club was ripped from the town and transferred to Milton Keynes, I understand very personally how the business of football has come to dominate the game in recent decades.
“Last week’s announcement of a proposed European Super League was a dramatic illustration of organisers failing to recognise that football clubs are much more than just businesses – they are communities embedded in their local area.
“With such a focus on the business and income generation around football, it is mind-boggling that so many successful football clubs find themselves on a perilous financial footing – run for glory rather than long-term sustainability.
“A new Community Club Ownership Trust has the potential to create both a more financially sustainable approach to football that protects these vital local institutions into the future, and importantly also reconnects them to local fans and communities – without whom there can be no beautiful game.”
Government must create £400m fund to help fans buy football clubs, new report claims
The government has put fan ownership on the table as part of their fan-led review into football’s governance following the launch and subsequent collapse of the European Super League
Ben Burrows 3 hours ago
The government must create a community fund to enable fans to buy and take back control of their football clubs in the wake of the failed European Super League, a new report has claimed.
The report from Power to Change – which supports communities to take ownership of the buildings, places and businesses that matter to them – calls for authorities to put a Community Club Ownership Trust at the heart of reforms to the game.
The government has put fan ownership on the table as part of their fan-led review into football’s governance following the launch and subsequent collapse of the breakaway competition last week.
Supporters, including those at Arsenal and Manchester United, have protested the proposal by their club owners in the days since it fell to pieces with a move towards a more German model of ownership gaining support in political circles.
The trust would be “funded through broadcast revenue or a levy on the gambling industry” with the £400m figure able to support it for a decade.
The report calls for changes to football through the fan-led review process to ensure better financial management throughout the game, ending the “casino culture that incentivises short-term gambling over long-term sustainability.”
It hopes the creation of such a fund would give fans a chance to purchase clubs when they come up for sale as well as giving a viable alternative to liquidation in many cases.
Vidhya Alakeson, CEO of Power to Change, said: “Coming from Wimbledon, where our beloved football club was ripped from the town and transferred to Milton Keynes, I understand very personally how the business of football has come to dominate the game in recent decades.
“Last week’s announcement of a proposed European Super League was a dramatic illustration of organisers failing to recognise that football clubs are much more than just businesses – they are communities embedded in their local area.
“With such a focus on the business and income generation around football, it is mind-boggling that so many successful football clubs find themselves on a perilous financial footing – run for glory rather than long-term sustainability.
“A new Community Club Ownership Trust has the potential to create both a more financially sustainable approach to football that protects these vital local institutions into the future, and importantly also reconnects them to local fans and communities – without whom there can be no beautiful game.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Financial Times with a piece about BeIN Sport and how piracy has affected their approach to buying sports broadcasting rights - all ground I have covered before including the fact they walked away from Bundesliga and Serie A rights as a result of lack of support, but remain in partnership with the Premier League (who secured an extension of the current deal for the next cycle), la Liga and UEFA.
Streaming pirates threaten sports leagues’ income
MURAD AHMED APRIL 28, 2021
Yousef Al-Obaidly, chief executive of beIN Media Group, issued a warning to the sports industry two years ago. In a speech at the Leaders in Sport conference in London, an annual gathering of executives, he said the rise of piracy — when viewers watch their favourite games illegally for free on the internet — was negating the need for millions to sign up to expensive pay-TV channels.
Al-Obaidly’s own Qatari broadcast group has spent $15bn acquiring the rights to screen many of the world’s biggest sporting events, from English Premier League football matches to Formula One grands prix and the Olympic Games. But he predicted: “The glorious media rights bubble is about to burst. And while most people here think they’ve got their house in order, the truth is that our industry is completely unprepared.”
Piracy undermines the business model of leading sports leagues, many of which rely on multibillion dollar broadcasting contracts. A 2020 study by Ampere Analysis found that 89 per cent of fans worldwide paid for a TV subscription to watch sport but just over half also tuned into a pirate sports service at least once a month.
