Football's Magic Money Tree

[Chester Perry]

I posted a few times about Softbank - including some very detailed pieces on the tangled web of investments. The COO of Softbank Group, Marcelo Claure,, who is extremely well connected it seems, has made a bid for the tv rights to the Bolivian league - he is president of Bolivian Club Bolivar. The bid has effectively cancelled the tender process, and was not made via it either. From SportsBusiness.com

Bolivian clubs mull $100m 10-year media-rights offer from Bolivar president
Alex Taylor - June 8, 2020

The 14 Bolivian Primera Divisíon sides are weighing up whether to accept a 10-year media-rights proposal worth $100m (€88.7m) from the president of one of the league’s most successful sides for their media rights.

Bolivian-American businessman Marcelo Claure, president of both Bolívar and MLS side Inter Miami, submitted the offer in a league-wide video conference call on Friday. The offer covers the 2021-30 seasons.

The league’s rights are currently held by the Sport TV Rights agency in a deal worth $4.1m per season and expires at the end of this current season.

The owners and presidents of the remaining 13 sides voted unanimously to void the current tender process, which had already been delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Claure’s offer would see $9.6m per season distributed among the 14 sides, while $400,000 per season would go to support amateur Bolivian football associations.

It is not clear at this time whether the funds will be distributed evenly between the sides or if it will be based on each team’s final league position. No details on which platform the matches would be broadcast have been provided.

The Bolivian Football Federation (FBF) has said that it will now require a formal offer to be submitted by Claure. It is expected that Claure will have submitted this letter by June 12.

Claure’s offer falls largely in line with the FBF’s financial goals for the league, which had hoped to generate a deal worth $10m per season for the rights between 2021 and 2024.

In addition to his roles at Bolivar and Inter Miami, Claure is the chief executive officer of SoftBank Group International and chief operating officer of SoftBank Group. SoftBank is a Tokyo-headquartered technology investment fund which generated $88.7bn in revenue in 2019.

He is also an executive chairman of telco Sprint which was acquired by T-Mobile on April 1, 2020. He joined Bolívar as president in 2008 via the Bolivar Administración, Inversiones y Servicios Asociados group. The group acquired the rights to operate the club for 20 years until 2028.

The FBF has reclaimed control over the División Profesional rights from 2021 onwards. The rights reclamation stripped the league’s 14 clubs of negotiating their own broadcast rights in favour of placing the collective negotiating power with the FBF.

It was reported earlier this year that SportTV Rights had registered its interest in the rights going forward, as had US-based broadcasts groups ESPN and Turner. Telecoms operators Comteco, Entel and Fecotel were also reported to have registered, along with commercial broadcaster Unitel, pay-television broadcasters GolTV and Tigo Sport, and Nexus Sports.

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

one of the interesting elements of this bid is it's length (never mind the inside information that Claure has to advantage his bid) - it allows long term budgeting and in theory a level of stability, however the original tender was for 4 years not 10 and for what appears to be slightly more in the short term with the opportunity to advance on that in the cycles following

https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/boli ... ghts-deal/

[Chester Perry]

I find this hugely challenging and thought provoking piece quite timely and though you might not think it ties in with this thread I firmly believe it does - from SportsBusiness.com

Tony Simpson | Covid-19, Race and Gen Z
At a time when much of the world is reflecting on attitudes towards race and equality, Tony Simpson, partner and head of sport at board advisory firm Savanah, puts sport under the microscope and says attitudes and practices must change for human, social and business reasons
Suzanne Swaysland - June 9, 2020

For many years I have been advising Boards in the sports sector and helping them acquire talent that delivers results in an increasingly competitive and fragmented world.

And it remains an undeniable fact that the Boardrooms of most of the world’s leading sports institutions are not reflective of their participants or those that follow the sport. In England, the proportion of BAME footballers in the Premier League has more than doubled since the leagues inception in 1992, yet in 2020, we have only one BAME manager and one BAME chief executive.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, across most major sports, there are more young BAME athletes joining the professional ranks, yet this is not translating into the executive boardrooms, which are mainly BAME free. Of those with senior positions, many are honorary, and come without the fiscal benefits enjoyed by white colleagues.

Whilst organised sport has been contested for hundreds of years, ‘the business of sport’ is in its infancy. Changes to how sport is administered, consumed and who consumes it moving at an unprecedented rate, driven by technology, globalisation and the need for instant data. On top of this, we have to deal with the confluence of technology, millennials and diversity, the new breed of sports executive needs a professional tool box that includes empathy aligned with the ability to handle a this new reality, unfortunately, many are out of step, working with advisors and board members who reflect both their own experience and socio-cultural heritage, in 2020, that’s just not good enough.

I have been in the privileged position to discuss race and diversity in all its forms, with many of our sector’s leading chief executives and chairs, and one thing that always struck me was their need for a safe environment where they could not only challenge me but also their own concepts of race, and get a better understanding of privilege in order to make their companies more attractive, better, and ultimately more profitable places to work.

Looking at the blizzard of information being posted and reposted on social media, I suspect many business leaders are confused and overwhelmed, unsure of how to effectively respond to not only a post-Covid-19 working environment, but also, to extract and implement sustainable positives from the Black Lives Matter movement.

I am now asking questions of myself, as a generation of young people of all races and social backgrounds is putting itself on the line, demanding workplace change, demanding equal opportunities, demanding work environments that reflect their moral and social values. However uncomfortable this might be, we need to embrace this change using our positions of influence. It’s not only the right thing to do (your companies will be all the better for it), but it’s business-critical, requiring emotionally-secure leadership and compassion. Don’t hire on colour, hire on merit, but remove the barriers to entry so that all can be judged equally. Using education alone as a benchmark is wrong in some instances, especially where education in itself is a privilege. Clearly, there are exceptions, but we are talking about the spectrum of the executive suite.

I believe the businesses that will thrive post-Covid-19 will be those that encourage a coming together of different ethnicities with different experiences. The food we eat is a blend of various cultures, the music we listen to is a blend of different cultures, the holidays we seek are mix of different cultures, the sports teams we follow are populated by athletes of different cultures. However, executive power remains steadfastly white, and still, in 2020, predominantly male.

If you are seeking corporate role models you don’t need to look much further than the global franchise of the NBA. With its diverse leadership, this federation is doing more than OK. As is CNN, the Global News Network. Interestingly, both are American, but they are not typical of the general sports and media landscapes. The entertainment industry, whose executive boards probably least reflect their content, has arguably the most to gain from cultural amalgamation. I’m pretty sure the commissioning editors at Netflix did not anticipate the success of ‘The Last Dance’ documentary. Yes, maybe that success was due to Covid-19 – they had a captive audience, but look what happened, an ‘African American’ basketball documentary trended at number one in the UK.

With less business travel predicted in a post-Covid-19 world, companies will need to be globally ready, and the winners will be those with diverse internationally-orientated boards better able to anticipate and act upon trends and client needs. The fastest growing, most innovative, disruptive and prosperous urban centres in the world, New York, Berlin, London and Paris, all have something in common; they are melting pots with a high concentration of immigrants. It’s a fact: there is a direct correlation between high-skilled immigration and economic performance.

Substantial research shows the benefits of hiring diverse talent: increased profitability and creativity, stronger governance and better problem-solving. Employees with diverse backgrounds bring their own perspectives, ideas and experiences, helping to create organisations that are resilient and effective, regularly outperforming organisations that do not actively invest or understand the values of diversity.

The new breed of chief executives will challenge preconceptions with flexibility and versatility, putting people and HR at the centre of their decision-making process. Such leadership traits will be necessary for small companies and large corporations alike. A culturally diverse environment will be the only way to acquire and utilise these qualities. Assumptions need to be challenged, conversations need to be had, and corporate culture needs to be updated so that the modern workplace can accurately reflect and support its staff and client base.

And for those who seek a return to ‘normal’, it’s just not going to happen. In 10 years’ time it’s anticipated that up to 80 per cent of the global workforce will be made up of millennials. Over the coming decades, this group will start to occupy the majority of leadership positions. Their thoughts and ideas will be the prevailing workplace culture. Now take a hard look within your organisation and ask yourself – is your leadership team going to be ready to do business with this new value-focused client base? This new group will be responsible for making the decisions that affect workplace cultures and people’s lives. It will have a unique and fresh perspective on diversity. No longer seen through the prism of race, demographics, equality and representation, millennials see diversity as a melding of varying experiences, different backgrounds and individual perspectives. They view the workplace as a supportive environment where they can safely challenge differing perspectives on any given product, service or issue.

