Football's Magic Money Tree

[Chester Perry]

An article from the Football Business Academy as to why CFG wanted to Invest in India and Mumbai City FC - a bit gushy but you see the business reasoning even if you do not agree with the principle of it

https://the-fba.com/blog/ronit-samal-mu ... 0City%20FC

[Chester Perry]

This looks like an interesting set of podcasts - Business Goals FC - focussing on Football Business and in it's first series on the impact of the Pandemic but a broad range of guest - from football finance journalist Alex Miller

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/b ... 1512147196

EDIT just listening to Episode 2 with Nick Harris otherwise known as @SportingIntel - it is surprising just how much the thinking re finances has moved in the last 10 days

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble has a look at Crystal Palace's 2018/19 financial results - the last minute sale of Wan-Bissaka allowed them to show a similar profit to us - take note of Player wages - which they breakout for us to see - I wish that became a rule - their players get paid more than everyone at our club does.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8356856834

I am not sure how he got hold of them as they are not yet at companies house - they took the Chancellors invitation to delay publishing them like Newcastle did - There is nothing on the Clubs website either

This article shows that they have had to borrow money already to help with cashflow though

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 53096.html

Palace have published an annual review - another case of a club trying to manage the message of their finances before the accounts are made public.

https://www.cpfc.co.uk/siteassets/pdfs/ ... 018-19.pdf

not seen much talk about the fact that the club have more than doubled their debt to their owners in 2018/19 increasing to £46m- you can imagine that has only gone up this year

[Royboyclaret]

@SwissRamble has a look at Crystal Palace's 2018/19 financial results - the last minute sale of Wan-Bissaka allowed them to show a similar profit to us - take note of Player wages - which they breakout for us to see - I wish that became a rule - their players get paid more than everyone at our club does.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8356856834

I am not sure how he got hold of them as they are not yet at companies house - they took the Chancellors invitation to delay publishing them like Newcastle did - There is nothing on the Clubs website either

This article shows that they have had to borrow money already to help with cashflow though

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 53096.html

Is it safe to go back in the water?

Not sure why Palace have delayed publishing their results as they seem reasonable enough, although without the Profit on Sale of Wan-Bissaka the bottom line of the P&L account would have looked considerably different.
First time I've seen Wages identified in that manner and it's interesting that although the total number of employees is almost identical to that at Burnley the Wage bill is some £33m higher than ours at £119m. A hefty salary increase there for Steve Parish of some 67% making him the third highest paid director in the PL, but still a long, long way behind Levy at Tottenham.
Interesting to see again the chart for Distribution of PL Funds with Burnley continuing to show a total Broadcast Income figure of £107.3m. Chester will understand why I continue to highlight this particular figure.

So, just Newcastle remain now, I think, but the overall conclusion has to be one of concern as 9 of the 19 sets of financial results reveal an Operating Loss. That said, compared to this current financial year those numbers will doubtless appear positively healthy.

[Chester Perry]

Always safe with you as a guide Roy

[Chester Perry]

More on the vultures - though no doubt many will see them as necessary in the short term - from SportsProMedia.com

As CVC and venture capital loom, sport will have to decide what it values
The cashflow crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic will make external investment more appealing for many rights holders but some will be weighing up difficult questions about control and their future direction.
Posted: May 28 2020By: Eoin Connolly

What is an industry worth in storage?
Sport’s partial reanimation over the weeks ahead will not obscure the fact that so much of what drives its revenues will lie dormant for a while yet. There will be no tickets sold to live events in most countries for several months, to use a more optimistic estimate, and none of the attendant income that comes with fans being at physical venues. For a lot of organisations, that means it will not be possible to run live events in that period.

Whether or not it all comes roaring back when the Covid-19 pandemic lifts, any business whose primary assets are rooted in its relationship with fans – most of them in sport, in other words – will face lean times and an anxious wait. The world has a cashflow problem just now and organisations of cultural importance are no less vulnerable than anyone else to its effects.

This is a situation that has placed an enormous strain on companies across the industry – witness digital sports broadcaster DAZN’s reported call for new investment, its head-down charge for growth interrupted by a lack of live sport – but for rights holders it has created a real quandary. They must decide what to protect, what to discard, what arguments they can make for whatever state assistance is available. Even among those with an appetite for innovation, the resources to push through meaningful change might be limited.

Any possible injection of capital, then, will be under consideration, and it is no particular surprise to see venture capital and private equity funds beginning to mobilise. Groups like one-time Formula One owner CVC Capital Partners were already exploring opportunities in sport but they are very likely find more willing partners in the months to come. The first question is where they will look for them.

Over the past week or so, CVC has been particularly active. On 22nd May it confirmed the acquisition of a 28 per cent stake in the Guinness Pro14, a provincial rugby union tournament featuring teams from Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Italy and South Africa, for a reported UK£120 million. That followed the purchase of a 27 per cent stake in England’s Premiership Rugby at the end of 2018 and discussions, currently on hold due to the coronavirus pandemic, with the international game’s Six Nations Championship.

Earlier in May, CVC was said by the Financial Times to be in talks for a €2.2 billion deal with Italian soccer’s Serie A. The proposed arrangement would lead to the creation of a new company, of which CVC would take a 20 per cent holding, to manage broadcast rights sales and other commercial assets.

It might also, according to the FT, involve some financing for a fund to improve the league’s matchday venues, many of which are a generation or two behind their counterparts in other countries. That intervention in particular could be a game-changer in Italy, where stadium financing and reconstruction has been a considerable headache, and points to the obvious potential of these kind of capital injections to remove obstacles to growth.

More generally, CVC’s activities show a fairly conservative approach to its investments – seeking well-established, well-followed competitions for which a quick shot of liquidity might mean a real burst of progress. Not every fund will follow the same pattern.

Others might take a chance on something like the XFL, back on the market despite its shutdown-induced bankruptcy midway through a comeback season in April. The idea of a cheaper buy-in and greater control over a league selling a different vision of springtime football, with adapted rules and a welcoming take on in-game betting, will have its appeal. More venture-backed startups cannot be ruled out, even if extended lifespans are difficult to guarantee.

Investment that accelerates innovation will appear in other forms. Speaking during this week’s edition of the SportsPro Insider Series of virtual events, for example, Two Circles chief executive Gareth Balch looked ahead to a dramatic shift in how sponsorship packages are created, with a different mix between physical and digital activation.

“Digital is the greatest mis-sold, unsold, undersold, undervalued asset in the sponsorship mix,” he said. “Sports properties have been aggregating and growing audiences digitally and building bigger data sets, but not necessarily knowing how to monetise them.”

Of course, holding that change of course will take an investment of its own in technology and measurement, as well as in the patience that might be needed to work through a transition. All of those resources may be in short supply for teams or leagues already suffering through the loss of ticketing income, creating openings for investors with access to the knowledge that can make those changes happen, the networks to make them happen quickly, or just the ready cash to buy those factors in. Sales of chunks of future sponsorship rights are a possibility.

Yet rights holders will still have cause to be wary. The loss of control is a risk in itself. Not every investment will be mutually beneficial, or an act of buffing up gems. In a crisis as deep as this one, the spectre of vulture capital picking distressed assets clean should be on everyone’s minds.

More widely, external investment can give rise to mismatched incentives. In late April, as it faced up to the one-year postponement of its new tournament, The Hundred, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) was advised to consider allowing private buyers for its incoming teams. That would have its upsides, from shared risk to greater potential for brand development, particularly overseas. But there is no guarantee a private owner would feel the same imperative to support the domestic county structure that the new competition is explicitly not supposed to threaten, or the same obligation to the rest of the cricketing community. It would be a delicate proposition to manage.

