Football's Magic Money Tree

[Chester Perry]

Simon Chadwick with some additional background to the prospective buyer of Derby - this is more Dubai than Abu Dhabi

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4921097217

of course one of the proposed bidders of our club has Dubai connections also - is this a co-incidence or just part of a Gulf State royals trend?

[Chester Perry]

following that Richard Masters article earlier Downing Street has been swift to respond - from the Telegraph

Premier League chief slapped down by Government for claiming clubs had 'scarce resources' for EFL bailout
BEN RUMSBY NOVEMBER 09, 2020

Richard Masters has been slapped down by Downing Street for suggesting Premier League clubs had “scarce resources” when it came to bailing out the English Football League.

In an interview ahead of a parliamentary grilling on Tuesday over the failure by the world’s richest league and the EFL to agree a rescue package designed to stop teams going bust during the coronavirus crisis, Masters admitted a deal had still not been struck.

He cited estimated losses of £700 million last season and projected losses of £100m this term as a reason for restraint in any bailout, while arguing that more than £1 billion of transfer spending by his 20 clubs during the summer was a competitive necessity.

Masters told the website Politico: “Our offer goes to the issue of ‘need’ rather than ‘want’, and where you have scarce resources in the current environment that has to be the right approach.

“It also mirrors the Government’s approach - rescuing other areas of sport, and indeed the economy, to save bits from going out of business, rather than to underwrite losses.

“At the moment there isn’t an agreement - but we stand willing to continue to talk, and our offer remains on the table to save clubs if they are in significant Covid-related distress.”

A spokesman for Boris Johnson gave short shrift to Masters’ claims, saying: “We’ve been clear right from the outset that we expect football to support itself.

“I think we do want to see progress, particularly when Premier League clubs have spent over a billion pounds on players in the recent transfer window.”

Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, has already warned the Premier League and EFL that the Government would bring forward its planned “fan-led review” of football if they failed to safeguard the game’s future during the pandemic.

Masters, EFL chairman Rick Parry and FA chairman Greg Clarke have all been summoned to appear before the DCMS select committee on Tuesday morning over the bailout talks, as well as their roles in Project Big Picture, the existence of which was exclusively revealed by The Daily Telegraph.

[Chester Perry]

Simon Chadwick writing for PolicyForum.net asks "What the pandemic means for Qatar’s football plans"

The COVID-19 World Cup?
What the pandemic means for Qatar’s football plans

SIMON CHADWICK

9 NOVEMBER 2020

If it hopes to make the best of hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022, Qatar must prove to football fans it is COVID-safe enough for them to attend, Simon Chadwick writes.

When constructing new sports stadiums, there has long been a mantra that ‘if you build it, they will come’. In essence, this means that crowds will instinctively be drawn to a new venue to experience the gleaming facilities and the great sport staged inside it.

If this mantra is true, then Qatar can look forward to 2022 in anticipation of large groups of football fans heading to the country for the World Cup. Or can it?

Critics often question whether new facilities alone are sufficient to entice large numbers of people to engage with sport, and for Qatar this seems especially the case. In the 10 years since it was revealed as the host of 2022’s global football showcase, many people have questioned the legitimacy of Qatar’s right to host the competition.

Allegations of bribery, concerns about the treatment of immigrant workers, and arguments that the country has no established football culture have dominated global discussion of the coming World Cup. As a consequence, some football fans have felt disengaged from Qatar 2022, raising doubts about whether they will attend the tournament.

Cynicism about Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup hasn’t been helped by a re-scheduling from its normal early Northern Hemisphere summer slot to a late Autumn, pre-Christmas one. However, such concerns are typically expressed by those in the global North, that is, by fans who are not used to norms of football, usually aimed at pleasing them, being challenged.

Indeed, when FIFA’s World Club Championship was held in Doha during 2019, while European fans were in the minority, the profusion of Latin American supporters that travelled to the city was notable. It is worth remembering as well that at the 2018 World Cup, 60,000 Chinese fans were in Russia – more fans than England, whose national team reached the semi-final stage.

Even so, ongoing diplomatic issues with near neighbours such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt are a problem for Qatar. Saudi Arabia is a regional football powerhouse, matches there often attracting large crowds of fans, many of whom would normally be likely to travel across Qatar’s only land border to watch matches.

Egypt too is known for its large, passionate football fan base, and it remains to be seen how many of them will feel inclined to travel across the Middle East to their small neighbour.

The UAE, notably Dubai, is especially important in such matters. Before a blockade of Qatar was imposed in 2017, Dubai, the world’s biggest airport, was an important transit point for football fans travelling across the world. This route of entry into Qatar is currently unavailable; indeed, right now there is effectively only one way in and one way out of Doha – through Hamad International Airport by Qatar Airways.

This year, with the global airline industry struck down by the effects of COVID-19, the Qatari government has already bailed out its national airline with subsidies amounting to billions of dollars.

The ultimate success of the 2022 World Cup and its legacies are more closely intertwined with the long-term health of Qatar Airways than many football fans might realise. An ailing Qatar Airways could undermine the upcoming tournament.

Yet it is the pandemic itself that poses the biggest threat to any Qatari prediction that ‘if you build it, they will come’. The sporting world has already seen several sport mega-events cancelled, and others being rescheduled – most notably the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo. Late staging of the 2022 World Cup does provide some breathing space for Qatar and FIFA, but as we are now seeing, there have been several false dawns across the world of sport.

For instance, as the English football season got underway in September, test cases were being run whereby small numbers of fans were allowed into stadiums. By the start of October, the tests were abandoned and matches returned to being played behind closed doors. In the case of Formula 1 races and Grand Slam tennis tournaments, events have already gone ahead but without the presence of spectators.

Event organisers across the world have generally demonstrated a high regard for the health and safety of both fans and participants. One reason for this is that many of them are fearful that they will be accused of spreading the virus. Atalanta’s UEFA Champions League game against Valencia earlier this year has become notorious for this reason, inflicting not inconsiderable reputational damage upon the decision makers involved.

Qatari World Cup organisers will surely be mindful of the tournament’s reputation and their responsibilities, though it is important as well to remain mindful of peoples’ concerns about the virus. In one study undertaken in the United States at the start of the pandemic, 72 per cent of the sports fans surveyed indicated that they would not return to watch sport in a stadium until a coronavirus vaccine is available.

With such concerns in mind, sports across the world are to be applauded for their ingenuity in adapting to a challenging operating environment. From Formula E staging virtual races through to Zoom walls at football matches, fans have very quickly learnt to consume sport in new and sometimes very different ways. Still, many fans miss the experience of being there, standing next to others, cheering for their team.

All of this change poses some profound and complex issues for Qatar, a country that has spent billions of dollars staging the 2022 World Cup – an event that is helping drive the country’s national development strategy and is intended to deliver a tangible return on investment.

A tournament without fans would be a major blow to the country, not least in terms of the event’s immediate economic impact and its longer-term legacies. Equally, the ramifications for Qatari soft power and its nation-branding aspirations would also be at risk.

The challenge between now and the middle of 2022 World Cup is thus for Qatar to prove itself COVID-safe enough to stage such an event. This will involve understanding attitudes and behaviours among fans worldwide, and responding in a way that allays their fears about travelling to the country. This is also not just a matter of the pandemic, but also about broader preconceptions and stereotypes that people have about Qatar.

Having built iconic stadiums and impressive accompanying infrastructure, the government in Doha needs to ensure, rather than assume, that fans will come. The next 18 months are going to be crucially important for Qatar, the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, and everyone in world football that wants a successful 2022 World Cup.

[Chester Perry]

Of course there is another football related topic to be discussed in the House of Commons at some point this afternoon - in the "Topical Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department" (Which can be watched here https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0 ... 35154ed254 - session starts at 2:30 but will take some time to get to the bit we are interested in) the Mail relates the background to it

No more double standards: Football pleads for a level playing field when lockdown is lifted so fans can return to stadiums when theatres and art galleries open again, as Parliament debates fans' petition signed by 200,000 today
MPs to debate how fans can return safely to stadiums in Parliament today
200,000 supporters signed petition to force the Government to hold the event
Clubs, fans and MPs demand level playing field for football and entertainment
They suspect lack of interest in football within the cabinet has counted against it
Brighton and Hove Albion have developed plans for safe return others will follow
By CHARLIE WALKER FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 08:20, 9 November 2020 | UPDATED: 09:16, 9 November 2020

Football fans cannot be subject to more double standards when the Government allows events to restart after the national lockdown is lifted, insist MPs, clubs and supporters

The call for fairness is timed to coincide with a Parliamentary debate on allowing football fans to return to matches as soon as it is safe to do so, which takes place at Westminster Hall on Monday.

The debate, which will hear from MPs fearful that their local clubs may fold if fans do not return at the earliest opportunity, has been triggered by a petition, which attracted support from 200,000 fans online.

It comes after ministers allowed audiences to return to indoor theatres, galleries and cinemas, but abandoned plans for fans to access outdoor football stadiums in October as coronavirus infection rates increased.

Now, the football community is desperate for a level playing field once the second national lockdown, which prohibits attendance at any public events in England, is lifted.

'I do not understand the government logic to allow people to attend theatres or even cinemas to watch matches, but not sit in stadiums in the open air,' said MP Ian Mearns, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Football Supporters.' It defies logic'.

The Football Supporters' Association says the evidence shows football grounds can be opened safely.

'We have done a lot of work with the football authorities developing models for hosting games in which fans can feel secure,' said chief executive Kevin Miles.

'The feedback we have had from all of our members involved in these test events has been that they feel at least as safe, if not safer, at those matches as they have at supermarkets, pubs and restaurants.

'There are a lot of fans scratching their heads at the idea that football matches, with all these security measures, are not permitted while they see other entertainment events apparently operating at a far lower level of Covid security.

'We just want to be judged by the same standards.'

MPs from all parties are expected to join the debate. Among them will be Conservative MP for Blackpool and Cleveleys, Paul Maynard, whose constituency includes Blackpool FC and Fleetwood Town's training facility.

'The clubs are really important institutions,' he said. 'We need a concerted government approach, partly by getting more people back into grounds when it is safe.'

There is concern among clubs and campaigners that Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden and the cabinet are simply not interested in football and their decisions are driven by a lack of understanding of the value the national game brings to communities.

The suspicion is not completely unfounded in that only two of the current 21 MPs who make up the cabinet have noted football as an interest on their MP websites.

They are Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Therese Coffey, who is a Liverpool fan having grown up in the city, and the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who has previously expressed an interest in his hometown club, Southampton.

'It is unfortunate that there are not many members of the cabinet who are true football supporters,' said Steve Curwood, chief executive of Fleetwood Town. 'The cabinet does not understand what football clubs do.'

The Culture Secretary, who is responsible for the opening of venues, recently admitted he is no football fan during a visit to National League side, Boreham Wood FC, which is in his constituency.

'I have to be honest, I'm not the biggest football fan,' he told The Sun on Sunday. 'I support Boreham Wood because it's my home patch. I follow them as the local MP, but I've always enjoyed cricket.'

In October, Dowden explained to MPs that the government planned to allow socially-distanced spectators in grounds from October 1, but it was not possible.

'That is what I desperately wanted to happen,' he told the Department of Culture Media and Sport committee. 'Because of where we are with the disease, it has not been possible to have that further easement.'

No club has done more to blaze the trail for the return of fans than Brighton and Hove Albion, who hosted a highly successful test event against Chelsea at the Amex Stadium.

The results of the experiment, in which 2,500 supporters enjoyed a socially-distanced experience, have been analysed by health experts and scientists at the University of Manchester, who are helping to mastermind the return of fans.