Recently, the professional services company Deloitte produced a ‘Millennial Survey’ showing that 74 per cent of working millennials believed their organisation was more innovative when it had a culture of diversity and inclusion. More recently, a leading UK law firm repositioned itself, as a ‘professional services firm with ‘social purpose’ at its heart’. This change was arguably driven by the need to retain and recruit the very best millennial talent, which will ultimately provide the fiscal succession to the current partner base.

In 2020, my company, Savannah Group, commissioned a ‘Business of Content Survey’, with the participation of over 100 of the world’s largest Sports, Media and Entertainment companies. Of those taking part, ‘80 per cent were unable or unsure how to develop content monetisation strategies for Gen Z’, an incredible admission demonstrating a clear need for young dynamic Board input. Mark Zuckerberg was a CEO in his early 20s. Can you imagine the commercial possibilities of a brilliant young and diverse team tackling this issue? The fact is that 50 per cent of millennials actively look for diversity and inclusion when sizing up potential employers. And, just to be clear, when calculating your BAME head count, make sure it’s representative throughout the business, not just over-indexing around Executive Assistants, Doormen and Catering staff.

In our post-manufacturing world of financial services, service industries, retail and professional services, it is even more obvious that a company is only as strong as its people. With the unprecedented turmoil on the streets, it would be interesting to know which organisations have used their regular Zoom meetings as an opportunity to hear from their BAME colleagues, to ask about their personal take on what’s happening in North America and nearer to home, to better understand a different perspective. The results might surprise you and will certainly make you a stronger, more honest team.

I have said this many times, and it’s true, ‘You can’t be what you can’t see’. The majority of professional workplaces mirror the sociocultural environments of the lives of their staff outside of the workplace; in many ways they are subconsciously hiring in their own image. Workplace diversity is an asset for both the businesses and its employees. It incubates innovation, creativity and empathy in ways that homogeneous environments seldom do. It doesn’t happen by chance, it takes careful nurturing and conscious planning, but once successful, nearly always results in an explosion of creativity, performance and productivity.

What is happening on our TV screens and across social media most likely seems like a personal attack on the values and systems you have worked in and benefitted from without realising or really understanding why. Here is a different perspective. I was asked last week by a woman of colour, why a particular ’White Male’ was so angry with the Black Lives Matter movement. I explained the often-used quote that, ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.’ My own team has seen some of this first-hand in letters I have received from incredulous candidates who didn’t get senior positions they felt entitled to. All lives matter, it is true. but if you truly believe that statement, then you’ll understand why #BlackLivesMatter is so important. You can’t have one without the other, and if you disagree, you are unconsciously part of the problem.

So, let’s look at the elephant in the room. What is white privilege and what does it have to do with you? White privilege is people not being surprised that you’re articulate, never being followed by store detectives in your 40s and 50s, not being pulled out of line at airports on a regular basis, not being told that restaurants/hotels/clubs are full when they’re clearly not, never having to give your children that heartbreaking talk, never having to watch your daughters search for non-Eurocentric standards of beauty.

I could go on but you get the picture. It is because of this unconscious bias that brand and corporate authenticity need to be genuine, sustainable and culturally embedded.

It is important for corporations to step up and advocate for diversity and tolerance on a public platform, and a great example of this was Nike’s support of American football’s quarterback and civil rights campaigner, Colin Kaepernick. More than a marketing exercise, it showed the world that one of America’s best-known corporations was willing to stand alongside one man in his battle against racial injustice and intolerance. Interestingly enough, as a result, the brand increased sales, received more positive PR than it could ever have paid for, and had a brand equity and affinity with its consumers that it retains to this day. This can only happen when you have diverse executives at the top table who are part of the debate and decision-making process, able to communicate the pros and cons of such a strategy. Sadly this broad thinking and championing of diversity is not reflected in Nikes Boardroom. We also saw Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) ‘We See Equal’ campaign, designed to fight gender bias and work towards equality for all. It depicted boys and girls defying gender stereotypes. The company has a history of promoting this issue, and also records 45 per cent of its managers and a third of its board as women. P&G’s clear dedication to equality within its own workforce meant that the campaign came across as authentic and as a genuine push for change.

To conclude, Generation Z, race and a new post-Covid-19 working environment are all intrinsically linked. Merit-based diversity and inclusion are the only options if your business wishes to harness the power of a new and energised global population group. I am looking forward to working with my clients as we take on these structural challenges together over the coming months.

Tony Simpson has a track record of recruiting diverse talent into sports organisations and has nearly 30 years’ experience in the sector. He has been CEO of an AIM-listed Sports Marketing Agency and worked client side, where he successfully launched a Middle Eastern based global news channel.

He is a Trustee of the Black Cultural Archives, an advisory Board member for Special Olympics GB, and regular presenter on the benefits of a diverse workforce. He is a former member of the Hertfordshire Police Authority.

[Chester Perry]

@SportingIntel with am overview of average salaries across the big 5 leagues for the last 20+ years

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/statu ... 17/photo/1

It has been surprisingly easy to forget just how dominant Italian football once was, both financially and competitively. Also note the sudden jump in La Liga's average salary when they finally got collective bargaining together for TV rights which has allowed them to pas the Bundesliga in the rankings

[Chester Perry]

Everton announce voluntary salary reductions and deferrals from high earners across the club

https://twitter.com/bbcmerseysport/stat ... 0576673798

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

[Royboyclaret]

Everton announce voluntary salary reductions and deferrals from high earners across the club

https://twitter.com/bbcmerseysport/stat ... 0576673798

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

Desperate times demand desperate measures, and nowhere was more financially desperate than Everton at the last financial year end. They recorded a Net Loss before tax of £112m to Jun.'19 with a negative EBITDA of over £15m, two figures which were far and away the worst reported by any PL club. And all that, of course, before the effects of coronavirus this year. Little wonder they have taken such drastic action, and more will be required.

[Chester Perry]

Desperate times demand desperate measures, and nowhere was more financially desperate than Everton at the last financial year end. They recorded a Net Loss before tax of £112m to Jun.'19 with a negative EBITDA of over £15m, two figures which were far and away the worst reported by any PL club. And all that, of course, before the effects of coronavirus this year. Little wonder they have taken such drastic action, and more will be required.

The Esk is doing an Everton Business Matters podcast this week that will be looking at the clubs finances and I suspect the football shorts series too - should be some thought provoking content for those of us that like this kind of thing

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1270291429697478656

[Chester Perry]

Vysyble have tonight have been looking at Economic Profit (and loss) - their preferred measure of business success (though not everyone's).

first up how the Premier League clubs performed in 2018/19

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270447565511819266

that is followed by a cumulative outlook for the Premier League as a whole over the last 10 reported seasons

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270451694107754496

and finally they add the 2018/19 economic performance of both the Premier League and Championship together (you know in case people though the picture was rosy)

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270460110268248070

[Chester Perry]

As Manchester City fight UEFA at CAS and the CFG carry on negotiations for Nancy in France here is an up to date overview of the clubs owned by CFG and how they are doing

https://www.squawka.com/en/city-footbal ... very-club/

[Chester Perry]

we all are by now aware of the model used in particular by Chinese and middle eastern states in building business relationships via sports sponsorship and club ownership. I have also posted previously about Russian businesses particularly Gazprom doing similar things, but not in this country - until now - Simon Chadwick gives a quick reminder of the history and suggests how it may now have appeared in the North West.

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 3726508040

[Chester Perry]

Tonight have been looking at Economic Profit (and loss) - their preferred measure of business success (though not everyone's).

first up how the Premier League clubs performed in 2018/19

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270447565511819266

that is followed by a cumulative outlook for the Premier League as a whole over the last 10 reported seasons

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270451694107754496

and finally they add the 2018/19 economic performance of both the Premier League and Championship together (you know in case people though the picture was rosy)

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270460110268248070

The Mail has picked up on this and realised that actually Premier League finances are in as much mess as the rest of football - they were amongst the many that were calling for the Premier League to bail out the EFL

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

as have the Independent

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 56891.html

[Chester Perry]

This is quite extensive/comprehensive - Inside Project Restart: Premier League sponsors embrace new tactics for football's return - remember all Premier League clubs were paid almost £5m each last season from the PL central commercial revenues

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/06/09 ... dium=email

Nice to see that the linked Barclays piece features our own Nick Pope in its first offering - we no longer just make up the numbers (at least in some people's eyes)

[Chester Perry]

Remember this

For sometime now Simon Chadwick has been distancing himself from the concept of sportswashing in sport arguing that by buying clubs like Manchester City and PSG, or hosting a world cup countries like Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Russia have opened themselves up to deeper and more public scrutiny that he has referred to as "staining" rather than washing.