Or take, as a more hypothetical example, a sport like athletics, globally popular and accessible but commercially stunted for some time. There is a much support for modernisation from within its own administrative bodies – from World Athletics president Sebastian Coe and UK Athletics chief executive Joanna Coates, among others. The form that takes would be open for debate but anyone buying a stake would be buying a say. They would have as much influence on whether to embrace the democratising potential of initiatives like Parkrun, or something that took the sport further from its origins.

In a whole range of sports, there are other such decisions to make: between the interests of high-yield sectors like betting or stakeholders from sovereign wealth funds and high-attention commitments like talent pathways, communities and the grassroots. As it does with so much else, external investment would only accelerate those conversations.

What venture capital wants and what supporters want may not be the same thing. Many of the biggest heartaches that lie in wait will lie in that gap.

Value has more than one meaning.

[Chester Perry]

This article - a sister piece to my last post again from SportsProMedia.com - looks at opportunities in Digital Sponsorship - including imput from TwoCircles that I have posted about recently.

Digital sponsorship ‘most undervalued’ sector in sports marketing, says Two Circles CEO
Gareth Balch claims online brand spend could accelerate in the wake of Covid-19 hiatus.
Posted: May 27 2020By: Steven Impey

Digital sponsorship spend is both the “greatest area for innovation” and “the most undervalued asset” in the sports marketing space, according to Two Circles chief executive Gareth Balch.

Speaking during SportsPro’s Insider Series, Balch claimed that the sports industry lost out on UK£13.7 billion (US$16.7 billion) in unrealised sponsorship revenue throughout 2019, largely owed to not knowing how to best monetise user data garnered online.

That figure, he says, represents roughly 28 per cent of total brand spend on sports sponsorship last year, which climbed to more than UK£35 billion (US$42.8 billion).

While rights holders continue to navigate widespread cancellations and suspension of events due to the coronavirus pandemic, Balch says the biggest change post-hiatus will centre on “what brands choose to buy” and should spur an acceleration in digital content spend.

Budweiser and Coca-Cola still committed to women’s sport amid Covid-19 fallout
“Digital is the greatest mis-sold, unsold, undersold, undervalued asset in the sponsorship mix,” Balch said. “Sports properties have been aggregating and growing audiences digitally and building bigger data sets, but not necessarily knowing how to monetise them.

“What sponsorship gives you is an opportunity to monetise data. Of course, regulation now means that’s not an option anymore, but being able to sell the relationship that exists between the fan and the sports organisation, and doing that through a digital medium, has never been more current or more valuable.

“So, what we see is an opportunity to come out of this unprecedented crisis – while we’re growing attention yet not monetising it very well – is an acceleration in the way that sports sponsorship incorporates digital into its otherwise physical packages and a shift in what brands buy and which types of brands buy.”

Overall, total sports sponsorship spend has grown from US$44.3 billion in 2018 to US$46.1 billion in 2019, according to Two Circles’ own data. However, Balch says those revenues – now set to be hit by the fallout from the pandemic – have not been spread evenly across the ecosystem.

“There’s a lot of value being created here,” Balch continued. “However, it is also the biggest missed opportunity in sports sponsorship in the past ten years. Sports sponsorship has been growing over the past ten years, including billions of dollars a year, but it has been growing with the big getting bigger and the medium and smaller properties really struggling.

“This is the untold story. It’s been a really difficult time for anyone other than the big names to find ways to innovate their sponsorship proposition and some of the best innovation has actually been from those who have had to work hardest to find it.”

[Chester Perry]

Another new player in the shirt deal market, and this one is British (Liverpool based) - Rangers sign a £25m deal with Castore, that looks like it will be for club wide apparel - press release only talks about it being a multi year deal rather than a defined term - Steven Gerard was instrumental in the deal (which sounds a little strange to me). This is a big step for such a young company, especially with all the other deals they are currently talking about

https://castore.com/uk/castore-x-rangers-partnership/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... deals.html

Is the shirt deal market due for a shake up? not seen this many new entrants since the late 1980's early 1990's

Article about Castore's move into football kit supply - those Rangers shirts are going to be pricey - this lot's base price for a t-shirt is normally £40

https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... oronavirus

[Royboyclaret]

Good to see The esk's amended graphs/charts which now show Burnley in a much fairer light compared to other PL clubs. A concern still remains over the EBITDA chart though, Swiss Ramble in the latest Crystal Palace analysis indicates a figure for Palace of £17m compared to The esk's £11m. An even bigger discrepancy for Chelsea where the figures are £43m and £94m respectively. Baffling to say the least.

[Chester Perry]

Another topical piece from SportsProMedia.com - given recent posts - and particularly the thoughts we have read from the esk

How to negotiate sports broadcast rights deals in a post Covid-19 world
Tomos Jones, senior associate at international law firm Reed Smith, assesses the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the value of sports broadcast rights, and considers whether the pay-TV market could be more resilient to a looming economic downturn than many may think.
Posted: May 21 2020

Live sports events and their television coverage have been high-profile casualties of the Covid-19 shutdown. As sporting bodies such as the Premier League, cricket’s ECB and Premiership Rugby now take their first, tentative steps towards a resumption of sporting operations, important questions still remain over the short and long-term effects of the pandemic on sports broadcast rights.

The immediate reaction to the shutdown of sporting events, almost uniformly across all sports governing bodies and their broadcast partners, has been a dash to see what their existing contracts say on the cancellation of events. Hence the many remarkably informed and uninformed press comments on the position under various contracts, together with discussions of force majeure clauses and the doctrine of contractual frustration.

However, in reality, without forensic legal scrutiny of these (highly confidential) contracts, such comment is merely speculation. The contracts usually contain force majeure clauses, and specific provisions addressing cancellation of events.

Whether or not they apply specifically to a pandemic or government requirements to cease sporting activity, or indeed cater for the scale of cancellation at issue depends on the exact, varying wording of each agreement, and in many cases requires a significant interpretational 'leap in the dark' as to their effect.

For that reason, the legal position of many sports rights holders and their broadcast partners is likely to be uncertain.

Some reports speculate that the Premier League may be required to refund UK£340 million (US$414.8 million) to its broadcast partners since matches are not being staged as originally intended, at different times and behind closed doors. The accuracy of this requires access to the contract, but it misses the commercial point – irrespective of the contractual position, the 'product' is no longer the same and a significant 'value gap' has arisen, causing damage to both sides.

Even if a pay-TV broadcaster has a clear right to a refund under its rights agreements, that is unlikely to compensate it fully for a major decline in subscribers.

In this context of genuinely symbiotic relationships between sporting bodies and their broadcast partners, the challenge for both sides under existing deals is to find creative ways to bridge that value gap. These proposals have ranged from increasing the number of Premier League matches available for screening by Sky and BT in future seasons, to adding live streams of matches for the remainder of the Premier League and English Football League (EFL) seasons (subject to conflict with any exclusive internet rights sold to other partners).

The idea of 'value adds' has also been floated, which could involve increased access to teams and players during and around matches, which has previously been a bone of contention for broadcasters looking at the enhanced access granted to producers of club documentary films.

For broadcasters, the same creativity is required to stem the losses of staunch subscribers in the absence of live sports content. For example, Sky's offer to 'pause' its sports subscriptions is likely calculated on the basis that short-term losses arising from the deferral of subscription income are more palatable than the long-term losses from subscriber churn.

Pay-TV broadcasters with strong entertainment and movie offerings have scope to be creative in terms of bonus content offerings and swapping between packages, whilst noting increased demand for such content during lockdown, and the damaging effects on cinema releases.

Those pay broadcasters bundling communications packages with their television content have further protection against churn. Other initiatives pushing 'magazine' sports content, along the lines of recent BBC Match of the Day programming, may help bridge the gap until the resumption of live events.