And the problem persists across sports leagues, broadcasters and nations. “Piracy has existed for a long while — digital piracy at least 10 years — and in many forms,” says Claire Enders, founder of Enders Analysis.
“[But] there has been a generational decline in legitimate sports subscriptions in the under-35s. That is caused a little bit by piracy but mostly by the attractions of so many other attractive smartphone options.”
Diplomacy by other means?
Al-Obaidly was particularly exercised, however, by the emergence of beoutQ, an Arabic-language pirate network streaming content for which beIN had acquired exclusive rights across the Middle East.
BeoutQ emerged in 2017 shortly after Saudi Arabia and three Arab allies cut diplomatic and transport links to Qatar. The World Trade Organization would later rule that the Saudi government had “infringed” international trade agreements because of the country’s involvement in the beoutQ network — a position that Riyadh still rejects.
“I can tell you that, as the largest buyer of sports rights in the world, because of beoutQ in [the Middle East] and piracy generally, we now regard all sports rights as non-exclusive and our commercial offers will reflect that,” said Al-Obaidly in his speech.
BeoutQ appears to have shut down at about the time that Saudi Arabia and Qatar re-established diplomatic ties in January this year. But beIN is sticking to its word by spending billions of euros less on the rights to screen matches in many of Europe’s top football leagues.
“It was piracy at an industrial level,” says Caroline Guenneteau, a deputy general counsel at beIN. “It is true that beoutQ increased our effort in order to fight against piracy but we were engaged in [the fight] for years already.”
BeIN’s new approach is already having an effect on Serie A, Italy’s top football league. Last month, the league said it expected a significant drop in the future value of its international TV contracts, currently worth $170m a season.
“Our biggest problem is beIN,” said Luigi de Servio, the Serie A chief executive at the time. “BeIN was worth 50 per cent of our [international TV rights] package and they’ve decided not to take part in our auction.”
Richard Verow, chief sports officer at beIN Media Group, says that Serie A’s decision to play its Supercoppa matches in 2018 and 2019 in Saudi Arabia sent a “mixed message” on its stance on piracy.
By contrast, beIN paid $500m for a new television deal with the Premier League in December 2020, extending its lucrative agreement to screen top-tier English club matches across the Middle East until 2025.
That decision came after Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund pulled out of a £300m takeover of Newcastle United, a deal that had become stuck in the Premier League’s process to approve club takeovers.
BeIN denies that its decision to renew its TV contract is directly related to the collapse of the Saudi-Newcastle deal, but the value of the agreement does reflect its view that the Premier League has shown itself as “best in class” in dealing with piracy. The Premier League, which remains in a legal dispute with Newcastle’s owner over the failed Saudi takeover, declined to comment.
Whack-a-mole
Last year, the Premier League secured a so-called Super Block from UK courts — an enhanced legal power that allows it to force internet service providers to block computer servers hosting illegal streams as soon as they are identified by its anti-piracy operatives.
Despite this, several UK viewers told the Financial Times that they have been able to access pirate streams of Premier League matches in recent months.
“It’s whack-a-mole, isn’t it?,” says Verow of the attempts to take down the illegal streaming sites that keep popping up. But he says beIN values “the constant fight and investment, looking for [piracy] and dealing with it”.
To that end, beIN is encouraged by efforts being made by other competitions, such as Spain’s La Liga football league, as well as governments — such as France’s, which this month introduced legislation to tackle digital piracy.
Critics of Doha-based beIN claim it is punishing sport groups that declined to side clearly with Qatar during its dispute with Saudi Arabia. BeIN’s chair, Nasser al-Khelaifi, is also president of Paris Saint-Germain, the French football club owned by the Qatari state. And, next year, the Gulf state will host the football World Cup — a move seen as an effort to project soft power and improve the country’s global image.