Also he as preferred to call countries that invest extensively overseas to provide domestic income as "rentier" states, as income comes from assests that the home countries do not use, i.e. that are rented out to other countries for employment purposes.

Now his thinking is evolving to the issue of legitimacy - which is what some of us would argue is what was driving the issue of sportswashing. It is a more honest (and direct) term and with a history of academic research precedence - what goes around.....

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 7165360128

and this

Well Simon Chadwick has been thinking some more

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4273963009

and he has been refining his thinking even more since then, though I haven't posted - but what is does is make a piece like this (in the Independent) seem dated in terminology already - if anything it clearly lends support to Chadwick's more nuanced approach

Sportswashing is not new – but has never been more insidious
Miguel Delaney argues that we are now so used to the phenomenon of sportswashing that we have become blind to its effects, in the Premier League and beyond

It is a sentiment that is difficult to dismiss, but then that is the entire point.

“If I get to celebrate our first trophy in decades alongside my son, I won’t care who is in charge of us,” one Newcastle United supporter told The Independent on social media. “That’s the reality. It’ll be great.”

Many Manchester City supporters no doubt feel the same, especially about the 2011-12 period. Paris Saint-Germain would be just as grateful if they finally won the Champions League.

This is the emotional power of sport, and the more insidious effect of sportswashing. There’s not much mental space to consider a state’s human rights abuses amid the euphoria of victory. They are, in many senses, washed away.

It is precisely why sportswashing works so well, and why Saudi Arabia have been seeking to following the examples of Abu Dhabi and Qatar, as they attempt to purchase Newcastle.

The fundamental of the idea is tapping into the emotional connection sport fosters, which allow it to go to levels way beyond that.

The phrase is one that has become quite commonplace in the last few years, although isn’t without controversy. There is some debate about its exact definition, but virtually all academics and human rights bodies at least use the term.

“Amnesty use it more than we do, but we have used it,” Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch says. Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, fellow for the Middle East at Rice University in Houston, willingly refers to it.

Since the concept is at the core of Newcastle’s takeover and is set to become even more of a controversy, it is worth examining exactly what it is, how it works and – in truth – what to be attuned to as regards its effects.

It could even be argued that talking about the success of these clubs without talking about the owners’ aims, as becomes quite natural, is a form of sportswashing.

That emphasises how it goes so much deeper than the simplistic perception that it’s just about public relations. It’s really about integration, and obviously goes back much further than modern club takeovers.

You could even say it started in gladiatorial games with “bread and circuses”, and it isn’t a coincidence the notorious 1936 Nazi Olympics borrowed freely from such Roman pageantry, an event that preceded the 1978 World Cup and so many tours from Apartheid-era South African teams. These were all the most naked politicised uses of sport.

The excellent recent documentary ‘Stop the Tour’ tells the story of those South African times, and there’s a pointed line when an England rugby match is described at the time as “conferring respectability”. This is the common trend, as Peter Hain – the former MP for Neath who led the protests against Apartheid teams – tells The Independent.You could even say it started in gladiatorial games with “bread and circuses”, and it isn’t a coincidence the notorious 1936 Nazi Olympics borrowed freely from such Roman pageantry, an event that preceded the 1978 World Cup and so many tours from Apartheid-era South African teams. These were all the most naked politicised uses of sport.

The excellent recent documentary ‘Stop the Tour’ tells the story of those South African times, and there’s a pointed line when an England rugby match is described at the time as “conferring respectability”. This is the common trend, as Peter Hain – the former MP for Neath who led the protests against Apartheid teams – tells The Independent.

“Apartheid politics infected the very essence of sport in South Africa in a way that really only the Nazis’ persecution of Jewish people has parallels but what was similar is the use of sport to confer blessing on an unjust and tyrannical political system, to project their own political brands and try and normalise it.”

That’s the primary problem to be mindful of. The use of sport allows these states to break down initial barriers that their more criticised policies might otherwise bring. The stadiums represent a gateway.

“It is about integration,” Dr Ulrichsen explains. “You see it with the UAE, where you have football stadiums named after Emirates and Etihad. So, even without thinking, people are saying ‘I’m going to the Emirates this week’. It’s that soft power, that normalisation of the UAE within ordinary conversations, where people don’t even think about the fact the fact they’re spreading branding for UAE.

“Look at City games. All the advertising hoardings, Abu Dhabi tourism, investment companies, all of the interlocking systems of support. That’s very powerful, especially because football is so popular.

“It’s part of the whole process of drawing the UAE or Qatar into our war of life, making it look like this benevolent accessory to something we’ve been enjoying for over a hundred years.”

It is also why ownership, as Ulrichsen puts it, is a significant “step-up”.

“It’s not just sponsorship. Nobody remembers that Chelsea’s first sponsorship was Gulf Air, of Bahrain. Even a tournament is a one-off. Ownership is a much greater thing. You actually work your way into the social fabric a club has with its supporters.

“And you draw people in, especially when the reserves they have can lead to great success.

“Abu Dhabi have an army of people in Manchester doing unpaid work for these regimes. That’s the power they have, in terms of people’s hearts and minds. That’s a sportswashing element – thousands going to bat for them. The reaction in Newcastle has been strong already. Imagine what it’s going to be like if they take over.

“It’s an instinctive response, and a tribal response, which is what they’re counting on in terms of building support.”

This is why the consortium attempting to buy Newcastle have already approached club legends about representative roles. It’s the easiest good will.
It’s also part of a more sophisticated strategy, that goes way beyond supporters.

The point, as Coogle argues, is to create an image that “these are good people to do business with”.

“It’s about trying to inculcate a certain image within the western public,” Coogle argues. “The whole game is to try and make foreign investment seem safer.

“They use other industries beside sports, but they ultimately need things from rich, relatively democratic, mostly western countries. They need arms. They need protection or support in international fora, or they need sources of legitimacy.

“It just makes it easier. It’s something you can point to on a government committee, right up to approving arms sales. ‘Look, they’re a good partner, they’re investing considerable money into our country.’”

This is nakedly visible in the city of Manchester itself. Ownership of the club has allowed Abu Dhabi to build a construction empire – and one that has attracted considerable controversy of its own.

The Sunday Times revealed in November how Sheikh Mansour’s private equity fund had amassed an estimated £330m-plus property portfolio, writing how the city’s “economy and political establishment had been the subject of a quiet takeover by Abu Dhabi”. Sir Richard Leese, the leader of the Labour-controlled council, also told the newspaper about how the subject had come up in initial takeover discussions.

“Early talks with ADUG were about the club but also about their commitment to strengthen their involvement in community work and to support the regeneration of east Manchester,” Leese told The Sunday Times.

The nature of that investment has been criticised because they fail to meet the council’s own policy objectives on affordable housing. “None of it is affordable,” was one line. A common quip has been that “regeneration stops at the Etihad Campus”.

Whatever about the financial figures in terms of net gain, a wider debate revolves around the net reaction.

An argument often made is that such takeovers actually bring awareness of human rights abuses that wouldn’t otherwise exist. That is true, and it’s certainly the case that more City and Newcastle supporters are more attuned – and often invested – in the debate than they would be.

The problem, as both Dr Ulrichsen and Coogle argue, is that it doesn’t matter. For one, the minimal criticism from journalists, academics and human rights groups tends to be greatly outweighed by wider effect – not to mention the many fans “going to bat”, as Dr Ulrichsen puts it. Secondly, and more importantly, it is proven to have no effect within the actual countries.

“The argument is often the extra scrutiny from sports washing makes them improve their human rights, but actually it doesn’t,” Dr Ulrichsen says. “Abu Dhabi 2020 is infinitely worse than Abu Dhabi 2008.”

Coogle concurs.

“It was the response to the Arab Spring [in 2011]. They’ve moved from limited basic rights to basically full-on no civil or political rights whatsoever, mass arrests of political opposition. Some really insidious practices have started coming to the fore: forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture…”

“No one can claim ownership of Manchester City has had a moderating effect,” Dr Ulrichsen adds. “There’s no link whatsoever. And again, it’s something people are bringing up with Newcastle, that the additional scrutiny will accelerate a process of change in Saudi Arabia. Well, it won’t. You can look at Abu Dhabi to see that. The arguments people are making in support of the takeovers of Newcastle and Man City just don’t stack up when you look at the reality.”

