Football's Magic Money Tree

[Chester Perry]

An article from Forbes.com which suggests that a European Super League could be a huge broadcast revenue earner but would increase inequality (both statements of the obvious) - it is still felt by many that it is inevitable, though I believe it is still at least a couple of decades away

A European Super League Would Worsen Inequality In Soccer, But Generate Unprecedented Revenues, Economist Says
Samindra Kunti

Branko Milanovic chuckles when I ask him the million-dollar question: What is the solution to the growing economic inequality in soccer? The Serbian-American economist, author of the book ‘Global Inequality’ and a visiting professor at the City University of New York, is a fervent soccer fan and admits that he has no panacea for the ill that is casting an ever-increasing shadow over soccer and could well define the sport’s future. He has no doubt which direction the game is heading for. Milanovic says: “The world has become very commercialized. We go where the money is. There is no reason why soccer wouldn’t do that. In the last 30 years or so, soccer has become much more commercialized and globalized.”

Back in 1987, Milanovic watched Yugoslavia -- West Germany in the final of the World Youth Championship, the equivalent of today’s U-20 World Cup, in the middle of the night on TV in Belgrade. It was soccer in a different era. By 1998, the landscape had altered dramatically: the Premier League and the Champions League had come into existence. The World Cup was expanded to 32 teams, and in Paris, Milanovic was heading to the final of the quadrennial high mass between hosts France and Brazil. At the stadium, the news about Ronaldo’s mystery illness bypassed Milanovic and the result left him disappointed after all the hype surrounding the Brazilian dream team, created not in a small part by Nike’s NKE -1% airport advert. As a socio-economic phenomenon, soccer has changed. The game embraced capitalism in the 90’s, and hyper-capitalism in the past decade.

“The Premiership was important,” says Milanovic. “The Bosman ruling was a turning point, which enabled movement of labor within Europe for soccer players. The players market is probably the most globalized market in the world in terms of one type of skill. You don’t have doctors who can move so easily from Mali to France, England or Spain. You don't have any other profession - writers, software engineers. Nobody. They all have limits in the ability to move across borders, but soccer players don’t and that is interesting because it gives us an inside how a totally open global labor market would work. I think that we would get a concentration of quality - because it is driven by money. There were several elements to soccer’s high commercialization: The Bosman ruling, the growth in England, the technological ability to project yourself.”

In that sense, soccer has been a mirror of society, where inequality has grown exponentially over the last three decades. In 2020, Oxfam reported that 2,153 billionaires owned as much wealth as the bottom 4.6 billion people in 2019. Economic inequality is also the core issue in club soccer. The game is rife with tensions between the haves and the have-nots. The divide threatens to undermine the quintessence of the game: its unpredictably. Bayern Munich, Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain are serial champions at home. Barcelona and Real Madrid dominate in Spain. They loathe the idea that soccer could be upwardly mobile. They don’t want to mitigate the financial disparity. They want to deepen it. The continent’s elite clubs have longed dreamed of a Super League, perhaps alienating local fans but exploiting global fan bases to generate unprecedented revenue.

“The European Super League is inevitable,” says Milanovic. “All the commercial factors are in favor and Europe is a small area. Success between clubs is essentially driven by inequality in money. Manchester City is a recent example, a good club that was not at the top level. Once they had the money, they became a European top club, like PSG. There is very clearly a movement towards a Super League. It is totally feasible, and it would bring an enormous amount of money. Would Coronavirus make a difference? I doubt that. It is an intermission.”

The deep divide in Europe is a consequence of the neoliberal model soccer adopted on the continent. It is a stark contrast with American sports, where regulation prevails, but Milanovic doesn’t believe the American sports model can provide a solution for European soccer. Franchises go against the grain of European soccer clubs, which often have socio-political foundations.

Even though the game is teetering on the edge, Milanovic still sees a bright future for soccer. He considers national teams and the inclusive format of the World Cup a positive, and an outlier. At international level, the game hasn’t been commercialized entirely yet. Major international stars still play for their nationals teams, even if there is little financial incentive. “I had a debate with Nate Silver,” explains Milanovic. “He was saying: Well, how about having the World Cup always on beautiful fields in Germany or the U.S. with the 12 best national teams? That would totally destroy the objective of soccer. There is actually no real money for Neymar to play well for Brazil. It leaves the de facto less commercialized part alive. If we were to do destroy that as well, we could really destroy the soul of soccer entirely.”

But such a doomsday scenario isn’t imminent, according to Milanovic. Soccer, once a public good, has been usurped by the market and become one of the most successful products of the last century. It will ultimately also withstand those forces that want to squeeze it for profit and reposition the sports as pure entertainment, vying for the attention of global audiences.

“I remember the time when Obama said he could not run the country unless he had his blackberry,” says Milanovic. “Well, there is no Blackberry anymore practically. It was a very successful product that was then replaced by others. Soccer has been an enormously successful product for more than a century. That doesn't mean it will remain so. We don’t know how human interest will evolve in the future. I am however very optimistic about the future of soccer because the spread in Asia is extremely important. These are the largest markets and they are growing. China is extremely important, even India. In that sense, bright days are ahead. Europe has become very powerful but I think there will be some decentralization.”

[Chester Perry]

The Swiss authorities - having regrouped following replacing their Chief Prosecutor in their football investigations tell Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini that they are suspected of Fraud

https://apnews.com/article/internationa ... d2360d35df

Blatter, Platini now suspected of fraud in 5-year FIFA case
By GRAHAM DUNBAR
November 27, 2020

GENEVA (AP) — Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini are facing a more serious charge of fraud after Swiss federal prosecutors this week intensified a five-year investigation into the pair’s past dealings at FIFA.

The open criminal proceedings had been focused on suspected mismanagement and misappropriation, plus an act of forgery by Platini, linked to FIFA paying the French soccer great $2 million with Blatter’s approval in 2011.

Now the investigation has been widened to include suspected fraud.

It follows the former FIFA and UEFA presidents plus witnesses being questioned in recent weeks in Bern.

“(This month), the federal prosecutors’ office informed the parties that, based on the current investigation it is reassessing part of the proceedings,” the Swiss attorney general’s office said on Friday, citing the payment to Platini.

“Since then both Joseph Blatter and Michel Platini are being investigated on suspicion of fraud,” the federal office said in a statement to The Associated Press.

In the Swiss criminal code, fraud seeking personal gain can result in “a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.”

Charges have yet to be filed in a case opened in 2015 against Blatter, now 84, that was extended six months ago to include Platini.

Platini was the UEFA president and a FIFA vice president in January 2011 when he asked to be paid by soccer’s world body for work done a decade earlier.

The former France captain and coach submitted invoices for uncontracted additional salary as a presidential adviser in Blatter’s first term, from 1998-2002. Platini was paid by FIFA with Blatter’s approval in February 2011.

Both men deny wrongdoing. They have consistently cited a verbal agreement for the money since details of the deal were revealed in September 2015.

Then, Swiss authorities questioned them in a surprise visit to FIFA headquarters in Zurich where its executive committee was meeting.

Both men were provisionally suspended from soccer, then banned, by FIFA’s ethics committee. The Court of Arbitration refused to overturn their sanctions on appeal. Blatter’s six-year ban from soccer runs until next October.

Blatter is also a suspect in a Swiss criminal investigation into a $1 million FIFA loan in 2010 to the Trinidad and Tobago soccer body controlled by now-disgraced former FIFA vice president Jack Warner.

The case ended Platini’s campaign to succeed Blatter as FIFA president in an election held in February 2016. With Platini suspended, UEFA put forward its general secretary Gianni Infantino, who won the vote.

Platini, who served a four-year ban, has long said he declared the money on his Swiss tax return. In 2018 he was cleared of suspicion in a letter from the Swiss federal prosecution office.

The investigation was revived when a different prosecutor, Thomas Hildbrand, took charge of some soccer cases. A previous lead prosecutor in FIFA-related work, he left amid turmoil in the department.

Hildbrand’s name was on the latest letters sent to lawyers on Tuesday, and seen by The AP.

[Chester Perry]

Article from GameofthePeople.com on the semantics of language in the 21st Century when it is extremely unfashionable to be nakedly capitalistic - even when you are - and in football that means disguising the fact that clubs are always looking for ways to make more money from fans

What is fan engagement?
NOVEMBER 29, 2020 NEIL FREDRIK JENSEN

CAPITALISM demands that when you’ve made money, you have to generate more to keep the spiral going in the right direction. That’s what it is all about, continual growth and accumulation of wealth. Some aspects of capitalism are clearly unsavoury, heartless and inhumane, others try to combine the pursuit of money with some philanthropic good.

Rarely, in today’s world, do we say what we mean when it comes to the creation of money. We coat it with layers of deliberate vagueness, imply the reason we work is to fulfil a personal challenge or the desire to “make a difference”. There was a time when blatant capitalists, when making a list of ambitions, would simply say, “to become very rich, very quickly”. In the 21st century, they still want to be rich, but they won’t tell you that.

In the football industry, marketing departments talk of “increasing fan engagement”, “making stakeholders out of fans” and “embracing the community”. In many cases, this fan engagement can be roughly translated into “developing products and selling them to the fans”.

In some ways, football clubs have the most gullible of all client bases for even though the fans know their clubs pay ridiculously huge wages to players, ticket prices continue to be high and merchandise such as replica shirts is churned out on a conveyor belt (often made by exploited workers), they still climb over each other to buy season tickets. While some complain about modern football, the majority still buy into the business model, week-in, week-out.

Even though some clubs follow worthy causes and get their fans to be involved in community projects, the real essence of fan engagement should not be determined by how many charities or social projects they are involved in. True fan engagement needs to allow them to be instrumental in the running of the club – and not just in many operating tea bars, cleaning the stadium or donning a high-vis jacket and guiding traffic.

Without fans, lower level football simply would not exist and by that we don’t just mean League One and Two in the UK, but the entire non-league structure.

At the highest levels, fan engagement can be achieved by allowing supporters to be consulted on corporate level decisions that affect them – stadium development, club identity and culture, catering, ownership issues, club image and sustainability.

You sense that some clubs are actually terrified of letting fans near the boardroom for fear of losing control. Making clubs more transparent could unearth some problems with governance and financial integrity. Yet the fans deserve to know what goes on and how money is spent, especially at clubs claiming to represent the community.

The covid-19 pandemic has seen some smaller clubs appeal to their fan bases for financial support. Fans will, when the chips are down, invariably come to the rescue of their club, but rarely are they rewarded with a genuine stake in the organisation. Now is the time if there is a will to save the collapse of England’s football eco-system, surely?

Engagement should not merely be a commercial “in” with a vast body of fans, it should be about cementing and leveraging relationships and fostering a collective mission to drive a club forward, whether it is Sunderland or Sutton United or clubs even further down the pyramid.

Some clubs have succeeded in building such an environment, but until the bubble truly bursts, football’s traditional hierarchy will prevail. We may not have to wait too long.

[Chester Perry]

The Price of Football Blog dives into the 2019/20 financial results of both Celtic and Rangers

http://priceoffootball.com/celtic-and-r ... -watchman/

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble has a look at Rangers 2019/20 financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8558383106

he has also done one of those lovely consolidated sheets

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 6405172225

and just for fun he has done a quick comparison sheet with Celtic

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 8963906562

[Chester Perry]

Oh the joy of having your club on the financial Markets - Manchester United are apparently damned if they do and damned if they don't regards their current cyber hostage situation - apparently thy face a massive fine if they pay-off the hackers that have taken ownership of their IT systems (including scouting systems apparently) - from 90min.com

Manchester United Risk £15m Fine if They Pay Ransom to Cyber Hackers
By Ali Rampling
Nov 28, 2020, 11:00 AM GMT


Manchester United could be slapped with a £15m fine if they succumb to the demands of cyber hackers allegedly holding the club to ransom.
The Red Devils confirmed that they had been hit by a 'sophisticated operation by organised cyber criminals' on 21 November, but they have since refused to comment as to whether the club is being held to ransom.

On Friday it was reported that United were being held to ransom 'for millions of pounds', with the threat of highly sensitive information being leaked into the public domain.

According to the Daily Mail, United will face a further financial sanction should they agree to pay the cybercriminals to prevent them releasing this sensitive information.

As United are owned by the Glazers and are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, they are subject to US law. Legislation from the US Treasury Department dictates that organisations who pay the ransom demands of hackers who are listed on their global hit list will incur a hefty fine - which could be as much as £15m.

The US Office of Foreign Assets Control warned that agreeing to meet the financial demands of a cyber hacker makes them stronger and risks them striking again.

"Companies that facilitate ransomware payments to cyber actors on behalf of victims, including financial institutions, cyber insurance firms, and companies involved in digital forensics and incident response, not only encourage future ransomware payment demands but also may risk violating OFAC regulations," an OFAC statement read.

"Facilitating a ransomware payment that is demanded as a result of malicious cyber activities may enable criminals and adversaries with a sanctions nexus to profit and advance their illicit aims."

The club could also face an £18m fine from a UK Government body - the Information Commissioner’s Office - if the data protection of their fanbase has been breached. However, the club released a statement on Friday stating that they were unaware of any breach of personal data.

United's matchday operations and media channels have continued to run smoothly despite the attack, with the club insisting the disruption is minor.

[Chester Perry]

John Nicolson reminds us all - and not just Jurgen Klopp what can be done about the playing schedules some are so upset about - from football365.com

Klopp needs to open his eyes and stop taking the p*ss
Date published: Monday 30th November 2020 9:03

Des Kelly’s post-match interview with Jurgen Klopp on BT Sport wasn’t the first and won’t be the last time a manager blames a broadcaster for their crowded playing schedules and thus for injuries to players. We hear this sort of thing all the time from different parties.

On this occasion, Kelly’s response that “we (the broadcaster) are supporting the game” wasn’t quite right, however. The broadcasters do not support the game. He’d have been better saying, “We own you. You’ll play when we want you to play.” That’s the truth of it.

When it comes to the Premier League, the broadcasters own the game. It is theirs. Oh, they don’t want to couch it in those terms for PR reasons, but be in no doubt: they know that football dances to their tune and their tune only. They know who is master and who is servant.

The Premier League would love us to think it is global football’s big brand and thus somehow all-powerful, calling the shots as the only game in town. The truth is, it is the plaything of broadcasters, there to be used by those media companies as they so wish.

A word to the wise for all moaning managers: Do as you’re told. You are not the boss.

The economics of the top-flight clubs are entirely founded on TV companies paying huge rights fees to the league and the league divvying up the bounty to its 20 members. So the broadcasters have all the power in the relationship. It’s their money, they want what they want and you’re going to give it to them, whether you like it or not.

But some seem to forget this, or they don’t understand who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey.

If any club, manager or player doesn’t like when BT Sport or Sky want to broadcast games (presumably approved by the Premier League), then by all means turn down the rights fees money, cede from the league and set up one based largely on revenues from matchday income and not TV cash. You can organise that to suit your needs and no-one else’s. Fancy that? No, of course not. You like being phenomenally rich. Well this is the price you pay.

The Equal Share, the Facility Fees, the Merit Payments, Central Commercial revenues and international broadcasting revenues are all predicated on the TV people being able to show games whenever and wherever they deem it best for them to show them to their paying punters. If you don’t like that, you know what you can do.

So get back in your box and wait for the next huge tranche of money. Did you think you had any power? No. You exchanged autonomy for money. The deal is this: they pay, you do. You don’t get a choice.

And don’t give us the guff about the games not being as good if your players are injured or tired, that’s not how football works. We’ve all seen plenty of awful games between full-strength sides. You’re not special, your case is not different, so get 11 on the pitch and stop your sobbing.

Go and set up a European Super League if you like, but you will still have to fellate the broadcasters to get your massive money. Yes, you’ve got the c**ksucker blues because you’ve whored yourself to TV money, but that’s the price you pay for your wealth. Deal with it.

The Premier League and its clubs should know their place in the economic relationship that they profit so handsomely from. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and in case you didn’t realise it, the clubs are the piper and the broadcasters (and by extension, us, the viewing public) are paying you to play the tune we want. It doesn’t matter if it suits you or not. You’re not the boss.

This is what you get for setting up an economic model that is entirely craven to one source of money which, as a result, you cannot operate without. Did all the money make you deaf and blind to the reality of this situation? Well wake up and smell the filthy lucre.