The points above largely deal with existing rights deals, and relatively short-term effects. The longer-term question is whether future deals face significant reduction in the value of sports rights.

Certainly, any rights owner negotiating a new deal currently, against a backdrop of no events, an immediate future of empty stadiums, and absence of clarity as to the return of the 'normal' product, will face a significant drop in the value of its rights.

Perhaps a creative contractual approach could cater for increased fees once events and attendances return to normal. Some rights owners might seek to extend their existing broadcast deals on a short-term basis, at reduced fees, rather than risk entering into a long-term deal at an undervaluation. New deals are as likely to require as creative an approach as existing deals.

Another question is where this leaves the long-awaited entry by major internet operators into the premium sports rights market.

In principle, a fall in value of rights could make them a more attractive proposition for pure streaming services, allied to the relatively good fortune of their operators during lockdown. However, any change in the streaming services' current sports rights strategies would likely require a very significant fall in value to change their risk-benefit calculation meaningfully. It seems more likely that they will see the opportunity to pick up a few more deals than they ordinarily might have done.

In the longer term, however, rights owners and broadcasters will not be able to escape the basic laws of their marketplace. In the world of sports rights, value is ultimately and simply a function of what consumers are willing to pay.

The devil in the economic model of pay-TV broadcasters has long been that the more they extract from their subscribers, the more their rights owners extract from them.

With that in mind, the prognosis for 'value' almost certainly hangs on unknowable answers to macroeconomic questions such as the degree of downturn, its effect on jobs and disposable incomes, and the relative fortunes of different national markets.

There is certainly an argument, based on the experience of the financial crisis, that pay-TV subscriptions have proven surprisingly resilient during downturns. If sporting events are able to return to normality, and economies recover reasonably promptly, then the long-term effect on sports rights may be limited.

As 'ifs' go, however, those are very large ones.

About the author: Tomos Jones has extensive experience in the broadcast sector, with particular expertise advising rights owners and content platforms on their acquisition of sports rights. Prior to joining Reed Smith, he spent three years working at European pay-TV broadcaster Sky, and has worked with many of the major players in the sports rights market.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consider that in the light of this from earlier - particularly the tweet from @theesk

there was some interesting comments in this discussion

https://elevensports.com/sports-indsutr ... ing-sport/

then we have this from one of the panel - CEO of Eleven Sports Luis Vicente

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1265939085543301120

If that doesn't make people sit up and begin a rethink I am not sure what will

[Chester Perry]

League 1 are no closer to a resolution as to how the season is to be ended - if the last week is anything to go by the rancour is stronger and the positions more intractable

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ins-letter

[Chester Perry]

Good to see The esk's amended graphs/charts which now show Burnley in a much fairer light compared to other PL clubs. A concern still remains over the EBITDA chart though, Swiss Ramble in the latest Crystal Palace analysis indicates a figure for Palace of £17m compared to The esk's £11m. An even bigger discrepancy for Chelsea where the figures are £43m and £94m respectively. Baffling to say the least.

Paul will be using the 2018 Palace financial results (same for Newcastle) as the full accounts for 2019 have yet to be published.

As for the EBITDA - I still think a there are a number of discrepancies from the list I highlighted the other night - for some reason I am really bugged by the Bournemouth one - probably because it allows them a positive EBITDA in Scenario 2 along with us when I am utterly convinced (without actually undertaking the exercise) they would not get there - I do feel slightly embarrassed about being so petty.

[Royboyclaret]

Paul will be using the 2018 Palace financial results (same for Newcastle) as the full accounts for 2019 have yet to be published.

As for the EBITDA - I still think a there are a number of discrepancies from the list I highlighted the other night - for some reason I am really bugged by the Bournemouth one - probably because it allows them a positive EBITDA in Scenario 2 along with us when I am utterly convinced (without actually undertaking the exercise) they would not get there - I do feel slightly embarrassed about being so petty.

From their accounts to Jun.'19:-
Operating Loss (£27.0m)
Depn & Amort. £37.5m
Profit on Disp. of players reg. (£3.1m)

EBITDA £7.4m.

Swiss Ramble £7m

The esk £36.3m

Looks like your theory re-Bournemouth is correct, Chester.

[Royboyclaret]

Leaving just Burnley with a potential positive EBITDA in Paul's scenario 2, but not quite as high as the £11.99m as I believe our starting point to be £37m and not £43.98m.

[Chester Perry]

Cheers Roy

[Chester Perry]

This is interesting from Matt Lawton of the Times - potential for the Premier League to only lose £170m in tv monies rather than the recently touted £340 if they finish the season to the revised schedule - That would be a huge bonus to the league

https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status ... 2894206976

[Royboyclaret]

This is interesting from Matt Lawton of the Times - potential for the Premier League to only lose £170m in tv monies rather than the recently touted £340 if they finish the season to the revised schedule - That would be a huge bonus to the league

https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status ... 2894206976

The goalposts seem to be continually moving on this one. First it was £340m with an even split of £17m per club, then when Man Utd produced their financial results the indication was a sliding scale whereby the top six contributed £30m each with the remaining 14 an average of just under £11m.

Now Matt Lawton suggests a figure which is half the original amount. If that is accurate information it will certainly be welcome news in the Burnley boardroom.

[Chester Perry]

The goalposts seem to be continually moving on this one. First it was £340m with an even split of £17m per club, then when Man Utd produced their financial results the indication was a sliding scale whereby the top six contributed £30m each with the remaining 14 an average of just under £11m.

Now Matt Lawton suggests a figure which is half the original amount. If that is accurate information it will certainly be welcome news in the Burnley boardroom.

It sounds good on the face of it only an average of £8.5m per club but it is more than that on average and for the successful and popular clubs significantly more.

It is more on average because, the distribution pot is already smaller as the Premier League has already paid out it's external commitments based on the assumed monies before the pandemic's impact to the:
- PFA
- EFL in Solidarity payments
- Relegated clubs in Parachute payments

it affects the successful and popular because from that smaller distribution pot:
- under the restart tv programme schedule all clubs will break the facilities fees threshold and gain extra appearance money thereby reducing the value of the per game monies
- overseas revenues, there will be a squeeze the portion distributed as merit payments as there is an equal share threshold element that cannot be altered.

[Chester Perry]

Linklaters with a blog piece on the upcoming CAS hearing of Manchester City's appeal against it's UEFA ban - you have to assume, given City have reportedly talked to every significant firm in this area of expertise, that somewhere along the line they will been involved in discussion with City, even if only on a consultative basis

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/ ... -challenge

[Chester Perry]

This blog review of a recent webinar from The Worshipful Company of Marketors - provides some real food for thought for the game at all levels (rights holders, Leagues and clubs) particularly in relation to how they engage with subscribers and sponsors/advertisers. It provides a great contrast and occasionally support to some of my recent posts on digital engagement

https://kimtasso.com/the-state-of-the-m ... -mcdonald/

[Chester Perry]

The coalition of German "Ultra" fans group - Fanszenen Deutchlands - have released a statement highlighting it's demands for how it wants the came to change - the 5 key points are here

https://twitter.com/matt_4d/status/1266053565086392322

[Chester Perry]

An extensive article looking at how the Bundesliga "ghost games" have set a sponsorship reset, how gambling companies are likely to be the most active in that (includes a delve into how the NBA can learn form it) - I am not sure I share some of the upbeat mood, but that may be because it involves betting companies

https://www.sportbusiness.com/2020/05/b ... ip-re-set/

[Chester Perry]

In the 2018/19 season the Premier League distributed around £100m of commercial sponsorship income equally to it's 20 members - it doesn't seem much when you consider Manchester United earn close to 3 times that themselves. In Spain La Liga have been working hard to compete with Premier League income, their activities have not just been focussed on the TV rights though, Here an article from SportsBusiness.com looks at how a sustained, strategic approach over the last 4 years has seen a surge in commercial partnerships.