This is another key problem. Far from encouraging change – as Gary Neville recently argued – owning football clubs essentially allows business as usual. It shows there’s no consequence to such human rights abuses in sporting terms. States are able to appropriate social institutions without doing much more than putting up the money.

“The theory of change in human rights activism is that you find any sort of leverage you can to encourage or pressure, and big powerful levers are these deals, these relationships they have with governments,” Coogle explains. “If you can get authorities to take a stand and really make a point that a practice is fundamentally unacceptable to us and we’re not going to do do x or y until it changes, it can have a powerful effect.”

The most powerful and extreme example of this was the sporting boycott of Apartheid South Africa. Hain has written a book on the topic with Andre Odendaal, titled Pitch Battles and to be released in October, and argues it is why the idea of “dialogue” doesn’t really work.

“It’s naive, to be blunt. The idea of a crown prince somehow changing discrimination or other forms of oppression is just naive.

“The boycott was immensely powerful, but that’s why I think it’s different. There is a chapter in our book where we discuss this, where sports apartheid was in literal terms a black and white issue. The area of sportswashing is much greyer, in terms of the globalisation of sport, the commercialisation… big sport is now on a completely different plane.”

It is within those shades of grey that these states are looking to take advantage of tribal colours.

“They know it’s the most direct way into people’s hearts,” Dr Ulrichsen says. “And if Newcastle do become successful, they will literally forgive the Saudis anything. And it’s a way of shifting the conversation. Some people may talk about human rights abuses, Jamal Khashoggi, the war in human, the biggest catastrophe in the world, but many others will talk about a benevolent Saudi, a Saudi bringing success to a deprived part of England.”

“It’s effective because people do have such close, strongly held feelings towards their teams,” Coogle says. “A lot of people will take that trade-off.
“None of this is fans’ fault, so they shouldn’t really be put in the position to answer for it, but at the same time if it creates the phenomenon where they begin defending Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, that’s really unfortunate. That’s the problem. Their team has become so bound up in geopolitics, it’s inseparable from the actions of a foreign government. This is one of the issues of states owning teams.”

It is just another illustration of the power of sportswashing – and why it usually works spectacularly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT Chadwick himself makes my point too

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 7149577217

[Chester Perry]

The opportunity to add additional (much need) Advertising (revenue) in the Premier League restart must be managed carefully - is the core message of this article from SportsBusiness.com

Sportfive’s Woodman advocates ‘careful’ integration of extra Premier League ad inventory
Martin Ross - June 9, 2020

The creation and sale of extra advertising inventory at behind-closed-doors Premier League matches will need to be managed carefully in order to retain the right “look and feel” as the English top flight returns, according to Carl Woodman, managing director of the UK arm of the recently-rebranded Sportfive agency.

As the Premier League prepares to return without fans on June 17, the clubs, league and broadcasters alike have been looking to other leagues – notably Germany’s Bundesliga – where additional advertising inventory has often been created over rows of empty seats and in addition to two rows of LED boards.

Sportfive UK plays a leading role in the sale of aggregated LED advertising packages across the English leagues and Woodman told SportBusiness that the “phenomenal” broadcast coverage in place and staggered kick-off times, coupled with the heightened appetite among fans, would create significant opportunities to sell additional inventory.

However, he cautioned: “The challenge will be the opportunity within the market for people to spend on it. To a certain degree that will drive the supply and demand of whether or not creating more inventory is the right thing to do.

“The opportunity for more inventory has got to be managed carefully. People want to see football back on their screens but you have to think about the visual product as well.”

All 92 remaining matches of the 2019-20 season will be shown on UK television, including 33 on a free-to-air basis (on the BBC, Sky’s PickTV and Amazon). The domestic broadcasting of all matches has also allowed heightened international exposure, such as in Spain, where subscription OTT broadcaster DAZN will stream all matches.

The sale of UK football clubs’ LED and static advertising, along with brokering sponsorship deals for Premier League clubs, represents the backbone of the Sportfive business in the UK. The agency has around 40 clubs under contract in the UK for pitchside advertising sales, including exclusive deals with 13 Premier League sides.

While the exact plans are still being finalised, Woodman said that he expects an element of the “strong visual look and feel” to include non-commercial messaging as the UK begins to emerge from the effects of the Covid-19 shutdown.

Woodman was also recently named executive vice-president sales in Europe, Middle East and Africa in an executive rejig that followed the takeover of the agency by private equity firm H.I.G. Europe and amidst its rebranding from Lagardère Sports and Entertainment to Sportfive.

He continued: “Getting the right balance between commercial and non-commercial messaging and look and feel will be important and there’s definitely a clutter issue [to consider]. You can introduce new inventory but you’ve got to be careful it doesn’t detract from the value of the existing inventory. There’s a balance to strike there.

“I’d think the stakeholders involved – the clubs, the Premier League and the broadcasters – will take a view across all those things and there will be a sensible solution that does deliver some additional inventory.

“As much as anything to compensate existing partners for some of the disruption that they’ve had as much as to create new opportunities for revenue and keep it a clean and strong visual product for the broadcasters and audience.”

Woodman said that the return to empty stadiums has created “unchartered territory” in terms of the rules around advertising, but that “the spirit of the relationships between the stakeholders is that people want to agree on something that everybody’s comfortable with” and that he doesn’t expect clubs to “go renegade”.

English clubs have taken a gradual approach to implementing two rows of LED boards – where stadium infrastructure and sightlines allow – with Stoke City the first team to do so in 2012. Premier League side Wolverhampton Wanderers introduced a double-row perimeter LED system in 2018 that allows sponsors to display their logos to television viewers with double the height.

Sportfive’s exclusive pitchside advertising deals with Premier League clubs exclude the ‘big six’ of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, while the agency’s agreement with Crystal Palace is non-exclusive.

The sale of pitchside LED boards in the top flight and the brokering of sponsorship deals on behalf of top-tier clubs brings in a total of over £30m (€33.6m/$38.1m) of revenues per season to Premier League clubs, according to Woodman.

Sponsorship agreements facilitated this season by the agency on behalf of Premier League clubs have included Arsenal’s deal with financial technology company Global Kapital Group, Leicester City’s sponsorship with UK money transfer brand Xpress Money, and, most recently, West Ham’s two-year deal with Chinese tyre manufacturer RoadX Tyres.

A project involving Sportfive and “one of the big six clubs on one of their more principal assets” is to be announced soon, Woodman said.

FA sponsorship sales, the Covid-19 impact
Elsewhere in UK football, Sportfive continues its role as the official sponsorship sales agency of the Football Association.

On that project, Woodman said: “The sign-up of partnerships has been successful. There are a number of ongoing conversation and focuses that we had pre-Covid that clearly are taking a little bit longer now.

“There are some partnerships that we completed that we’ll still execute as planned. There are some that we still hope we will but, as with many rights-holders, there are a number of things that are on hold now while the Covid situation develops.

“The brands that we’re speaking to continue to have the desire to partner with the FA at a time when they have more certainty about how their business looks moving forward.”

As with other agencies, the multitude of cancelled or postponed events during the coronavirus shutdown has taken its toll on Sportfive’s advertising and sponsorship revenue streams.

Woodman said: “It’s been a really challenging time for sport and that includes us as an organisation.

“Commercially some impacts of that are just timing because those events will happen at a further point down the line. And there are some impacts that are more finite, particularly for the likes of the hospitality business where behind-closed-doors [matches] is going to have a real impact on those revenues.”

He continued: “If we can get games back on in a safe environment for the players and associated people then that’s job one. The commercial impact we have to think about in two distinct ways – there’s a short-term impact and then there’s the medium- to long-term impact.

“For all of us in the industry we have to make sensible smart decisions in the short term that are going to protect the medium- to long-term of our sports and events…

“…everybody is going to have suck up an amount of pain in the short-term.”

The biggest unknown, according to the Sportfive UK managing director, will be the broader economic effect on brands who have historically spent in sport and how quickly their budgets will allow them to spend again.

Woodman added: “The underlying model of sports sponsorship and partnerships is solid and once the world starts to come out of Covid then sports marketing will be a very valuable tool for brands who want to get back to communicating about their business and brands to people around the world.”

There will also be an opportunity for brands to communicate value-based propositions, Woodman noted, as a result of the shared experience the public will have been through.

Outwith its activities in football, Sportfive UK is also active in selling ‘Team GB’ sponsorships on behalf of the British Olympic Association and sponsorship rights to the Commonwealth Games as part of the CGF Partnerships project set up by the agency and the Commonwealth Games Federation.