Oh, it’s a game too much this week, or a couple of hours too early, is it? Yeah, well cry me a river. You’ve all got massive resources, with big squads of players and even more in reserve, so bloody use them. There you go, that’s your problem sorted. How hard was that?

You’re not in some uniquely persecuted situation. We have to go to work at all hours – if we’re lucky enough to have any work at all, that is. We work early shifts in hospitals, bakeries and markets; we work late shifts in shops and factories. We sail boats into the inky black stormy night. We work long hours for not much. We sit around all day on zero hour contracts, waiting for a phone call to tell us if we’ve got any work that day and can earn a pittance of money. No-one is doing it because it suits them, are they? No. They’re doing it to keep life and soul together and yet many choose to give *you* some of it. Yes, you. These are the same people whose TV subscription money you so massively benefit from. So any moaning Premier League manager needs to shut their yap; they’re in a ridiculously, obscenely privileged position and are taking the p*ss out of us with their minor complaints.

Because by the way, if *we* suffer injury as a result of all this hard work, we don’t get as much time off as is needed, on full pay, with the best doctors, medical treatment, physiology, fitness, exercise and psychotherapy facilities available to us any time we want it, and all for free. And still you’re bitching on TV about how terrible life is for you?

Of course the whole situation is ridiculous. But remember, you are only playing football to empty stadiums in a pandemic to procure the TV money you need to be able to keep paying you and your bloody players. That’s all. We know you’re not doing it as a selfless act of charity, we are not obliged to be grateful, nor to feel sorry for you.

We are living through a bloody terrible time, with people dying in their thousands every week and many more being sick. Lives are being torn apart in so many ways. As death stalks the land, managers going on TV to complain about the number of games being played, injuries and kick-off times are, to say the least, beating the wrong drum, at the wrong time, in front of the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

Go away, take your money from your masters and play when you’re told to play, because hey, what are you going to do? Stop taking the money? No, I didn’t think so.

John Nicholson

[Chester Perry]

of course that is best summed up in this tweet from Vysyble on Sunday

vysyble
@vysyble
·
29 Nov
Product manager bemoans manufacturers' commitments to external promoters citing incidence of industrial injuries and wavering product quality.

if you haven't actually seen the interview it is here

https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/sta ... 8127270912

[Chester Perry]

This is something clubs and leagues will be keeping an eye on, YouTube is adapting it's models and revenue stream generating opportunities to meet the demands of sport - from SportsProMedia

How YouTube is continuing to adapt its model for sport
As rights holders look to diversify their audiences online, Ed Miles, YouTube’s head of sports partnerships in APAC, explains how the platform is opening up new revenue streams.

By Steven Impey Posted: November 30 2020

Internally, the content team at YouTube called it “sports on pause”. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, watch time for sports-related content, and more specifically highlights, took a hit on the video sharing platform during the dearth of live action earlier this year.

During the shutdown, YouTube offered rights holders a familiar platform to engage fans, as athlete-centric and archive content took the limelight during the months before the return of live action in May.

Post-shutdown, the Google-owned video platform saw other landmarks. By the end of the 2019/20 season, Spanish giants Barcelona had become the first soccer club to surpass ten million subscribers, putting them second behind only the National Basketball Association (NBA) - whose YouTube following totals 15.3 million - among rights holders globally.

The feats have kept coming: Formula One attracted 1.7 million views across seven European territories for its first ever live YouTube race broadcast. The move to stream October's Eifel Grand Prix helped grow the global motorsport series’ subscribers by 500,000 to more than 4.4 million.

In many ways, the second half of 2020 was business as usual for YouTube. Growing to more than two billion monthly active users in October, YouTube’s fastest-growing screen is now in the living room, with the platform increasingly eating into time consumers usually spend watching linear TV.

Ed Miles, YouTube’s head of sports partnerships in Asia-Pacific (APAC), says that 2020's early "slow down” prompted a change in strategy to combat the slump. While YouTube’s model for sports properties is centred on delivering timely highlights to fans, he says that the return of the soccer’s Premier League and Uefa Champions League saw an opportunity to grow engagement in the platform’s Asian markets.

“We find that the sweet spot is about 45 minutes after the game [in home markets],” Miles told SportsPro's Asia event, “so we work with rights partners to get match highlights ingested to their YouTube channel. We obviously think about content coverage by the region and by the market. I think we’re close to having 97 per cent coverage of our top nine sports worldwide on YouTube.

“Due to the nature of the region and its different cultures and diversity, there is no silver bullet in APAC. We look to import sports, including European football, to be incredibly popular across the region, primarily because most of APAC is asleep when they are played live.

“We work with well over 200 partners across 37 countries, including rights holders, sports federations, leagues, clubs, and broadcasters. Our focus is to ensure that on-demand content is on YouTube. We think about content coverage goals via the right data in the same way you think of TV ratings, so we’re passionate about getting the right content in front of our audience.”

While subscriptions and viewership continue to rise, the leap for the YouTube business, Miles says, is to help more sports properties better monetise their channel customer base. Google has “a unique mix of products and platforms”, he goes on, including several that can help open up paid audiences as well as promote upcoming events.

“Many federations and broadcasters are working with us in many different ways, which is hedged to their strategy or their objectives upfront,” he expands. “I hear a lot about ‘incremental reach’, ‘incremental revenue’ and ‘a better understanding of our fans’. These are the types of briefs that we receive.

"For example, Google Search, our core business, continues to build new features. When you go to search, we also have Google Ad Manager, which is a product that’s used by many sports leagues and broadcasters to serve ads across their website and their apps.”

In Australia, Miles cites local partnerships with the Australian Football League (AFL) and Cricket Australia as examples where Google is “growing and continuing to broaden the scope of our work with sports federations”.

While there is a clear appetite among audiences for archive content, Google's work with Cricket Australia to digitise classic men's and women's national team matches went beyond simply acting as a host. Google was also able to serve the national body by identifying when and where in the world each piece of content will perform best, which has formed a key pillar in building out Cricket Australia’s digital content strategy.

“Every home game played in Australia over the last 40 years is now digitalised,” Miles says. “We’ve work with Cricket Australia around key strategies, including activating the archive around key moments, key dates, and key games and key geographies.”

Elsewhere, DAZN’s Asian operation was able to offer live Champions League coverage via its new mobile app in Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia and Laos by tapping into Google’s knowledge of each market’s nuances and its online user base.

“[DAZN] have huge audiences,” Miles continues, “and their strategy, while they own the rights, they hadn’t built out their owned and operated app, so we worked with them to build out their marketing lists so, when they did launch, they had a really robust database in these markets and are able to up-sale their products and service.”

Google is also considering ways to advance the advertising model on YouTube, including upgrades to the way it inserts ads into live content. Whereas ads have traditionally been served by a third party using a separate server – also known as Client-Side Ad Insertion (CSAI) – Dynamic Ad Insertion (DAI) will allow YouTube to stitch video advertising directly into a piece of content.

This is said to increase video quality and minimise latency, particularly for live streams, which will offer obvious benefits to YouTube’s sports partners, such as Formula One, which may well look to broadcast more events via the platform.

“You will see this start to evolve next year,” Miles says. “We’re hoping to advance dynamic DAI in 2021. Hopefully, around Q2, instead of ‘client-stitched’ DAI, partners will start to see ‘service-stitched’ DAI as a much more seamless solution. That said, we have dipped our toe in the water a little bit and have been testing the product.

“We’re a global platform and fundamentally we’re an AVOD platform where our cost [per impression] is still lower than arguably those on TV,” he goes on. “It’s about making sure that the fundamental economics work and, although we are trying to solve it on a bespoke channel basis, we don’t yet serve dynamic or programmatic ads in a live environment at any scale.”

Looking ahead, Miles sees an opportunity for rights holders to carve out additional revenue streams by optimising their live and on-demand content via YouTube. Whatever the market, the video platform is a proven way of giving sport a global reach beyond its traditional broadcast partnerships, and an alternative means of working with advertisers.

“Each partner is unique,” Miles continues. “Everyone has a slightly different model and nuance. Of course, every partner is still trying to drive the highest yield out of the distribution of live rights in key territories – and they should – but we are seeing the lion’s share of our partners really leaning into the depth of content to drive new revenue.”

[Chester Perry]

Last night I posted an article about fan engagement from GameofthePeople.com and over the weekend as clubs have started to release pricing and allocations for the first games with fan's back there has been significant uproar about both cost and and allocation - much of which was highly predictable as clubs try to balance contractual agreements with players and sponsors, with commercial balancing of costs to let fans in an minimising losses, in a continuing world of rebates and free to air games. It will inevitably lead to more articles like this from the Telegraph

Clubs have forgotten about fans for too long - their return demands a reset of this one-sided relationship
JASON BURT NOVEMBER 30, 2020

Jock Stein's famous saying has been adopted and abridged over these past nine months when the coronavirus pandemic struck, football was suspended and then came back behind closed doors. “Football is nothing without fans,” it goes, although the full quote is: “Without fans who pay at the turnstile, football is nothing.” Stein also added an important qualification to it: “Sometimes we are inclined to forget that.”

We are indeed. For too long the game has forgotten about its fans and taken them for granted. No question. It has been inclined to forget what being a fan – those who actually buy a ticket, travel to the game and support their club through thick and thin - represents. It has forgotten how much it costs, how much commitment and planning it takes, how exploited these fans have sometimes been.

For too long they have been disengaged as businesses forgetting that, first and foremost, they are clubs and a club is an association: a group of people organised for a joint purpose. And that is to enjoy a sport. Not to be a monetary entity. The Premier League’s crass introduction of pay-per-view at £14.95 a game confirmed that.

Match-going fans have undoubtedly been a secondary consideration over the past few years as television and commercial revenues have become far more important than ticket sales to clubs or, at least, to Premier League clubs.

They have looked at this only in terms of the bottom line: studies have shown that the proportion of top-flight clubs' annual income from matchday tickets sales has fallen dramatically over recent seasons. So it has become simple maths with match-day fans a relative afterthought behind armchair viewers.

We need only look at the fixture scheduling, the lack of consideration when it comes to actually getting to and from games, travelling the length of the country on a Monday night when the last train home leaves long before the final whistle, to know that.

Now, this week, fans are beginning to be allowed back. There will be 2,000 at Arsenal’s Europa League tie against Rapid Vienna on Thursday, when they will become the first Premier League club to open those turnstiles, and between 1,000 and 2,000 at other clubs under Tier Two coronavirus restrictions from this Wednesday.

There is a sense of excitement, a feeling of relief and Pep Guardiola is right when he said after Manchester City’s win over Burnley at the weekend that without fans present: “The problem today is the players lose the joy of playing football.” We need to bring that joy back – not just for the players who, actually, have coped remarkably well in producing good, entertaining games and deserve to be praised for that. But for those fans. The football has been soulless because its soul has not been there.

Nine months without fans has confirmed that; not that there should have been any doubt over their importance. It is more than just a theatre without an audience because with live sport that audience has a far greater participation in the event. It can influence the players; it can influence the proceedings. Its mood becomes part of the story, for bad as well as good, but above all it is raw and real and full of emotion. It is living, breathing, organic and can be thrillingly unpredictable, emotional and volatile.

There is something quite sad about an empty football stadium. It does not feel quite real. It feels dead and meaningless and even the prospect of a small number of fans is exciting especially as there is real hope the attendances will be scaled up quickly with some Premier League clubs planning to be at 50 per cent capacity in the not too distant future.

Full stadiums should return when vaccines are being rolled out… and then what? At the start of the first lockdown there was talk of a “reset” within football, an opportunity for change and a re-evaluation of the game and its economic model, but even those of us who enthusiastically wrote about it did not really believe there would be a will for that to happen.

But there is something that English football and primarily the Premier League, should aspire to – and that is not just to be the wealthiest league in the world but the most fan friendly. Why not? An obvious starting point is ticket prices. As part of the research he carried out for his MBA at Alliance Manchester Business School Vincent Kompany concluded there was a “moral line” that clubs needed to draw to ensure working-class fans were not priced out of attending matches.

“You wonder whether there’s not more value in the Premier League as a project by making sure that every single stadium is bouncing for every single game, versus trying to squeeze everybody for the last [penny],” Kompany concluded.

The Premier League will argue that its grounds are, in normal times, pretty much operating at full capacity – but is the mix right? Is the pricing structure right? Are the clubs doing enough for the fans? Are they guilty of exploiting their loyalty rather than rewarding it?

They carry out surveys, they have fan engagement, they claim they do more than ever but they can always do more. A long-held belief of mine is the need for greater fan representation at board level. Why cannot clubs have an elected fan alongside its directors when it comes to decisions that affect the supporters? Match scheduling, ticket prices, transport are three recurring themes and there are more that need to be addressed, such as the price of replica shirts.

It is a time for celebration. Fans are back; hopefully for good. Clubs should cherish that and cherish them a little bit more. They have been missed. Let us never forget that.

[Chester Perry]

An interesting discussion from John WallStreet at Sportico.com as to why leagues should borrow rather than negotiate extended tv deals - it is ostensibly about American sports but provides plenty of food for thought for football's European Leagues, particularly if vaccine rollout does not come in time to prevent further lockdowns

https://www.sportico.com/business/media ... 234617374/

[Chester Perry]

Inter Milan become the latest of the European super clubs (mainly Italian ones it seems) to announce 2019/20 financial losses in excess of Euro 100m - from SportsProMedia.com

Inter Milan suffer €102.4m loss for 2019/20
Revenues down €45m as Italian soccer club take Covid-19 hit.

Posted: November 30 2020 By: Ed Dixon

- Revenue falls to €372.4m; Ebitda comes to €14.5m
- Inter’s followers across digital platforms up 72% YoY to 38.8m
- Asian company set to replace Pirelli as shirt sponsor from 2021/22, says CEO

Inter Milan have become the latest top European soccer club to reveal the cost of Covid-19 after posting losses of €102.4 million (US$122.7 million) for the 2019/20 financial year.

The Italian giants saw their revenues compared to last year fall €45 million (US$53.9 million) to €372.4 million (US$446.4 million). Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (Ebitda) came to €14.5 million (US$17.3 million).

Despite generating new revenues and profitability streams for the first half of the year, the pandemic meant a bumpy second half for Inter. Matchday revenues were unsurprisingly hit hard as Serie A resumed behind closed doors. As a result, the club had to refund any affected tickets and a proportion of season tickets. This was only partly mitigated by insurance cover.

The club’s latest financials for the year ending 30th June 2020 are also partially affected by the European soccer season extending beyond that date. As a result, some TV rights and sponsorship revenues, totalling around €51 million (US$61.1 million), were deferred to the 2020/21 financial year. Net of these deferred revenues, Ebitda stands at €46 million (US$55.1 million), compared with €105.2 million (US$126.1 million) the previous year.

For the 2018/19 financial period, Inter’s consolidated revenues increased 20 per cent YoY to a club-record €417 million (US$499 million). The Nerazzurri still recorded a €48.4 million (US$58 million) loss, which they attributed to significant investments made to strengthen on-field performances.

Despite the downturn in financial performance, Inter have seen a significant increase in their number of followers across their various digital channels, with these rising by 72 per cent from the 2018/19 season to 38.8 million.

Inter also said that their overall number of fans around the world has increased 11 per cent to 428 million, which the club claim means they have the ninth-biggest fanbase in the world.

“In a situation of significant economic downturn, we have been able to consolidate Inter’s growth plans, which rest on the creation of a global brand and are based around an innovative business vision whose main target audience is younger generations,” said Inter president Steven Zhang.

“Our commitment for the future is – as always – to guarantee the sustainability of the club and ensure improved results on the pitch.”

In other Inter news, their chief executive Alessandro Antonello has told Italian business outlet Il Sole 24 Ore that the club’s new main shirt sponsor will come from Asia.

Inter’s search for a new shirt sponsor from the 2021/22 season has dragged on for over a year, with the club looking to secure a lucrative deal.

The Serie A outfit have partnered with Pirelli since the 1995/96 campaign in a deal that brings in a reported €10.5 million (US$12.5 million) per year. However, the Inter hierarchy reportedly value the shirt sponsorship at approximately €25 million (US$29.9 million) annually, rising to €30 million (US$35.9 million) with bonuses.

Pirelli had reportedly been in talks with Inter over an extension, but Chinese real estate group Evergrande is among several parties that have also been liked with a deal.

Though Antonello did not confirm which company would be taking over from Pirelli, he did say the tyre brand would still be involved with Inter in a “different role”.