Four years on, LaLiga’s international focus is paying off in sponsorship
Matthew Williams - May 28, 2020

- Network of local delegates grown from scratch has helped increase the pace of regional commercial growth
- League targets regional partners that reinforce its own appeal, though e.g. grassroots or exposure
- As Covid-19 rages, league targets FMCG, insurance and IT as areas its expects to bounce back quickly

Since LaLiga put internationalisation at the heart of its commercial growth plans in 2016, the Spanish league operator has increased its international presence to 84 countries and – as a result – grown its sponsor portfolio five-fold.

According to Fergus Geekie, who has overseen global sponsorship sales since joining LaLiga as head of international and commercial marketing in June 2019, the creation of 46 ‘delegates’ – permanent employees whose role is to bring knowledge of specific territories to all parts of LaLiga’s business – has been vital to this growth.

Speaking to SportBusiness this month, he said: “They’re a great asset for us because they can provide the local market knowledge we would not otherwise have in places like Vietnam, Nigeria or Colombia.

“They are also important because they allow us to demonstrate to local and global partners and prospects that we have resources on the ground that can help when activating and communicating.”

Most of the delegates were developed by LaLiga as part of its ‘Global Network’, the talent identification strand that has underpinned the internationalisation strategy since 2016.

Aggressive internationalisation – in sponsorship as well as in media, which is the priority for most leagues – has been at the heart of LaLiga’s attempts to bridge the commercial gap to the English Premier League during the incumbency of Javier Tebas as its president.

But the way it has been done – with value placed above all on getting boots on the ground in as many locations as possible – was inspired not by rival leagues but by Premier League clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool.

Zero to thirty
LaLiga currently holds nine global partnerships and 38 regional agreements. Eight of these regional deals are focused solely on Spain, but the league has also built strong portfolios in Asia (13 partners) and Africa (10 partners).

All these regional partners have been signed since 2016, and the rate of growth is increasing. Of the 14 Asian deals, four were struck in the past year; of the 10 African deals, four were struck in the past year. LaLiga has added five deals since 2016 in China alone.

While the delegates provide local know-how for all aspects of LaLiga’s business, the pure commercial team under Geekie consists of five commercial heads located where they can tackle the key regions for the league: the US, Mexico, India, Singapore and Africa. Geekie says he hopes to hire a Chinese commercial lead in the near future.

Each commercial head seeks agreements independently and runs their own P&L, but partnerships are signed off centrally and must fit LaLiga’s overarching strategy: bringing the league closer to its fans.

Geekie explains: “It’s about communicating a central strategy from HQ and then sharing it out amongst the regional markets, them understanding what we’re driving. The markets can then work to develop and localise our strategy and drive commercial opportunities from there.”

The league seeks out partners that reinforce its own appeal as a sponsorship partner and in practice, ‘bringing LaLiga closer to its fans’ takes two forms.

There are the partnerships that encouraging international fans to experience live matches – as in the agreement with travel agent HIS (the league’s first official partner in Japan).

And there are partnerships that aim to develop the game of football in a specific territory. LaLiga has made this a central plank of increasing its appeal worldwide: Tebas has previously stated his belief that by growing in-country football fandom LaLiga can become the number two league everywhere.

The January 2020 partnerships with gambling platform Hollywood Bets in South Africa hits both bases: betting players are offered the opportunity to win match tickets while the partnership also contributes to the development of grassroots football in South Africa.

Regional idiosyncrasies within the global strategy can be seen in deals like the January 2020 tie-up that made mineral water brand NongFu Spring the league’s Official Drinking Water Partner in China until the end of 2021-22. LaLiga brought its media partner, streaming platform iQiyi, into a three-way deal in order to create a more appealing package of rights by including broadcast advertising.

Geekie’s regional commercial heads are encouraged to be creative in the way that they package rights and in the industries that they target. As Ivan Codina, the league’s managing director for the South East Asia region, Australia, Japan and South Korea, says: “[This] allowed us to be the first league and one of the first rights holders to have a partnership in the cryptocurrency space with GCOX. Whether from a B2B or B2C perspective, there are many different possibilities that can happen.”

Stepping up
Signing new global partners is a central part of Geekie’s remit. Six have been added since internationalisation kicked into gear in 2016, and two were signed since Geekie’s June 2019 arrival.

Those partnerships were with Indian tyre manufacturer BKT – until the end of 2021-22 – and US brewer Budweiser, worth €6.5m per season.
“It shows the increasing strength of LaLiga,” says international development director Oscar Mayo. “Six or eight years ago, it was impossible to think that a brand like Budweiser would be closing a global deal with LaLiga on the same level as the Premier League.”

Geekie is keen to see existing regional partners take the step up to the global level, and SportBusiness understands that conversations with a US brand were progressing well before the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

He also encourages his regional leads to expand partnerships within their regions. “In Africa,” he points out, “we’ve had success with telco brands, we’ve got the likes of Orange Egypt , MTN Iran, Zain Sudan and Safaricom in Kenya all as local partners. It’s unlikely they’ll become global partners but because of LaLiga’s strength in Africa, the next phase of our strategy is to look to grow them to cover additional markets in the region.”

Beyond Covid-19
While Covid-19 has put a freeze on LaLiga’s sponsorship partnership development – the league has paused ongoing conversations until matches resume – its commercial team is planning tactics for after the pandemic recedes. Already, the league’s analysis has identified FMCG, insurance and IT brands as sectors likely to bounce back quickly.

Geekie says: “We’ve become even more reliant on our Insights Department during this period as we have revised our commercial approach. Whilst some sectors are suffering, we’ve been looking to identify those outside the usual targets that might have better outlooks using a multitude of resources and robust data.”

[Chester Perry]

Bringing football back has been a challenge for the authorities and teams in lockdown, but what about the broadcasters, especially those from overseas, also operating in lockdown, that can require some creativity and ingenuity as this story of how BT brought the Bundesliga restart to our screens testifies.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/intervie ... w-28330466

[Chester Perry]

Newcastle United finally announce their 2018/19 financial results - - with a £34m profit after tax I do not understand the need for delay - a reasonably healthy picture though I think the cash balance is a little low given their costs. the £97m in wages is very healthy

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news ... june-2019/

full accounts here https://www.nufc.co.uk/media/51257/newc ... ements.pdf

@KieranMaguire has had a quick look

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 1609826308

I must say I thought the debt to Ashley was £111m at the close of the last accounts

[Top Claret]

Ashley set to get a good return for his investment if and when the takeover goes through. Good luck to Ashley who like our own chairman and board are good and proper owners, unlike the majority of billionaires who use the Premier league as a play thing

[Chester Perry]

Ashley set to get a good return for his investment if and when the takeover goes through. Good luck to Ashley who like our own chairman and board are good and proper owners, unlike the majority of billionaires who use the Premier league as a play thing

Ashley only likely to break even at best if the sale goes through - they are well managed financially and with a net transfer spend of £40m this year that is manageable for them. Unfortunately it is not going to get you too far up the table in most cases. As an impartial observer I would say the weakness is the commercial income, and that is because Ashley chose to promote his company rather than look for alternatives. Other than that and the rapidly dropping attendances they look like they are in a reasonable position - there are stories about the out of date training facilities and St James Park being a bit run down though.

[Chester Perry]

This is a good way to start the weekend as we contemplate a return to football - AFC Wimbledon have announced that the funds to complete the new ground and facilitate a return to Plough Lane are in place, the contract to finalise construction is in place - 18 years after Wimbledon FC was allowed to move and become MK Dons

https://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/news/202 ... ouncement/

[Chester Perry]

Article in the Evening Standard looking at the additional Access the Premier League is granting distribution rights partners (to minimise refunds) in the restart and stating just how difficult it will be to take that back when normality returns.