In esports, the UK arm of the agency recently brokered a sponsorship deal with banking group Barclays to become the headline sponsor of major League of Legends competitions in the UK and Ireland. Creative work with brands involved in sports sponsorship – previously housed under the Lagardère Plus brand consulting arm – also forms part of Sportfive UK’s activities.

New identity “better reflects the business that we are”
The Sportfive name was recently revived in the wake of the sale of the Lagardère Sports and Entertainment by Lagardère, the France-based media conglomerate. H.I.G. acquired a 75.1-per-cent stake in the business in a deal valuing the company at €110m ($125m).

The name and new corporate identity became effective at the end of May across all regional operations and for most subsidiary companies.

As the Lagardère name disappeared, the Lagardère Sports agency (and its regional subsidiaries), Lagardère Plus, the Hamburg-based U! Sports agency and VIP Sportstravel hospitality agency all adopted the Sportfive name.

Subsidiaries Rooftop2 Productions, the New York-based experiential marketing firm and consultancy, and Event Knowledge Services, the major events consultancy, retained their brands but received “an endorsement as a Sportfive company”. Onside, the organiser of football friendly matches and training camps, and the UK-based creative agency Brave have continued to operate under their existing names.

Woodman said the rebrand “better reflects to the marketplace and the public the business that we are”.

He said: “How we operate, the efficiencies and the values we drive from our business is the result of the last few years’ worth of work in driving towards the right kind of structure and integration to allow that.

“Internationally, the way that we’ve integrated and connected the different salesforces has been really important. We genuinely have a globally-connected sales organisation that goes from North America across Europe through to Asia-Pacific.”

Lagardère’s sports and entertainment unit finally delivered a positive Ebit in 2014 following a restructuring of operations. A reliance on media-rights trading, previously through its Sportfive, IEC in Sports and World Sport Group agencies, was drastically reduced as the strategy developed to encompass sectors such as athlete and player representation, consulting and stadium management.

Woodman added: “The integration that we’ve gone through as a business has been the most significant development since the old Sportfive days.”

[Chester Perry]

Vysyble have tonight have been looking at Economic Profit (and loss) - their preferred measure of business success (though not everyone's).

first up how the Premier League clubs performed in 2018/19

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270447565511819266

that is followed by a cumulative outlook for the Premier League as a whole over the last 10 reported seasons

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270451694107754496

and finally they add the 2018/19 economic performance of both the Premier League and Championship together (you know in case people though the picture was rosy)

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270460110268248070

Vysyble have added this 5 year picture of Economic profit performance in the Premier League and Championship

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270692909776605184

[Chester Perry]

Liverpool are in a new legal dispute over a commercial sponsorship deal, having just finalising all the issues over the closing of the New Balance deal in favour of Nike (which given past associations of both has been a shrewd move in readiness for BLM being a prominent feature of the new normal). This time it is about an introduction fee/commission to a sponsor (not unlike Amanda Stavely's current court battle). From SportsProMedia.com - I do not remember this being noted as a way of taking fruit from Football's Magic Money Tree, in the thread before

BetVictor deal
Sponsorship firm demands UK£1.125m commission from Premier League leaders.
Posted: June 9 2020By: Ed Dixon

English soccer giants Liverpool are being sued for more than UK£1 million (US$1.3 million) in commission it is claimed they owe from a past kit sponsorship deal with gambling firm BetVictor.

Sports sponsorship company Winlink claims the Premier League leaders owe it UK£1.125 million (US$1.424 million) after one of its senior executives introduced club officials to their contacts at BetVictor in 2013. The Reds went on to unveil the online bookmaker as the sponsor of their training kit in July 2016.

Winlink's court filing says it was ‘heavily engaged over a number of years in securing a successful introduction... and in assisting to bring about a sponsorship deal’, which led to a reported UK£15 million, three-year partnership which expired at the end of the 2018/19 season. Insurance company Axa now sponsors Liverpool’s training kit.

In response, Liverpool claim Rafaella Valentino, the club's head of global partnership sales, ‘personally negotiated the deal with BetVictor's CEO, her friend Andreas Meinrad’, shortly after she joined the club in late 2015, and that Winlink's introduction was not the cause of the deal.

At a remote High Court trial, which began on 9th June, Winlink’s barrister said the company “spent significant time and effort in building the relationship between Liverpool and BetVictor”. Winlink has previously earned commissions from introducing bookmakers to several top soccer clubs, including Arsenal, Chelsea, Inter Milan and Juventus.

While Winlink has accepted that it played no role in the negotiation of the 2016 deal, it maintains it should receive a financial payment for providing an introduction service, after which the deal between Liverpool and BetVictor was signed, thus meeting its criteria for commission.

Winlink’s barrister added that “Liverpool has not kept its side of the bargain”, despite the club’s BetVictor deal being signed two-and-a-half years later.

Robert Anderson QC, for Liverpool, also said that the club’s agreement with Winlink did not give it “the unlimited right to commission on every deal that Liverpool ever does with BetVictor ... regardless of their involvement in it”.

The trial is due to last until 12th June, with the judge expected to reserve his judgment to a later date.

It is the second High Court case for Liverpool in less than a year. In October 2019, the club won a legal battle with current kit supplier New Balance, allowing them to switch to Nike from the 2020/21 campaign.

[Royboyclaret]

Been asked on two separate occasions in recent days to analyse our current facility payments within the PL funds distribution compared to our historical figures. Finally had a look and might be of interest to share on Chester's thread.

First a look at our five completed seasons in the Prem :-
Season.......PL place.......Live Matches.......Facility Fee.
2009/10 18 11 £6.8m
2014/15 19 8 £8.8m
2016/17 16 10 £12.3m
2017/18 7 10 £12.3m
2018/19 15 11 £13.4m.

From those numbers it's clear that the Broadcasters have never looked on us especially favourably in terms of live broadcasts per season with the most being just 11 in two different seasons. Of course the minimum payment is based on 10 appearances and for each live game above that figure an additional £1.05m.

So on to the current season and my records show we have already had 12 live games (Sky x 5 ; BT x 5 ; and Prime Video x 2). Now we know that all of our remaining games will be shown live although some, of course, will be free-to-air and it's safe to say that those particular games will not be included for additional payment. However, the total figure should still compare favourably to our previous PL seasons. 25% of the total distribution pot is allocated to facility fees and we know we are in the first year of the new three year cycle but with an overall reduction in the domestic payment from £5.4bn to £5bn for the three year cycle. It will be interesting to see as a result in the large increase in televised games whether the PL increase the number required for the minimum payment.
Edit. Apologies for poor layout of table.

[Chester Perry]

Been asked on two separate occasions in recent days to analyse our current facility payments within the PL funds distribution compared to our historical figures. Finally had a look and might be of interest to share on Chester's thread.

First a look at our five completed seasons in the Prem :-
Season.......PL place.......Live Matches.......Facility Fee.
2009/10 18 11 £6.8m
2014/15 19 8 £8.8m
2016/17 16 10 £12.3m
2017/18 7 10 £12.3m
2018/19 15 11 £13.4m.

From those numbers it's clear that the Broadcasters have never looked on us especially favourably in terms of live broadcasts per season with the most being just 11 in two different seasons. Of course the minimum payment is based on 10 appearances and for each live game above that figure an additional £1.05m.

So on to the current season and my records show we have already had 12 live games (Sky x 5 ; BT x 5 ; and Prime Video x 2). Now we know that all of our remaining games will be shown live although some, of course, will be free-to-air and it's safe to say that those particular games will not be included for additional payment. However, the total figure should still compare favourably to our previous PL seasons. 25% of the total distribution pot is allocated to facility fees and we know we are in the first year of the new three year cycle but with an overall reduction in the domestic payment from £5.4bn to £5bn for the three year cycle. It will be interesting to see as a result in the large increase in televised games whether the PL increase the number required for the minimum payment.
Edit. Apologies for poor layout of table.

Roy. I must point out that this is not my thread - it belongs to the board and it's members whether they read it or not - this is something I have found myself saying a number of times in recent weeks. Yes I was the OP, though the reason it has lasted and grown came much more from the exchanges with the likes of yourself, and the apparent interest others show in it's content, even if they are not compelled to comment on it directly.

While individual posts on here have led to the creation of many new threads it is perhaps just as important many posts have not led to the creation of many more to clutter up the board, as once read people do not feel the need to discuss.