Evergrande remains a potential possibility as Inter’s new shirt sponsor. The company has in the past worked closely with Inter owner Zhan Jindong’s company Suning Holdings Group, which acquired a majority stake in Inter for a reported €270 million (US$323 million) back in June 2016.

[Chester Perry]

It has been posted on the takeover thread, but it deserves it's place here - Simon Stone for BBC Sport on

Why football is facing major change, despite 'toxicity' of Project Big Picture plan
By Simon Stone - BBC Sport
Last updated 5 hours ago

The Champions League group stage is likely to be expanded in one of many changes set to affect English football's calendar and structure
When Premier League chief executive Richard Masters addressed a parliamentary hearing on 10 November, he delivered a line all English football could agree on, despite the fierce opposition that followed Project Big Picture's unexpected unveiling a month before.

"Change is coming."

Masters was talking about the situation in Europe, where negotiations around the expansion of Uefa's club competitions have been taking place for 17 months now.

However, if England's so-called 'big six' clubs have their way, that "change" will be far more extensive than what appears set to happen on the continent - an expanded format for all European club competitions, including the Champions League group stage.

An 18-team Premier League, no more EFL Cup or Community Shield, B teams, the scrapping of FA Cup replays. All these were mentioned within the Project Big Picture proposals, which became public ahead of schedule at the beginning of October when they were leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

"Everything is up for discussion. Nothing is off the table," Football Association chairman Greg Clarke told the same Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee, exactly 27 minutes before he came out with the words that consigned his tenure to the bin.

These options are all controversial. But most contentious of all, in a document that laid out plans to address the massive funding gap between the Premier League and the rest of English football, was the demand for voting power to be concentrated in the hands of a minority of clubs.

Following the widespread criticism that met its public release, it might have appeared to some observers as if the proposed changes in Project Big Picture had been scrapped.

As we will see, this is not the case. The story is far from over.

This is the messy reality now facing elite English football, where unity and compromise are in short supply, during a financial crisis threatening the wider game.

To understand how we got here, and where we are headed next, we need to wind back to 2019. Our starting point is in the south Mediterranean.

Over two days of talks in Malta, in June 2019, it became clear the writing was on the wall. The status quo could not last.

European Clubs' Association members from 48 countries had met to discuss their issues with the continent's competition structures.

Several men in particular had arrived in a hurry. Five representatives from England's 'big six' left a Premier League meeting in Yorkshire early to jump on a private plane and head straight to Malta.

The sight of Tottenham's Daniel Levy, Chelsea's Bruce Buck, Manchester City's Ferran Soriano, Ed Woodward of Manchester United and Arsenal's Vinai Venkatesham arriving en masse showed they meant business. Liverpool chief executive Peter Moore had not been in Yorkshire and travelled independently on Ryanair.

The proposals being discussed - and favoured by a large majority - would mean more European games. That would mean more money for each participant in an expanded Champions League.

The Premier League had made its feelings known the day before. 'More Europe' was definitely not to its liking. "We believe the proposals would be detrimental to domestic leagues across the continent," a statement read.

Nonetheless, those present understood what was in the air. On leaving the meeting, a senior English club executive came out with the line that Masters was to repeat 15 months later: "Change is coming whether we like it or not. We have to work with it, not against it."

Various ideas have been mooted, on European expansion. Four groups of eight teams, six groups of six, a 36-team group phase where each team plays 10 different opponents. Even a repeat of last season's 'Super Eight' knockout tournament. This would be replicated across the Champions League, the Europa League and Uefa's new competition to be launched in June 2021, the Europa Conference League.

This expansion is aimed at increasing broadcasting revenues - at a time when England's have started to dip. It is also trying to address concerns shared by some of Europe's most historic clubs, over being left behind because they do not compete in the continent's five richest leagues, with the Premier League at its head.

Liverpool's Moore reported back to owner John Henry, Woodward did the same with Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer. By the time Uefa's next club tournament broadcasting contract begins in 2024, they all realised, clubs were going to be asked to play more European matches on spare dates that - in England's congested calendar - simply do not exist.

Henry had known this problem was brewing. And he believed the Premier League's voting structure would work against what he saw as the solution. With decisions requiring a two-thirds majority, he felt there were 14 clubs working against the 'big six'.

Between them, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham are England's richest and best-known clubs. They have most of the top players. They are the teams TV subscribers worldwide want to see at home. Yet they cannot drive the Premier League for their own objectives. Reaching agreement is a frustrating process, as with the return of five substitutes, which City's Pep Guardiola and Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp are desperate for, but others, including Aston Villa manager Dean Smith, reject.

From a wider perspective, the 'six' feel commercial decisions are repeatedly taken on a short-term basis, which restricts their ability to grow their income and compete with the likes of Netflix in an expanding digital media world.

In their view, the voting structure gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of clubs who may not even be in the league in 12 months' time and whose financial outlook is framed by what happens now, not in 10 years.

Occasionally, breakaways have been threatened - around Project Big Picture a mass move into the Championship was mentioned - but have never gone anywhere. In the short term, it is likely that without ex-FA chairman Clarke's involvement earlier this year, Henry, Glazer and the rest would have kept grumbling and done nothing.

However, Clarke changed the narrative by reaching out to Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck in January to chat about the future of English game amid what he considered to be a very real prospect of a breakaway European Super League (ESL).

This concept is felt by many to be the threat Europe's biggest clubs routinely use in an effort to get their own way.

Indeed, in his exit speech as Barcelona president in October, Josep Maria Bartomeu said he had signed the club up to the idea - but no evidence has been presented to show this is the case. A clear issue is that operating outside the umbrella of world governing body Fifa would deny the players of those clubs access to their national teams.

Beyond that, those who refuse to believe an ESL is possible wonder if any of the clubs likely to be involved had ever thought of the consequences of finishing last in such a competition - as someone would have to - given their entire existence is built around success at the top end of elite football.

Clarke adopted a more cautious view, saying it would be "foolish in the extreme" to discount the potential for private equity investors to view top-level football as an investment vehicle. In other words; with enough money involved all obstacles might be overcome, and perhaps Fifa's power would be marginalised. Maybe the very best international footballers would simply no longer play in competitions like the World Cup if alternative structures were more lucrative. After all, cricket witnessed similar in the late 1970s with Kerry Packer's World Series.

In suggesting to Buck that talks should be opened up to include another couple of clubs and the Premier League and EFL, Clarke was trying to address the situation as he saw it, while finding a solution for structural problems further down the pyramid. There was no Premier League representation in the talks that took place, and eventually resulted in Project Big Picture.

Then Covid-19 took the game in its grip. The 'big six' had something they could offer and virtually everyone else desperately needed - money.

On 5 May, EFL chairman Rick Parry told a DCMS committee his member clubs were staring at a "£200m black hole". But the vastly experienced former Liverpool chief executive, the first person to run the Premier League, knew he had a wider challenge: trying to smooth what has become a cliff edge between the Premier League and Championship.

The Championship play-off final is billed as football's 'richest game'. Its estimated £170m value highlights the issue Parry is facing. The gap between the leagues is so wide, the entire future of the competing clubs could be shaped by one bad decision or mistake. Instead of a cliff, Parry's aim is to turn the difference between England's top two leagues into a slope.

For Parry, Project Big Picture, as it came to be known after Clarke had persuaded Henry to change the name from 'Revitalisation', contained many of the solutions to his problems. He engaged enthusiastically. By the time talks were halted and put on ice on 19 May, 18 meetings had been held. Differing narratives have since emerged but it is understood all parties had agreed they would resume at some stage.

With the hoped-for return of fans delayed, and Premier League losses at £100m-a-month, that stage arrived in late September.

By that point, Parry's plea was for £250m. Progress in talks with the Premier League had been minimal. EFL clubs were getting desperate. A meeting of the 'big six' was convened on 8 October. Three days later, the plans were leaked to the Telegraph.

Amid a lot of detail, these were the main points.

- 25% of annual Premier League income to be paid to the EFL, including £250m up front
- £100m 'gift' to the FA
- Community Shield scrapped
- EFL Cup either scrapped or played without teams involved in Europe
- Premier League reduced to 18 teams
- Abolition of one-club, one-vote in the Premier League
- Any six of the Premier League's nine longest-serving members - the 'big six' plus Everton, West Ham and Southampton - granted power to pass any regulation
- Two automatic promotion places from the Championship. Third slot to be decided by new play-offs, including 16th in the Premier League, plus third, fourth and fifth in the Championship
- Premier League clubs allowed to sell eight games a season outside the UK on their own digital platforms
- Parry was sent out to talk up Project Big Picture.

His voice was quickly drowned out by those who were against it. This included Clarke, who claimed he had strongly opposed significant sections of it, which is true. But he did not disclose the full extent of his involvement.

More importantly, the fans were opposed, including those from the clubs who created it. These fans groups do have influence - but there have been times when their voice has been ignored.

Evidently, the views of the remaining 14 Premier League clubs were key. One the 'big six' thought they could carry with them - West Ham - soon signalled their opposition, a source telling BBC Sport the club was "very much against it".

Against this backdrop, Masters met the 'big six' on 13 October. This discussion lasted an hour.

The following day, they met the league's 14 other clubs amid an atmosphere of anger and frustration. Conspiracy theories abound - was the story leaked to try to kill Project Big Picture, or had it been done to promote it? Trust was in short supply - and this was only made worse when it became apparent 'the 14' had not been told the full facts about Premier League knowledge over the plans.

Initially it was suggested hardly anything was known. The reality was Masters had been aware of the general direction the talks had been heading for months and chairman Gary Hoffman, who was only appointed on 24 April, had been given a hard copy of the proposals by Buck.

From the outcome of that meeting came word that Project Big Picture was dead in the water. Instead, all 20 clubs committed to a 'strategic review' which had initially been mentioned the previous spring but had been put to one side to allow clubs to deal with the financial effects of the pandemic.

"Project Big Picture is not even mentioned around the Premier League table any more," says one club source. "The phrase is not even used. The architects know it is toxic."

When the terms of reference for the relaunched review were issued, they had been given a wider focus and a tighter timeframe - March 2021.

Among the areas being looked at are:

- Competition and league structures
- Calendar construction
- Revenue distribution
- Broadcast strategy

Little wonder those behind Project Big Picture dismiss completely the notion that their idea has been rejected. Indeed, even within the 14, there is some sympathy for their position.

They know European expansion is coming. The feeling is they would be willing to accommodate it, providing it did not come at the expense of weekend league matches. In other words, an EFL Cup without 'big-six' participation or with 'big-six' clubs fielding Under-23 teams is possible.

What they believe must not happen is any change to the one-club, one-vote structure by which issues facing the Premier League are decided. In the informal chats that take place between senior executives on matchdays, there is concern over the prospect of the 'big six' expanding their decision-making power.

"If that was to happen, the 25% EFL distribution might not mean much," says one source. "If the big clubs decided they were selling their own games themselves, the central broadcast income would dwindle very quickly. Twenty-five percent of nothing is nothing."

Leicester celebrate their 2015-16 Premier League title during an open-top bus parade
Would increased power for the Premier League's 'big six' see so-called smaller clubs further distanced from success?
These clubs get the argument that big clubs generate the income. Broadly, the same clubs always have.

In the 25 years from 1967 to 1992, before the Premier League began, Manchester United and Liverpool were among the top-six best supported clubs in every single season. Arsenal were in there 19 times, Tottenham 17 and Manchester City 16. Chelsea were in there on four occasions, the same as West Ham but fewer than Leeds and Aston Villa. All are a long way short of Everton, who were included 15 times.

The world has changed, though. In the current climate, it would be hard to argue Chelsea were not one of England's 'big six'. However, it is pointed out by those outside this exclusive club that they must play someone - and the attraction of the Premier League is based around the shocks it can provide.

Those six clubs have, as a collective, finished in the top six places in only five of the past 10 seasons, and arguably Leicester's title success in 2016 is the single most amazing event English football has ever experienced. Whether the six agree is debatable - but the point is made, forcefully, that very quickly, even the fans of those clubs would soon get bored of watching their teams win easily every week in a league where the imbalance of resource was even greater than is presently the case.

"We are totally opposed to concentrating power in the hands of six billionaire owners," said those fans of the 'big six'. They are not alone. Ask for a red line when it comes to what could not be given up during the Premier League's strategic review and from numerous sources, the response comes back: 'One club, one vote.'

Giving a little and losing a little tends to be the logic for periods of intense negotiations. These talks are not quite that simple. The biggest clubs feel they are being bullied by the rest, the rest think the story is the other way round.

Former Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore was widely acclaimed for the manner with which he held the clubs together during his 15 years at the head of the organisation until his departure in November 2018.

History may yet determine his greatest move was getting out at exactly the right time.

[claretblue]

Premier League and EFL agree rescue package amounting to £250m:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55172426

[Chester Perry]

I had intended to stay away for another week or so - but Everton have just released their 2019/20 financial report - huge losses as expected, but their billionaire owner makes it ok with a £250m share issue

here is the Guardian's take on it

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... takes-toll

Everton's official Annual Report and Accounts

https://resources.evertonfc.com/everton ... SCREEN.pdf

Our Evertonian friend The Esk is putting some thoughts together and I shall share them later

[Chester Perry]

@KieranMaguire has a look at those Everton results

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 6066286593

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 2769905664

[Chester Perry]

The Esk with his take on those Everton results

https://theesk.org/2020/12/11/record-lo ... ce-update/

take particular note of Paul's final paragraph, this is where so many owners have failed with their "investments" (for want of a word of less irony)

[Chester Perry]

This is timely given what is happening with our club - unofficial partner with Episode 5 of it's Money Talks podcast with Marcus John


The blurb-
This is episode 5 of Money Talks, our series on sport’s relationship with finance, venture capital and private equity. Our guest is Marcus John, CEO of Sports Capital Advisors based in Singapore, who was an early stage investor in Formula E and Extreme E and advises private equity funds and family offices on sports investment strategy and execution.

Marcus was previously at IMG, during the Teddy Forstmann buyout in 2004 and so we talk about the impact of that moment both on IMG but on the sports industry as a whole. Then we talk about the market for sports investment advice as new money in Asia’s largest economies chases high value European and North American sports IP and we ask what the challenges and the implications of sport’s ever closer relationship with private finance.

https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... arcus-john

[The esk]

The Esk with his take on those Everton results

https://theesk.org/2020/12/11/record-lo ... ce-update/

take particular note of Paul's final paragraph, this is where so many owners have failed with their "investments" (for want of a word of less irony)

Thank you for publishing my piece - a quite appalling set of results that can't be glossed over just because our major shareholder has deep pockets

[Chester Perry]

Thank you for publishing my piece - a quite appalling set of results that can't be glossed over just because our major shareholder has deep pockets

Your welcome Paul, must say I also enjoyed this one from last week too - so much of relevance to us at Burnley as the prospect of a takeover draws to a conclusion

https://theesk.org/2020/12/08/nil-satis ... t-everton/

which reminds me of this I posted based another previous article of yours, which touches similar themes but from a slightly different angle

I have posted a quite a lot (when I think about it) about football and brands/branding, and also discussed on various threads (including this) about how we can grow our club commercially (I still like the notion of selling us to America as the Green Bay of English "soccer"). But this article https://theesk.org/2020/08/18/rebranding/ from our friend The Esk (and yes it is entirely Everton focussed, it has been causing a bit of a stir amongst their support) has been gnawing at me since it appeared - I just cannot stop thinking about how the same discussion could apply to our club.

Just what is Burnley FC's brand? - it is an important question given we are now at the interview stage for a Head of Global Partnerships (part of a growing commercial strategy that Chief Exec Neil Hart hinted at just after the release of our last financial results) the person filling such a role needs something to work from. As Paul (The Esk) stated in his piece, it is something everyone at the club and it it's fans should know but do we? I am unsure as to whether anyone does, and yet our club has appeared pretty much aligned from top to bottom, boardroom to terrace for quite some time (Sean's gripes about finance apart).

If we take the lead from Paul's discussion of club motto - ours is "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris" which translates as the admirable "the prize and the cause of our labours" - into consideration what does it tell us (apart from the fact we appear to have ditched it quite some time ago - possibly because of the confusion it created when it was poorly translated (a very Burnley thing - think Bertie Mee(Bee) said to Bill Shankly, in our Lancashire home(s), Wood(s), Hendrick(s) etc.) as - "the prize (trophies) is the cause of our labours". I find it to be very Dychean - work hard with the right attitude (legs, hearts, minds) and you just might get to wear this shirt. It is proud yet modest, solid and robust, even industrial just like our town and it's heritage. But is has not been part of our visual identity for some time and certainly not in the Dyche Premier League era. That has been focussed more on his mantra's and the marketing slogan's that last for a year or two at most.