The Brighton model will be the basis on which all fans return to watch the elite game.

Brighton chief executive Paul Barber believes there is an outside chance that fans could attend matches in some way in the New Year, but expects it to be in the spring.

And like all club officials, he stresses it must be safe.

'As much as we are keen to put our business back on a sound footing as soon as we can we cannot be and will not be immune to protecting the NHS,' said Barber. 'That is the priority at this moment in time.

However, once the Government is satisfied that it is safe to allow people to attend events again, Mr Barber sees no reason why football should not be included.

'The message is when this lockdown is over and people are permitted to see live events, football should be allowed to have fans back in. All we are asking is to be treated the same. It is important when lockdown is over there is some consistency.

'We have to trust football fans to do the right thing. Just because they follow clubs up and down the country does not mean they should not be trusted to behave appropriately.

'If people can be trusted to go to the O2 or Royal Albert Hall, they can be trusted to go to football, too.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brighton Blaze the Trail for Fans
Brighton and Hove Albion have created a template for the return of football fans to stadiums, which other clubs are expected to follow when the turnstiles open again.

Brighton's test event, in which 2,500 supporters attended a preseason friendly against Chelsea on August 29, was hailed as a huge success and witnessed by senior government officials.

The results have been analysed by experts from the University of Manchester and have been incorporated into a set of guidelines for Local Safety Advisory Groups, bodies made up of representatives from the local authority, NHS, police and others in each area, which give the go ahead for clubs to host matches.

The system includes:

- Distancing on the approach to the stadium to avoid crowds, as well as on concourses inside
- Masks to be worn everywhere except when seated, however that is expected to change and masks will probably have to be worn before, during and after a match
- Fans will have to carry photo-identification so the club knows they are the person who bought the ticket and they can be contacted in the event of a coronavirus outbreak
- Supporters will have to sanitize their hands on the way in and out of grounds
- Each fan sits alone, not even in a family bubble, with seats either side vacant and one row left empty between supporters, which allows stewards to manage the game more easily
- Unique branding was produced by Brighton in mint green for Covid-related information. This was used to communicate with fans before the game and at the match, so they knew what to expect and what to do
- Fans asked to give way to supporters climbing the stairs to their seat (because they would be exhaling more heavily) and turn away from others when passing them

In addition, the Government's Sports Technology and Innovation Working Group is looking at other initiatives, such as the possibility of mass testing of supporters so only those who test negative attend the match.

Crucially, analysis by the local health authority demonstrated the match did not result in a spike in COVID-19 infections.

A transport study after the Brighton event found that 60 per cent of supporters used public transport, even though parking was available, with many preferring to stick to their usual matchday routine.

Clubs are also looking at how people will travel to and from the stadium.

Bristol City has developed a system in which limited numbers of fans can be allowed to attend matches from each postcode area, thereby ensuring that public transport is not overcrowded on any individual route.

In addition, Bristol City have said it would work with local pubs to manage the crowds around the stadium.

Dan Roan of the BBC with how this discussion went in Parliament today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54881149

this thread contains some footage of the actual discussion

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1325877704005218304

[Chester Perry]

Not only are the big clubs looking to renege on the agreement of 3 subs for the season it appears they have been been trying to alter pre-picked games for tV to meet their needs even though they created the Premier League to get more TV money - from the Telegraph

Broadcasters are loathe to relinquish 'Jewel in the Crown' 12.30pm Saturday slot
BT Sport pays £295m per season to England's top tier, primarily on the basis that it gets first pick on what has become a prime-time space

By Tom Morgan, SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
9 November 2020 • 8:39pm

While the broadcasters are relaxed about the Premier League's about-turn on pay-per-view, executives draw the line at moves to abandon their "Jewel in the Crown" 12.30pm Saturday kick-offs.

BT Sport, already the multi-billion pound Champions League rights holder, pays £295 million per season to England's top tier, primarily on the basis that it gets first pick on what has become a prime-time sporting slot.

Manchester United were understood to have mooted the possibility of moving their kick-off back when their fixture against Everton was confirmed on October 23. However, the Premier League immediately knew it would be a non-starter. "The 12.30pm Saturday is an established offering," said sources close to talks. "The clubs cannot chop and change - this is the deal they sold."

The clubs believe the removal of the 3pm blackout post-Covid has given the broadcasters wiggle room to adjust. Early 3pm audiences were a success for BT, with viewing figures of 726,000 for Brighton vs Arsenal - higher than its season average.

However, broadcasting executives are concerned by the potential disruption to audience continuity if the best matches are made later. Instead, sources close to talks believe the only chance that the big six will have to oppose early kick-offs will come during the next rights sell-off.

One of Project Big Picture's aims was to reduce fixture congestion, and key figures involved in those talks are understood to have received assurances that scheduling is something being carefully looked at as part of the Premier League's strategic review.

That is likely to have concluded by January, and will be followed by the domestic rights auction covering the next three years for broadcasters. Around 200 of the 380 matches are likely to be made available again for the world's richest domestic competition.

Any moves to cut the suite of matches available will present a major headache for the league, which had already recorded a 10 per cent drop-off in the last domestic cycle.

Sky and BT have enjoyed record levels of viewers for the coverage during lockdown, but both suffered serious financial damage over the past six months, with the latter increasing its fees by £4 a month.

David Kogan, a former media rights advisor to the Premier League during six rounds of domestic rights deals from 1999-2015, underlines it is not only football that has suffered financially during the pandemic.

"Covid crisis has actually acted as an accelerant of factors within the Premier League that were already evident," he previously said. “It’s going to have a big impact but I think that impact would have happened anyway, only over a longer period of time."

[Chester Perry]

Dan Roan of the BBC with how this discussion went in Parliament today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54881149

this thread contains some footage of the actual discussion

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1325877704005218304

you can watch the full debate from Westminister Hall yesterday on spectator attendance on playback here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... 9fbea80699

[Chester Perry]

A quick reminder that the DCMS committee hearing on Sport in our communities featuring Rick Parry, Chairman, English Football League; Richard Masters, Chief Executive, English Premier League; Greg Clarke, Chairman, The Football Association will stat at about 9:30 and can be watched here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... 1b96446342

the chaps at Vysyble with a reminder of some of the financial angles

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1325910671444365312

[Conroysleftfoot]

following that Richard Masters article earlier Downing Street has been swift to respond - from the Telegraph

Premier League chief slapped down by Government for claiming clubs had 'scarce resources' for EFL bailout
BEN RUMSBY NOVEMBER 09, 2020

Richard Masters has been slapped down by Downing Street for suggesting Premier League clubs had “scarce resources” when it came to bailing out the English Football League.

In an interview ahead of a parliamentary grilling on Tuesday over the failure by the world’s richest league and the EFL to agree a rescue package designed to stop teams going bust during the coronavirus crisis, Masters admitted a deal had still not been struck.

He cited estimated losses of £700 million last season and projected losses of £100m this term as a reason for restraint in any bailout, while arguing that more than £1 billion of transfer spending by his 20 clubs during the summer was a competitive necessity.

Masters told the website Politico: “Our offer goes to the issue of ‘need’ rather than ‘want’, and where you have scarce resources in the current environment that has to be the right approach.

“It also mirrors the Government’s approach - rescuing other areas of sport, and indeed the economy, to save bits from going out of business, rather than to underwrite losses.

“At the moment there isn’t an agreement - but we stand willing to continue to talk, and our offer remains on the table to save clubs if they are in significant Covid-related distress.”

A spokesman for Boris Johnson gave short shrift to Masters’ claims, saying: “We’ve been clear right from the outset that we expect football to support itself.

“I think we do want to see progress, particularly when Premier League clubs have spent over a billion pounds on players in the recent transfer window.”

Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, has already warned the Premier League and EFL that the Government would bring forward its planned “fan-led review” of football if they failed to safeguard the game’s future during the pandemic.

Masters, EFL chairman Rick Parry and FA chairman Greg Clarke have all been summoned to appear before the DCMS select committee on Tuesday morning over the bailout talks, as well as their roles in Project Big Picture, the existence of which was exclusively revealed by The Daily Telegraph.

Perhaps there should be a sliding scale on each clubs bailout contributions. The club that spent the most in the transfer window, including agents and signing on fees, should contribute the most. We would then need to lose very little money.

[Chester Perry]

Simon Chadwick with some additional background to the prospective buyer of Derby - this is more Dubai than Abu Dhabi

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4921097217

of course one of the proposed bidders of our club has Dubai connections also - is this a co-incidence or just part of a Gulf State royals trend?

The Independent with a look at the proposed Derby takeover - note that they have spoken to Dr Kristian Ulrichsen, who was referenced by Simon Chadwick yesterday

Derby County: The answers to the biggest questions around Rams’ takeover
Sheikh Khaled bin Saqr Zayed al-Nayhan is set to complete a takeover sparking a series of questions about the nature of the deal and what it may mean for the Championship’s bottom club

Miguel Delaney - Chief Football Writer @MiguelDelaney 3 hours ago

When Sheikh Khaled’s name first became mentioned in football circles, when he was involved in takeover attempts at Liverpool and Newcastle United before Derby County, many experts on Abu Dhabi found it difficult to actually get information on him.

“It was very hard,” Dr Kristian Ulrichsen, of Rice University, explains. “We initially thought he was a full brother of Sheikh Mansour, the owner of Manchester City, which would have been a conflict of interest. We quickly concluded he wasn’t.”

Such a vacuum has raised a series of questions about the nature of Derby’s takeover, and what it means for the club, and the game. The EFL have approved a purchase that will see the Championship side bought by Derventio Holdings, which is ultimately controlled by Bin Zayed International, owned by Sheikh Khaled bin Saqr Zayed al-Nayhan.

Many at Newcastle were wondering why this was seemingly being waved through while their own planned takeover - by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund - was subject to so much scrutiny, and ultimate frustration. Others are asking whether this is the same sort of political project, or any way linked to City Football Group? Will it see a similar level of investment into Derby County? Is it sportswashing?

The answer to most of the latter questions is no. Those answers are also why it just isn’t subject to the same scrutiny as Newcastle’s takeover. Sheikh Khaled is a distant cousin of Mansour, but a split means their branch of the Al-Nahyan family don’t even live in Abu Dhabi, having been exiled to Dubai in the 1920s.

“I think the situation is more like Sheffield United’s takeover by a Saudi businessman,” Dr Ulrichsen explains. “This is a cadet branch of the main power broker, without the resources of a state-led branding project behind it. This is a much more peripheral figure, who has made money and business connections from being a member of a royal family, but doesn’t have the backing of the state. He has whatever resources he’s made from a business career.

“This isn’t a state takeover, in my view.”

One question that has been raised in football circles is whether the United Arab Emirates’ strict hierarchy of power could see state influence exerted on Derby.

“In theory, it could happen, but I don’t think it would,” Dr Ulrichsen explains. “Sheikh Khaled is so peripheral. I don’t think UAE as a state or Abu Dhabi as an emirate would seek to use that as a state-branding exercise in the way that has been done with City.

“What was interesting last year, when he emerged with the Newcastle rumours, insiders at Manchester City were quite keen to distance the club’s owners from him. There had been an impression that Sheikh Khaled had actually been trying to promote an impression he was part of the family, that he was closer to the centre than he actually was.

“Yes, he’s a member of the royal family, but he’s so far removed.”

This is why, Dr Ulrichsen believes, the bigger questions about the takeover should regard what the realistic expectations are for Derby fans.