But Guenneteau says it is about the broader principle. “Can you imagine that you can enter a bakery and take the bread without paying anything?” she asks. “[Look at] the negative impact that [piracy] had on the music industry. It’s terrible. It’s not just a problem for Qatar’s interests.”
Streaming pirates threaten sports leagues’ income
MURAD AHMED APRIL 28, 2021
Yousef Al-Obaidly, chief executive of beIN Media Group, issued a warning to the sports industry two years ago. In a speech at the Leaders in Sport conference in London, an annual gathering of executives, he said the rise of piracy — when viewers watch their favourite games illegally for free on the internet — was negating the need for millions to sign up to expensive pay-TV channels.
Al-Obaidly’s own Qatari broadcast group has spent $15bn acquiring the rights to screen many of the world’s biggest sporting events, from English Premier League football matches to Formula One grands prix and the Olympic Games. But he predicted: “The glorious media rights bubble is about to burst. And while most people here think they’ve got their house in order, the truth is that our industry is completely unprepared.”
Piracy undermines the business model of leading sports leagues, many of which rely on multibillion dollar broadcasting contracts. A 2020 study by Ampere Analysis found that 89 per cent of fans worldwide paid for a TV subscription to watch sport but just over half also tuned into a pirate sports service at least once a month.
And the problem persists across sports leagues, broadcasters and nations. “Piracy has existed for a long while — digital piracy at least 10 years — and in many forms,” says Claire Enders, founder of Enders Analysis.
“[But] there has been a generational decline in legitimate sports subscriptions in the under-35s. That is caused a little bit by piracy but mostly by the attractions of so many other attractive smartphone options.”
Diplomacy by other means?
Al-Obaidly was particularly exercised, however, by the emergence of beoutQ, an Arabic-language pirate network streaming content for which beIN had acquired exclusive rights across the Middle East.
BeoutQ emerged in 2017 shortly after Saudi Arabia and three Arab allies cut diplomatic and transport links to Qatar. The World Trade Organization would later rule that the Saudi government had “infringed” international trade agreements because of the country’s involvement in the beoutQ network — a position that Riyadh still rejects.
“I can tell you that, as the largest buyer of sports rights in the world, because of beoutQ in [the Middle East] and piracy generally, we now regard all sports rights as non-exclusive and our commercial offers will reflect that,” said Al-Obaidly in his speech.
BeoutQ appears to have shut down at about the time that Saudi Arabia and Qatar re-established diplomatic ties in January this year. But beIN is sticking to its word by spending billions of euros less on the rights to screen matches in many of Europe’s top football leagues.
“It was piracy at an industrial level,” says Caroline Guenneteau, a deputy general counsel at beIN. “It is true that beoutQ increased our effort in order to fight against piracy but we were engaged in [the fight] for years already.”
BeIN’s new approach is already having an effect on Serie A, Italy’s top football league. Last month, the league said it expected a significant drop in the future value of its international TV contracts, currently worth $170m a season.
“Our biggest problem is beIN,” said Luigi de Servio, the Serie A chief executive at the time. “BeIN was worth 50 per cent of our [international TV rights] package and they’ve decided not to take part in our auction.”
Richard Verow, chief sports officer at beIN Media Group, says that Serie A’s decision to play its Supercoppa matches in 2018 and 2019 in Saudi Arabia sent a “mixed message” on its stance on piracy.
By contrast, beIN paid $500m for a new television deal with the Premier League in December 2020, extending its lucrative agreement to screen top-tier English club matches across the Middle East until 2025.
That decision came after Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund pulled out of a £300m takeover of Newcastle United, a deal that had become stuck in the Premier League’s process to approve club takeovers.
BeIN denies that its decision to renew its TV contract is directly related to the collapse of the Saudi-Newcastle deal, but the value of the agreement does reflect its view that the Premier League has shown itself as “best in class” in dealing with piracy. The Premier League, which remains in a legal dispute with Newcastle’s owner over the failed Saudi takeover, declined to comment.