I sometimes sense that people are afraid to add new posts, or even comment - they should not - we come on here to share and exchange thoughts just as much as to keep up with what is going on in the game and the world.

Back to the topic of your post - I am pretty sure that the Premier League raised the threshold for facility fees to include the Amazon games (BT also have 2 full rounds also) and the sheer umber of extra tv games - though I am struggling to find it in writing

The pot for facilities fess as you have rightly noted is less than the previous cycle, it may be reduced by a rebate to BT - Sky's rebate comes the season after next so should not reduce the port this season. The advance payment to the EFL of half next seasons Solidarity and Parachute payments may reduce the pot. Most importantly contracts in this cycle provide many more live games, so the fee per game above the threshold was going to fall anyhow.

Finally, it now appears that the free to air live fixtures will receive no facilities fess - meaning the number of games paying facilities fees has not changed - however broadcasters (bbc excluded) and clubs will have the opportunity for additional advertising income from the free to air games.l enable

there are also substantially more games in those contracts

[Royboyclaret]

Pretty certain that the Overseas element within this new three year cycle has increased to a remarkable £4.2bn, so that although the domestic figure has reduced, the overall total figure is still increased significantly.

[Chester Perry]

Pretty cretain that the Overseas element within this new three year cycle has increased to a remarkable £4.2bn, so that although the domestic figure has reduced, the overall total figure is still increased significantly.

Overseas tv funds distributed on equal share up to threshold of £43,184,608 then the rest of the pot is merit based
Domestic tv funds distributed: 50% equal share, 25% facilities fees, 25% merit

[Royboyclaret]

Overseas tv funds distributed on equal share up to threshold of £43,184,608 then the rest of the pot is merit based
Domestic tv funds distributed: 50% equal share, 25% facilities fees, 25% merit

Chester, one thing I've struggled to come to terms with is 50%, 25% and 25% of exactly what?

For instance, in the previous three year cycle the equal domestic payment per club was £34.4m or £688m per year in total, suggesting an overall total figure of £1,376m. Whereas merit payments and facility fees at 25% the total payment to clubs for each was £403m, this time suggesting an overall total figure of £1,612m. With the three year cycle being £5.4bn then perhaps the total figure per year should have been £1,800m?.....but no doubt Parachute payments and solidarity payments have to be apportioned from the original figure.

[Chester Perry]

Chester, one thing I've struggled to come to terms with is 50%, 25% and 25% of exactly what?

For instance, in the previous three year cycle the equal domestic payment per club was £34.4m or £688m per year in total, suggesting an overall total figure of £1,376m. Whereas merit payments and facility fees at 25% the total payment to clubs for each was £403m, this time suggesting an overall total figure of £1,612m. With the three year cycle being £5.4bn then perhaps the total figure per year should have been £1,800m?.....but no doubt Parachute payments and solidarity payments have to be apportioned from the original figure.

The calculation for Solidarity payments and parachute payments are based on the equal shares, and yes working out the overall domestic and overseas pots for distribution to Premier League clubs is complicated by them. Premier League Operating cost have to be met (including bonuses/commissions and ex gratia payments, and Scudamore's £5m) as do the contributions to charities, 5% of all domestic TV income goes to the PFA charity for instance. They will also have to allow for currency hedging as a lot of the overseas deals are in US Dollars - which actually would have helped this season as the pound has been much weaker throughout. On the whole though, the Premier League is quite opaque when it comes to these kinds of things.

I haven't looked at the Premier Leagues accounts - they are here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history, the handbook is complicated enough https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... 270520.pdf

[Royboyclaret]

The calculation for Solidarity payments and parachute payments are based on the equal shares, and yes working out the overall domestic and overseas pots for distribution to Premier League clubs is complicated by them. Premier League Operating cost have to be met (including bonuses/commissions and ex gratia payments, and Scudamore's £5m) as do the contributions to charities, 5% of all domestic TV income goes to the PFA charity for instance. They will also have to allow for currency hedging as a lot of the overseas deals are in US Dollars - which actually would have helped this season as the pound has been much weaker throughout. On the whole though, the Premier League is quite opaque when it comes to these kinds of things.

I haven't looked at the Premier Leagues accounts - they are here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history, the handbook is complicated enough https://resources.premierleague.com/pre ... 270520.pdf

Hear what you're saying, different areas to be accounted from the yearly pot of £1.8bn.

But why the two different starting points of £1,376m for equal payments and £1,612m for facility fees and merit payments?

[Paul Waine]

AFC Wimbledon moving to New Plough Lane in October.

‘To lead AFC Wimbledon back to Plough Lane after all these years, it was too good to pass up’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0313 ... d38ec66b09


Think this is an antidote to football's magic money tree - as well as a "happy" football story.

Thought I'd post it here - though I'll also start a new thread for all those who don't read MMT very often.

[Chester Perry]

AFC Wimbledon moving to New Plough Lane in October.

‘To lead AFC Wimbledon back to Plough Lane after all these years, it was too good to pass up’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0313 ... d38ec66b09


Think this is an antidote to football's magic money tree - as well as a "happy" football story.

Thought I'd post it here - though I'll also start a new thread for all those who don't read MMT very often.

that is good news - only a cuple of weks since I posted that they had the money in place to sign the final construction contract

[Chester Perry]

Man City's appeal at CAS as now been heard - and we await the verdict, which is likely to be some tome next month

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52996373

[Chester Perry]

Vysyble have added this 5 year picture of Economic profit performance in the Premier League and Championship

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270692909776605184

Vysyble now look at the Economic profit of 14 Premier League clubs that benefited from whole 2016/19 tv cycle

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270749362424090629

the clubs above us earned at least £160m in Champions League income in that period

This view of the Big 6 and the 14 over a 10 year period shows how even the boosts of the start of previous 2 tv cycles is very quickly eroded and the economic losses become more dramatic

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270620577598930944

and finally the number of clubs achieving Economic Profit in each year is usually outweighed by those making an Economic Loss - 9 out of the 11 seasons in fact

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1270632765885755392

[Chester Perry]

Hear what you're saying, different areas to be accounted from the yearly pot of £1.8bn.

But why the two different starting points of £1,376m for equal payments and £1,612m for facility fees and merit payments?

I am afraid I don't know

[Royboyclaret]

I am afraid I don't know

Perhaps Swiss Ramble might enlighten us?

[Chester Perry]

Many of you will have no doubt read today about the state of football's finances based on a new report from Deloitte

Here is the actual report - Deloitte Annual review of Football Finance 2020: Home Truths

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/D ... e-2020.pdf

This years musical theme comes courtesy of the Queen back catalogue though the report itself is noticeably more downbeat than last years offering

Following KPMG's football top 32 valuation report (see post #1230) Deloitte have released their annual report into football finance and gone all New Order doing so

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/s ... ness_group" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is an opportunity to download the whole report on that page and those from previous years too

[Royboyclaret]

The Esk is doing an Everton Business Matters podcast this week that will be looking at the clubs finances and I suspect the football shorts series too - should be some thought provoking content for those of us that like this kind of thing

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1270291429697478656

Any news on the podcast to date, Chester?

[Chester Perry]

Any news on the podcast to date, Chester?

due out Friday lunch-time apparently

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1271187460987420673

- in the meantime this podcast featuring Simon Chadwick from SportsPro is well worth a listen - some very good points about leadership in there

PODCAST | Sport and wealth distribution: Simon Chadwick on the financial challenges post-coronavirus
The latest SportsPro podcast focuses on the distribution of wealth and resources in sport as lockdowns are lifted,

https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... si-podcast

[Royboyclaret]

Virgil van Dijk set to become the highest-paid player in Liverpool's history with a new five year £220,000-a-week deal.....Nice work if you can get it, particularly in these current difficult times. Might come back to bite even Liverpool on the backside.

[ecc]

"Virgil van Dijk set to become the highest-paid player in Liverpool's history with a new five year £220,000-a-week deal."

Is this the same Liverpool who were so strapped for cash they had planned to furlough their non-playing staff?

[Chester Perry]

due out Friday lunch-time apparently

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1271187460987420673

- in the meantime this podcast featuring Simon Chadwick from SportsPro is well worth a listen - some very good points about leadership in there

PODCAST | Sport and wealth distribution: Simon Chadwick on the financial challenges post-coronavirus
The latest SportsPro podcast focuses on the distribution of wealth and resources in sport as lockdowns are lifted,

https://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis ... si-podcast

That Everton Business Matters Podcast is now available

https://theesk.org/2020/06/12/everton-b ... onsorship/

[Royboyclaret]

That Everton Business Matters Podcast is now available

https://theesk.org/2020/06/12/everton-b ... onsorship/

Cheers for that, Chester. Will give the podcast a listen later this evening.