“Well, he clearly wants a football team, after having been linked to Liverpool, then Newcastle. It might just be interest in a team. Let’s be brutally honest, maybe he’s found his level. He’s not been able to play in the big league, the Premier League. He might have gone down. There might be other reasons, he could have found a business partner in the Midlands.

“But having gone for Liverpool and Newcastle, and obviously not being the name that had been thought, he could have found his level.

“But it’s more of a Sheffield United than a Man City, I think. So Derby have got to be realistic.”

[Chester Perry]

Perhaps there should be a sliding scale on each clubs bailout contributions. The club that spent the most in the transfer window, including agents and signing on fees, should contribute the most. We would then need to lose very little money.

I actually think the Premier League stance on this is understandable - they are the only sector in sport or any other industry in the country where government is demanding the big boys bail out everyone else - The Premier League then saying that we will adopt government principals for such activity i.e. rescue and save father than make up lost revenues is understandable, particularly as the EFL has said it wants to give Stoke it and Salford their matchday lost revenues the same as Accrington and Port Vale - 2 have multi-billionaire owners who financed significant overspend (and campaigned to be allowed to spend even more) two live within their means.

[Chester Perry]

There will no doubt be a lot written about today's DCMS hearing - but is you want to judge for yourself you can watch it on playback here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... 1b96446342

It should be of no surprise that it is Greg Clarke that is coming in for the greatest criticism - Championing the FA for diversity and inclusion then making a series of gaffes on the same topics

[Chester Perry]

Episode 8 of the Bundle Podcast from Unofficial Partner covering

* Overthinking Amazon’s Italy UCL play
* F1’s YouTube experiment
* Premier League PPV RIP
* Money v Morals. Sport’s Saudi dilemma
* Infront’s warning over private equity in Serie A

https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... e-bundle-8

EDIT - excellent and insightful as usual I though this thread on the piracy element of the discussion was quite insightful

https://twitter.com/charliebeall1/statu ... 5571409920

[Chester Perry]

The Premier League has sold the rights in sub-saharan Africa for the next cycle to it's existing partner - no indication as to the value at this time

Premier League and SuperSport agree three-year rights extension
Pay-TV broadcaster retains live matches in sub-Saharan Africa until 2025.

Posted: November 10 2020 By: Steven Impey

- South Africa-based network has held Premier League rights since 1992
- Deal struck in 2017 included rights to all 380 matches per season
- Premier League also extends FTA coverage in sub-Saharan Africa

South Africa-based network SuperSport has secured a three-year extension to its Premier League broadcast partnership in sub-Saharan Africa until the end of the 2024/25 season.

The agreement sees live coverage from English soccer’s top flight continue to be shown via SuperSport’s pay-TV and digital platforms. The broadcaster has held Premier League broadcast rights since its inception in 1992.

SuperSport, a subsidiary of the MultiChoice Group, Africa’s largest media and entertainment company, last extended its partnership with the Premier League in April 2017. That deal was worth a reported UK£168 million (US$222 million) a year and included rights to air all of the league’s 380 matches per season.

“These are challenging times for everyone, so to secure these rights is most gratifying,” said Calvo Mawela, MultiChoice Group’s chief executive. “We have been a proud partner of the Premier League since its inception.

“The Premier League stirs the passions of the many football followers throughout Africa on a weekly basis, consistently delivering competitive fixtures and unpredictable results. We are pleased to continue to provide this world-class content to our subscribers.”

Paul Molnar, the Premier League’s director of broadcasting, added: “This renewal is testament to the outstanding content and production offering that SuperSport has consistently delivered to bring Premier League action to passionate fans in the region."

In addition to its new pay-TV deal, the Premier League also expanded its free-to-air (FTA) TV coverage in sub-Saharan Africa ahead of the 2020/21 campaign after its regional media rights partner Infront secured contracts with 25 broadcasters to show one game per week in more than 20 territories.

[Chester Perry]

There will no doubt be a lot written about today's DCMS hearing - but is you want to judge for yourself you can watch it on playback here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... 1b96446342

It should be of no surprise that it is Greg Clarke that is coming in for the greatest criticism - Championing the FA for diversity and inclusion then making a series of gaffes on the same topics

of course the committee itself also needs to come under scrutiny for it's poor questioning

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 3537282049

[ElectroClaret]

Greg Clarke resigns. (Five live)

[Chester Perry]

Greg Clarke resigns. (Five live)

should have gone weeks ago - from the BBC

Greg Clarke resigns as Football Association chairman after remark about black players
Last updated 1 minute ago.

Warning: This report contains offensive language.

Greg Clarke has resigned as Football Association chairman following the language he used when talking to MPs about diversity.

Clarke used the term "coloured footballers" in a reference to black players when talking to members of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee.

He apologised after being prompted to say sorry by MP Kevin Brennan.

Clarke had been talking via video link about the racist abuse of players by trolls on social media.

"People can see if you're black and if they don't like black people because they are filthy racists, they can abuse you anonymously online," he said.

He had earlier spoken of the need to attract people into the sport from a range of communities.

"If you go to the IT department of the FA, there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans. They have different career interests," said Clarke.

He prompted further criticism when referring to gay players making a "life choice" and a coach telling him young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them.

"We can confirm that Greg Clarke has stepped down from his role as our chairman," said an FA statement.

"Peter McCormick will step into the role as interim FA chairman with immediate effect and the FA Board will begin the process of identifying and appointing a new chair in due course."

Following his resignation, Clarke said: "My unacceptable words in front of Parliament were a disservice to our game and to those who watch, play, referee and administer it. This has crystallised my resolve to move on.

"I am deeply saddened that I have offended those diverse communities in football that I and others worked so hard to include."

[Chester Perry]

official resignation statement from Greg Clarke

https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/nov/10/ ... ent-101120

[Chester Perry]

The Guardian reports on policed raids at Portugal's biggest clubs

Portuguese police raid Benfica and Sporting offices in corruption inquiry
Benfica president Luís Filipe Vieira targeted by authorities
Sporting say allegations relate to activity between 2011-2014
Ed Aarons

Tue 10 Nov 2020 17.44 GMT Last modified on Tue 10 Nov 2020 17.57 GMT

Police in Portugal have raided the offices of Primeira Liga clubs Benfica, Sporting and Santa Clara as part of a corruption and money laundering investigation linked to player transfers.

The Portuguese general prosecutor’s office revealed that nearly 30 searches were carried out on Monday by Judicial Police and the Tax Authority under the direction of the Public Ministry. All three clubs confirmed the searches, with Benfica underlining their “total willingness to collaborate with the authorities”.

Sporting said in a statement the investigation is related to alleged irregularities from 2011-14 and congratulated the efforts to promote transparency in Portuguese football. Prosecutors said they were investigating “a range of cases, all linked to professional football, which could include crimes of economic participation in business or undue receipt of advantage, active and passive corruption, qualified tax fraud and money laundering”.

They added: “The investigation is also looking into the acquisition of sports and economic rights by players from national football clubs, loans granted to one of these clubs and to a sports company by a citizen of Singapore with interests in companies based in the British Virgin Islands and the use of accounts of the same club and another, for the circulation of money.”

According to reports by Portuguese broadcasters TVI, the Benfica president Luís Filipe Vieira is the main target of the authorities, with prosecutors also focusing on the transfer of three Libyan players who signed for Santa Clara. Real estate businessman Vieira was re-elected president of the 37-times Portuguese champions last month, extending a reign that began in 2003.

The 71-year-old is already facing a corruption trial alongside 16 other people, including three judges, and was also indicted in a tax fraud investigation targeting Benfica, who have also been implicated in match-fixing.

On Tuesday, Varandas Fernandes, Benfica’s vice-president, told Rádio Renascença that Vieira is “relaxed” over the investigations. “President Luís Filipe Vieira remains calm and gives all his time to Benfica,” he said.

“The processes are with the legal teams, the investigation has to be respected and we will collaborate as usual. Benfica fans can be confident that we will maintain the course that enabled us to get here with good financial, sporting and patrimonial results. Whatever the outcome of the process, it will prove the legality of all the procedures that have been used.”

[Chester Perry]

Article from SportsBusiness - Reimagining the financial future of lower-league football by Ben Marlow and Omar Chaudhuri - linked rather than transcribed because of all the charts.

https://www.sportbusiness.com/2020/11/r ... -football/

there are a number of very interesting ideas in this, not sure they would be accepted but it is a very good from a discussion perspective

Omar Chaudhuri talks to @FootballLaw about this piece of Blue sky thinking that was published by SportsBusiness at the beginning of the month - Reimagining the financial future of lower-league football

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6dl00sOcr0

[Chester Perry]

West Ham have been at the revolving credit again

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7106413571

after satisfying a previous charge on these assets in August West Ham have used them for a new credit facility with Barclays

all the filing details can be found here

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

West Ham Mortgage a portion of TV rights to Barclays - nice to know they have that level of credit to be able to do so (Everton had to go outside of the traditional banks for theirs).

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

That is 2 loans in a week, remember they had a rights issue of £30m at the start of the summer and made a net gain on transfer spend in the window as well. The club has cash flow issues, but this is also emblematic of the credit carousel trap that many in society get caught up in, I wouldn't even call it a hand to mouth existence.

[Chester Perry]

This looks like it would have been a very interesting article for this thread - Too big to fail? Accounting for Predictions of Financial Distress in English Professional Football Clubs

unfortunately it is behind a paywall and being an Academic paper will not be cheap

this abstract whets the appetite

Purpose
This paper analyses English Premier League (EPL) and English Football League (EFL) championship clubs during the period 2002–2019 to anticipate financial distress with specific reference to footballs' Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.

Design/methodology/approach
Data was collected for 43 professional football clubs competing in the EPL and Championship for the financial year ends 2002–2019. Analysis was conducted using the Z-score methodology and additional statistical tests were conducted to measure differences between groups. Data was split into two distinct periods to analyse club finances pre- and post-FFP.

Findings
The results show significant cases of financial distress amongst clubs in both divisions and that Championship clubs are in significantly poorer financial health than EPL clubs. In some cases, financially sustainability has worsened post-FFP. The “big 6” clubs – due to their size – seem to be more financially sound than the rest of the EPL, thus preventing a “too big to fail” effect. Overall, the financial situation in English football remains poor, a position that could be exacerbated by the economic crisis, caused by COVID-19.

Research limitations/implications
The findings are not generalisable outside of the English football industry and the data is susceptible to usual accounting techniques and treatments.

Practical implications
The paper recommends a re-distribution of broadcasting rights, on a more equal basis and incentivised with cost-reduction targets. The implementation of a hard salary cap at league level is also recommended to control costs. Furthermore, FFP regulations should be re-visited to deliver the original objectives of bringing about financial sustainability in European football.

Originality/value
The paper extends the evidence base of measuring financial distress in professional team sports and is also the first paper of its kind to examine this in relation to Championship clubs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this thread gives more detail that only makes you want to read the detail more - the sheer number of bankruptcy risk observations for the Premier League is huge

https://twitter.com/DrDanPlumley/status ... 9463366656

[Chester Perry]

It is not quite a month since the transfer window closed (yes it does feel much longer) - one of the features of recent windows is the number of high-profile players that have gone out on loan - Loans of such players can involve some highly complex contractual issues - this article from SportsProMedia looks at what that may entail using the example of Gareth Bale's loan to Tottenham

Bringing Gareth Bale back: the legal side of loan transfers
Gareth Bale’s Premier League homecoming may prove a coup for Tottenham, but the deal also highlighted one of the many ways clubs can utilise the loan market. Here, Fladgate’s James Earl explains the finer details of temporary transfers.