Premier League increased access here to stay as broadcasters achieve 'Holy Grail'
Jack Rosser - 5 hours ago

Football is returning and after 100 days without a Premier League match gracing our screens, fans will go from famine to feast. The top-flight on TV may never look the same again.

All 92 of the of the remaining games, starting with Aston Villa vs Sheffield United and Arsenal vs Manchester City on June 17, will be shown live, 29 of them free to air on the BBC and Sky.

Not only will the amount of football beamed into homes be on a completely new level, but fans will likely be let into parts of the stadium as yet unseen on live TV.

Proposals over increased access to keep fans engaged include cameras in changing rooms, half-time interviews and microphones around the technical areas.

In the 28 years since the Premier League's inception, clubs have been reluctant to hand over too much access, whether that be in terms of the number of live games or production elements such as a look into the dressing rooms, but their hand has now been forced and many clubs privately accept they will never be able to reverse such a change.

"Things like access to dressing rooms, production issues, it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle on that," David Kogan - who negotiated six domestic rights deals for the Premier League, told Standard Sport.

"Once broadcasters are in there and frankly it is okay because there have been no issues, it is very hard to step back from. But my guess is that once it happens most people will be more relaxed about it anyway."

It's not just access that has fundamentally changed the way we watch football on TV. More seismic than any of those changes is the decision to temporarily lift the 3pm blackout - "the Holy Grail for broadcasters," says Kogan - and, for the first time, grant the BBC live Premier League coverage.

The latter - as well as the increase in supply of live games - is something the Premier League would never have considered under normal circumstances, with the BBC unable to meet market value, and could alter their negotiating power for years to come.

"The placing of games to the BBC and 25 on Sky free to air is extraordinary," said Kogan. "As well as playing in the new slots at 8pm on a Saturday and 7pm on a Sunday.

"It simply shows the pressure the Premier League was under to conclude the season in such a way as to avoid a much bigger penalty.

"The question is, what is the long-term effect on rights' deals when all the rules are changed?

"It is not just about the money - £340million out of £9.2billion you can just about manage. What it is about is suddenly, are you in complete command and control? And that changes the nature of a negotiation going forward.

"As soon as you shatter that elusion of market supremacy you have a problem. The first thing that started to change it was the Premier League starting to offer up more games for broadcast.

"The truth is that the broadcasters are now able to make demands and succeed in a way they weren't before."

A bigger threat than any loss of control or drop in fees when it comes to broadcasters is the unity of the 20 Premier League clubs beginning to fragment, undermining the division's power and success.

"[Former executive chairman] Richard Scudamore's great skill was for 19 years keeping 20 commercial entities called Premier League football clubs, with three changing each year, going as a united entity," said Kogan.

"People don't realise the pressures within the Premier League between the bigger and the smaller clubs for economic self-interest.

"The biggest threat is and will always be when the clubs can't agree between themselves on a united strategy where they all think they are benefiting.

"The moment you get the top six fighting the others or other divisions within the league, they all start looking for different ways of making money. That leads to European Super League discussions and all sorts of other things."

There have been murmurings of divisions between different clubs as Project Restart has rumbled on, but it is thought that an understanding to protect the league has been realised in recent weeks, something which must go down as a success for current chief executive Richard Masters.

Clubs taking different paths has, and always will be, the greatest threat to the Premier League's success, but it seems to have been averted for now.

[Chester Perry]

With all 20 of the 2018/19 Premier League clubs now having reported their financial results - it has been established that Income in the league exceeded £5 billion in a single season for the first time

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1266412236354080774

[Royboyclaret]

Newcastle United finally announce their 2018/19 financial results - - with a £34m profit after tax I do not understand the need for delay - a reasonably healthy picture though I think the cash balance is a little low given their costs. the £97m in wages is very healthy

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news ... june-2019/

full accounts here https://www.nufc.co.uk/media/51257/newc ... ements.pdf

@KieranMaguire has had a quick look

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 1609826308

I must say I thought the debt to Ashley was £111m at the close of the last accounts

As with the Palace financials yesterday these Newcastle results portray a decent enough year to Jun.'19. As regards the debt to Ashley, it appears the figure at Jun.'18 was indeed £144m but that was split between £111m as a creditor due in over 12 months and £33m as a creditor due within 12 months. That £33m was duly paid to Ashley during the year to Jun.19 and the outstanding interest-free debt is now £111m in total.

Always like to make comparisons with recently released accounts with those of Burnley and this time it's interesting to compare the numbers employed (particularly players, managers and coaches) at Turf Moor with those at Crystal Palace and Newcastle.

Palace players, managers & coaches 135, Newcastle 136 and Burnley 160, with Total Wage bills £119.3m, £96.8m and £86.6m respectively. The number at Burnley of 160 increased remarkably by 40 from 120 the previous year. Can only think the increase was due to us moving towards Cat.1 Academy status, but still would be interesting to receive some confirmation of that from our Club. Incidentally our numbers for Sales, admin & ancillary staff also increased from 43 to 69, an overall increase in Club employees during the year of 36%. Quite some increase.

[Royboyclaret]

Just a bit more on those Newcastle financials, the Wage/Turnover ratio of 54.9% is standout impressive. I know Ashley sets them an annual budget of 60% and they have remained well within that target in recent times. Fair play to them on that score and an overall Total Wage bill of under £100m (Palace £119m).

Championship clubs have a total Wages/Turnover ratio of a ridiculous 106% and they wonder why they constantly need to bleat for further bail-outs from the Premier League. Try getting your own house in order first lads by looking at clubs like Newcastle and Burnley as clubs that are run in a sensible and prudent manner.

[Winstonswhite]

Hang on Royboy. Our ratio when Coyle was chasing promotion was 115%!

[Royboyclaret]

Hang on Royboy. Our ratio when Coyle was chasing promotion was 115%!

That's correct Winston, but remember that was achieved in '08/'09 with a total Wage bill of £13.2m. For a lot of these Championship sides now a figure of four or even five times that is not uncommon.

And worth noting that after promotion in our first season in the PL we reduced that percentage to well under 50%.

[Winstonswhite]

True. But that’s probably because we only signed Steven Fletcher and Andre Bikey who were on any sort of money. The rest were from third world countries. Oh and David Edgar!

[Royboyclaret]

True. But that’s probably because we only signed Steven Fletcher and Andre Bikey who were on any sort of money. The rest were from third world countries. Oh and David Edgar!

Fair comment.

What I'm suggesting is that, generally, since Barry K, Mike G and John B established a firm hold on our Club we have been run in a prudent and sensible way. Financially secure now for years although it has to be said that ironically, and arguably, the finest run club in the Premier League could be in danger of being brought to it's knees by this virus if the whole of next season has to be played behind closed doors.

[Chester Perry]

Ans so the dispute resolutions begin - BienSport and the French Leagues have come to an agreement after the season was cancelled - from Sports Business .com

LFP and beIN reach deal over Ligue 1 international rights payment
Martin Ross - May 29, 2020

The French Football League (LFP) and international pay-television broadcaster beIN Media Group have today (Friday) settled the thorny issue of outstanding international broadcast rights fee payments.

The LFP announced late this afternoon that its board finalised an agreement with beIN that “definitively settles the rights owed” for the 2019-20 season.

The compromise deal means that beIN will pay €16.5m ($18.3m) instead of the €35m owed, reports L’Equipe.

Qatar-headquartered beIN holds the Ligue 1 international rights in six-year deal from 2018-19 to 2023-24 worth an average of €80m per season. The deal was agreed in 2014.

The fee instalment of €35m due at the end of April was not paid by beIN amid the suspension of the French top flight.

The French football season was terminated after the French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced that the current seasons of professional sports, including football, would not be able to resume because of the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.