More interesting is the "One Club for all" moniker, I am not sure when it first appeared, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Etihad flyover. This again very Dychean and ties in very well with what Neil Hart built with BFCitC (fascinating side note - Neil Hart came to Burnley's attention for the community role after being recommended by non-other than Sean Dyche). This is intriguing territory for our club, one that does amazing work in it's surrounding community (not that unusual in football these days), bringing it closer together and supporting those in need. It's role post the riots has been significant in reaching out to and bringing together our segregated communities. It's rapid and huge growth over the last 7 years more so. Yet, again, while not being openly spoken about. think how aligned Ben Mee's "that is not what we are about" interview at the Ethihad post match and the Burnley Fans organising themselves to promote an anti-hate message.

Is this just another local marketing slogan or is it part of re-branding? If it is re-branding where does the end lie, are we going to be like St Pauli, Union Berlin or even Clapton in the 11th tier of English football (you should look them all up, each is a fascinating story, some of which I have featured on this thread). Such identity is a long way from the current perception of us. The restart (which at the Turf came post fly over) also saw some thought provoking banners around the ground including an LGBT one, those kinds of messages are certainly new to the majority of our fans, yet fit right in with the inclusion ethos of the clubs I have just mentioned. But does it, should it fit in with what the club's brand should be? (i think yes). One thing I do know is that a brand has to evolve while maintaining it's core values, I for one can see how this current messaging fit's in with these perceptions, long held, of our club:

this is interesting - an article championing our badge https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/ ... ier-league

a Man Utd fan on the growing admiration for our club https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... burnley-fc

a recent YouGov survey on how Burnley FC is perceived https://yougov.co.uk/topics/sport/explo ... urnley_F_C

"The underdog, always punching above their weight" - Tifo podcast on "How do you value a Football's club brand" from 23:30 in https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/h ... 0447302603

The same things come up all the time:
- Hard working
- Determined
- Committed
- Distinctive style
- Talented

We can then add to that a widely held notion of Burnley FC being the best run club (financially at least) in the Premier League, owned by life long fans (who view themselves as custodian's and whose primary aim is to leave the club in a stronger more stable position than when they arrived), free from debt, one that continues to develop from incomes it has generated and always within it's means. The proud boast of fans is now "Built not Bought".

Tell me if those perceptions do not sound a lot like "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris", when we add the latest messaging we can be seen as a club moving forward, living it's "togetherness/inclusion values" while always acknowledging, but not being limited by it's past.

We have a brand, many of us (me included) will struggle to articulate it, but we do seem to live it having been infected with it by osmosis - I just hope that whoever gets that Head of Global Partnerships role has a very clear (and aligned ) perception of what it is.

One note of caution is that I for one see a conflict between our caring and sharing, moral stance approach with that of Gambling sponsorship - I hope we can move away from that asap and preferably before the law forces us too.

What has been noticeable since I posted the above is the growing belief among our fans that the "One club for all" has been proven to be a meaningless statement, the is a growing amount of discontent with the way the club is being run, particularly in it's engagement (or rather lack of) with fans and the ongoing lack of general communication from the club. It has contributed enormously to fan's taking sides in the Dyche/Garlick relationship breakdown and is something which our prospective new owners may want to address, without falling into the trap of being too visible and communicative.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Have you read the Athletic article on Forest?

69 players signed in 7 transfer windows

They're in deep trouble down there.

[Chester Perry]

Another reason (and there are many) why the Premier League will not be seeing any marked increase in Domestic TV rights values in the next cycle - As of next week you can view all televised matches from any platform of your choice (via additional paid for services) this from the Telegraph

Sky and Amazon truce dents football’s goal of TV rights war
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS DECEMBER 14, 2020

The financial pressure on football is due to increase after the pay-TV rivals Sky and Amazon agreed a truce that undermines the Premier League’s hopes of a bidding war in its forthcoming rights auction.

Under a new partnership beginning on Monday, Sky and Amazon have each integrated the other’s pay-TV services with their own.

It means all of Amazon Prime Video, including 20 live Premier League matches over Christmas, will be available via a Sky Q set-top box.

In return, Sky’s Now TV app, which offers access to all its sports coverage, will be made available on Amazon Fire TV devices.

It heralds the first time that all three Premier League broadcasters – BT, Sky and Amazon – have been able to provide their pay-TV subscribers with every live match.

The truce between Sky and Amazon after years of frosty relations is likely to be of concern to clubs already grappling with the heavy costs of the pandemic. It will reduce the incentive for them to enter a bidding war in the Premier League’s next triennial rights auction, due early next year, by ensuring neither will secure exclusivity over matches.

Similar forces played out at the last auction in 2018, when BT and Sky agreed a reciprocal channel supply deal weeks before bidding began. It led to substantial falls in the rights bill for both sides, for the first time in the history of the Premier League.

Before coronavirus struck, top flight clubs had hoped that Sky’s concern about Amazon, the emerging force in football coverage having picked up a small package of matches in 2018, would help them avoid a repeat this time around.

The pandemic has forced football executives to privately admit they will struggle to match the current level of domestic rights income, and the truce casts another shadow over the auction. It is expected to cover three seasons from 2022.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://mol.im/a/9053171

Proposals for new £18 million wage cap for the championship from next season.

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble does his thing with those Everton 2019/20 Financial results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 3255439360

his nice 2 sheet summary

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 7280093184

There was also an Everton Business Matters Podcast looking at the clubs financial results featuring our friend The Esk

https://theesk.org/2020/12/13/everton-b ... -the-club/

as ever it gives a lot of food for thought, particularly the lament that for all the money Moshiri has poured into the club £400m and counting (there is also a £100m commitment to Bramley Moore Dock) that there is a desire for the club to be run in a sustainable manner

[Chester Perry]

More on that increase in involvement at Leeds from Minor Shareholders The San Francisco 49ers (they certainly sound very keen) - from SportsBusiness.com

49ers ready to help Leeds United become “more of a global force”
Bob Williams, US office - August 7, 2020

- NFL team “open” to increasing its investment in club following promotion to Premier League
- Executives eager to help improve Leeds’ commercial fortunes and in-stadium fan experience
- “The story is only beginning…there is a lot more to do,” says 49ers and Leeds executive Marathe

The San Francisco 49ers are ready to play an active role in helping Leeds United become a Premier League force both on and off the field following the club’s promotion to English soccer’s top flight for the first time since 2004.

The National Football League franchise acquired a reported 10-per-cent equity stake in Leeds, via its commercial entity 49ers Enterprises, in 2018, which was worth around £11m (€12m/$14m) at the time of investment.

As part of the partnership, veteran 49ers executive Paraag Marathe – who is the president of 49ers Enterprises and the 49ers executive vice-president of football operations – joined the Leeds board of directors.

Marathe has weekly calls with Leeds majority owner Andrea Radrizzani, with whom he has a close personal relationship, as well as the club’s director of football Victor Orta and chief executive Angus Kinnear. He has also visited Leeds numerous times since 2018, along with 49ers Enterprises director Collin Meador and 49ers majority owner Jed York.

Now, following Leeds’ long-awaited return to the Premier League, 49ers Enterprises is exploring the possibility of increasing its financial investment in the club.

Radrizzani, who is also the chairman and founder of multiterritory broadcaster Eleven Sports, has said he is open to additional external investment to help fund Leeds’ Premier League push, with talks with Qatar Sports Investments having failed to lead to a deal. It is unclear at this stage how much of the club Radrizzani is looking to sell or what additional stake 49ers Enterprises wants to acquire.

“We’re exploring the possibility of maybe becoming even bigger partners. It is something that we’re open to,” Marathe tells SportBusiness. “Hopefully it works out if he’s [Radrizzani] looking for more and we’re open to more than maybe we should try something.”

49ers Enterprises will also look to continue to provide strategic advice in order to help improve the fan experience and layout of Leeds’ home stadium Elland Road, aid the development of a planned state-of-the-art training ground, and further bolster club revenues through other initiatives.

It is also hoped that Leeds will play at the 49ers’ venue Levi’s Stadium, either in the International Champions Cup international pre-season tournament or in an exhibition game.

“The path and the story is only beginning, it’s not the last chapter, it’s now only the second chapter in a much longer book,” Marathe adds. “Now it’s about proving that we belong and trying to climb the ranks within the Premier League so there is a lot more to do. It’s directly correlated with how much we can grow the commercial side of the business in terms of how much more we can afford on the pitch.”

Origin of the partnership
According to Marathe, 49ers Enterprises began exploring a strategic partnership with Leeds in around 2011. Marathe saw great potential in Leeds – a once great English club with a passionate fanbase that had become a shadow of its former self. However, a deal failed to materialize with the ownership group at the time.

“We had been circling around Leeds for quite some time actually, long before Andrea,” Marathe says. “Being in the business of sports for so long, you sort of know what the powerful brands around the world are, the ones that carry a lot of passion and energy, and punch above their weight…and Leeds was always one of those clubs. We had been interested because it was a sleeping giant.”

In the following years, Marathe got to know Radrizzani through a mutual friend and the Italian sports media executive visited the 49ers headquarters around 2015. The two sports industry executives became fast friends.

“We hit it off, there was a personal kinship before it evolved into a professional kinship. I gave him a tour and we spent the day together and he told me that he had been looking at some clubs,” Marathe says.

Two years later, Radrizzani took over Leeds and Marathe reached out to his new friend to inform him of 49ers Enterprises’ coincidental prior interest in Leeds. A deal was quickly reached for 49ers Enterprises to become minority partners in the then Championship club, in May 2018.

“We’ve long been fans and admirers of Leeds as a club and as a brand and I’m glad that two years ago it came to fruition,” Marathe says. “There was such opportunity but not just from a club standpoint – that the club can become bigger and have more revenue – but really because of the passion standpoint. The supporter base is so strong and powerful, it really reminds me of the 49ers fanbase, which is global and much more powerful than the average NFL club so it just struck a chord and struck a tone with us.”

Global ambitions
Marathe is eager to make it clear that while 49ers Enterprises is keen to help Leeds as much as possible, it is Radrizzani who is the club’s driving force.

“We are all eager, enthusiastic passengers on this train – but this train is being driven by Andrea…Andrea’s vision, Marcelo Bielsa’s coaching and Victor and Angus’s leadership. Those guys have been phenomenal,” he says. “One of the things that I really admire about Andrea is he never really says if, he just says when. He’s always had that mindset since as long as I’ve known him. He really willed this to happen.”

Nonetheless, 49ers Enterprises has already helped Leeds’ rise to the top in numerous ways since partnering with the club. This has included helping to bring in new players, via the club’s capital investment, and enhancing pre-match hospitality initiatives at Elland Road.

Notably, the 49ers played a small but significant role in the hiring of Marcelo Bielsa, the iconic former Argentina and Chile national team head coach, whose leadership has proven key in Leeds’ return to the big time.

Marathe explains: “Prior to Andrea, Angus and Victor going out to find coach Bielsa, we had just completed our own search for our own head coach and [general manager]. We had put a process together which we looked at it a little bit differently where we looked for core traits first: vision, leadership, and someone who really stood as the face of the franchise that everyone – fans, players, coaches…even ownership – would look to for guidance.

“We found that with [49ers head coach] Kyle Shanahan. We documented a lot of that process and we shared that with Andrea prior to them going out to get coach Bielsa,” he says.

Perhaps it is not without coincidence that Leeds secured promotion to the Premier League just a few months after the 49ers won the NFC Championship game to reach Super Bowl LIV in Miami, Florida, in February, after five straight non-winning seasons.

The 49ers lost 31-20 to the Kansas City Chiefs in the NFL showpiece game. But the team looks poised to again be a perennial contender as it was for much of the 1980s and 1990s en route to winning five Super Bowls.

The goal now is to help Leeds become a consistent contender in the Premier League and improve the club’s commercial fortunes, both domestically and internationally.

“One fantastic thing about the way the Premier League or the [English Football League] works is that the club controls and owns its brand globally,” Marathe says. “That is different from American sports with the 49ers where we only really control the brand within our local market and anything outside of the market the NFL, as a whole, controls all 32 logos.

“So this provides a huge opportunity for clubs like Leeds, as Manchester United has already demonstrated, that they can do things in Asia and South America. That is something I’m excited to see if we can help Leeds really become more of a global force,” he says.

The increased shareholding in Leeds by the San Francisco 49ers seems to finally be coming to pass - from the Mail

Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizzani is on the verge of selling another 15% stake to the San Francisco 49ers as NFL franchise look to increase their shareholding... with the Premier League side now valued at £240m
The San Francisco 49ers bought a 10 per cent stake in Leeds two years ago
They are now closing in on a deal to increase their stake to 25 per cent
The deal with the NFL franchise will value Leeds at around £240million
Andrea Radrizzani only paid £45m to buy the Elland Road club back in 2014
PSG's owners, Qatar Sports Investment, failed in a bid to buy Leeds last year
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 16 December 2020 | UPDATED: 23:52, 16 December 2020

Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizzani is close to selling another significant stake to the San Francisco 49ers in a deal that would value the club at around £240million.

Sportsmail has learned that negotiations are at an advanced stage, with the 49ers aiming to increase their shareholding at Elland Road to 25 per cent. They bought an initial stake of 10 per cent two years ago.

Radrizzani paid Massimo Cellino £45m in two instalments to take control at Leeds in 2014 and the club's value has rocketed under his stewardship.

After stabilising the financial situation, the Italian showed his ambition by hiring Marcelo Bielsa as manager two and a half years ago.

He persuaded him to stay at Leeds after a heartbreaking Championship play-off defeat at the end of his first season in charge — a show of faith that was rewarded with their return to the Premier League after a 16-year absence last summer.

The 49ers recognised Leeds' potential by buying into the club in 2018 having been courted by Radrizzani for three years. With Bielsa showing signs of establishing them in the Premier League, the NFL franchise are ready to increase their stake.

The 49ers president Paraag Marathe has joined the Leeds board and has spoken about the club's potential.

'The sky is the limit for Leeds,' he said. 'This is not a club where we made it to the Premier League and we are barely trying to hang on by the laces of our shoes. No. This is a club which can become a big contender.'

Radrizzani received a purchase approach last year from the owners of Paris Saint-Germain, Qatar Sports Investment, but wants to maintain his controlling interest.

[Chester Perry]

It has been said many times that the alarm bells ring if a club sells it's ground or it cannot pay it's wages on time - Sheffield Wednesday have now done both - though no money has ever changed hands on the ground sale - from the BBC

Sheffield Wednesday: Professional Footballers' Association called in over pay issue
By Simon Stone - BBC Sport
Last updated 2 hours ago

The Professional Footballers' Association has been called in to offer advice after Sheffield Wednesday failed to pay its players on time.

It is understood the Championship club's players only received a percentage of their November salaries.

And they met with club officials on Wednesday to discuss the situation.

The news comes at a difficult time for the Owls, who are bottom of the table after a six-point deduction and poor results under new boss Tony Pulis.

Wednesday have collected three points in eight games under Pulis and are yet to win a match since he took charge on 13 November.

They are now seven points adrift of safety, meaning they would still be in the relegation places even without the six-point deduction for breaching spending rules that was applied in November, which was in itself reduced from 12 points.

However, while it is understood the EFL is yet to be officially notified of the situation, it does has the power to impose a transfer embargo if they deem it appropriate, which would potentially prevent Pulis bringing in new players during next month's transfer window.

It is the second time this year there has been a problem with Wednesday players being paid their wages after some did not receive the full amount in June, although that issue was later resolved.

[Chester Perry]

All things considered this may be a good deal - The Premier League extends it's deal in the Middle East North Africa for the next cycle with Bein Sport at the same level as the current deal - remember Bein have ben either refusing to do deals (Bundesliga) or reducing fees (Serie A). The Premier League may also see a boost in income via exchange rates if the deal is in US$ - from SportsProMedia

Premier League renews ‘US$500m’ BeIN MENA rights deal
Extended broadcast partnership runs until 2025 and includes Saudi Arabia.