By Ed Dixon Posted: November 11 2020

The enduring allure of the Premier League transfer window provided its most headline-grabbing moment of the summer when Gareth Bale returned to Tottenham Hotspur on a season-long loan from Real Madrid.

The Welshman’s switch back to North London - seven years, more than 100 goals and four Uefa Champions Leagues after moving the other way - has delighted the Spurs faithful while offering relief for a Real hierarchy eager to offload a player consigned to the bench and reportedly costing them around €600,000 (US$708,000) per week in wages.

But amid all the excitement and expectation for Bale’s second stint in the English capital, the signing of one of soccer’s most prominent players brings with it considerable paperwork to get such a deal over the line. Any asset acquired from one business to another takes much more than a handshake, after all.

“The broad assumption is a football club owns a player when actually they own the registration of a player,” explains James Earl, partner and head of the Sport Business Group at Fladgate, the law firm which advised Bale on both his original move to Real Madrid and then back to Spurs.

“Every footballer has, if you like, a player passport that is linked to their national association and club, which shows where they have played in their career and, in the present, where they can play. The key distinction is that a loan is more than the name suggests – it's a temporary arrangement for a defined period of time usually stipulated by the club taking the loan.

“The parent club remains, in most circumstances, primarily responsible for the salary and remuneration package of that player whilst they are on loan. In some cases, there will also be a loan fee from the loaning club to the parent club which will be over and above the remuneration they would be covering to meet all or some of the cost of the player. That's not a mandatory requirement, but may be part of the commercial terms agreed at that point of time, perhaps due to a strong desire for the loaning club to have access to the relevant player.”

As well as having a proven track record at the very top of European soccer, Bale also brings with him incentives, bonuses and image rights that need to be agreed upon. Permanent transfers have the habit of dragging on for weeks and months to the frustration of seemingly all involved. The process for completing a loan would appear less arduous.

Bound by confidentiality, Earl is unable to specifically discuss any aspect of Bale’s deal, but he is able to shed light on the broader loan market and its myriad of complexities.

“In a loan agreement, in usual terms, you are not looking to necessarily alter the structure of the player’s core package but this will always be determined case by case,” he tells SportsPro. “But that might include the contract between a player and their parent club. That might even include being prohibited from playing against the parent club, but that's unlikely to have been an issue for anyone transferring from Spain.

“Another reason loans can be attractive is that as people advance in their career they're looking to be (and often are) more and more valuable. When you start moving a player permanently you also move things like their image rights and, just like any other asset (especially one which has increasing value) if you move an asset that can trigger a tax charge. It's the same sort of concept as selling, for example, shares.

“So you need to be very careful in how and when players are transferred, temporarily or permanently. There's a tendency to think a loan is far more simple because it's not permanent. But you're fundamentally still allowing a professional athlete to move to another club that may even be in another league, albeit on a temporary basis.

“The reality is clubs will sometimes have commercial drivers, amongst others, for wanting to do a loan deal. The player may also think that's the right thing to do if they're not getting enough playing time and want to go out on loan to resolve that.”

With a reported net worth of around US$150 million, Bale need never kick a soccer ball again. Of course, the forward still insisted he was hungry for trophies after re-signing for Spurs. But with his Real deal expiring in the summer of 2022, by which time he be will on the verge of turning 33, Bale will already have one eye on his next move should he wish to prolong his playing career – be that in the Premier League or further afield.

“It's a bit simplistic but the old saying ‘you're only as good as your last game’ is kind of true,” says Earl. “If players aren’t getting enough games they're not going to be seen by enough other clubs interested in a permanent transfer.

“Players might not want to do it [go out on loan] but the trade-off is it gives them the chance to increase their game time and, in turn, their potential attractiveness and value. Clubs will also want to tread the line between having optionality – bringing through youth and not losing an academy player or another signing. Having too many players won't allow them to do that.”

It has been widely reported that Real manager Zinedine Zidane made no secret of his desire to let Bale leave for several seasons now. Despite a trophy-laden spell with the La Liga champions, the Welshman’s injury problems and the perceived failure to fully immerse himself in Spanish culture has meant a less than straightforward relationship with Zidane and Los Blancos fans. A lucrative move to Chinese Super League side Jiangsu Suning in summer of 2019 had been expected, only for Real to purportedly block the deal after demanding a transfer fee.

Bale himself had seemed resigned to his Real exit for quite some time, though commented in an interview with Sky Sports prior to his Spurs return that the Spanish giants “make things very difficult”. It is understandable that his employers would want to at least recoup a portion of the then world record UK£85 million (US$110 million) they paid for him, as much to save face as to bank money for an asset. But finding a permanent buyer that satisfies all parties has, so far, appeared elusive.

With that in mind, how big a lifeline is a loan for clubs looking to swiftly part ways with a player, even for the short-term?

“It's a very user-friendly option because it allows you to move quickly,” says Earl. "With a transfer, there is a lot of back and forth. Loans can be done much faster and they're not permanent so people can take a slightly different view as to how that transaction is done."

He continues: “The basic concept is Club A has a player who will have a baked in cost of X, which includes salary, living allowance, package, image rights and so on. Whatever that number is, Club A will tell Club B that it's costing them X amount and they want them to pick up the tab for that. It doesn’t automatically follow that Club B automatically has to pay all that cost. It may be that they offer to pay some of it. There is no official rule you have to follow.

“As it goes, quite often the loan will include the loaning club covering the full compensation of the player, which the parent club otherwise will remain responsible for. There's often not a fee in addition to that. The reason for that is because the club taking the player on loan may say they're not going to pay a fee as well because they're already taking on all, or a sizeable amount, of the other costs of the player whilst the parent club retains ownership of the permanent player registration. The exception to that might be if there's an option to buy the player during or at the end of a loan.”

Earl adds that negotiations between foreign and domestic clubs can throw up more complications, be it a culture clash, negotiation style or even just a case of something getting lost in translation. Generally, though, if all parties are on board, the language – and approach – tends to be fairly universal.

Bale’s loan move appears to have been comparatively straightforward then. But if permanent transfers have evolved to the point where a fee of over UK£100 million (US$130 million) is not considered an aberration, then the wider loan market has adjusted to reflect the very different ownership structure seen in soccer today.

The advent of multinational conglomerates and state-backed consortiums, such as City Football Group (CFG), which now count several clubs in their portfolio, has created what Earl describes as a “weird phenomenon”.

“You can now have a pool of players at a number of different clubs and you can just loan them in between,” he continues. “Once upon a time, there were teams that had a set squad of players, plus a youth academy, and that was it. Now, you can essentially double down and more. You can have a club in Belgium, France, Italy, and in the UK, for example, and increase your stable and have far more optionality compared to other rival teams, with friendly loans between clubs in the portfolio allowing fringe or youth players to get regular playing time.

“It allows a competitive edge because you don't necessarily want to have to transfer a player every time you want them to move. Bear in mind, if you transfer a player, there are a lot a of sunk costs that arise. The two obvious ones being transfer levy, which is generally four per cent of the transfer value in the Premier League, and VAT (with similar costs in other leagues and countries). There is still a cost attached in terms of remuneration for the club but with loans you avoid the irrecoverable sunk costs –four per cent on UK£1 million, let alone UK£50 million, is a big number.

“It also allows them to be a bit opportunistic because they can be quicker to move players to a market where there is potentially a better ability to generate more value.”

Driving up a player’s worth by sending them out to another club for a season or two has been a method long adopted by many top teams. Prior to using academy players more regularly in recent seasons, Chelsea had a whopping 37 players out on loan back in 2016. A year before that, they sold defender Ryan Bertrand to Southampton for UK£10 million (US$13 million), having sent the defender out on loan to seven different clubs after buying him for UK£125,000 (US$162,000) from Gillingham in 2006.

“Now, the loans not so much in and of themselves have changed,” says Earl. “It's the manner they can be used in today’s world where football has changed so much in terms of the way in which people approach ownership on a multinational basis. The loan market now is an ‘enabler’ for such structures and offers far greater flexibility for them.”

[Chester Perry]

This is an interesting one - the FA have appointed an interim Chairman - the problem - he is one of the Premier Leagues representatives at the FA- it should also remembered that the FA have that important golden share in the Premier League that Greg Clarke was waxing lyrical about at the DCMS before he made is long list of gaffes - the Telegraph have the story on the conflict of interest

Fears over conflict of interest as Premier League executive takes over as interim FA chairman
Exclusive: Peter McCormick steps up following Greg Clarke’s embarrassing resignation but the decision was labelled a 'bad move politically'

By Tom Morgan, SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT and Ben Rumsby - 11 November 2020 • 8:33pm

Senior football figures warned of a potential conflict of interest at the Football Association on Wednesday night after a long-serving Premier League executive was hired as interim chairman.

Peter McCormick takes over following Greg Clarke’s embarrassing resignation, despite continuing as chairman of the legal advisory group of England’s top tier.

The FA on Wednesday night clarified that Mark Bullingham, the governing body chief executive, would oversee the FA’s “golden share” vote at Premier League meetings.

However, FA Council figures expressed worries that the league’s stranglehold over the pyramid would tighten. “To appoint one of the Premier League reps to take over, I think, is a bad move politically,” said one senior council member. “I don’t think it sends out the right message.”

Former FA chairman David Bernstein, who is currently campaigning for a new independent regulator, also said McCormick’s twin duties were “disturbing”.

“In our recently issued manifesto, one of our key requirements is for greater independence in the game and particularly the FA,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “The appointment of an acting chairman, who has a long-term connection and involvement with the Premier League, is particularly disturbing.

“The Football Association has had four independent chairmen and, even though this appointment is a temporary one, it would seem a step back when it is very important there are no vested interests involved in these important decisions.”

McCormick, a popular figure in football who was awarded the OBE, is the first executive to have served as chairman at both the Premier League and the FA.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing against the FA Board, which was obliged in its own rules to appoint one of its two vice-chairs as an acting chair.

McCormick serves as representative of the professional game, while Jack Pearce, the vice-chairman at Bognor Regis, represents the national game.

Under FA rules, the only circumstances in which the board can appoint someone other than a vice-chair is where neither vice-chair is on the board.

McCormick, the senior partner of McCormicks Solicitors of Harrogate, has a long career as a leading sports lawyer. He was Luis Suarez’s legal representative during the Patrice Evra race row. In 2014 he was appointed chairman of the Premier League and served in that role for 15 months, prior to Richard Scudamore’s combined appointment as executive chairman and chief executive.

[Chester Perry]

Greg Clarke resigns from his circa £190k pa role as a FIFA Vice President after being invited to do so yesterday - from the BBC

Greg Clarke: Former FA chairman resigns as Fifa vice-president
Last updated on1 hour ago

Former Football Association chairman Greg Clarke has stood down as vice-president of Fifa.

Clarke left his job as head of the FA on Tuesday after using "unacceptable" language when referring to black players.

He had intended to continue in his position as Uefa's representative on the Fifa Council but has now resigned.

The decision comes after a phone call between Clarke and Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin.

Clarke used an offensive term in reference to black players when he appeared in front of a UK government select committee.

He was also criticised for comments he made referring to gay players making a "life choice", the different career choices of people from black and Asian communities, and a coach telling him young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them.

Clarke was elected as a vice-president of football's world governing body in February 2019.

On Wednesday he told BBC Sport he would stay on in that role until March 2021 at the request of Ceferin, in order to protect the European governing body's voting rights until then.

However, following a further call with Ceferin, he has now resigned.

Uefa will appoint an interim replacement, likely to be from the home nations, to attend Fifa's next meeting before naming a full-time replacement in March.