Whack-a-mole
Last year, the Premier League secured a so-called Super Block from UK courts — an enhanced legal power that allows it to force internet service providers to block computer servers hosting illegal streams as soon as they are identified by its anti-piracy operatives.
Despite this, several UK viewers told the Financial Times that they have been able to access pirate streams of Premier League matches in recent months.
“It’s whack-a-mole, isn’t it?,” says Verow of the attempts to take down the illegal streaming sites that keep popping up. But he says beIN values “the constant fight and investment, looking for [piracy] and dealing with it”.
To that end, beIN is encouraged by efforts being made by other competitions, such as Spain’s La Liga football league, as well as governments — such as France’s, which this month introduced legislation to tackle digital piracy.
Critics of Doha-based beIN claim it is punishing sport groups that declined to side clearly with Qatar during its dispute with Saudi Arabia. BeIN’s chair, Nasser al-Khelaifi, is also president of Paris Saint-Germain, the French football club owned by the Qatari state. And, next year, the Gulf state will host the football World Cup — a move seen as an effort to project soft power and improve the country’s global image.
But Guenneteau says it is about the broader principle. “Can you imagine that you can enter a bakery and take the bread without paying anything?” she asks. “[Look at] the negative impact that [piracy] had on the music industry. It’s terrible. It’s not just a problem for Qatar’s interests.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
One of the things I forgot to say about these Liverpool 2019/20 financial results yester day is that they now fall below us in the all time Premier League profitability table - We are now 4th after 6 seasons of reporting and never making a loss - that in itself is probably a Premier League record - all that and less than 1m in earnings from European competition, which you cannot say about any club above usChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:28 pmLiverpool release their 2019/20 Financial report (year end 31st May 2020) £46m loss before tax looks relatively healthy given how much revenue was not booked
https://d3j2s6hdd6a7rg.cloudfront.net/i ... ements.pdf
club statement
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announ ... ay-31-2020
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 8126821383
This user liked this post: Royboyclaret
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 20226
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3307 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This is an interesting tweet about a stat that looks at the relative competitiveness of a league by focussing on the multiple of the lowest salary cost to match the highest salary cost in the league
Tutul Rahman
@tutulismyname
Salary payroll difference between top spending team & lowest spending team by league
NFL: 1.2x
NHL: 1.4x
NBA: 1.8x
MLS: 2.7x
MLB: 5x
EPL: 9x
Serie A: 11x
Ligue 2: 18x
La Liga: 21x
Bundesliga: 23x
https://twitter.com/tutulismyname/statu ... 0132097031
It makes a very good point, but I begin to doubt it's validity because the Premier League one is definitely wrong more like a 5x and now possibly even less
Tutul Rahman
@tutulismyname
Salary payroll difference between top spending team & lowest spending team by league
NFL: 1.2x
NHL: 1.4x
NBA: 1.8x
MLS: 2.7x
MLB: 5x
EPL: 9x
Serie A: 11x
Ligue 2: 18x
La Liga: 21x
Bundesliga: 23x
https://twitter.com/tutulismyname/statu ... 0132097031
It makes a very good point, but I begin to doubt it's validity because the Premier League one is definitely wrong more like a 5x and now possibly even less
-
huw.Y.WattfromWare
- Posts: 3393
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1004 times
- Has Liked: 905 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Just seen this from Kieran McGuire on twitter. List of all time biggest money makers from the PL. sorry I Had to stretch it so long but wanted to show how poorly run the sides in 40th and 41st were back then.
- 1FA4CF0C-085E-4342-950A-AF5143655CD2.jpeg (296.03 KiB) Viewed 5081 times
-
huw.Y.WattfromWare
- Posts: 3393
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1004 times
- Has Liked: 905 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Also from twitter but no source I’m afraid.
- 5A800F0B-127D-4346-9AC5-7786D1B60E8E.jpeg (190.15 KiB) Viewed 5038 times