Posted: December 17 2020 By: Tom Bassam

- Rights deal matches current value as network rewards Premier League's anti-piracy efforts
- BeIN’s package covers all 380 top-flight games per season across 24 countries

The Premier League and BeIN Media Group have confirmed a new extension to their broadcast partnership for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, which now runs until 2025.

The deal is worth a reported US$500 million over the three years of the 2022 to 2025 rights cycle, the same value as BeIN’s current contract. The pay-TV broadcaster gains rights to all 380 English top-flight soccer matches per season, across 24 countries in the region.

The deal also covers Saudi Arabia, where BeIN is banned from broadcasting. The Qatar-based network privately accepts its content will be stolen in the country. The thinking behind BeIN’s decision to maintain its level of Premier League investment is a show of faith in the rights holder over its efforts to combat piracy.

According to the New York Times, Newcastle United, who saw their Saudi-backed takeover blocked by the Premier League earlier this year over the issue of piracy, were the only club to vote against the deal.

Premier League action will be broadcast live and exclusively by BeIN in both Arabic and English language via their dedicated portfolio of 19 sports channels.

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, BeIN Media Group chairman, said: “This deal demonstrates that rights holders who do the most to protect their intellectual property also do the most to protect the value of their media rights.”

The renewal comes with several other properties struggling to agree deals in the MENA region or having to accept reduced fees due to Saudi Arabia’s rampant piracy. German soccer’s Bundesliga has not found a new broadcast partner in the region after losing BeIN and Serie A had to agree a rebate with the network to reflect the fact that its rights were not exclusive.

[Chester Perry]

What is noticeable about that Premier League MENA deal is that it prevents Saudi Arabia from purchasing rights for their territory (something they have been pushing for) they could theoretically get them from BeinSport, but that seems either unlikely or very expensive - I have said before that the Premier League is a very good long term partner, this deal (apparently without tender) and it's steady value in a challenging economic period, and in a region where the broadcaster claims to lose tens of millions annually to piracy, clearly shows that.

Newcastle apparently voted against the deal according to the Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/a3c0ae41-1f9 ... e43ca8d2fd

Newcastle United casts futile vote against Premier League $500m Middle East TV deal
Club hit by Saudi takeover collapse is sole dissenter as rivals approve Qatar-based beIN Sports broadcast contract

Murad Ahmed, Sports Editor 8 HOURS AGO

Newcastle United has voted against a new $500m television deal between the Premier League and Qatar-based beIN Sports, as acrimony around a collapsed Saudi takeover of the English football club continues to reverberate.

The world’s most valuable domestic football competition has announced it has signed an extension to its broadcast deal with Doha-based beIN to screen matches across the Middle East, covering the three seasons between 2022 and 2025.

According to people briefed on a meeting between Premier League clubs on Thursday, the latest deal is worth $500m, making it among the competition’s biggest international broadcast contracts, with money shared between the league’s 20 member clubs.

These people added, however, that Newcastle, owned by British retail billionaire Mike Ashley, voted against the transaction. This was a futile gesture, as only 14 club votes are needed to approve any measure and the beIN deal passed 19 to 1.

Newcastle and the Premier League declined to comment. 

The club’s solitary dissent to the Middle East broadcast contract comes after its proposed £300m sale to a consortium led by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, collapsed earlier this year.

BeIN had lobbied hard against the Newcastle takeover due to Saudi Arabia’s involvement in beoutQ, a pirate internet network that has been streaming Premier League matches — the rights to which the Qatari-based broadcaster owns. 

BeoutQ emerged in 2017 shortly after Riyadh and three Arab allies cut diplomatic and transport links to Qatar. Saudi Arabia has consistently denied involvement in media piracy.

Multiple people briefed on the events said beoutQ was the primary reason the Newcastle deal became stuck in the Premier League’s regulatory process around takeovers.

The club has appointed lawyers seeking to challenge the Premier League in an effort to resurrect the takeover, but the Saudi-led consortium has publicly backed away from the deal.

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, beIN’s owner who also runs France’s Paris Saint-Germain football club, said: “This deal demonstrates that rights-holders who do the most to protect their intellectual property, also do the most to protect the value of their media rights.” 

Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said: “We are pleased to agree a significant deal with beIN Sports, who are a longstanding and valued partner.” 

Broadcast contracts have powered the Premier League’s growth in recent years, with the league saying last year that it held multiyear TV deals worth an overall £9.2bn. 

However, the pandemic has led to setbacks to the business, including returning £330m in rebates to broadcasters to compensate for lost action during spring lockdowns and the termination of a $700m digital streaming deal in China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's Simon Chadwick's view on the situation

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 0339922944

[Chester Perry]

The Vultures are at the door

Private Equity eyes La Liga - from SportsProMedia

La Liga in talks with CVC and Bruin to sell 60% of new technology business
Spanish soccer body values LaLiga Tech company at €450m.

Posted: December 16 2020 By: Ed Dixon

- La Liga looking to further commercialise tech output
- Javier Tebas says new company has deals in place with up to 70 competitions
- CVC already set for stake in Serie A’s new media business

Spanish soccer body La Liga has separated its digital services into a new company and is in talks with private equity groups CVC Capital Partners and Bruin Sports Capital over selling 60 per cent of the organisation.

Investment in LaLiga Tech, which the Spanish league values at €450 million (US$548 million), will help develop the commercialisation of digital assets for use by other sports competitions.

La Liga president Javier Tebas confirmed discussions had taken place with “several well-known investment funds”, including CVC and Bruin, over putting the majority stake on the market. Tebas added La Liga has invested around €200 million (US$243 million) in technology advancements in recent years, including artificial intelligence (AI), as well as business intelligence and analytics systems.

The president also insisted the move was not a cash grab from the league, stating it did not have “treasury problems”. Instead, the potential LaLigaTech investment marks the next step in efforts to further commercialise the organisation’s digital ecosystem within the sports industry, while also supporting the wider La Liga business.

The formation of LaLiga Tech will see some 110 league employees switch to the new company. Tebas also said it has agreements with up to 70 other competitions to sell its various tech products.

La Liga already has deals with the likes of Dorna Sports, the commercial rights holder of the MotoGP global motorcycling series. The league has also extend its digital business to involve third parties, such as Spanish consulting firm Robota which works with the LaLiga Content Protection subsidiary that tackles piracy.

A deal for La Liga’s digital assets would mark the latest entry from a private equity firm into another of European soccer’s biggest leagues. Last month, a consortium led by CVC edged closer to acquiring a stake in Serie A’s new media business after Italian clubs agreed to accept the group’s €1.7 billion (US$2 billion) offer, seeing off competition from Bain Capital and NB Renaissance Partners.

CVC, as well as more than 20 other firms, are also reportedly interested in investing €300 million (US$365 million) in international media rights for Germany’s top-tier Bundesliga.

[Chester Perry]

This has the potential to be hugely significant for football - 25 years after Bosman, possibly more significant than that was - think Super Leagues/break-aways etc. you can bet that Private Equity and the ECA (at least the original Group of 14) will have taken note. The Law is on their side. This is partnered with the warning from the US Department of Justice AntiTrust warning in September about FIFA blocking league games overseas in countries that have a domestic league opens a whole new range of opportunities

DECEMBER 16, 20202:02 PMUPDATED A DAY AGO
Skating body ISU loses appeal against landmark EU penalty ruling
By Foo Yun Chee

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The International Skating Union (ISU) on Wednesday lost its bid to overturn an EU antitrust order that it stop penalising speed skaters for taking part in new money-spinning events, as Europe’s second-highest court backed the earlier order.

Legal experts in sports-related cases said the decision could affect other sports and become as significant as the 1995 court ruling involving Belgian soccer player Jean-Marc Bosman, which paved the way for the free movement of players in the EU.

“The judgement is like opening the Berlin Wall for athletes,” said Mark Orth of MEOlaw.

“It puts the long established discretionary actions of sports federations towards their athletes into very tight straits, which opens freedom for athletes.”

The case could, for example, make it easier for unofficial and breakaway events and competitions to be set up without the approval of a sport’s governing body.

The European Commission in its 2017 ruling said the sport’s governing body had imposed “disproportionately punitive” sanctions on skaters, preventing the emergence of rival events in violation of EU antitrust rules.

The case centred on a complaint by Dutch Olympic speed skaters Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt after ISU threats of a lifetime ban stopped them from competing in lucrative Ice Derby events run by a South Korean company.

The Luxembourg-based General Court agreed with the EU competition enforcers.

“The rules of the International Skating Union providing for severe penalties for athletes taking part in speed skating events not recognised by it are contrary to EU competition law,” judges said.

However, they also faulted the Commission for disputing the ISU’s arbitration rules, which give the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against ineligibility decisions and make such arbitration binding.

The Commission had said such arbitration rules further restricted competition.

“The Commission was wrong to dispute the ISU’s arbitration rules,” the General Court said.

The ISU had previously said it had never imposed lifetime bans and that it has already revised its sanctions regime.

“Whenever sport federations want to restrict the freedom of their athletes, they have to prove that such actions do have a predefined legitimate object, which is set out in clear and transparent terms in advance,” Orth said.

“The practice of using lots of discretion by sports federations when applying their rules has now been stopped by the European General Court,” he added.

The case is T-93/18, International Skating Union v Commission.

[Chester Perry]

An interesting 4 part weekly series from SportsProMedia and no doubt one looked at carefully by ALK Investments - An Experts Guide to running a Soccer Club

part 1 - Sporting Operations
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... e-strategy

part 2 - The revenue Engine
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... -ticketing

part 3 - One relationship to rule them all
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... g-crm-fans

part 4 due next week - will look at the challenges of stakeholder engagement

[Chester Perry]

Piece from the Athletic on that new MENA tv deal for the Premier League and why Newcastle voted against it

Explained: The Premier League’s big new TV deal – and why Newcastle opposed it


By Matt Slater and Chris Waugh 7h ago 29
What has the Premier League agreed with beIn Sports?
The league has signed a new three-year deal for its exclusive live rights in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region with Qatar-based beIN Sports, extending a partnership that goes back to 2013. The new agreement runs from 2022 to 2025 and is worth in the region of $500 million (about £368 million) — roughly the amount that beIN paid for its current three-year rights package.

What makes this deal so significant?
This is a very important deal for the league and its Qatari partner, for several reasons.

For the league, this is a major vote of confidence in its enduring popularity around the globe, as the likes of the Bundesliga and Serie A have been dropped by beIN, by far the biggest player in the MENA region, and have struggled to find alternatives, while French football has just seen its domestic rights deal with Spanish company Mediapro collapse.

These setbacks come after a 2020 dominated by the pandemic, closed stadiums and rebates to broadcasters and sponsors, so beIN’s renewal, on the same terms, is a clear signal the Premier League should emerge from this crisis in good shape, and perhaps in even better shape than its rivals.

But the deal is also a reward for the Premier League’s robust stance against digital piracy, with no better example than the league’s support for beIN against beoutQ, a pirate broadcaster that started stealing beIN’s feed in Saudi Arabia shortly after Qatar fell out with its Gulf neighbours in 2017.

The rights and wrongs of that diplomatic and economic spat are best told elsewhere but from an intellectual property point of view it has meant there has been no legal way to watch the Premier League, or almost any other premium sports content, in the Gulf’s biggest country for three years.

The Premier League has backed beIN’s attempts to force Saudi Arabia to shut down beoutQ, compensate it for lost revenue and protect its rights going forward. This summer, the World Trade Organisation issued a landmark ruling against the Saudi government, strongly criticising its failure to protect the Premier League’s intellectual property and beIN’s rights.

The Saudi authorities responded by formally banning beIN from operating in the kingdom.

Under normal circumstances, this row would probably have never got beyond the business pages or trade journals, but normal went out of the window in January when it first emerged that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund (PIF), had teamed up with British businesswoman Amanda Staveley and British property tycoons the Reuben family to try to buy Newcastle United from Mike Ashley.

A key issue was Saudi Arabia’s alleged links with beoutQ, a difficult claim to dismiss given that the Premier League’s anti-piracy team had spent nearly two years helping beIN build its case against the Saudis.

During this time, the Saudi authorities had repeatedly blocked or ignored attempts by the Premier League, UEFA, FIFA and all the other main football stakeholders to get the oil-rich state to take the theft of intellectual property seriously.

The result of all this back and forth was… stalemate. Attempts to create distance between the buyers and the piracy issue got nowhere, and the league refused to let PIF pass its Owners’ and Directors’ Test, with the prospective buyers claiming the league had made it “impossible” for the deal to go through.

Offers of arbitration were rejected by the Saudis and they walked away from the deal, leaving their bid partners, Ashley and Newcastle’s fans utterly frustrated.

Since then, it has been suggested the deal could be revived, with one popular idea being that either a legal Saudi broadcaster would emerge to gazump beIN, or Saudi Arabia would be carved out of the MENA region, avoiding the need for the Saudis to swallow their pride, while giving Saudi football fans a legal means to watch Premier League football.

That, however, always seemed like wishful thinking on the part of the Saudis and their friends in Newcastle, as regional deals in territories like these make much more sense for rightsholders. First, it saves a lot of time and effort, as MENA covers 24 countries from Morocco on the Atlantic coast to Oman, 5,000 miles to the east. And second, it produces a lot more value because of the size of the market. Country-specific deals only really make sense when the market is big enough to create value.

So, as well as all the other reasons listed above, this agreement represents confidence in the model that has made the Premier League the richest domestic football competition in the world, and by far the most watched.

How important are overseas deals now to the Premier League?
The Premier League’s overseas broadcast deals are, in many ways, its unique selling point. No other domestic football competition comes close to its ability to extract serious money from foreign broadcasters.

There are several theories as to why this is the case — England’s status as the game’s motherland or the fact that English has become a lingua franca, giving English brands a big advantage, for example — but a lot of credit must go to the league itself.

One, it has a fantastic sales team. Two, it devotes a lot of time and attention to delivering a premium product. And three, by sharing its broadcast money more fairly than any of its rival leagues, it has created a better competitive balance than anywhere else in Europe.

The current three-year cycle from 2018 to 2021 actually saw the value of the league’s domestic rights drop by seven per cent to £5 billion but the overseas rights, buoyed by booming audience numbers, climbed 35 per cent to lift the overall package to £9.2 billion, up eight per cent.

When the league launched in 1992, overseas TV deals were an afterthought, as nobody assumed they would ever truly move the needle. They now account for 46 per cent of the total and every expert predicts that figure will move over 50 per cent from 2022 onwards.

The comparisons with other leagues are stark.

The Premier League is the only domestic league to earn more than a billion euros per year from foreign rights, with clubs sharing £1.4 billion a year. Spain’s La Liga is next best at £800 million, with Italy’s Serie A third on just over £330 million.

Can this continue? Well, people have been predicting the league’s bubble will burst every three years for nearly three decades. They have not been right yet. How the global economy recovers from the pandemic is clearly the first big test of the Premier League’s resilience since the crash in 2008.

It got through that and the early signs suggest it will weather this storm, too. There was the blow of losing a similar-sized deal to the beIN agreement with Chinese digital broadcaster PPTV at the start of this season.

That left the league having to scramble to sign a short-term deal, for far less money, with Tencent. But bookending this blow are today’s beIN announcement and the first post-2022 overseas deal, which was announced just before the virus hit the UK — a six-year blockbuster with NENT for the Nordic market worth a remarkable £2 billion, or £350 million a season.

The next big one to get over the line will be the US rights, held by NBC until the end of next season. NBC paid about £740 million over six years and, pre-pandemic, there were high hopes at PL HQ of significantly raising that number.

What does this say about the Premier League’s row with Saudi Arabia over piracy?
Nothing good, if you are still holding out for a Saudi takeover at Newcastle in the next month or two.

The much-discussed legitimate Saudi broadcaster failed to enter the bidding for the MENA rights, surprising nobody at beIN Sports, and Saudi Arabia was not taken out of the regional package, a compromise that would have spared blushes in Riyadh but left the league out of pocket in the long run and diminished in the eyes of its existing broadcast partners — all of whom, by the way, side with beIN, as they know you cannot appease piracy.

What this renewal of vows between the league and beIN means is there is only one way out of this hole for a Saudi state-backed takeover at St James’ Park: admitting it was wrong over beoutQ and saying sorry to one of Qatar’s most high-profile companies.

Until very recently, that looked as unlikely as Newcastle fans deciding life under Mike Ashley is not so bad after all. But events elsewhere may have changed the political landscape in the Gulf region, which says it all, really.