[Chester Perry]

The chaps at Vysyble with a new blog piece that ostensibly looks at that fateful DCMS hearing this week - "A Tight Squeeze"

I must say I was particularly drawn to this, especially the last sentence -

"It was also notable that references to the Premier League clubs’ £1.2bn (gross) spend on players over the summer were repeatedly made by MPs as a point of wonderment against the backdrop of claimed financial hardship by Mr. Masters, who subsequently defended his shareholders’ actions by claiming the 2nd largest net summer transfer spend ever (£834m) as ‘competitive investment’.

However, despite the headline number, the actual completion of these player transfers is not likely to happen until several years hence. In effect the transfer spend has been funded via the individual clubs’ expanding lines of credit. Not so much a case of kicking the can further down the road but a Panenka into the hands of further financial calamity."

https://vysyble.com/blog-2

[Chester Perry]

Manchester United are due to announce their Q1 earnings in the morning - our friend The Esk has managed to source some of the data

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1326957193837621248

EDIT turns out the US company employed by united to reales this information - did a test run to the public sphere by mistake, the New York Stock Exchange was still open at the time - so Ed Woodward has had to issue a formal apology

[Chester Perry]

the 2nd episode of The Athletics "Business of Sport" podcast looks at the DCMS hearing this week and the absolute car-crash performance of Greg Clarke

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... IDhAF&ep=6

[Chester Perry]

Reports that Wolves are to break their existing kit deal with Adidas a year early so that they can move to Castore for a different kind of deal - SportsProMedia

Wolves agree ‘UK£1m per season’ Castore kit deal
UK sportswear brand signs ‘long-term’ deal to replace Adidas.

Posted: November 12 2020By: Ed Dixon

- Wolves’ current deal with Adidas worth UK£3m a year
- Contract set to begin from 2021/22 season

English top-flight soccer club Wolverhampton Wanderers have agreed a kit deal with UK-based brand Castore, SportsPro understands.

The sportswear manufacturer, which launched out of Liverpool in 2016, will pay Wolves UK£1 million (US$1.3 million) a year in a ‘long-term’ deal from the start of the 2021/22 season, according to Sportcal.

The Midlands club’s agreement with current supplier Adidas is worth UK£3 million (US$3.9 million) a year. Though not due to expire until the summer of 2022, Sportcal adds that an agreement has been reached to break the contract a year early and that the Castore deal is only for the kit supply contract and does not include wider retail rights.

Castore has also been linked with a UK£5 million (US$6.5 million) per season kit deal with another Premier League club, Newcastle United, and is in talks with several leading European outfits, including Italy’s AS Roma.

Meanwhile, Sportcal also reports that Castore has also agreed a UK£200,000 (US$263,000) a season, multi-year deal with Saracens – the brand’s first in rugby union. If accurate, Castore is set to replace current kit supplier Nike as the English rugby union club’s kit supplier for the start the 2021/22 second-tier Championship season.

Since launching four years ago, the company has signed up Scottish tennis player Andy Murray as an investor and long-term partner, before making its initial entry into soccer by penning a five-year kit supply deal with Scottish giants Rangers, reportedly worth UK£25 million (US$32.9 million).

Castore also has deals with the West Indies national cricket teams and Australian National Rugby League (NRL) club the Sydney Roosters.

[Chester Perry]

the Guardian are reporting that the EFL clubs have accepted the Premier Leagues offer of £50m in aid for Leagues 1 and 2


EFL clubs accept £50m Premier League bailout for Leagues One and Two
U-turn offers hope of solution to football’s financial crisis
Championship clubs must apply for funds on case by case basis

Paul MacInnes Thu 12 Nov 2020 19.45 GMT Last modified on Thu 12 Nov 2020 20.12 GMT

EFL clubs have collectively agreed to accept the Premier League’s offer of a £50m bailout for teams in League One and League Two. After months of often fraught negotiations between the EFL and Premier League, the decision suggests the game may at last find a solution to the financial crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The EFL’s 72 clubs met by division on Thursday to once again discuss an offer that had already been rejected. Clubs last month agreed that any bailout should apply to all three EFL divisions, in a show of solidarity with the Championship.

The Premier League’s offer currently includes unconditional funding – a split between loans and grants totalling £50m – to clubs in League One and League Two. Championship teams, however, have been invited by the Premier League to apply for hardship funds on a case by case basis.

It was this split that had caused the 72 to reject the offer when it was first made. But with an estimated 10 clubs in League One and Two struggling to make payroll in November and with increased government pressure after a confrontational session at the digital, culture, media and sport committee on Tuesday, that position has now changed.

The EFL confirmed its new position in a statement on Thursday evening. “Following a comprehensive debate in all three divisions, a collective agreement in principle was made to move forward and finalise the negotiations‚” it read. “Championship clubs [made] it clear today that they wanted to ensure their colleagues in League One and League Two received the proposed £50m financial support package to cover gate losses for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as soon as is practically possible.

“The EFL believes that today represents a significant step forward and is hopeful that a final agreement on the short-term rescue package across all three divisions can be reached imminently which will provide much needed support, clarity and certainty for all EFL clubs at a time when they need it most.”

The question will now arise as to what support will be made available for struggling Championship sides. The Premier League has argued strongly that it is not willing to underwrite the losses of second-tier clubs who have either been able to spend money in the transfer market this summer, or recoup it from sales (often to Premier League sides). That the EFL draws attention to a “short term” solution for all three divisions may suggest a change in approach is coming from both parties.

[Chester Perry]

The Mail has a slightly different take on the EFL acceptance of that Premier League bail-out

EFL want the Premier League to provide £50m up front - not loans - in bailout rescue package to help clubs in League One and Two survive the season after coronavirus crisis
- The Premier League and EFL are discussing a rescue deal for lower league clubs
- The top-flight are offering £20million up front plus £30m in additional loans
- The EFL want the £50m up front in a grant to help League One and Two clubs

By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 23:03, 12 November 2020 | UPDATED: 23:20, 12 November 2020

The EFL are demanding that the Premier League convert their proposed rescue package from loans to a £50million grant to finally bring the tortuous negotiations over a bailout to a close.

The existing offer from the Premier League is for a £20m payment up front, plus a further £30m in loans to ensure clubs in League One and League Two can complete the season, while as MailOnline revealed yesterday separate negotiations are taking place over the top flight clubs providing a £200m loan to the Championship.

EFL chairman Rick Parry has insisted since May that the three divisions require £250m to off-set the loss of gate receipts this season, which has not been forthcoming from the Premier League until the last 48 hours.

At three separate divisional meetings on Thursday the clubs instructed Parry to continue to push for that figure, with the caveat that the Championship would accept a £200m loan if the £50m for League One and Two was took the form of a non-returnable grant.

The Premier League are expected to respond to the EFL's revised demands over the next few days amidst growing confidence on both sides that a deal can be done.

The Premier League have already made some significant concessions by removing demands that the bailout be conditional on EFL support for their strategic objectives, and are under pressure from government to bring the saga to a conclusion.

"Following a comprehensive debate in all three divisions a collective agreement in principle was made to move forward and finalise the negotiations," the EFL said in a statement released last night.

"The Championship clubs made it clear today that they wanted to ensure their colleagues in League One and League Two received the proposed £50m financial support package to cover gate losses for 2019/20 and 2020/21 as soon as is practically possible."

[Chester Perry]

Manchester United are due to announce their Q1 earnings in the morning - our friend The Esk has managed to source some of the data

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1326957193837621248

EDIT turns out the US company employed by united to reales this information - did a test run to the public sphere by mistake, the New York Stock Exchange was still open at the time - so Ed Woodward has had to issue a formal apology

@KieranMaguire has a look at those q1 results from Manchester United

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0257830913

[Chester Perry]

following reports that Barcelona are struggling to get players to agree wage cuts as they look to save Euro 170m of expenditure this season, News is emerging that Real Madrid too are looking to make additional wage cuts - this from ESPN

Real Madrid planning more player pay cuts as pandemic takes toll - sources

1:14 PM - Alex Kirkland and Rodrigo Faez

Real Madrid's players will be asked to take another pay cut as the club deals with the ongoing losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, sources have told ESPN.

The club are putting the finishing touches to this season's budget, which will be finalised in the next few days, and will then present a proposal to the first team squad.

Sources have told ESPN the exact percentage of salaries that the players will be asked to give up has not yet been fixed.

When that figure is set, talks will be held with the club's captains Sergio Ramos, Marcelo, Karim Benzema and Raphael Varane.

In April, a first pay cut of between 10% and 20% was agreed for players, coaching staff and top executives, while the club decided not to spend money on new signings during the summer transfer window.

The squad also agreed to give up bonuses they were owed for winning La Liga this summer.

Those measures helped protect the jobs of club workers and avoid the need for the club to implement temporary job losses, known in Spanish employment law as an ERTE.

It remains to be seen how the players will respond to this latest proposal. Sources have told ESPN that, in principle, they are sympathetic to the club's situation.

The Real Madrid board have had to work hard to adjust their planning and minimise the financial damage in the face of the COVID-19 crisis.

Messi or Maradona? Is Pele Brazil's undisputed best? Dempsey or Donovan from the U.S.? Our writers nominated candidates and we want readers to decide! Read

Like other top clubs, they have suffered a decrease in revenue from sponsorship and marketing opportunities, as well as the lack of ticket sales caused by the need to play behind closed doors at the Alfredo di Stefano stadium rather than a packed Santiago Bernabeu.

Sources at La Liga have told ESPN that Europe's biggest clubs can see a shortfall of between €3 million to €4m per home match, when all losses are taken into account.

Spain's sports minster Irene Lozano suggested on Wednesday that there is a possibility fans will be allowed back into La Liga stadiums before the end of the 2020-21 season if the circumstances, and a potential vaccine, allow.

[Royboyclaret]

@KieranMaguire has a look at those q1 results from Manchester United

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0257830913

Interesting quarterly results, which confirm the sneak preview we were given by The esk yesterday evening.

Two standout figures, for me, Total Income down from £135.4m to £109m even though broadcast revenue increased from £32.9m to £45.6m. Matchday Income was virtually zero from £22.1m and Commercial Income down from £80.4m to £59.7m. Also the Cash and Cash Equivalents figure reduced from £140.3m to £58.9m.

These trends are likely to be mirrored by most, if not all, other PL clubs for the same financial period. Worrying, to say the least, and yet the EFL continue to push for additional bailouts from the PL.

[Chester Perry]

These trends are likely to be mirrored by most, if not all, other PL clubs for the same financial period. Worrying, to say the least, and yet the EFL continue to push for additional bailouts from the PL.

I was surprised at the DCMS hearing this week that nothing was made of that particularly the fact that while the Premier League is suffering these losses, revenue shortfalls and rebates the solidarity payments were at the levels based on normal service levels at the start of the cycle and continued to be so.

Amid all the other things what Richard Masters did let slip was that the Premier League had agreed to adjust their own central distribution payments to themselves this season to account for the PPTV/China tv revenue loss (will that be 1 or 2 seasons of loss revenue that is accounted for given the pending legal case over last years shortfall). Naturally absolutely no one has picked up on this.