[Chester Perry]

Cheers for that, Chester. Will give the podcast a listen later this evening.

It is quite interesting Roy, Paul as ever gives us lots to think about, though I do think he gets interrupted to often. It also goes some way to answering my question about how the Academy and naming rights preferred bidder can be worth more than the shirt sponsor (without actually referring to those differences).

One of my take aways is that the last 3 pods I have listened to - Sportspro with Simon Chadwick, Price of Football interview with Mark Palios and now Everton Business Matters have all talked about the lack of strong cohesive leadership in the game and all suggested the need for real independent leadership that is not influenced by the clubs, and how the opportunity has now almost gone to have it.

I have said it before, and it still holds true, what The Esk is doing with his site and these pods is something to cherish, As far as I am aware no other clubs fans have such a medium of independent (non commercial gain) insight, that seeks to be as thoughtful and balanced. It is a brave thing to do as there will always be those ready to attack and mock and it is obvious that the club themselves view him as an irritant.

[tiger76]

"Virgil van Dijk set to become the highest-paid player in Liverpool's history with a new five year £220,000-a-week deal."

Is this the same Liverpool who were so strapped for cash they had planned to furlough their non-playing staff?

This is what's driving people to feel divorced from football nowadays, we're going through a global pandemic, which as well as killing many will almost certainly lead to a global recession at worst, and a significant downturn at best, and major job losses and the subsequent problems that will bring.

And meanwhile fans look on and see VVD getting a whooping new deal, now don't get me wrong he's good, but this hardly sounds out the right message does it.

It was only recently that the PL clubs were complaining about cashflow issues, and now their splashing the millions around again.

VD'S new contract, Chelsea paying 50m+ for Werner, nothing seems to halt the juggernaut that is the PL money tree.

I know it's been said for a while, but sooner or later the bubble will surely burst won't it?

[Chester Perry]

This is what's driving people to feel divorced from football nowadays, we're going through a global pandemic, which as well as killing many will almost certainly lead to a global recession at worst, and a significant downturn at best, and major job losses and the subsequent problems that will bring.

And meanwhile fans look on and see VVD getting a whooping new deal, now don't get me wrong he's good, but this hardly sounds out the right message does it.

It was only recently that the PL clubs were complaining about cashflow issues, and now their splashing the millions around again.

VD'S new contract, Chelsea paying 50m+ for Werner, nothing seems to halt the juggernaut that is the PL money tree.

I know it's been said for a while, but sooner or later the bubble will surely burst won't it?

This seems timely from Vysyble - Premier League weekly earnings in the last tv cycle big 6 v the 14

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1271408021315497986

and you are all spot on re this kind of wage deal and the attempted furloughing.

A point raised in that Everton Business Matters Podcast was that the true stars would continue to see wage growth probably at the expense of average players who will see there value drop in both transfer and salary terms. Where that puts a club like us that has a definite hierarchy in salary but they are kept relatively close is something I am trying to figure out

[Chester Perry]

The vultures are at the door - Bain capital hope to counter CVC's offer for a share of Serie A *that is the third investment group to show an interest) - from SportsProMedia.com

Report: Bain Capital tables ‘€3bn’ Serie A investment offer
US investment firm set to rival CVC for stake in Italian soccer's top flight.
Posted: June 12 2020By: Ed Dixon

US investment firm Bain Capital has made a €3 billion (US$3.4 billion) preliminary offer for a 25 per cent stake in Serie A, the Italian soccer top-flight, according to Bloomberg.

The Boston-based firm will be hoping to see off competition from private equity firm CVC Capital. Bain's offer for a portion of Serie A is like CVC's in that it is reportedly centred on the league’s media rights business. Under Serie A’s existing three-year rights cycle, which expires at the end of 2020/21, those rights deals are worth a combined €1.3 billion (US$1.5 billion) annually.

CVC has been in talks with the league over a €2.2 billion (US$2.5 billion) investment during an exclusive negotiation window, which reportedly expires at the end of June.

That deal would see CVC take a 20 per cent stake in Serie A, for which the firm would take on a role in the league’s TV rights sales and establishing a fund to improve the league's stadia. CVC is apparently seeking a ten-year contract from the 2021/22 season, which it values at €11 billion (US$12.4 billion).

Blackstone, another US private equity group, has also reportedly been considering lending to Serie A clubs to cover costs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

As it continues to search for a secure financial footing, Serie A, which returns to action on 20th June, has been boosted by announcing a partnership with Coca-Cola, which has become an official league sponsor from the 2020/21 season.

The deal is an expansion on an agreement between the Coppa Italia, the top domestic soccer cup competition, and the soft drinks giant, which secures Coca-Cola title sponsorship for the tournament.

The new tie-up will start with the final of the 2019/20 Coppa Italia Coca-Cola, now set for 17th June. As well as branding, Coca-Cola will leverage social, digital and gaming platforms to engage fans around the showpiece fixture. The deal is apparently worth €5 million (US$5.6 million) per season.

The announcement continues Coca-Cola’s close ties with Italian soccer. Last December, the company bought naming rights for the Supercoppa competition, having struck a two-year partnership with Serie A champions Juventus two months prior in October.

[Royboyclaret]

It is quite interesting Roy, Paul as ever gives us lots to think about, though I do think he gets interrupted to often. It also goes some way to answering my question about how the Academy and naming rights preferred bidder can be worth more than the shirt sponsor (without actually referring to those differences).

One of my take aways is that the last 3 pods I have listened to - Sportspro with Simon Chadwick, Price of Football interview with Mark Palios and now Everton Business Matters have all talked about the lack of strong cohesive leadership in the game and all suggested the need for real independent leadership that is not influenced by the clubs, and how the opportunity has now almost gone to have it.

I have said it before, and it still holds true, what The Esk is doing with his site and these pods is something to cherish, As far as I am aware no other clubs fans have such a medium of independent (non commercial gain) insight, that seeks to be as thoughtful and balanced. It is a brave thing to do as there will always be those ready to attack and mock and it is obvious that the club themselves view him as an irritant.

Must confess to being somewhat underwhelmed by the podcast, but that was probably more down to my own expectations than anything else. I had been fascinated by Paul's Football Shorts analysis but then disappointed not to hear any reference at all to the same on the Podcast. Paul came across very well but, as you say Chester, he was interrupted far too often when halfway through a specific point. I guess it would have been of interest to Evertonians but I was anticipating more of a generalised debate over the course of the hour.

[The esk]

Appreciate the very kind words about the podcast today - if there's a Burnley related one I'm always happy to contribute. Equally I would be happy to have any Burnley fans on a podcast hosted by myself. Thanks for having me on here, and for taking interest in my content.

[Chester Perry]

Appreciate the very kind words about the podcast today - if there's a Burnley related one I'm always happy to contribute. Equally I would be happy to have any Burnley fans on a podcast hosted by myself. Thanks for having me on here, and for taking interest in my content.

There is some food for though there Paul, the only Burnley podcasts that I am aware of steer well clear of the structural and financial issues of the game and tend to talk more of recent times and certainly no earlier than the 90's and the beginning of our resurrection. That may well be in part a result of the age of those involved. Your talking the blues podcast has carved it's niche precisely because you have fans who can talk of 60+ years of going to the game and love of their club. Tony, who is the figurehead, prime contributor and glue on this site has similar length of involvement

Up the Clarets, the most popular Burnley fans related site, has avoided doing a podcast to this point, and the articles we have (thorough, fascinating and lovingly written as they are) are about historical detail, the fan experience or news that is of interest to fans. There are none that examine the current running of the club and especially none that look at the financials - though historically there have been many threads that have on this message board and it's predecessor - in part this is because the very dedicated people who run the board do not have that technical skillset.

This thread has in some ways become a substitute for small part of that and I have sometimes wondered if writing the occasional article myself or in conjunction with one or two others would be of interest to the members. As ever it comes down to time, discipline - as you well know a hobby can take over your life if you are not careful - and bravery to put your thinking out there for criticism (I think it is very different to putting out a post on a board, you cannot respond in the same way).