Joe Biden’s victory in the US general election should herald the return of more traditional American diplomacy and sorting out the spat in the Gulf will be high on the agenda. While Donald Trump emboldened Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to gang up on Qatar, Biden is already signalling he wants them to make peace.

Nothing happens fast in the desert but there are signs of reconciliation, with football diplomacy to the fore. It may take a little bit longer for relations between the Premier League and Saudi Arabia to thaw, though, as the kingdom’s response to the league’s efforts to protect its intellectual property, the WTO ruling and the eventual breakdown of the takeover response has left some scar tissue.

And Ashley’s actions have not helped, either.

Why did Newcastle United vote against the deal?
There is both militant and practical rationale behind their decision. Every dealing Newcastle are having with the Premier League on an executive level at the moment is being shaped, at least in part, by the prospective takeover — and this is their latest tactical move in an apparent guerrilla campaign to try to resurrect that deal.

In September, Newcastle claimed the Premier League had “rejected” the takeover and accused the governing body of failing to “act appropriately”. The league responded by denying that was the case, while also refuting allegations of impropriety. Then, last month, the club confirmed they have started arbitration proceedings against the Premier League, even alleging that the administration “leaked” information, therefore ignoring their own “confidentiality clause”.

There are those, both at Newcastle and on the buying side, who remain angered by beIN’s public intervention in the takeover saga, with the broadcaster clearly attempting to pressure the Premier League into rejecting the deal. Beyond that, there have even been allegations levied, which have been repeatedly denied by the Premier League, that beIN Sports and even the Qatari government attempted to intervene behind the scenes, too, both through lobbying other clubs to oppose the takeover and via more direct discussions with senior figures at the organisation.

But, beyond antagonising the Premier League at every possible opportunity, Newcastle’s decision to object is also likely to be motivated by their desire to keep PIF and the Saudis content.

Ashley is determined to conclude the takeover because, not only would he get £305 million for the club, but he is also set to open up new trade links in Saudi Arabia.

For the deal to stand any chance of succeeding, however, it requires PIF’s financial backing — Staveley cannot afford the club herself, while the billionaire Reuben brothers only want a minor stake — and Ashley recognises that voting against the Qatari-funded broadcaster makes pragmatic sense.

Is it an effective form of protest?
In all likelihood, no. With all 19 other Premier League clubs voting it through, as Newcastle almost certainly knew they would, their decision to object appears to have been symbolic. For a start, the Premier League loves to declare “unanimity” in such announcements, and Newcastle have deprived them of that opportunity.

What’s more, at a time when top-flight clubs are experiencing significant losses due to the impact of COVID-19 forcing matches behind closed doors, it appears to be an act of self-harm to vote against a deal that most observers believe is lucrative, given the economic climate.

Newcastle’s finances have been severely affected by the pandemic — their annual earnings are, according to sources, expected to drop by well in excess of £50 million in 2020 — and so, economically, it would have been sensible to vote for a deal which is estimated to be worth around £5 million per season to them.

Politically, however, Newcastle recognised that they could continue their ongoing demonstrations against the Premier League, while still, ultimately, benefitting financially from this TV contract being approved regardless.

So what are they doing to try to force the takeover through?
Those on the buying side remain adamant that nothing has materially changed with the new TV deal. Ashley and Newcastle, through arbitration, are contesting the Premier League’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test, which failed to approve the prospective takeover.

While the club has confirmed that it “has issued arbitration proceedings against the EPL”, it has not revealed what form this legal action will take, insisting they will not comment on its “substance”. However, what is clear is that it is part of their attempts to force through the takeover, or at the very least seek further answers or extract some form of compensation from the Premier League.

The Athletic understands the Saudis remain determined to buy Newcastle, despite having officially withdrawn the bid in July, but they will only retable their offer if a pathway towards approval is unveiled.

Newcastle had hoped for positive progress in September following political pressure and government involvement. Since then, Ashley has hired Nick de Marco and Shaheed Fatima, both QCs, to lead his case in his and the club’s dispute with the Premier League.

When the arbitration process will be concluded, and what the outcome will be, remain frustratingly unclear, though.

Newcastle Consortium Supporters Ltd (NCSL) — a group of fans who have launched legal action of their own — are also keeping the pressure on the Premier League.

[Chester Perry]

That last article refers to the US market being the next big overseas deal for the Premier League to sign for the next cycle (this has traditionally been a 6 year - 2 cycle deal). The timing could have been better as the US networks are currently preparing bids for a new 10 year deal with the NFL which some pundits believe will surpass $100 billion -

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/nfl ... value-2022

[Chester Perry]

Our friend The Esk has posted a thoughtful article about Everton's cash flow, Moshiri's commitment to the club and the possible share placement - what this describes is what often happens under investment ownership by a non-fan and in some ways can be seen as a scenario that the naive may be expecting from ALK (I don't btw, though indications are that some additional investment will be forthcoming). As usual with Pau;'s articles it is a good read

contains tables so will post a link https://theesk.org/2020/12/28/cash-flow ... ew-shares/

I always find it fascinating how different owners approach the running of their clubs and how the ambition to grow revenues is (to some degree) driving the spend on new players. This of course can work well if there is a clear strategy in place (Witness those across the park from Everton in FSG 2.0 and Man City once they got the Barcelona band together, both initially started badly of course).

There are of course many examples of where this has failed, Moshiri's Everton and NSWE's Aston Villa are still project's that have yet to reach a stage where we can make a judgement. Though the spending path is on a very similar trajectory - Villa of course were quick to address the debt burden (by converting to equity) and all the new (vast) investment in the last year has been via share issues.

The commercial operation at Leeds United is one the rest of the 14 will soon be envious of. They are well on target to possibly be the 7th best commercial revenue generator in the League this season (overtaking Everton) - their 1st in the top flight in 16 years. They reportedly were on target to earn close to £40m last season in the Championship before the pandemic, having earned £27m+ the season before. This season has seen them with new deals in all new major commercial channels (with significant multiple uplifts in Kit and Shirt sponsorship) and many additional new sponsors. They also have the benefit of starting from a lower cost base to help their cash flows but there wages are likely to see them mid table this season. They are a club that have taken on debt though, and have repeatedly been forced to sell players to meet financial fair play - fortunately they have an academy that brings at least 2 players a season into the first team squad.

The alternative approach comes from a club like ours, who ensure that they run a tight operational cash flow and seek to generate an operational profit before player sales where possible - this allows them to invest in infrastructure when significant player sales occur. We have less than £10m in outstanding transfer debt (at least 30% of which is conditional) and no commercial/director debt. Interestingly given the way finances are in the game we have no football creditors (all outstanding non-conditional payments were due in the summer) - we were also insistent over the summer window that we wanted at least 70% of any outbound sale as cash upfront - unsurprisingly there were no takers. I suspect that last season (which we will account for as a 13 month period at Companies House) will see a minimal operational loss and that this season will be on target for the same, our own cash reserves have allowed us to get through the pandemic without borrowing, furlough, wage cuts or job losses - The prospective takeover could see all this turn on it's head rapidly, though there is hope that new owners could see us grow our commercial effectiveness (even that had been growing substantially year on year for 3 years pre pandemic seeing it more than double).

Paul makes an interesting point re price of new shares to be paid by Moshiri, it is not often one is able to buy additional shares in a club at a substantially less price than at initial purchase, particularly if the club is still in the same League, Though it could be argued that this is reflected in the clubs debt position, profitability and underlying operational performance they may still be overvalued even before you incorporate the TV/Sponsor rebates (to be paid back over multiple seasons and non yet announced for this seasons games), lost matchday income and the prospect of static/falling rights values in the next cycle.

The convention (irrespective of @KieranMaguire using the Markham method for his academic valuations - which Paul discussed here https://theesk.org/2017/10/26/the-valui ... all-clubs/ and which has been discussed at length in this thread) is that Premier League clubs outside the big 6 actually sell between 1.3 and 2.2 times revenue, with number of consecutive years and relative safety in the league, profitability and debt determining where the multiple value lies. Hence Leeds being towards the bottom end of the scale in their recent £240m valuation based on a proposed purchase of an additional 15% of shares by the San Francisco 49ers. FWIW the proposed transaction for Burnley is also at the bottom end of the scale - even after 5 seasons in the PL and no debt and plenty of nous re staying in the league - yet many think it is top whack including Maguire who valued us at £350m in April using the Markham Method (https://priceoffootball.com/2728-2/) substantially more than he valued Everton.

[Chester Perry]

There was hope from many (myself included) at the start of lockdown in March that the game could take time out to assess and address it's structural failings - this article by Melissa Reddy in the Independent is likely to be the first of many that finds the year has exacerbated rather than healed those issues as they have been forced into the spotlight one after another - some may argue that this is a necessary traumatic step of recognition and understanding towards resolving them.

Football needs a cultural revolution to survive a post-pandemic world
The pandemic forced the beautiful game to take a long hard look in the mirror, and it didn’t like what it saw. The entire system is broken and needs to be reset, reports Melissa Reddy

1 day ago

In mid-March, when everything as we knew it was suddenly reshaped by the coronavirus pandemic, a group of financial experts working in football hoped that the game would use the enforced break in play to finally pay attention to its plethora of ills, to sanitise itself. “This is the opportunity to stop sleepwalking into the future,” Professor Simon Chadwick, the global director of Eurasian Sport, told The Independent. “The current woes can bring about a cultural revolution. Football needs it.”

While there could be no certainty over the effects of Covid on the industry or an inclination of how long the hiatus would last, the game was finally forced to have a hard look at itself.

The entertainment and the income stopped with the spotlight switching to the mechanisms behind the show. It became very clear, very quickly that English football was far from sustainable.

The pandemic wasn’t the cause of this, merely the curtain-parter to give us a glimpse of what lurks beneath – gigantic financial inequalities, absence of accountability, no long-term picture – before then acting as an accelerant, especially with the removal of matchday revenue.

“The coronavirus crisis has shone a light on how drastically football lives a hand-to-mouth existence,” say Dr Rob Wilson, author of Managing Sport Finance.

“I’m not for one second saying they should have planned for a global pandemic, but they didn’t plan for… anything. Over the last 25 to 30 years, we’ve seen an erosion of basic economic principles, with many teams going for the winner-takes-all option. Everything has been driven by very selfish behaviour and has been very unscrupulous at times, which is a dangerous narrative. The system is fairly broken and needs a reset.”

Only four teams – Queens Park Rangers, West Bromwich Albion, Hull and Rotherham – had spent below Uefa’s recommended “healthy” wage-to-turnover limit of 70 per cent.

To reach the holy grail of the Premier League, clubs were bartering against its existence and when the crisis hit, the English pyramid was in threat. The divisions below the top-flight were in desperate need for a bailout, but more especially a drastic change in operations.

For months, no deal could be reached on a rescue package from Premier League to the English Football League. An agreement eventually materialised at the start of December, via £50m aid for League One and Two and a £200m loan facility for Championship teams.

But the lengthy period in-between was one of mounting frustration for the clubs who feared disappearing from the landscape. Government had given the arts industry a £1.57bn support shot in July, but were crystalline that they would not be lending a helping hand to the national game. In the absence of strong governance from those in charge of the country and those in charge of the game, Project Big Picture emerged, driven by Liverpool and Manchester United.

The controversial proposal, which would have seen the consolidation of power to the Premier League's Big Six along with Everton, Southampton and West Ham through special voting rights, was killed in its infancy through harmful leaks.

It did, however, have “overwhelming support” from the lower divisions as it addressed many of the key issues plaguing those levels of the game. Project Big Picture had advocated that the Premier League would share a net 25 per cent of its upcoming broadcast deals with the EFL as well as offer an immediate £250m bailout to help the pyramid survive.

It would also cover funding for stadium infrastructure and grassroots, the creation of a fan charter, an easing of the packed domestic schedule and a £100m helping hand to the FA. It promised an end to the “evil” of parachute payments, which fuels inequality and a reduction of the top-flight to just 18 teams, which would enhance competitive balance. Salary caps would curtail irresponsible free spending.

Project Big Picture was viewed as essential and the most pivotal plan in nearly three decades to help repair a broken system. There is a widespread feeling within the game that various aspects of the proposal will ultimately come to pass because greater sustainability is imperative.

Professor Chadwick has been “advocating for a football parliament for around 15 years, where relevant stakeholders debate in public over the key areas of concern and how it can be tackled in future”.

He had hoped the pandemic would push the importance of such a mechanism along, but it hasn’t been forthcoming. “Too often the management and leadership within clubs is insufficiently developed. In some cases it is immature,” Chadwick told The Independent. “There’s a thinking of what happens on the field is most important and so off the field, there’s a lot of me tooism.

“Instead of clubs individually assessing a situation and thinking ‘this is what we believe we need to do’, many will think ‘oh they’ve done that, so we need to do that’.

“You get a cascade effect of ‘me too – I’m doing it too.’ It results in generic responses to crisis situations. I’ve heard this being called a ‘reset moment’ for the game. Reset to what? Who is going to do the resetting? The government, the associations, clubs on their own?

“It need advocates, stakeholders from across the game – officials, fans, media, execs – to agree a path forward that becomes policy, which is supported by government. Whether it be ridding gambling sponsorships or making sure the game is really serious about corporate social responsibility.”

We've lost three generations of players who have been denied opportunities, we can't lose a fourth

The lack of sustainability is one of many fundamental issues that needs to be remedied in football’s future. Increasing representation off the pitch to make the game more representative of the communities it serves is another.

The FA launched its Leadership Diversity Code in October to tackle racial inequality in technical areas and the boardroom. At the time, there were only five out of 92 managers or head coaches who were from Bame backgrounds. The picture was no prettier in executive positions across the sport.

Measures had to be taken and with more than 40 clubs have signed up to the voluntary code, it is hoped that there will be greater commitment to providing equal opportunities and transparency in the hiring process.

It stipulates that: 15 per cent of new executive appointments will be from a Bame background, with 30 per cent female; 50 per cent of new coaching appointments at women's football clubs will be female, with 15 per cent Bame.

Shortlists for interview will have at least one male and one female Bame candidate, provided applicants meeting the job specifications apply.

“We are trying to modernise football so it stops relying on its 'little black book' and group of networks and actually gives equal opportunities to those who are qualified,” explained Paul Elliott, head of the FA's inclusion advisory board.

”This isn't about tokenism, this is about equal opportunities. To be the same as everyone else. What really inspired me to create the code was a comment from Raheem Sterling, when he said he looks up to the directors and senior leadership and doesn't see people like him. We've lost three generations of players who have been denied opportunities, we can't lose a fourth.”

Incidentally, an episode that underscored exactly why the upper echelons of football need a variety of voices and people from different backgrounds came from the FA itself just days after the launch of the code. Greg Clarke resigned as the organisation’s chairman after using what he admitted was ”unacceptable“ language. The ease in which he delivered several offensive, idiotic statements spoke to the reality of unrepresentative institutions.

Clarke used the term ”coloured footballers”, referring to gay players making a “life choice” and revealed a coach told him that young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them. He also said there were “a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans“ in the FA's IT department because ”they have different career interests”.

Not only did Clarke undermine the body’s labour in drafting the code – there was a five-month consultation period, taking in the recommendations of players like Jordan Henderson, Tyrone Mings and Lucy Bronze as well as journalists and other stakeholders – he flagged just how out of touch the hierarchy of football is in the country.

The game has a distance to go in remedying these historic problems and with the way it deals with instances of discrimination. In the 2019-20 season, there was a 53 per cent increase in reported racial abuse in professional football. The problem is more pronounced on social media, where clubs, players, leagues and governing bodies need to get tougher with the platforms.

Another major concern – a matter of life and death – is the outdated and dangerously lax protocols for head trauma. Wolves forward Raul Jimenez suffered a fractured skull in November after aerially colliding with David Luiz at an Arsenal corner. The defender passed the current concussion protocol, his head was bandaged and he returned to action. Blood seeped through his dressings and he was unsettled heading the ball. Luiz had to be removed at half-time, but he shouldn’t have even been allowed to continue.

Dr Willie Stewart, the neuropathologist who proved the game’s link with dementia, believes football is still “in the last century” when it comes to dealing with head trauma.

While other sporting codes have a temporary concussion sub so a proper examination can happen, football is nowhere close to introducing such a mechanism

There is not enough time to assess the player under the current guidelines, which allows for three minutes. While other sporting codes have a temporary concussion sub so a proper examination can happen – independent of club medical staff so player welfare rather than the result is prioritised – football is nowhere close to introducing such a mechanism.