[Chester Perry]

Another new Podcast series - Football Uncovered - will be starting in the coming days looking at the weird world of football club ownership - first up will be a look at Venky's and our friends down the road who reach their 10th anniversary this month (yes that long) - all episodes features input from @SportingIntel so it should be informative at least - for now here is the trailer

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/f ... 1537818595

Episode 1 of the Football Uncovered Podcast looks at "Blackburn Rovers - The incredible story of the Venky's turbulent ownership"

and yes they have been in charge for 10 years

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/b ... 0498315250

[Chester Perry]

The Guardian is reporting that Sunderland have agreed a deal for a takeover

Sunderland agree takeover deal with 22-year-old Louis-Dreyfus heir
Owner Stewart Donald to retain 15% of his shares
Director Juan Sartori part of new consortium
Exclusive by Ed Aarons and Louise Taylor

Fri 13 Nov 2020 14.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 13 Nov 2020 14.07 GMT

The Sunderland owner, Stewart Donald, has agreed a deal to sell the club to a consortium led by minority shareholder Juan Sartori and Kyril Louis-Dreyfus - the 22-year-old son of former Marseille owner Robert - but looks set to retain 15% of his shares.

Donald has been actively trying to sell Sunderland since the start of the year and entered into an exclusivity period with an anonymous buyer a few weeks ago. The Guardian can reveal that Sartori - the Uruguayan businessman and politician who currently owns 20% of the club and sits on the board - is behind the move to bring in Louis-Dreyfus having made contact with him six months ago about the possibility of acquiring a majority stake.

It is understood that after months of ongoing due diligence and negotiations, the consortium made an offer two weeks ago to Donald which was accepted at the beginning of this week. Sources close to the deal expect it to be completed in the next fortnight.

Sunderland have declined to comment but cancelled a scheduled meeting with supporters’ groups on Thursday due to the “advancement and sensitivity” of takeover talks.

It is understood that Donald - who led the consortium that took over the club from American businessman Ellis Short in April 2018 - was keen to retain a portion of his shares, while former chief executive Charlie Methven will also keep hold of his acres worth 5%.

Along with twin brother Maurice, Louis-Dreyfus is one of three heirs to his father’s fortune following his death in 2009 and is estimated to have a trust fund worth more than £2bn that is held by his mother, Margarita. She remains a minority shareholder in Marseille having sold the majority of her shares in 2016.

Sunderland are sixth in League One after 10 games.

[Royboyclaret]

Final observation from me on those Manchester United quarterly results......In the equivalent quarter of 2019 they reported an Operating Profit of £11.0m, replaced in the first financial quarter of 2020 with an Operating Loss of £27.1m. A turnround in just a 12 week period of some £38m.

This figure projected for a full financial year (assuming current circumstances continue) suggests a Loss in excess of £100million for '20/'21. Now, such a number will hurt badly......even for Manchester United. The real killer blow is the dramatic reduction in both Matchday Income (£110m) and Commercial Income (£90m).

The irony, from a Burnley perspective, is that because our starting point is so low in terms of the above United numbers, the overall effect on our Operating figure will be considerably less. Still painful, but relatively less so than at the likes of Arsenal, Tottenham and Man United.

[Chester Perry]

the furore of the distribution of the NAtional Lottery funded govenent bailout of the National League and it's distribution is not dying down anytime soon - yesterday's Price of Football Podcast had a piece from Chester in Tier 6 on how they had been short changed and today the Mail is reporting that a number of clubs are calling for the National League Chairman Brian Barwick (it really does feel like musical chairs for the chaps in these organisations) to resign

National League clubs demand chairman Brian Barwick resigns over 'serious errors of judgement' as they call for clarity on the distribution of £10m government bailout
- Last month the government gave the National League a £10million bailout
- It was granted to the 66 clubs within the whole National League 'to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return'
- But many clubs are angry at the National League board's plans for distribution
By JACK GAUGHAN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 13:51, 13 November 2020 | UPDATED: 14:07, 13 November 2020

National League clubs are demanding transparency and clarity over the distribution of a £10million government bailout and called for chairman Brian Barwick's resignation.

Eight of the largest clubs in the sixth tier and one from the fifth tier have directed their ire towards Barwick, formerly chief executive of the FA, imploring him to step down after his board's 'serious errors of judgment'.

The forceful move follows weeks of talks surrounding the make-up of a package passed by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and funded by the National Lottery last month.

The £10m 'lifeline' was made available to 66 clubs in the National League's three divisions 'to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return'.

There has been vocal dissent at the proposed distribution model, with Barwick's detractors claiming he has refused to budge on offering an equal share to each club rather than weighted on average attendances.

A statement released to Sportsmail read: 'We welcome intervention by the DCMS, the FA and The National Lottery to compensate National League clubs for lost gate receipts due to fans being prevented from attending matches, indeed we are exceptionally thankful for the intention of this generosity.

'It remains a fact that it is on this basis that we agreed to start the 2020/21 season and thereby trigger contractual obligations. However, we were disappointed to learn two weeks ago that the National League had decided to allocate these funds based on a subjective judgement of clubs' needs and not based on lost gate receipts.

'Since then many of our clubs have been in continuous communication with the National League Chairman Brian Barwick, regarding how the distribution method was decided.

'Why the National League Board rejected Government guidelines on using funding to compensate lost gate receipts; whether National League Board members have been allowed to take a decision that directly affects their own clubs financially, appearing to breach their own Articles of Association in so doing and why we believe that an independent panel should now be appointed urgently to review the whole matter.'

The statement - penned on behalf of AFC Fylde, AFC Telford, Chester, Dulwich Hamlet, Hereford, Kidderminster Harriers, Maidstone United, Dorking and Chesterfield - will make uncomfortable reading for Barwick.

Hereford's outgoing chairman, Andrew Graham, said: 'We are aware of the method for determining the allocation of funds and are concerned that the outcome of this method does not represent the initial purpose of the funds.

'Given the absence of explanation and transparency regarding our concerns, and a refusal to date to correct what to us appear as unacceptable conflicts of interest at Board level, a growing number of clubs who have been adversely affected by this action, have lost confidence in the leadership of the National League and its decision-making mechanism.

'There has been unsatisfactory transparency over how funds were allocated and there are inexplicable inconsistencies, which amount to some clubs receiving five times as much in funding as others, per absent spectator. As a result, some of our clubs will now face income shortfalls, which may threaten their existence.

'Despite rumours of matters being discussed at sub-committee level of the National League we have received no meaningful communication regarding our request for an independent panel review of the allocation.

'This is an indefensible continuation of apparent disregard for the justified concerns we raise and it is for these reasons that we are left with no option other than to immediately call for the National League chairman Brian Barwick to resign and for an independent panel to be appointed to review this matter transparently and objectively.

'Some clubs are facing financial turmoil, due to what appears to be the National League board's serious errors of judgment in making unilateral, subjective decisions regarding distribution, which ignore government guidelines and ignore the board's conflicts of interest. Our clubs cannot let this pass unchecked, as it has resulted in some clubs now facing serious financial difficulty.'

[Chester Perry]

The vultures are at the door

It is no surprise that Private Equity funds looking to invest in Serie A's commercial rights are seeking inclusion of an exit strategy should the European Super League happen - there is of course no guarantee that the Italian clubs will sell a share of the rights with a number very vocally opposed to the idea - This from the Financial Times

CVC and Advent seek super league ‘breakaway’ clause on Serie A deal
KAYE WIGGINS NOVEMBER 13, 2020

CVC Capital Partners and Advent International want to add a “breakaway” clause to their €1.6bn deal to buy into Italy’s Serie A football competition to protect their investment if a rival European super league is launched.

The two private equity firms are part of a consortium with Italian investment fund Fondo FSI that is hoping to buy 10 per cent of a new company that will manage the broadcasting rights for Italy’s top football division.

That deal is in its final stages, but has been complicated by last month’s revelations that some of Europe’s biggest clubs are in discussions to create a new continental competition that could threaten the primacy of national leagues.

International investors have become increasingly interested in European domestic football leagues — which have suffered significant losses during the pandemic — because of the huge global audiences and valuable broadcasting rights. Private equity firms have approached Germany’s Bundesliga and Spain’s La Liga in recent weeks.

Any agreement reached by Advent and CVC to protect their Serie A investment could set the tone for other investors.

The two firms are worried about the potential for a new European competition to entice Italy’s biggest clubs including Juventus, Inter Milan and AC Milan away from Serie A, according to several people with knowledge of the developments.

Last month Josep Maria Bartomeu, the outgoing president of FC Barcelona, said his club has approved participation in a “future European super league of clubs, a project put forward by the biggest clubs in Europe”.

That super league project is being led by Real Madrid president Florentino Pérez, who is working with investment bank JPMorgan to create a €6bn debt financing package to launch the competition, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

Mr Pérez’s design is to replace the Champions League, the annual club competition run by Uefa, European football’s governing body, which distributes €2bn between participating clubs.

The super league would include up to 20 teams that would play each other in midweek games, leaving them to continue to play domestic fixtures at weekends.

Still, executives at CVC and Advent are worried this would damage the prestige and global audience for national leagues, hitting the value of broadcasting and sponsorship deals.

They also fear that the best players could be diverted to play in the new European contest, with domestic leagues becoming in effect “B-teams”.

Next week, Serie A clubs will meet for a crucial vote on whether to proceed with the proposed private equity investment.

If they agree, Advent and CVC are set to be offered a mechanism — dubbed by some a “breakaway” or “anti-embarrassment” clause — that would be activated if the super league happens, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

While it is unclear how the clause would work in practice, its aim would be to mitigate damage caused to the firms’ Serie A investment depending on the structure and impact of the super league.

CVC, Advent, Serie A, Real Madrid and JPMorgan declined to comment.

[Chester Perry]

John Wallstreet at Sportico.com on the likelihood of increased activity in Mergers and Acquisitions in the Sports market

SPORTS M&A BOOM EXPECTED TO CONTINUE FOR NEXT 3 TO 12 MONTHS

BY JOHNWALLSTREET

November 11, 2020 2:55am

The coronavirus outbreak resulted in North American M&A deal value declining -75% YoY during the first half of 2020. Activity picked up again in the third quarter (+23.5% QoQ) as investors and companies alike gained confidence in the financial markets and began to pursue businesses decimated by the pandemic. The abundance of dry powder on balance sheets and availability of cheap money also contributed to the uptick in transactions.

The sports world saw its fair share of mergers and acquisitions in Q3 ‘20. Serie A and French League football teams, gaming companies, sports betting operators and the XFL all changed hands during the quarter. The deal making has continued in Q4 with Topgolf (pending Callaway Golf shareholder vote), Genius Sports, the New York Mets and the Utah Jazz all announcing high-profile ownership changes.

Now that the presidential election is in the rearview mirror (and much of the major event risk has been minimalized), Chris Lencheski says to expect M&A activity within the sports arena to ramp up even further. The Phoenicia chairman and CEO and board member of Granite Bridge Partners’ Winning Streak Sports believes the demand curve for sports properties is actually greater now than it was before the pandemic and that the need for teams and companies to find new revenue streams to offset the lost gate and cascading receipts will only lead to even more deals getting done.

Our Take: The reason Lencheski is more bullish on the sports space now than he was eight months ago is the sports hiatus has validated the belief that sports are more secular than they are cyclical. As he pointed out, “the disruption experienced [by the industry] was in the delivery ‘widowing’ of the games, not the result of a downturn in interest.” Sports have since proven “they are always going to be in demand,” he said, even after a four-month layoff and with no one in the stands. Isaiah Kacyvenski (managing partner, Will Ventures) agreed, saying, “The one thing [we now] know is interest in sports is not going away.”

It’s reasonable to suggest there is a fair amount of “catch-up” taking place within the M&A space (deal volume was down -13% YoY in H1 ’20). But Lencheski attributed the recent rush of transactions to both companies “having a better understanding of where the goal posts are now [than they did when the virus first arrived].” Many people have also since come to accept the new normal (at least until a vaccine is widely distributed) and that norms have changed as a result of the virus. “Teams as well as companies now realize the landscape has shifted and are looking for opportunities to diversify revenue streams or hedge their risk [against no fans being in attendance in 2021],” Kacyvenski explained.