An accord with beIN on the international rights follows on from agreements with beIN and fellow pay-television broadcaster Canal Plus over domestic rights fee payments. BeIN also missed a €42m fee instalment for its domestic rights before reaching a €10.6m settlement for matches already played.

The league said that it “welcomes the constructive dialogue with the official broadcasters of Ligue 1 Conforama and Domino’s Ligue 2 which have led to these agreements”. However, it noted that the agreements “must not overshadow the unprecedented economic crisis facing French football”.

Negotiations over beIN’s missed international rights payment came against a backdrop of ongoing controversy between the clubs and the LFP, on the one hand, and beIN, on the other, over rights. The clubs and the LFP have been trying to renegotiate the contract as they say it undervalues the rights.

Talks between the LFP and beIN first began in 2018 and stories about the clubs’ dissatisfaction first emerged in the French press at the 2018 Sportel trade fair in Monaco.

The pay-TV broadcaster first acquired the Ligue 1 international rights in 2012-13, replacing previous rights distributor Canal Plus Events. BeIN then appointed the MP & Silva agency to sell the rights in various international markets.

At the time of announcing the extension in 2014, the LFP said that it would share revenues with beIN on a 50-50 basis once the minimum guarantee sum had been met. The deal was praised at the time in the French media given it represented a 146-per-cent increase on the value of the previous agreement.

[Chester Perry]

The vultures are at the door - and there are a few owners looking to walk away too as reports that 8 or 9 clubs for sale in the Championship circulate - I am just surprised it is not more. From SportsBusiness.com, The article looks at the Investment picture overall together with wider sports.

‘Eight to nine clubs in the Championship are available for sale’ | Adam Sommerfeld, Certus Capital Partners
Ben Cronin, Europe Editor - May 29, 2020

- Covid-19 pandemic means ‘up to 50 per cent’ of EFL clubs available for sale as distressed assets
- Premier League clubs thinking of selling minority shareholdings
- CVC interest in Serie A topco an ‘encouraging’ sign for the industry

Adam Sommerfeld, head of sports investments at international capital raising firm Certus Capital Partners, describes his client base as a ‘who’s who’ of private equity players, NBA and MLS owners, ultra-high-net worth individuals and media firms.

Here he tells SportBusiness how experienced investors are reacting to the Covid-19 pandemic and about the increased appetite among European football teams to sell shareholdings during the crisis.

What sort of investment activity have you seen since start of the Covid-19 pandemic?

For the first week or two, term sheets were being put on ice and traditionally these are difficult to revisit. That was tricky. Then, lots of investors came back to the table – new investors looking at distressed assets and competitively priced deals at least, so it’s been quite a turnaround.

Being transparent, I think I’d like to see whether transactions for a couple of hundred million dollars and more are going to be completed in this environment. Lots of positive noises are being made, entry into due diligence and that sort of thing, but I think writing the cheque in this environment is very different.

Advanced Publication’s $730m deal to acquire Ironman is one of the few really sizeable transactions to take place since the lockdown began. Are you aware of any more big-money deals being signed off?

There have been quite a few, but they are more towards a sports-technology side – things that wouldn’t really make the news. Obviously, there’s [Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund’s attempt to acquire] Newcastle United that’s still in view – it will be interesting to see what will happen there, although I think it probably will get done in my experience.

On the team side we are in advanced processes in the EPL, Serie A and La Liga currently. These are a mixture of equity and debt deals and we’re confident that they are compelling opportunities. The landscape is changing daily with regard to return-to-play dates, broadcaster agreements. There has been a momentum shift in recent weeks and once the product is back on the field, I think we will see increased appetite again. Look at Germany, for example, where the Bundesliga reported exceptionally high viewing figures for the season restart. This will have a knock-on effect across Europe.

You mentioned deals for teams in the EPL, Serie A and La Liga. Are these for majority or minority shareholdings?

We’re currently seeing significant interest in preferred equity deals across the top European leagues, mainly from our US investment groups. These are seasoned sports investors who are looking for positions in football which they can grow as the market returns, without engaging in full buy outs.
Yes, they’re kind of sceptical on revenue hits with Covid, but they also see it’s a kind of [Warren] Buffett or [George] Soros-type approach where you need to almost bet against the market: just as things are going down, now is the best time to come in.

I think people realise that if you’re going to do it in any sport and any league, certainly in football, then you’re going to do it in the Premier League. And obviously you might look to some of the bigger US leagues as well, like the NBA.

What about clubs in the EFL Championship? Are you aware of any activity around them?

From what I understand there are probably about eight to nine clubs in the Championship that are available. It’s a curious one. For the right price, most teams are available, and this includes Europe’s Top 20 clubs.

In the EFL these things are ten a penny; it’s nothing new. We did a lot of work with a major team and there have been a lot of issues with that deal because of Covid, so we’ll see what happens there. That one was obviously pretty disappointing because that was very advanced. Those clubs are really going to struggle because TV money doesn’t really exist for them. It’s very much bums on seats and ticket sales. As I say, most will be available at the right price.

You said clubs Premier League clubs are looking at selling minority shareholdings. Is that because they want to get cash into their businesses in response to the pandemic?

Yes, I think it’s probably a risk adjustment for them. They want more capital, deeper pockets or just a partner to come in so they’re not taking the brunt. The main thing to remember is a lot of these owners will have been hit in their other businesses. Take the Newcastle United situation, where the owner [Mike Ashley] has multiple business lines. With Covid, it’s not just Newcastle that takes a hit but also [Ashley’s] Sports Direct retail group. The same goes for the stock market. When that tanks, most owners will be adversely affected.

In Europe, they don’t have the riches of the Premier League so it’s even more destructive. But most of the EPL are well insulated. I think everyone to an extent is well-covered.

And are you talking about majority buy-outs where EFL clubs are concerned?

In the EFL, the capital requirement is more imminent, and clubs are essentially really struggling. [There are] owners that have been putting money in for a while and have never really seen anyone turn a profit. There are exceptions to this. Brentford FC recently turned a profit and is a very well-run club. That strong financial management will stand them in good stead for the post-Covid environment.

The guys that we know are available – and that’s not including the bottom three clubs which will likely need financing – you could be talking about pretty much 50 per cent of clubs that could be talking about majority deals.

Do you think it will be possible to pick up any bargains during the crisis?

We deal with a lot of very well-versed US groups that own a lot of franchises already in the MLS, MLB or NHL and they understand that they are not going to get a massive discount on price at the moment in the Premier League – be it on a minority or majority stake –because owners are just going to rebuild value over the next 18 to 24 months.

I’ve had some investors saying they’d expect at least a 30-40-per-cent discount and, again, no owner in the Premier League is going to say: ‘we’ve been worth £300m for two or three years, now you are offering us £200m,’ it’s just not going to happen and I think they lose credibility. With many of those, it’s a fairly short conversation because we would struggle with our relationship with teams if we’re putting through very reduced offers. That’s not something we’re willing to do.

What are the risks to investing in a Premier League team at this time?

I think the main thing would obviously be the return to play. If we don’t return to play, that’s going to raise difficult questions between teams and broadcasters and impact teams’ revenues. If we do follow “Project Restart”, then there will still likely be a commitment for teams to repay circa £18-£20m, but that can be absorbed.

But what we are seeing with the Bundesliga – who I understand have double the viewers they have normally for the first weekend back – you would guess you’re going to see something similar for the Premier League. There will be a very strong bounce back and I think how you capitalise on that is of interest because you can’t sell more tickets, you can’t increase your broadcast contract now, so how do you capitalise on the fact that the world could be watching in a couple of weeks’ time?

There’s only so much you can do in terms of the media production for the event without having 60,000 or 80,000 fans in the stadium, so I guess everyone has to be creative around how we do that and luckily there are some very smart companies doing this.