Stewart is frustrated at the non-action as his research, spanning two decades, shows that there is a 3.5 times higher risk of death and brain disease, a doubling of risk of Parkinson’s, a fourfold increase in motor neurone disease and a fivefold increase in Alzheimer's disease among former pro players.

Ryan Mason, who was forced to retire aged 26 in February 2018 after suffering the same injury as Jimenez, “feels lucky to be alive”. He has been campaigning for football to implement more advanced protocols for head injuries as well as appreciate the dangers of the type of aerial challenge itself.

“I would like to say a lot has changed since then on the football pitch, but it actually hasn't which is probably why I'm so passionate talking about it now, because obviously Raul has suffered a similar incident,” Mason explained.

“It makes me angry, makes me upset and so many different emotions because I've spoken to quite a few people over the last couple of years.

“What's football's excuse to ignore it? Because I can't really find any reasons to just ignore it and carry on with this protocol that we have in place, which clearly isn't right.

“Why aren't we willing to change? Why isn't football willing to adapt? The brain is very vulnerable and we need to do what we can to protect our players now, not only short term, but long term as well.”

This year should have also made it clear to the game that there is another group that need protection: supporters. Football without fans has been a soulless experience; a competitive training ground match played in empty stadia pumped with fake crowd noise to fulfil broadcasting contracts and offer a tiny bit of normalcy to lives.

Terraces in Tier 2 areas being filled with 2000 voices in the final weeks of 2020 was not only welcome, it was necessary. Emotion was back along with the feeling that football mattered well beyond the result; a sense of community and belonging returned. This should be remembered when the subject of ticket prices is flagged or whenever supporters are fleeced or unfairly vilified.

Their thoughts on VAR should be respected too. The spectacle is being dimmed by the implementation of the technology which promised minimum intervention for maximum benefit but has proved to be the opposite. The Laws of the Game, particularly around handball, need to be reworked.

On a more personal matter to supporters, The Independent has covered the prejudiced policing of matches in the UK in depth, where fans are seen as a public disorder threat rather than ordinary citizens attending an event. They would be treated differently if they were attending a music concert, a rugby game or any other mass gathering.

This has to be forced to change. Football can no longer continue with the status quo, not when the pandemic put it under the microscope and showed just how fragile it is. Not when we all know what lurks beneath the glitz and the goals.

[Chester Perry]

The Telegraph look at the mess that is Sheffield Wednesday - a club that has got itself into an awful mess through poor ownership - not unlike Leeds - there is a big club (like Sunderland) there that the Premier League would love to have back in the place of ourselves, Fulham, West Brom or Palace.

What happened to Sheffield Wednesday? How a once grand club sunk into decline
ROSS HEPPENSTALL DECEMBER 30, 2020

They have always had a clear idea of their rightful place at Sheffield Wednesday, a stage for European football at the advent of the Premier League, and it isn’t the lower reaches of the second flight, never mind the third.

You are aware of that as soon as you head into the main reception at Hillsborough and see the large framed pictures that proudly adorn the walls.

The images remain iconic and each tells a story, such as the 1991 League Cup final when John Sheridan’s strike slayed Manchester United at Wembley. Captain Nigel Pearson is a picture of delight as he holds the trophy aloft for Ron Atkinson’s then second division outfit, who won promotion that season.

Continue along the corridor and this time it is a memorable FA Cup semi-final over bitter city rivals Sheffield United in 1993, with Mark Bright celebrating wildly after scoring an extra-time winner.

Wednesday, under the guidance of player-manager Trevor Francis, played at Wembley four times that season, losing both domestic finals to Arsenal, but they were heady days.

Fast forward three decades and a once great football institution is on its knees, fighting to avoid the indignity of being relegated to the third tier for the third time since their Premier League demise.

They are without a manager following the sacking of Tony Pulis late on Monday night, with the former Stoke, Crystal Palace and Middlesbrough boss departing after just 45 days in charge in the latest crazy chapter of a club where little has gone right since they were relegated from the Premier League in May 2000.

Theirs is a sad tale of steady decline and ruinous ownership, leaving deep scars on a huge fanbase and one half of a football-obsessed city.

Thai businessman Dejphon Chansiri bought the club from Milan Mandaric for £37.5million in early 2015 and targeted promotion to the Premier League within two years. Instead, Wednesday have been in the Championship's bottom two this entire season.

Jon Newsome, a Sheffield-born Wednesdayite who played for the club in two spells, told Telegraph Sport: “It’s been a multitude of mismanagement for a long time now.

“When I came back to the club in 1996, it felt like a club in the ascendancy but mistakes were made by signing players and breaking the wage structure. That left the club with major financial issues, which unfortunately dragged on as there was nobody with big pots of money to wipe the slate clean.

“It went from one disaster to another until Mandaric took. He was a very astute businessman who knew football and, when Dejphon Chansiri came in with his bundles of cash, Wednesday appeared an attractive proposition.”

Chansiri’s big-money takeover encouraged hopes of a genuine renaissance. In both his first two full seasons at the helm, Wednesday made the Championship play-offs under Carlos Carvalhal. After Carvalhal departed in December 2017, Jos Luhukay lasted just less than a year and Steve Bruce a mere five months.

Garry Monk was in position for 15 months before being discarded to make way for Pulis in November. Just over six weeks later and Pulis was shown the door.

Newsome, who follows Wednesday’s fortunes closely, said: “Unfortunately, I just feel Chansiri has been ill advised because there has been millions of pounds wasted under his watch. There just doesn’t seem to be any long-term plan or strategy in place."

Evidence of Chansiri’s vanity is everywhere at Hillsborough, with his name emblazoned across the shirt and across the seats in the north stand. He changed the badge and got rid of stripes (and then brought back stripes) and also put two gold elephants outside the main entrance.

Wednesday were deducted 12 points this season, later reduced to six, for breaching spending rules, severely hampering their chances of avoiding the drop. And Telegraph Sport has reported how the players only received a percentage of their November salaries, with wages promised in full around Christmas.

Beyond that a key issue is that whoever is appointed Pulis’s successor faces a mountainous task because they will inherit a poor squad.

Pulis recently said: “Out of all the clubs I’ve managed, it’s probably as disjointed a group as I’ve managed. If you look at it, there’s six centre-halves, and I don’t think we’ve got a left back. We’ve got five tens, and really not a centre-forward.”

Newsome added: "Amongst the fanbase, I think the tide turned against Chansiri a long time ago.Don’t get me wrong, I think his heart was initially in the right place. His dream was to return a football institution to the Premier League and he’s put money in. But I feel it’s not been spent wisely and you go to games now and it doesn’t feel right. They run out of food and drinks at the snackbars and half the corporate boxes are empty. If Wednesday do go down, I fear for them.”

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Not really sure why they'd want Wed in the PL above clubs like ourselves.

By all accounts the ground is decrepit, they aren't going to get promoted and start playing fantastic flowing football and I'm not really sure they're gonna have a massive world wide fan base.

[Chester Perry]

I missed this little nugget of PR from the Premier League last month - my thanks to The Esk for pointing it out

how much EFL clubs received from the Premier league in the 2019/20 season - club by club

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1939288

[Chester Perry]

Not really sure why they'd want Wed in the PL above clubs like ourselves.

By all accounts the ground is decrepit, they aren't going to get promoted and start playing fantastic flowing football and I'm not really sure they're gonna have a massive world wide fan base.

it comes down to size for the TV deals - clubs like ours make great stories for a couple of seasons (how often do overseas viewers want to see out over the Bob Lord stand), but after that the TV stations become somewhat bored of us - having all the biggest clubs in the same league, with relatively even TV income should increase competition and ability for all to hover up the better players in the market given other revenue options.

A revamped Hillsborough would be welcomed with open arms by the Premier League

[Chester Perry]

An interesting 4 part weekly series from SportsProMedia and no doubt one looked at carefully by ALK Investments - An Experts Guide to running a Soccer Club

part 1 - Sporting Operations
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... e-strategy

part 2 - The revenue Engine
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... -ticketing

part 3 - One relationship to rule them all
https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... g-crm-fans

part 4 due next week - will look at the challenges of stakeholder engagement

the 4th and final part of the weekly series from SportsProMedia - An Experts Guide to running a Soccer Club

Stakeholder Engagement

https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... cial-media

[Chester Perry]

This is interesting opinion piece from SportsProMedia on the likelihood of sport being targeted by fraudsters as a direct result of Covid's impact

Opinion | Sport must shape up to fight the ‘fraud triangle’
​Covid-19 has created the ideal conditions for fraudsters to operate. Jonathan Brown, head of forensics and investigations EMEA at Control Risks, explains why sports governing bodies must act now to stem the rising tide of corruption.

By Jonathan Brown Posted: December 22 2020
Opinion | Sport must shape up to fight the ‘fraud triangle’

A wave of fraud and corruption will crash over sport in the coming years, as a direct result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The set of circumstances individuals, clubs, leagues and governing bodies are currently experiencing makes this inevitable.

Accepted fraud theory suggests that three conditions must be present for fraud and corruption to take place:

- Pressure – this is the driver and can be described as a “non-shareable problem”
- Opportunity – a set of circumstances, such as weak controls, that leaves the door ajar for fraud to take place
- Rationalisation – the state of mind that enables the perpetrator to make peace with their actions, working on the premise that human beings are good, so to commit an illegal or inappropriate act, they need to find a way to rationalise it to themselves

When considering how the “fraud triangle” can be applied to sport right now, it perhaps becomes clearer why a perfect storm has emerged that should be cause for real concern.

Under pressure
Almost every sport has been under extreme pressure throughout the pandemic. An absence of crowds and the associated matchday revenue is the most obvious example, but the impact is far more widespread and will be felt for years to come.

Tournaments have been cancelled or postponed and the organisational disarray, whilst outside the control of media rights holders, has led TV companies to seek sizeable rebates on contracted payments. In a further blow, sponsors are withdrawing or seeking to renegotiate endorsements with teams and individuals as companies attempt to pull up the drawbridge and curb discretionary spend.

This retrenchment has led to a direct financial impact across every facet of sport, from the upper echelons right down to participant level, and as a result there are three areas where we envisage problems emerging in the coming months.

Match-fixing and spot-fixing
This is a perennial problem, exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic. Fixing requires the involvement of a participant in an event and the opportunity therefore presents itself every time they compete. Pressures will vary, whether it is a lack of fixtures causing a decrease in income, a contract being cancelled, or a reduction in family income completely unconnected to their sporting endeavours. Self-preservation is a pretty good rationalisation.

The risk level has increased because fixing tends to happen in the lower leagues or minor competitions, away from the gaze of television. This is exactly where we are seeing the most impact from the financial hit caused by Covid-19 – crowd income can really matter and has been next to non-existent, prize money is a greater driver of income and has been greatly reduced, and clubs and leagues have introduced salary curbing measures in an effort to survive.

The fixers, often organised criminal gangs, are circling looking for a route in and Interpol’s Match Fixing Task Force is already reporting a significant increase in potentially corrupt activity in recent months, in sports as diverse as football, cricket, tennis, darts and esports.

Increased doping
Many of the financial pressures that leave individuals prone to approaches from fixers can also drive competitors towards rationalising doping; be faster, stronger, more alert and financial rewards in the form of improved contracts and sponsorship can follow.

But consider briefly another motivation that may exist: competitive spirit. There are athletes and sportspeople everywhere who’ve been forced to train in sub-optimal conditions as we lurch in and out of lockdown, either through lack of access to equipment at home or an inability to travel to training camps and high-class facilities.

But this is not an equitable position. A career in top-level sport is brief and seeing your competitors at other clubs, or in other countries who, through reasons of geography or demographics, have had uninterrupted access to the facilities they need to maintain peak performance will be galling. Might you want to level the playing field?

In a new world where travel logistics and social distancing mean that out-of-competition testing is more challenging than ever, an opportunity presents itself.

The best advice that we can give is simply “be vigilant” and focus on limiting the opportunity.

Misuse of emergency funding
Of course, sport is not alone in facing acute trauma in our new world. Individuals and organisations in almost every walk of life have experienced financial and logistical challenges in 2020 that would have been inconceivable just 12 months ago. But for sport, perhaps more than any other industry, this has been played out in the most public of arenas as governments and governing bodies fight to restore some semblance of normality in a world where none exists.

For many members of global sports federations, existence is relatively hand to mouth at the best of times, let alone in the midst of a pandemic and in an effort to curb the financial impact of Covid-19, a plethora of federations have sought to provide financial support to those that need it most. In many cases, the response was rapid, with funding pumped out to recipients in member countries globally, trusting them to spend it wisely to combat logistical challenges, look after their people and offset immediate drops in income.

The vast bulk of those funds were provided un-vetted and without formalised budgeting. This was driven by necessity given the urgent situation many member countries found themselves in and is a departure from the norm. Whilst this is entirely understandable, it is almost certain that there will be many instances of those funds not being spent in the way the governing body intended, or even for the benefit of the intended recipient at all.

It will be many months before any form of retrospective audit of fund usage will be possible. An inability to travel, lack of access to offices and people, missing documents and the general chaos of a pandemic will be used to explain irregularities and it is, indeed, this logistical car-crash that provides the opportunity.

Whilst there will undoubtedly be cash siphoned off for personal benefit along the way, we anticipate many perpetrators will instead be seeking to ensure the continued viability or their sporting organisation and can rationalise a little “creative” accounting for the greater good.

Stemming the tide
Given the unique circumstances we are in and the struggles society has had with containing the virus to date, the three elements of the fraud triangle are likely to be present and dangerous for some time to come. You cannot prevent individuals experiencing financial difficulty or the instability and associated pressures of a stubborn virus, so the question is, what can we do about it?

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) issued a report in December 2020 that considered ‘Fraud in the wake of Covid-19’. The figures are stark: 80 per cent of this group of fraud-fighting professionals have already seen an increase in instances of fraud and over 90 per cent envisage that escalating in the next 12 months. Conversely, only 40 per cent envisage increased budget to tackle fraud and 33 per cent anticipate more staff. That cannot be the answer.

The best advice that we can give is simply “be vigilant” and focus on limiting the opportunity. Sport has seen an increasing focus on integrity and compliance in recent years as the organisational structures that underpin it professionalise. Now is the time to double down on those efforts and give compliance functions the budget, mandate and authority required to monitor irregularities, in an effort to prevent the wave becoming a tsunami.

[Chester Perry]

The guys at SportsProMedia are at it again with another in depth and lengthy series, this time looking at the world in 2022 - Part one has been out for a while now - I had been wondering why there was such a gap between instalments, but there is an awful lot to take in and each installment takes quite a bit of time to read.

Part 1 The world in 2022 : Future-proofing your business
https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... -drl-zwift

Part 2 The world in 2022 : Why you need a newly fluid business model
https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... p-strategy

It has been a while but here is Part 3 of SportProMedia's series looking into the near future for sport

Part 3 The world in 2022 : Margins too tight to mention
https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... oeconomics

I have been away from the board for a while but this is a series worth getting to the end of

Part 4 The world in 2022 - part four: What’s the point in your business?
https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... imon-sinek

[Chester Perry]

Interesting interview with the EFL's Chief Commercial Officer from SportsBusiness.com - I find it shocking just how little iFollow has brought in

EFL’s iFollow experiment unlikely to inform future media strategy, says commercial chief
Ben Cronin, Europe Editor - December 10, 2020

- Domestic broadcast partner Sky agreed EFL could screen more matches on iFollow platform
- Increased audiences have delivered over £8m to 72 member clubs
- EFL has secured sponsorship wins in fast-food category during pandemic

While fans have been excluded from football stadiums across England this year, and the Premier League stalled over an additional rescue package for the three tiers immediately beneath it, one of the few income streams keeping some teams afloat in the lower divisions has been the central revenues shared by the English Football League.

In that context, Ben Wright, chief commercial officer for the EFL, could be said to have played a pivotal role during the lockdown, with his efforts in shoring up the league’s sponsorship and media income having had a direct financial impact on each of its 72 member clubs.

“I think, particularly during the pandemic, the reliance on good central income has probably never been more prevalent than it is now,” he tells SportBusiness.

The EFL distributes these central revenues according to a complex formula. Second-tier English Championships clubs receive about 80 per cent of this central pot, with the remainder being shared between League One and League Two clubs, depending on the overall sums generated.