COVID-19 has accelerated the rate of tech adoption leading “smart companies to pivot” and transaction volume to rise, Lencheski said. The digital nature of the acquisition targets has also been a contributing factor to the M&A boom as it has eliminated physical boundaries, enabling companies to fish from a wider pool of potential acquisition targets.

It’s not uncommon for an M&A boom to take place following an economic downturn. As Lencheski explained, “When disruption occurs, new lanes are created and in those new lanes there are opportunities.” There’s seemingly a belief that sports could return to their pre-COVID form by ’22, which explains the three- to 12-month time frame proposed. Some or many of those lanes will close when fans return to the building.

Reports that Pfizer could have a COVID-19 vaccine on the market before the end of 2020 has added some uncertainty to the industry’s short-term outlook that could in theory prevent deals from getting done. But Lencheski suggested the news would more likely manifest itself in a flux of micro tag-and-hold transactions: “In other words, [a company] buying into something with the option to buy more or buy the rest. The reason you’re going to see more of that is because it’s a nice, soft bet that puts the money to work [while allowing the investor to see how things shake out and test-run the management].” Liberty Media buying a ‘look-in’ position on IndyCar via their tag and hold investment in a team is one such example and a smart play to see how Indy operates.

Kacyvenski anticipates much of the investment interest in COVID-19’s wake will focus on the “health and wellness sector. Esports and
gaming , too,” he said. All three verticals have enjoyed accelerated adoption trends and are believed to be capable of sustaining the growth. As for Lencheski, he too mentioned digital gaming and said he foresees “a lot of the capital moving into digital media” as well as social commerce.

When the economy first shut down back in March, we suggested the inability to meet face-to-face would make it more challenging to get deals done. While certainly not ideal, that hurdle does not seem to have dramatically altered business, either. Lencheski said with “most of the major players already knowing who each other are,” travel and meeting limitations haven’t been as great a problem as expected. “If you’re picking up the phone asking about another company with a potential transaction, they and their plan or management team existed before COVID-19,” he said.

[Chester Perry]

Not sure how this is going to help given the ineptitude on display at previous government hearings and debates - the government has announced that there is to be a virtual summit on the future of football next Tuesday - from the BBC

Government to host virtual summit on future of English football

By Dan Roan
BBC sports editor
Last updated on2 hours ago.

The government is to host a landmark virtual summit on the future of English football on Tuesday, to discuss a number of issues facing the game.

The potential return of fans to grounds in England, the reform of governance and finances, equality and diversity, and the women's game will be discussed.

A group of leaders and stakeholders from across the sport have been invited to participate.

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden will lead the talks.

They are designed to bring football's various authorities closer together after a period of tension.

The heads of the Football Association, Premier League, English Football League, National League, Professional Footballers' Association and Kick It Out have all been invited, along with leaders from the women's game and fans' representatives.

The meeting comes amid an unprecedented financial crisis in English football, with fans prevented from attending professional matches since March.

There have been weeks of wrangling between the Premier League and EFL over a rescue package, and the FA is searching for a new chair after Greg Clarke resigned over offensive comments made in front of a parliamentary committee earlier this week.

There has also been division between the football authorities over the future structure of the game since the leak of the Project Big Picture proposals in October.

Both the Premier League and the government have committed to comprehensive reviews, but there have also been demands for an independent regulator to be established.

[Chester Perry]

Some interesting questions around the ownership of West Brom and whether it has changed hands

https://www.westbromnews.co.uk/2020/11/ ... p-mystery/

[Chester Perry]

Matt Hughes in the Daily Mail's Ahead of the Game column has this to say on today's announcement on the end of PPV - it is something I have been posting about for some time

Pay-per-view fiasco hits TV rights value

The viewing figures for the first two rounds of the Premier League’s doomed pay-per-view experiment —abandoned after last weekend’s games — are being seen in the industry as good news for the top flight’s main rights-holders Sky Sports and BT Sport.

They will now hope to renew their contracts at a discount when the auction for the 2022-25 rights cycle takes place next year.

Despite being a decent moneyspinner for the clubs, the average viewing figure of 39,000 suggests there is only a limited demand for direct-to-consumer sales, which does not appear to be big enough to challenge the Premier League’s established broadcast model based on selling rights to subscription channels.

The Premier League raised around £5million for selling two rounds of matches — 10 fixtures in total — direct to supporters, whereas Sky and BT are currently paying around £8m per game over the course of the current three-year deal, a price which is likely to come down.

Sky and BT are also expected to play hard-ball during the negotiations, not least because they are unhappy at being blamed by the Premier League for the unpopular move to pay-per-view.

[Chester Perry]

The Financial Times takes a closer look at the Mediapro/French Ligue standoff - some pretty unscrupulous work from Mediapro to be honest - also a another warning on future media rights values. It should als be remembered that the French Ligues did not complete last season (the only big league not to do so) so that they would be ready for this significantly improved deal on time and avoid rebates, thereby maximising income opportunities.

There are are number of graphics in this piece which is behind a paywall, but which you should be able to view here https://outline.com/SmYg5Z

Row over rights: Mediapro vs the beautiful game
MURAD AHMED NOVEMBER 13, 2020

Only days after France’s top football league closed the transfer window to acquire players for the upcoming season last month, its clubs were hit by a bombshell: their new broadcast partner Mediapro wanted to renegotiate its €780m TV rights deal due to the damage wreaked by the pandemic.

“Covid-19 affects everyone and everything, and football is no exception,” Jaume Roures, co-founder of the Spanish group, told the Financial Times.

“It changes the equation for broadcasters, subscribers, teams and the players, and the product is not the same with no spectators. All these factors must be put on the table and discussed.”

Mediapro has done more than politely request such talks. It skipped a €172m payment to Ligue 1 on October 5 — only the second instalment due for its four-year contract. Mr Roures stunned the clubs when he revealed the move in newspaper L’Équipe, leaving them facing a massive budget shortfall.

Shortly before, heavily-indebted Mediapro had cannily put itself under court protection from its creditors by using a new legal process designed to help companies struggling to pay debts due to coronavirus. The gambit meant the French league was powerless to enforce its contract and instead had to agree to a court-supervised mediation that will run into December.

“It is an economic catastrophe for the league,” said one club president. “If no solution is found, some clubs will go bust before the end of the season.”

The dispute is being keenly watched by the industry as the first indicator of a painful correction in the multibillion-euro market for European football’s media rights.

For years, top clubs have grown richer as broadcasters paid ever-greater sums to screen their matches. Revenues in Europe’s top five leagues in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France rocketed from €7.9bn in 2010 to €28.9bn last season, according to Deloitte.

The pandemic has ended the free-spending era. There have been a handful of cases where TV companies have skipped payments to leagues, resulting in legal battles. A more conciliatory approach was taken by England’s Premier League, Germany’s Bundesliga, Spain’s La Liga and Europe’s Champions League, which granted significant rebates to compensate for spring lockdowns.

But in France Mediapro has gone further, questioning the value of an existing contract to show matches that are still taking place this autumn, although with no fans present.

Yet Mediapro may be proven right on the lower value of sports rights. In June, the Bundesliga sold its domestic TV rights for €4.4bn over four years from 2021, 5 per cent less than its previous deal.

“We have reached the peak of sports rights,” said François Godard, a media analyst at Enders Analysis.

The battle could not come at a worse time for French clubs, with revenues from tickets, hospitality and merchandise having slumped. When Mediapro stopped paying, the league took out a €112m bank loan and parcelled it out to clubs.

Not long ago French football regarded Mediapro as a saviour, one that would help it achieve its ambition of taking its income closer to rival European leagues.

In 2018 the Barcelona-based group’s bidding in the auction for the 2020-2024 television rights pushed up the total price by nearly 60 per cent to €1.05bn. It beat Vivendi’s Canal Plus, the league’s pay-TV partner since 1984, to screen most of the best matches, leaving the rest to Qatar-backed beIN Sports. After losing, Canal Plus chief executive Maxime Saada called the price “totally unreasonable” and predicted Mediapro’s failure.

The choice of Mediapro was not without risk. Its parent company is majority owned by Orient Hontai Capital, a little-known Chinese private equity fund. Italy’s Serie A chose Mediapro’s blockbuster €1bn bid for the 2018-2021 rights, but then reversed this decision after a rival broadcaster filed a court challenge casting doubt on the group’s ability to pay.

Investors CVC Capital Partners and Advent International, who are part of a consortium that is hoping to buy a stake in a new company that will manage the broadcasting rights for that division, are now looking at ways to protect their investment if a rival European super league is launched.

Mediapro was most successful in Spain in the past decade where it beat incumbent pay-TV players in auctions and then cut deals to license them the rights in exchange for production contracts on sports channels. It used such arbitrage to strong-arm telecoms operator Telefónica and beIN to work with them. Outside sports, the group also produced movies and TV series.

The bare-knuckled approach left them with a certain reputation. “At best, he’s not orthodox,” another French club president said of Mr Roures. “At worse, he’s a pirate.”

Mediapro is the latest newcomer to dream of conquering European sports. Over the past decade, groups such as the UK’s BT and rich outsiders like beIN have snapped up football rights and sought to rival pay-TV incumbents like Sky. But few were ever able to make profits because of the challenge of signing up enough subscribers to cover the astronomical cost of the rights.

The big winners were the leagues, who were happy to pit bidders against each other. Clubs used proceeds to build new stadiums and boost player wages.

“All the leagues have been greedy,” said Mr Godard. “But the French league has been a bit more greedy, and a lot less lucky.”

The shortcomings of Mediapro’s strategy were exposed when it failed to reach a deal with Canal Plus to license its French rights last year. According to people familiar with the matter, the two sides negotiated for months over a deal in exchange for distributing Mediapro’s new Téléfoot channel to its subscribers. But they could not agree to terms.

Mediapro would have to sell Téléfoot, which is priced at €15 to €25 a month, without the help of France’s biggest pay-TV operator. Instead it signed distribution deals with telecoms groups Orange and Iliad, as well as Netflix and Apple.

This was before the pandemic plunged football into crisis. France’s top tier was the only one of Europe’s big five leagues to cancel its season in April on government orders. It was forced to take out a €225m state-guaranteed loan to plug the budget hole.

Téléfoot faced a difficult backdrop for its launch. Mr Roures said he tried to negotiate with the league over the summer over changes to the schedule, but things deteriorated quickly. “We wanted a delay to the launch by some weeks . . . as well as discuss other matters,” he said. “We did not get anywhere.”

It remains to be seen if Mediapro will have more luck in the mediation process. Several outcomes are possible: the league could take the rights back for non-payment or agree to a price cut, according to people briefed on the talks.

Yet if the league were to resell the rights, it would almost certainly find itself in a weaker position. Canal Plus has little need to pay up since it had “barely lost” any subscribers since Téléfoot’s launch, Mr Saada recently told newspaper Les Echos, and it has “no interest” in overspending on football rights.

When asked if Mediapro would honour its next payment due on December 5, Mr Roures said only: “It will depend on the mediation process.”

It is unclear if Mediapro, which said it had €727m in debt at the end of 2019, has the money to pay the league or if its Chinese owner would contribute. Asked about its ability to pay, Mr Roures demurred but admitted that the business had taken a hit from Covid-19. Orient Hontai did not respond to a request for comment.