So how do you think the league can capitalise on the increased eyeballs?

It’s tricky to predict. There are a couple of really interesting bits of sports technology around. I think there’s a certain application being developed in Toronto [HearMeCheer] where you can bring in the noise of people watching online and reverberate it around the stadium quite successfully.

This season, from what I understand, it’s all about getting the season completed, as it’s only around four or five home games for each team and then it allows us to wait it out. I understand it’s going to be around late September for the restart and then we might be looking at a different picture. It’s unlikely that we will have spectators in stadiums for the first few games of next season but of course a vaccine changes that and there are very positive developments on that front in the UK at Oxford. Clearly now it’s a case of battening down the hatches, finishing the games and honouring broadcasting contracts.

Are you keeping your eyes on any technology companies or suppliers that could prove a good investment during the pandemic?

Good question. We have had numerous approaches from companies developing smart PPE, airport scanners, different ways of taking temperatures en masse – these sorts of things you can put in stadiums. Obviously getting sign-off from the government is important. There have been so many difficulties in terms of buying equipment that didn’t work, safety procedures and getting the right security marks on them. There hasn’t been anything that has stood out to date. The main thing has been until we get the government saying we now have a designated return to play, it’s very difficult to consider some of these things

Some suppliers are saying now is the time to order safety equipment because supply chains are likely to be clogged with orders if they leave it any longer. Do you agree?

I guess the other caveat to that is Oxford University and Big Pharma and their plans to produce a vaccine. If that were to come out – say they could produce 30 million vaccines by September, which they suggest is possible – then I guess that is very much a game-changer.
What about private equity activity at the moment?

I think the very positive thing is people like CVC and a number of others are looking to make landmark statement investments in football as well.
It’s no secret that private equity firms were looking at some of the topco opportunities with the leagues and these are encouraging statements. [Private equity firm CVC recently tabled an offer to acquire 20 per cent of a new company to manage the Serie A broadcast rights, its international trademark and commercial development, while KKR and Apollo Global Management are said to have initiated talks over a potential nine-figure bridging loan to the German Football League (DFL)].

CVC have just done a deal in rugby with Pro 14. It’s that type of statement deal that almost moves the market – like the Silver Lake deal with Manchester City – where you get a lot of people following behind that thinking now is clearly the time to capitalise.

When you talk about buying a stake in a league topco, it would have to be a very sizeable investment wouldn’t it?

At least $200m and beyond. Some of that would be debt, bear in mind, it’s not all equity. If it’s all equity, you’re talking a couple of billion [dollars], but some of this is just shoring up some of the potential debts based on broadcasting deals, especially with Ligue 1 in France. They had the disagreements with broadcasters, they’ve settled it now with Canal Plus and I think with BeIN, but we were aware of a number of banks offering sizeable positions.

Another investor we’ve been watching is Ineos. Have you heard anything about their plans?

Not really. We know the team and they made their investment in Nice. I think they’ll now focus on absorbing that into the portfolio.

It looks like they may be positioning themselves similarly to Endeavor [with] UFC or Liberty Media [with] F1. That type of group that has diversified sports interests but the interesting thing is how they all link together.

The WWE were looking at something similar pre-Covid, as they see huge crossovers between WWE fans and, for example, Premier League football fans. Again, these bigger media companies, they are looking to unite different sports in their portfolios, so it’s quite smart.

[Chester Perry]

This is very Interesting and Instructive also a point extremely well demonstrated - I suspect it scared the **** out of a few media execs at the conference

It is something I have posted about a few times, and the evidence is only getting stronger, The founder and CEO of Overtime a sports network who specialise in high school athletics content gives a keynote speech - "Gen Z will never subscribing to your OTT" - from SportsProMedia.com. This is a hugely important consideration when it comes to future distribution rights deals.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... g-strategy

The Premier League, as I have posted a number of times previously, does not generate very big pay tv audiences - there will be a surge in audiences for the restart and much will be made of the audiences for free to air games, but in the short to medium term, they will at best hold firm, long term they will probably fall as the audience ages and dies.

[Chester Perry]

Do you remember my posts about the complaints that Amazon were withholding data collected around the Premier League broadcasts - this article from SportProMedia.com demonstrate clearly why it is so important

Sponsorship still ‘massively valuable’ with right data, says Giles Morgan
HSBC's former partnerships lead predicts sector will bounce back in ‘two or three years’ time’.
Posted: May 29 2020 - By: Ed Dixon

Sports sponsorship for brands remains “a massively valuable asset if data is properly utilised,” according to PumpJack Dataworks’ executive vice president Giles Morgan.

The coronavirus pandemic, and subsequent worldwide shutdown of sports, has cast doubt on future partnerships for brands and rights holders. A study from sports marketing agency Two Circles this month fueled further doubt, predicting that global sports sponsorship spend in 2020 is set to take a US$17.2 billion hit as a result of Covid-19.

Despite this, HSBC's former head of global sponsorship, who was speaking during SportsPro’s latest Insider Series, believes the sponsorship industry now has the data at its disposal to recover and grow.

Predicting the sector will bounce back “in about two or three years’ time”, Morgan pointed to the use of properly harvested data brought on by a “mobile world”, which he says means brands now have a direct ability to connect with defined consumer groups.

“People talk about data, but they don’t really know how to get first party fan data owned by them and out of the ground," he said.

"Had they had that ability to do so, the sponsorship value proposition would be a lot more valuable to the rights holder. That’s why I’m very bullish about the industry going forward, though it’s going to take a little while because of a global recession that is looming fast.

“If you’re a business and you want to go direct to consumer, and you want to have a meaningful engagement with proven association and passion points between a brand and a rights holder, with the right kind of data mining, and owning your own data, you have the ability to do that. That is completely new to the industry, it didn’t happen before.”

Digital sponsorship ‘most undervalued’ sector in sports marketing, says Two Circles CEO

While sponsorship deals of the past relied more on “emotion and subjective opinion”, according to Morgan, he added those methods were all but redundant because data provides concrete numbers needed to offer concrete business propositions.

“I’m so excited, genuinely, for the industry because now you can make a business case,” he said. “But you need to have real dynamic data, and what’s so exciting is that most consumers consume via mobile now.

"Everything we do in the fan journey is when you book tickets, you buy merchandise, whether you follow social media, it’s all connected via your device. The opportunity for rights holders is to pull all of that data into their own first party data set.

“Very few consumers love organisations like banks or insurance companies, etc – they’re commodities, they’re boring. But they love the passions they have with sport, music and entertainment. That’s why sponsorship is so valuable. But you need to prove it empirically and dynamically, and that is now what is available.”

Morgan’s view mirrored that of Two Circles chief executive Gareth Balch, who, during an earlier Insider Series session, stated that digital sponsorship spend is both the “greatest area for innovation” and “the most undervalued asset” in the sports marketing space.

For Morgan, a lack of true understanding of digital fanbases among stakeholders has hindered progress.

“That is the gap at the moment,” he explained. “Everybody can talk about digital engagement and how one can make a brilliant Twitter campaign. But you need to know what the currency is first. The reason why I think it’s terribly important for rights holders and brands to spend time on this architecture of mining their own fan or consumer data is then you can start building the business case back up.”