Media
Wright is speaking just days before small numbers of fans are allowed back into stadiums in certain areas of the country and shortly before the Premier League finally agreed a £250m bailout package for the lower tiers. And, although the crisis is far from over, he is reflecting on some of the EFL’s successes during the pandemic.

The league’s iFollow streaming service has played a critical role in protecting revenues. A deal struck early in the crisis with the league’s domestic broadcaster, Sky, allowed the EFL to stream more matches on the platform, which Wright credits with helping to boost central media and sponsorship revenues and also protecting club ticketing and sponsorship income streams.

The agreement freed the EFL to show all matches not shown by the broadcaster on iFollow at a cost of £10 (€11/$13) per game. Uefa in turn agreed to lift the blackout on Saturday kick offs at 3pm – designed to protect match attendances – for as long as fans weren’t allowed in stadiums.

Season-ticket holders at Championship, League One and League Two clubs were also given access to all of their club’s home and away matches on iFollow or club channels, subject to the agreement of each club.

“Sky have been tremendously supportive of us,” Wright tells SportBusiness. “Their desire, as much as ours, is to see fans in stadiums. But where they were extremely supportive was, [they] completely understand that in normal circumstances, most of the people who are viewing [our] streaming proposition would be in a stadium.

“Our objective, for all our competitions, was none of them could go dark. So that’s about being able to see our matches and that’s about being able to give the benefit to those who would normally be able to go [to these matches].”

Prior to the pandemic, the iFollow streaming service, which launched in 2017, had been available to fans overseas but was more carefully ringfenced domestically, to protect attendances. The EFL had carved out the rights to broadcast eight rounds of midweek matches per season on the service, carefully selecting fixtures where the distance between competing teams meant it was unlikely to cannibalise away ticketing revenues. But with spectators banned anyway, Wright says Sky agreed to free up more matches on the service in return for the rights to show a greater share of games in the EFL’s Carabao Cup competition.

“We came to a position whereby they’ve had more live matches in the early rounds, [and] for the quarter-finals in December, they’re going to take all four [matches] live,” he says.

Wright estimates the league has delivered more than 1.6m streams on iFollow since the start of the season . Speaking at an event in November, Russell Byrne, EFL head of digital, calculated the first 11-12 games of the campaign had generated over £8m in revenues to be shared with its member clubs.

This is to be set against the estimated £20m per month an EFL spokesperson said clubs were losing while fans were locked out of stadiums, although Wright is reluctant to say exactly how much streaming revenues have helped to offset the lack of fans at games.

“I think we’ve done a bit more than £8m but ultimately what do you compare it with?” he asks. “Do you compare it with a ticket price, or do you compare it with total spend within the stadium?”

“What we do know is that it’s put some revenue into clubs and it’s also allowed ourselves and clubs to deliver sponsor benefits and that has reduced either rebates or losing deals, and just managed the overall situation.”

Data
Looking longer term, Wright argues that the incomplete data gleaned from streaming the matches is unlikely to allow the league to make a direct comparison between the merits of creating a direct-to-consumer offering versus continuing with a more traditional pay-TV model.

“The way we stream matches is on a singular club-by-club basis, so that’s not an apples-with-apples comparison,” he says. “What we’ve got is lots of interesting data and insights around fan subscription behaviour on a singular club basis, but ultimately to compare a future broadcast strategy around that isn’t the same.”

With the rules governing the 3pm blackout likely to be restored once fans are fully allowed back into stadiums, Wright says the EFL will most probably continue to be an ‘attendance-based business’. One place where he does think there will be a role for iFollow is in generating revenues in those scenarios where fans live too far away to attend matches.

“If I take it back pre-pandemic, we knew that most people who bought a streaming pass live 25 miles away from the ground or more, so the streaming proposition was for people who couldn’t go to the matches. Clearly, what we really want to work out, I think, is the interaction between fan attendance at stadiums and the opportunity digitally.”

He says the league has thought long and hard about the pricing of the product and believes £10 is fair for what fans are getting. For comparison, the price point is lower than the £14.95 the Premier League was charging per game before it abandoned its pay-per view offering.

“From a product perspective, in the Championship, you’re getting four cameras, graphics, and replays. [In] League One and League Two you get one camera, graphics and replays. We actually priced it at £10 when we had fans in stadiums and the main reason for that was, we didn’t want to detract from people going to the match,” says Wright.

“But the other point is, we know for a fact from research that on average 2.1 people are watching any one singular match pass – for argument’s sake, let’s call it two. So, if two people are watching for £10, that’s five pounds a head. When you take our costs off and VAT, that’s a net of around £3.50 per person.”

Fast-food sponsorship
The EFL has been able to capitalise on the upswing in viewership of the platform to strike several sponsorship deals that have demonstrated its ability to adapt to the crisis and mine sponsorship categories less heavily affected by the pandemic.

Emblematic of these, was the deal making food delivery brand Just Eat the ‘Official Food Delivery Partner of iFollow’. The short-term deal gave the brand access to assets on the platform and EFL digital network – as well as promotional rights across the three EFL play-off finals – and came into force from the moment the league restarted in June until the end of the season.

The league continued to count on the fast-food sector for support when it signed pizza delivery company Papa John’s as title sponsor of the EFL Trophy after car website Leasing.com ended its sponsorship as a consequence of the economic downturn.

“There’s clearly three or four sectors that have been able to ride out the pandemic better than others and we were talking to some brands within that [fast-food] sector,” says Wright.

“Papa John’s gave us a brief, we looked at the brief, and what they were really looking to do was support clubs, and clubs within the community.”

Even before the lockdown, Wright says his business development team had become increasingly adept at identifying sponsors, working with research company YouGov Sport to match brands to its fanbase and demographic. As with the Papa John’s deal, he says most league sponsors are increasingly focused on social and community outcomes.

“Before the pandemic, but potentially even more through it, the market is aware that supporting us means that you’re supporting a club within the community, and there’s a relevance to that. And I think that’s become more relevant when you think about purpose and CSR [corporate social responsibility] and things like that,” he says.

The EFL has also been fortunate that existing sponsors like building supplier Screwfix have fared relatively well during the crisis and have also been eager to continue supporting clubs through lockdown.

Title sponsorship
Papa John’s EFL Trophy deal is one of three title sponsorships across EFL competitions. Gambling firm Sky Bet holds the title rights to the English Championship, League One and League Two, while energy drink Carabao sponsors the EFL Cup.

Any central deal with the league is non-exclusive, leaving clubs free to exploit the same category within certain conditions – an example being the fact that clubs are free to strike their own drinks pouring rights deals. For this reason, Wright says the title model works well for the league without impinging on club sponsorship activities. Neither does he believe it hinders efforts to sign non-title sponsors, which was the reason the English Premier League recently moved away from a similar model.

“To give you some parameters, over a five-season period, we’ve grown sponsorship income by 60 per cent,” he says. “And we’ve grown our title sponsorship revenue as part of that by 20 per cent.

“Our non-title sponsorship revenue has also increased – we’ve managed to do deals with the partners that we’ve done deals with, alongside the title opportunities. I think, in terms of where we are as a brand and as a proposition, and the assets that we’ve got to work with, our model works in that context.”

Wright says another respect in which the EFL diverges from the Premier League, is that central sponsorship revenues provide a more significant share of EFL club revenues. “For the vast majority of our clubs, our sponsorship income makes a difference,” he says.

Betting
For this reason, there are understandable concerns about the UK government’s plans to go ahead with a review into the UK Gambling Act, which will inevitably examine the levels of gambling sponsorship in football, and especially the lower tiers.

If the government decides to ban betting sponsorship, Wright says the EFL will call for measures to compensate clubs for the estimated £40m per season it would lose in gambling sponsorship revenues. However, he declines to specify if this will be in the form of a levy on gambling brands, tax rebates or something else.

“If that review determines that the contribution from the gambling sector to our industry, and particularly to our clubs and our league is no longer possible, then we would be expecting that compensation in another form,” he says.

“Ultimately, our clubs pay £500m annually to the exchequer, so our belief is that there can be a responsible relationship with an industry that doesn’t need to be heavily regulated and can be managed responsibly.”

[Chester Perry]

More things I have missed this month

Football Uncovered Podcasts - from the series on notorious cases of football club ownership featuring the wonderful @SportingIntelligence

first up
Episode 5: Aston Villa & Birmingham City – A tale of one city and two clubs with rollercoaster ownerships
https://audioboom.com/posts/7753246-ast ... ownerships

followed by

Episode 6: Gretna & Hearts – The incredible story of two mavericks creating a big impact on Scottish football
https://audioboom.com/posts/7754373-gre ... h-football

[Chester Perry]

Another thing I missed this month and timely given the transfer window is about to open @SwissRamble looks at transfer spend over the last 5 years of accounts so only to the 2018/19 season

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 1946857474

[Chester Perry]

The Telegraph are reporting that Derby have failed to pay their players on times - the club using the delayed takeover as an excuse - which tells us that Mel has been paying wages out of his own pocket

Exclusive: Derby County fail to pay players on time due to takeover delay but sale of club is imminent
JOHN PERCY DECEMBER 31, 2020

Derby County have failed to pay their players on time for December, but sources insist the takeover by Derventio Holdings is set to be completed imminently.

Interim Derby manager Wayne Rooney and the squad, plus senior members of staff, have been informed they may not receive their full salaries until next week due to a “delay” in the sale process.

Mel Morris, the current Derby owner, has agreed to sell the Championship club to Derventio Holdings, a company owned by Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nehayan, the cousin of Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour.

A deal remains on course, insist Derby sources, and the club has received assurances that the funds for the takeover will go through, maybe even later on Thursday.

In a letter sent to players which has been seen by Telegraph Sport, Derby’s chief executive Stephen Pearce wrote: “On behalf of Derby County Football Club, Mel Morris, and prospective new owners Derventio Holdings, we collectively apologise, that due to an unexpected and last minute delay in the closing of the sale transaction, that your December pay will most likely be delayed until next week.

“We have been assured by Derventio that the closing funds have been remitted, but as at this morning they had not arrived in their lawyer’s client account.

“As soon as they arrive, the transaction will close and we will process any outstanding payroll amounts immediately.”

Negotiations have been at the final stages with Derventio Holdings since November and there was confidence that a deal could be completed before Christmas. However, the takeover is said to now be a formality.

Rooney’s hopes of landing the job permanently are linked to the takeover, with the former England captain expected to be confirmed as manager when the sale is completed.

Derby face Sheffield Wednesday on New Year’s Day with the club 20th in the Championship table.

[Chester Perry]

Chelsea announce their 2019/20 financial results without publishing anything that can be scrutinised - it is the modern way

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2020/ ... dIndex=0-0

[Chester Perry]

Miguel Delaney in the Independent on why the hegemony in Europe's biggest leagues could be broken this season

If not now, when? Stars align for another club to ‘do a Leicester’ in 2021
The real-world obstacles of 2020 have created football opportunities for 2021 with a number of clubs around Europe sensing now is their chance for something special

Miguel Delaney 4 hours ago

In the Leicester City dressing room, Brendan Rodgers has been trying to keep a sense of balance. He wants his players to persist with the principles, and be adventurous, but not get distracted by any outside talk. Namely, the possibility of repeating 2016 in 2021.

There’s an irony to that, because other coaches across Europe have been willingly telling their players they can “do a Leicester”. They certainly feel they can defy the usual realities, and break the established order.

That has been the message at Real Sociedad, Lille, Lyon, Milan, Inter, Bayer Leverkusen and Leipzig.

The repeated insistence is that this is a rare chance. The real-world obstacles of 2020 have created football opportunities for 2021.

A congested calendar means the superclubs haven’t been able to train or play in the maximum manner they’d idealise, and the constrained market means they have been left with bloated squads, unable to shift well-paid players they don’t want and overhaul their teams. A staleness has come in. Pressing stats are way down. The highest number for “pressures per 90 minutes” in the Premier League this season is 164.3, and predictably comes from Leeds United. That would have been the 15th best in 2018-19.

Football at the start of 2021 is thereby considerably less intense, and allows more space - in so many senses.

It has opened up so many leagues. All of the Bundesliga, Serie A and Ligue 1 are collectively much more competitive than at any point in the last decade.

There is finally a good chance that Bayern Munich, Paris Saint-Germain and Juventus won’t win titles they have made their own, to go with the fact Real Madrid and - to a greater degree - Barcelona are off the pace in La Liga, as well as the most chaotic Premier League seen since the 1990s.

Within that sense of opportunity, however, there is a severe pressure. That’s for the game, as much as any of these clubs.

This is because the problems finally and fully exposed by the Covid crisis of 2020 have not been solved. Economic inequality has not been addressed. The calendar will eventually start to even out with a vaccine, and return to something like normal. The super-clubs will reassert themselves. Real Madrid are already talking about successfully re-organising their budget so they can afford Kylian Mbappe in the summer of 2021, and Erling Haaland in 2022. Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City are eyeing Lional Messi. There’s then the traditional way the big clubs respond to failure: by buying big and gutting rivals. Borussia Dortmund know this all too well.

So, it creates a question amid the chaos going into 2021, while making this a huge year for many reasons.

If not now, when? If these clubs don’t win this year, when will they win?

If PSG don’t slip this season, when will they slip? If Juventus don’t slip this season, when they will they slip? If Bayern don’t slip this season, when will they slip?

And if none of them slip? What will that say about the game as a whole?

Such pressures are often why the wealthiest clubs end up winning anyway. Inexperienced title challengers like Real Sociedad, Lille and this Milan don’t know how to deal with it.

All of this comes with the backdrop of negotiations about what the future of the game will look like, much of those talks set to be settled in the coming months.

That includes the model of the post-2024 Champions League, the distribution of European prize money and the economic structure of the English game. Project Big Picture has only started that discussion. There is so much to do, and the fixture chaos caused by the current third wave - especially in the EFL - will only sharpen some of those talks. There are still a lot of ructions to come. Some competitions may yet be greatly disrupted.

If 2020 was the year that completely upended the game in an unprecedented manner, 2021 is set to be the year that shapes it for some time to come.

Along those lines, a decision still has to be made on what will happen with the European Championships.

The situation reflects the uncertainty of real life right now. At the start of the year in which Uefa’s flagship event is going to finally be staged, we still don’t know where it will be. It may well go according to the original schedule, and start in Rome before finishing in London while taking in 10 other venues in between. Or, it may well be moved to one country.

Much will depend on real-world developments, like the extent of the vaccine roll-out.

The Football Association have recently been optimistic that the Wembley games will all take place as planned, with over over 50% attendance. A problem is that Uefa have to make a decision - in order to allow logistics and planning - before we see the effects of a vaccine.

Whatever about where Euro 2020 will be, or for that matter what it should be called, we can be have a more solid idea about what it will look like. It is likely to involve a lot of jaded teams, especially at the top end.

That may foster more even unpredictability there, and it could well be a combination of the 2002 World Cup and Euro 2016. Players at the major clubs will be exhausted after the end of the most intense club season ever seen, to go straight into a bloated European Championships. The possibility of a surprise winner may be even greater than in club football.

The Champions League meanwhile may favour teams who are not involved in domestic title races, in a way that hasn’t really been seen since the mid-2000s.

Whatever happens on the pitch, the great hope for 2021 is what happens off it. That is that supporters properly return, to recreate the spectacle we all know and love. These opportunities on the pitch would only be amplified by proper atmosphere off it.

If 2020 proved that football without fans isn’t quite nothing, 2021 can show that football with fans makes it everything.

The circumstances, after all, make it more likely than at any point in the last decade that at least one club in Europe will enjoy “their Leicester moment”.

It would be glorious, and life-affirming, if supporters were there to celebrate it. You could forgive any lack of balance.

[Chester Perry]

Nielsen have produced their annual European Shirt report - looking at shirt sponsorship in European Football

https://nielsensports.com/european-foot ... ey-report/

unfortunately for us it is a pay for report so we have to rely on information from those who have access - here @Lu_Class_ helps us with a thread summarizing the detail

https://twitter.com/Lu_Class_/status/13 ... 2113787906

[Chester Perry]

more of what I missed during December

I good discussion from the International Sports Convention Virtual Summit in early December - Football finance, the global landscape – Dan Jones (Deloitte) & Andrea Sartori (KPMG) at ISC Virtual Week 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsAUzG6 ... e=youtu.be