Vincent Labrune, head of France's Ligue de Football Professionnel, said in a recent interview with the Journal du Dimanche: “I expect them to respect their engagements and act responsibly in ending the conflict between us.” The body declined an interview request for this article.

The second team owner predicted that the government would pressure the parties to make a deal to avoid plunging Ligue 1 into severe financial distress.

“It’s a perfect storm,” said the owner. “You have no stadium revenue. You have sponsors who are unable to pay. Then you have no TV money, which is about 50 per cent of turnover of clubs . . . If you look down the light at the end of the tunnel, it’s actually a train coming towards you.”

[Chester Perry]

The Times with a bit more detail on that Virtual Football Summit being run by Oliver Dowden - I am still very sceptical of what he is actually aiming to do - sounds like it will be a lot of hot air, a few salient points (mostly from the FSA and Kick it Out) and MP's getting it wrong again as they have done in all the previous DCMS hearings

Leaders attempt to find common ground on future of English football
Henry Winter, Chief Football Writer
Saturday November 14 2020, 12.01am, The Times

A summit meeting into the future of English football will be hosted on Tuesday morning by Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, involving some of the leaders of the sport, including Mark Bullingham of the FA, Richard Masters of the Premier League and Rick Parry of the EFL.

Dowden wants to bring all sides together to find more common ground on matters such as financial disparity in the pyramid, the need for greater diversity, fans’ rights and the timing of crowds’ return to grounds.

Dowden wants fans’ input so the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has invited a representative of the Football Supporters’ Association to the virtual round table.

Paul Elliott, the non-voting observer on the FA board, and the former FA chairman, David Bernstein, are understood to have been invited, along with Sanjay Bhandari of Kick It Out, representatives from the Professional Footballers’ Association and National League and possibly Sue Campbell, the FA’s head of women’s football.

Campbell is considered one of the contenders for the vacant FA chairman’s position after the resignation of Greg Clarke for using what he admitted was “unacceptable” language in referring to black players while speaking at a DCMS select committee hearing.

The FA are seeking somebody ambassadorial as his replacement, who would also need to have the energy and diplomacy to front a bid for the World Cup hosting rights. The FA will use head-hunters beyond its usual ones to generate as diverse a shortlist as possible. The governing body also accepts that it needs more diversity on its main board, where Elliott can join in the discussions but not the voting, and more individuals with a playing background.

The FA’s plans for the postponed Euro 2020 have also been drawn into sharper focus after Scotland qualified on Thursday. They will face England at Wembley on June 18. Uefa has indicated that it is looking at possibly staging games in fewer nations. Wembley will host England’s three group games, the two semi-finals and final.

[Chester Perry]

The Mail relating reports from Spain - La Liga Chairman Javier Tebas warns clubs need to drastically cut costs as they face huge losses, the problems in the Premier League are not that different

LaLiga faces hit of half a BILLION euros to finish the season, according to president Javier Tebas... who insists clubs have 'no other option' but to cut wage bills in coronavirus clampdown
- LaLiga clubs will need to reduce their wages, according to chief Javier Tebas
- The league's president has laid bare the grim reality of the financial dilemma
- Tebas has claimed it will cost almost half a billion euros to finish the season
By DANIEL DAVIS FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:41, 14 November 2020 | UPDATED: 17:56, 14 November 2020

LaLiga president Javier Tebas claims it will cost almost half a billion euros to finish the season with the coronavirus pandemic wreaking havoc on the finances in Spanish football.

A number of teams in the top flight, including Barcelona and Real Madrid, have been forced to scramble to reduce their wage bills as a result of the fallout from the current global health crisis.

And Tebas has again laid bare the shocking reality of the situation while appealing to clubs that they have 'no other option' but to introduce cost-cutting measures.

'There is a large industry behind LaLiga with many jobs that depend on it,' he told Marca.

'According to the latest reports, there are 180,000 jobs. Defending this industry is a social responsibility. We have to be an example, because that serves to grow and create more jobs. People need to understand that LaLiga has a lot of responsibility.

'We still have excess spending of about €500m (£448m) as clubs can't remove players with contracts – an effort has to be made to reduce salaries.

'Some clubs have to continue to try and reduce the wage bill. The most affected in Spain are Valencia, Barcelona and Real Madrid – they just can't get rid of the superfluous players.

'To end the season, Spanish football will need to spend about €490m (£435m) to pay the club expenses, but not to all clubs. We've detected 17, some of whom are short €100m and others €3m – but the club missing €3m might be in worse shape than the one missing €100m.

'We're working to fix it. Valencia is no longer in the Champions League, for example, and they've been criticised for selling players but they have to, and Barcelona have to lower their wage bill to finish the season. They have no other option.'

A red-faced Barcelona were forced to announce on Wednesday that they failed to reach an agreement with their players over pay cuts.

The LaLiga title hopefuls have been desperate to save £170m altogether in order to stave off fears of bankruptcy - but 'several days of intense meetings' saw both parties unable to find middle ground.

Players' wages at the Nou Camp took up around 61 per cent of the club's £940m revenue before the pandemic. Lionel Messi is their highest earner, pocketing around £500,000 per week.

The squad are understood to be aware of the dilemma gripping the club's finances, however, and confidence remains that an agreement can still be reached.

According to ESPN, Real Madrid will also ask their players to take another wage cut. The first-team group initially took a 10-20 per cent hit, alongside the coaching staff and executives, earlier this year.

[Chester Perry]

This may look harsh to some and contradictory considering the stance on not being up to date with HMRC, but it is eminently sensible - The EFL have placed transfer bans on EFL clubs that have taken emergency loans from them to pay wages - from the Mail

EFL place cash-strapped clubs who are unable to pay this month's players' wages under transfer embargo after offering them loans to prevent a financial meltdown as £50m bailout talks with Premier League rumble on
- Several EFL clubs are under a temporary transfer embargo after taking loans
- The EFL have offered clubs most in need with a bridging loan to help pay wages
- Those who accept the loan will not be able to sign players until it is paid back
- Talks are ongoing with the Premier League about a £50m bailout for EFL teams
By JOE BERNSTEIN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 07:07, 15 November 2020 | UPDATED: 08:51, 15 November 2020

A number of EFL clubs have been placed under transfer embargo after accepting a bridging loan from their governing body to avert short-term financial meltdown.

The EFL offered their members support to help pay this month's players' wages on the condition they will not be able to sign players until the money is paid back.

Several clubs have accepted the assistance so are currently unable to sign free agents and face a race against time if they want to be active in the January transfer window.

The Covid-19 pandemic has left a huge hole in the finances of EFL clubs with empty stadiums resulting in a significant loss of revenue.

Talks are ongoing with the Premier League about a £50million bailout for teams in League One and League Two with positive progress made last week after months of negotiations.

Until a deal is confirmed, the EFL's bridging loans allows clubs in the severest situation to survive and fulfil their next set of fixtures.

Should the Premier League bailout be agreed soon, it would allow bridging loans to be repaid by January so teams affected can sign players in the next window.

The EFL will not disclose the names of clubs currently under embargo but the number is fewer than 10.

[Chester Perry]

John Nicholson with what is going to be a big news item next year particularly if UEFA's European Championships is to feature all those host countries. (it has been growing significantly over the last 18 months). The carbon footprint of football, in an era where clubs in Europe are jetting around on a weekly basis and teams like Arsenal (not the only ones) prefer to fly to Norwich, Southampton and Birmingham.

https://www.football365.com/news/footba ... int-insane

[Chester Perry]

Most of the posts, articles and podcasts look at the finances of clubs and a very few at the players - this "Last word on Spurs" podcast looks at the finances of players and their attitude for financial planning

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f ... 0498403523

[Chester Perry]

John King author of the football factory with a somewhat nihilistic vision of elite football in the Independent

Do clubs even need spectators now? Coronavirus and the death of football as we know it
‘The Football Factory’ author John King bemoans the loss of the terrace long-term loyalists. Call it regeneration, call it gentrification – behind the nice words and beaming smiles, the end result is the same

John King 6 hours ago

It is sometime in the future and the biggest football clubs in London have merged to create London United. The story is the same in Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. Wasteful rivalries have been overcome, replaced by a more lucrative unity. The Premier League has morphed into a Europe-wide super league and London are due to play Madrid City.

Matches may take place in empty stadiums, but the digital experience is a huge improvement on the old, highly dangerous way of consuming the product. A range of atmospheres is included in every TV package, while a little extra buys the full immersive option. The London-Madrid clash is already a bestseller. Football has never felt more alive.

When the Premier League started back in 1992, the supporters of the day knew it was going to cost them, and not just financially. Rupert Murdoch flashed his cash, the big clubs sold live TV rights to subscription channel BSkyB, and the foundations of New Football were established. Year Zero was created, the history of the last century shunted into the shadows. Not long after, a wave of media professionals spotted a nice earner, their disdain for the people’s game and the country’s biggest newspaper mogul forgotten, as they began telling anyone who would listen how much they had suffered for their favourite club.

New Football was always going to mean New Fans. The business vision of freshly built stadiums lined with private boxes, hospitality suites and megastores selling mountains of merchandise needed another sort of customer. A more upmarket clientele. The current lot were rough and ready and never going to spend heavily, but those driving these changes still needed the traditional supporters in the short term, and so were keen to justify their actions. They were doing this for the fans. All-seater stadiums were essential and any price rises would be minimal. They only wanted to help. The clubs would look after us.

The supporters loved these terraces. They were cheap and cheerful and we could stand with our friends. It was easy to create an atmosphere and, despite the propaganda, CCTV had already banished trouble from inside the grounds. Even so, the great ends were demolished, admission prices soared and long-term loyalists were driven out – the young, the elderly, families, the hard-up – their places taken by New Fans, tourists, sightseers, corporates.

Many genuine supporters kept going of course, but today they are charged small fortunes for tickets, with match days and times set to suit the television audience, constant rescheduling adding to their problems. They are bombarded with orders, told what they can and can’t sing, the words they are allowed to use, when to stand and sit, and increasingly what they should think. Call it regeneration, call it gentrification – behind the nice words and beaming smiles, the end result is always the same.

It can’t be denied that the money, which has flooded into the English game, has brought benefits. It has attracted some of the best players in the world, and they perform on pristine pitches, while huge improvements have been made behind the scenes. The Premier League is a dynamic, exciting competition, even if only a tiny number of clubs stand a realistic chance of winning it. The stadiums have also been greatly improved.

All this is true, but something much deeper has been lost. The Premier League is like a mini-version of the European Union, and the commercialisation isn’t confined to England. It is part of the wider globalisation process. The European Cup – once a knock-out competition for genuine champions – has been turned into a hybrid league and cup tournament designed to increase revenues, a halfway step to a European league. That is the long-term mission. The dream.

Today, as the country struggles to get through a pandemic, and millions worry about their health and their jobs, and with spectators banned from attending matches, TV finds itself with an even tighter – albeit accidental – monopoly of who can and can’t see a live game. Silly money is being asked to watch a one-off match, the Premier League looks to increase its power, small clubs in the divisions abandoned in 1992 go out of business.

At first, the media made much of how the crowds were missed, but that seems to have faded, and do the clubs even need spectators now, seeing as so much money is coming in from other sources? Maybe these people are worth more watching from home, and it doesn’t matter where in the world someone is if they can tap in their PIN, so perhaps the pandemic is speeding up the digitisation process.

This could be a small part of the New Normal – the masses with little choice but to sit in front of their screens as their recorded voices are fed back to them, the stands turned into advertising hoardings, VAR acting as a robot referee, bland pedalled as the new exciting, London and Madrid preparing to kick off.