[Chester Perry]

Alistair Campbell joins the call for the Premier League to help the pyramid - at least he suggests it is done in partnership with the government - not sure why he had to record the message in the middle of a workout though - not a pretty sight

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/stat ... 3110769664

there is still little recognition of the difficulties that the Premier League is facing or of the contributions they have already made

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble has a look at Crystal Palace's 2018/19 financial results - the last minute sale of Wan-Bissaka allowed them to show a similar profit to us - take note of Player wages - which they breakout for us to see - I wish that became a rule - their players get paid more than everyone at our club does.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8356856834

I am not sure how he got hold of them as they are not yet at companies house - they took the Chancellors invitation to delay publishing them like Newcastle did - There is nothing on the Clubs website either

This article shows that they have had to borrow money already to help with cashflow though

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 53096.html

The Price of Football takes it's turn to dive into those Crystal Palace 2018/19 financial results - still no filing at companies house though

http://priceoffootball.com/crystal-pala ... issidents/

Is it me or do that analysis present more like @SwissRamble rather than Maguire's usual style

[Chester Perry]

It hasn't yet been confirmed that UEFA's Champions League and Europa Cup will be completed this season - though almost everyone involved desperately wants to (it is the biggest annual cash machine outside the Premier League after all. It is looking like the Champions League final will not be in Istanbul though and that it will be played as a mini tournament - you know in the way that the ICC Cup run by Relevant has always dreamed of being. - @TariqPanja tells us more in the New York Times

Champions League Final to Be Moved From Turkey
Club soccer’s biggest event will be held at a new venue amid ongoing concerns about the coronavirus pandemic.

By Tariq Panja - Published May 29, 2020 - Updated May 30, 2020, 1:03 a.m. ET

The Champions League final, one of sport’s most-watched annual events, will not be held at its planned site, Istanbul, amid the ongoing crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

European soccer’s governing body UEFA, the event’s organizer, is now considering a number of alternative venues as it plans to complete the competition, which was part way through its round of 16 stage when — like most other sporting events — it paused indefinitely.

Now with national leagues starting to emerge to complete their seasons, UEFA is concluding talks on how to finish the Champions League and its secondary Europa League in August. The Europa League final had been set to be held in Gdansk, Poland. A decision will be made after a meeting of the executive committee on June 17, said the person, who declined to speak publicly because talks on the alternative sites are ongoing.

UEFA will hold further talks with Turkish officials next week, to finalize an agreement to move the event. Istanbul could be picked to host the final at a later date.

Leagues that have restarted, or are planning to restart, are adopting severe hygiene protocols to ensure games can be played again safely while the virus continues to be a danger. UEFA is certain to adopt similar strategies, meaning that the games are being planned to take place in empty stadiums and that the players involved will face regular tests. With European travel limited, and ongoing quarantine laws in some countries, it is also likely that most of the remaining games will take place in the place picked to host the final.

The Spanish news media reported that UEFA was planning to host this year’s Champions League final, an event that draws more viewers globally than the Super Bowl, in Lisbon. There are a small number of other candidates, according to the person with knowledge of the matter.

What’s certain is the competition is unlikely to look like anything that has gone before, with calendar constraints necessitating it be completed in as short a time possible to allow players to rest before starting next season in September. The original date for the final at Atatürk Olympic Stadium in Istanbul was May 30.

“A working group has been set up with the participation of representatives from the leagues and clubs to examine calendar solutions and format options that would allow for the completion of the current season,” said a UEFA spokesman. “A variety of options is being looked at and no decisions have been made at this stage.”

UEFA’s television contract for the Champions League is one of the richest in sports, with most of that income being paid out in prize money to teams participating in its tournaments. Last season it paid nearly 2 billion euros to participating teams.

Should it not be able to complete the tournament, UEFA faces paying a ruinous rebate worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Royboyclaret]

The Price of Football takes it's turn to dive into those Crystal Palace 2018/19 financial results - still no filing at companies house though

http://priceoffootball.com/crystal-pala ... issidents/

Is it me or do that analysis present more like @SwissRamble rather than Maguire's usual style

To be fair Swiss Ramble always appears to provide accurate information, whereas this The Price of Football effort seems to fall well short of those levels. Not yet checked the Palace detail but, for instance, the Burnley comparison figures in the charts and graphs are all over the place.

EBITDA and Wage bill appear to be based on financial year to Jun.'19, but Broadcast Income, Matchday Receipts, Commercial Income, Amortisation etc. all seem to be figures from the previous financial year to Jun.'18.

What's your take on them, Chester?......and, if there are errors, are you brave enough to tell him?

[Chester Perry]

With all 20 of the 2018/19 Premier League clubs now having reported their financial results - it has been established that Income in the league exceeded £5 billion in a single season for the first time

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1266412236354080774

for all that revenue the actual financial performance was not great, here is the pre-tax loss/profit by club in the Premier League for 2018/19

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1266 ... 83/photo/1

so there you have it a net pre tax loss of £170m - it was looking like being much closer to £200m before Newcastle and Crystal Palace pulled it out of the bag - though if you consider that Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester City and Manchester United all earned well over £100m each from the Champions League participation (TV, Matchday and Commercial) - it could have been a very different picture.

It was the final year of the rights distribution cycle and that always leaves clubs a little stretched as they anticipate the next cycle's uplift (if there is one) - remember the clubs enter the last season of a cycle with a very good understanding of what the rights revenues are going to be in the next cycle - as the tender/sale process is almost complete by then. They would not have anticipated the great pause though and the other pandemic effects such as "ghost games", rights/sponsorship rebates.

[Chester Perry]

following on from that last post

Part 3 of The Esk's Football shorts will make interesting reading as to the ready cash these clubs have, or the accessibility to it, to see them through this period, and quite possibly next season as well as they adjust to the probability of significantly reduced incomes.

While it will not be a popular notion with some I would like to see a tightening of financial regulation in the game rather than a loosening that the benefactor clubs are campaigning for (and the media seem to blindly accepting of without considering the implications) - they will claim (with some justification) that their costs (particularly wages) are difficult to reduce quickly and the big clubs are losing huge matchday revenues (for 3 of them that is over £100m - more than our total cost base). Add to that the discounted tv revenues, being negotiated by rights holders, it may seem impractical to not loosen the regulations.

Yet there is talk that the rights refunds will not actually be made materially until the 2021/22 season and then spread of two seasons so clubs can factor them into their budgets - the interesting thing there is that the 2nd year of discount/rebate would be the first of a new cycle. Essentially the rights holders are effectively conditioning the expectation of a lower revenue in the next cycle

[Chester Perry]

This makes interesting reading - besides answering my query about the number of rights deals that have been recently signed - 70% global drop (by volume) in April compared to the previous year - "Time for rights-holders to reinvigorate their approach" (not transcribed as it incorporates a few charts)

https://www.sportbusiness.com/2020/05/j ... -approach/

[Royboyclaret]

for all that revenue the actual financial performance was not great, here is the pre-tax loss/profit by club in the Premier League for 2018/19

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1266 ... 83/photo/1

so there you have it a net pre tax loss of £170m - it was looking like being much closer to £200m before Newcastle and Crystal Palace pulled it out of the bag - though if you consider that Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester City and Manchester United all earned well over £100m each from the Champions League participation (TV, Matchday and Commercial) - it could have been a very different picture.

It was the final year of the rights distribution cycle and that always leaves clubs a little stretched as they anticipate the next cycle's uplift (if there is one) - remember the clubs enter the last season of a cycle with a very good understanding of what the rights revenues are going to be in the next cycle - as the tender/sale process is almost complete by then. They would not have anticipated the great pause though and the other pandemic effects such as "ghost games", rights/sponsorship rebates.

Chelsea certainly had a poor financial year, but not quite that bad.

The Esk, The Baron & now Vysyble.

[Chester Perry]

Brighton, Burton and West Brom to have a go at Trademarking "Albion" to "protect fans from fakes" - I just cannot see this getting allowed far to many other Albion's out there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... rd-albion/

[Chester Perry]

This might stir the ire of Roy - Vysyble with the TV revenues for all 2018/19 Premier League - both Premier League and total TV revenue - every club shows a difference in the 2 we are just not told were the additional is from

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1267130062844936193