[Chester Perry]

This article in Sports Illustrated provides a good insight into the changing nature of commercial sponsorship in sport (quite interesting that the change it describes bookends Manchester United's last Premier League title and Liverpool's first as a means of signalling a new order)

Push Towards Performance-Based Sponsorship Models Gaining Momentum
JohnWallStreet - Jun 11, 2020

Nike will officially replace New Balance as Liverpool F.C.’s official kit supplier on August 1st (the Coronavirus outbreak and subsequent suspension of the 2019-2020 EPL season necessitated a delay of the original June 1st start date). The base value of ‘The Reds’ new multi-year pact ($39.5 million/year) is significantly less than the club currently rakes in ($52.6 million), but with an increase in royalties on the sale of licensed merchandise (rumored to be 20%) and cash bonuses tied to on-field performance it’s believed the sponsorship agreement could be worth upwards of $100 million annually. The Beaverton, OR based footwear and apparel brand is the latest company to adopt a performance-based partnership model in lieu of guaranteeing massive annual payments (see: Manchester United + Adidas). It's a trend gaining steam as part of a larger push towards transparency and accountability within the sponsorship arena.

Our Take: Adam Grossman (CEO, Block Six Analytics) said he considers Chevy's 2014 deal with Manchester United to be the official end of the previous sponsorship era. "The [automaker's] CMO was perceived to be fired only days after signing that deal because he could not explain how Chevy was going to gain value from being the team's primary kit sponsor - particularly at the price point they were paying. The company ended up exiting the European market entirely before the sponsorship was even activated.” That high-profile failure began to change the way sports sponsorship professionals think about team partnerships. It used to be assumed that because “Manchester United has a large, global platform, a [kit] deal must make sense for Chevy. Now, brands want to understand how value in the sponsorship is created and they want to hold teams accountable for how the sponsorship impacts their business."

Anheuser-Busch’s 2018 declaration that the company would be bringing a performance based model to sports sponsorships can be considered the beginning of the new ‘accountability’ era and brands have been following their lead ever since (see: the Nike/Liverpool deal referenced above, signed in January of 2020). The revamped approach is a significant development for brand partners because of the financial protection it offers in the event a team’s season goes south (and it does so without eliminating the financial upside). Granted, as Michael Neuman (EVP, Scout Sports & Entertainment) noted, "win percentage, television viewership and attendance figures are not the end all, be-all. The production of branded content and the ability of the team to understand the brand's objectives and create a wider approach to pushing out and socializing relevant content is just as if not more important."

Grossman says the sports hiatus and current economic recession have accelerated the trend towards metrics and data-driven sponsorships (all custom to the brand's KPI and ROI goals). With budgets tightening across the industry, the pressure on sponsorship professionals to explain “the value in what they’re paying for and how they’re going to determine if their efforts were a success” are greater than ever. Coronavirus has supercharged the shift towards performance based deals. Sponsorship agreements - particularly in a down economy - need to include accountability for the money spent. Neuman reminds that "the silver-lining from the 18 months that trailed the Financial and Housing Crisis in 2008/2009 was that it created a greater emphasis on measurement and accountability. Very few banks and financial institutions brought in front of Congress to explain why TARP money was going towards sponsorship of golf and tennis could demonstrate any resemblance of ROI - when all said it would drive their business and help them balance their ledgers. Our industry had a black eye and what came out of those difficult weeks was a heightened awareness and commitment to a better suite of measurement mousetraps."

The current pause in the sports schedule has given “companies that spend tens of millions - in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars/year on sponsorships - a chance to truly understand the value of these assets and rebalance their portfolios.” As a result, Grossman said that sports sponsors are actively working to both substitute assets and renegotiate terms within their current agreements. Of course, savvy sponsorship pros are also looking to ink new partnerships at depressed price points. With teams hurting for revenues (think: no/limited gate) teams may be willing to accept heavily incentivized/brand-friendly deals.

On-field performance is a sensible metric to include in sponsorship pacts (even if it's just one of many data points) because winning and losing is transparent (i.e. everyone can see where a team sits in the standings). Success on the field is also “typically tied to engagement and engagement can lead to opportunities for the brand to drive performance metrics.” Grossman used Anheuser Busch as an example saying the company “has historically seen an increase in beer sales when their team partners were winning” (hence why they began tying wins and losses into their sponsorship agreements to begin with).

While pro sports organizations have traditionally been weary of tying sponsorship revenues to on-field performance, Grossman says there is an increasing desire by teams “to show their partners that the broadcast content and in-stadium activations they’re paying for are in fact creating value." The thought is if they can demonstrate to brand partners that they're "helping to generate and maximize a company specific ROI, they can convince the company that sponsorships should be treated as an essential spend." Of course, one could make that argument anyway. COVID has proven just how important sponsorship dollars and consumer revenue are to the industry.

[Chester Perry]

From SportsProMedia.com

Five ways data and technology are advancing OTT
As live sports return to our screens, technology and data will play an increasingly important role in the viewing experience. With SportsPro's latest Insider Series focusing on streaming and broadcast, our writers present five takeaways from the virtual event.
Posted: June 12 2020By: SportsPro

Drawing on the expertise of rights holders, broadcasters and technology providers from across the sports ecosystem, SportsPro's latest Insider Series event returned to the theme of over-the-top (OTT) and broadcast, providing a wealth of insight into the technology that the industry is tapping into to put live sports on our screens.

With much to unpack, SportsPro writers select five key takeaways from across the two days, covering piracy, machine learning and remote production.

Sports rights owners should create “formalised body” to tackle piracy
Cameron Andrews, BeIN Media Group’s legal director for anti-piracy, said sports rights holders “were slow” to react to the incursion of BeoutQ, but described the Saudi bootlegging operation as “a very good case study” for piracy “and the impact it can have”.

“I think some rights owners are certainly aware of that and are very engaged,” he said. “But unfortunately I think a lot of other rights owners are still quite some way behind.”

The emergence of BeoutQ has shone a light on the threat piracy poses to the sports industry, and Andrews called on rights owners, such as leagues and governing bodies, to come together to tackle the issue.

“I would really encourage rights owners to get together and form some sort of formalised body to tackle piracy,” he continued. “If you look at the motion picture world, they have quite formalised structures to take on piracy and they put significant amounts of money into doing that. I just don’t see the same thing happening among sports rights owners.” SC

Machine learning has a future in creating in-app ecommerce opportunities
Speaking in a session about the power of data in the OTT space, Tom Middleditch, Eleven Sport’s global head of digital, touched on the future possibilities for machine learning to enhance commercial opportunities.

Middleditch said that, to date, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tagging has largely been in video production and personalising platform experiences using algorithms, but he thinks it can bring about advances in other areas, such as ecommerce.

“I think there is some really exciting, cool commercial opportunities and partnerships with global brands,” he said. “Around football, for example, I've seen some really basic stuff. So you can buy the football shirt that Cristiano Ronaldo is wearing - you click on the link and you're able to buy.

“If you get to the level where say the new pair of football boots that Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi are wearing, then while you're watching the game you see that you like the boots and buy them. That, for me, is where I find the data and AI become really exciting. TB

Remote production should be about innovation, not saving money
Jamie Hindhaugh, BT Sport’s chief operating officer, went into great detail about the adaptations his team has made in producing the pay-TV broadcaster’s output and how it has accelerated the remote production process.

A large portion of the UK network's programming, live or otherwise, is now put together by staff at home. However, Hindhaugh said viewing this new remote way of working as a money-saver for content producers is wrong.

Instead, he thinks remote production and the new tools broadcasters have developed during the coronavirus-enforced shutdown should open up greater innovation as the industry moves into the next phase of the pandemic.

“If you're doing [remote production] to save money you're doing it for the wrong reason,” he said. “You still need the skill set of the people involved and what you're trying to do is drive efficiencies in how you operate.

“That enables you to do more and be more creative. For instance, with 5G where you can do network slicing, you can untether your cameras. So you could have a camera on the bus, then goes into the dressing room, then in the tunnel, then as your camera two covering the live game. So there’s lots of opportunities.”

Social viewing experiences will outlast Covid-19
UK pay-TV broadcaster Sky Sports has rolled out a host of new ways to watch the Premier League ahead of the return of English soccer’s top flight on 17th June.

Chief among those is Sky Sports Fanzone, a new feature that will allow viewers to watch matches while interacting with friends in a virtual room. Fans will also be able to influence the crowd noise they hear on screen, post predictions and join in-match polls.

David Gibbs, director of group content and advertising products for Sky Sports, said the broadcaster has discussed social viewing experiences “a lot over the years” and expects those to continue even when fans are allowed back into stadiums.

“Without crowds, I think there’s the opportunity to create the experience of being in the crowd virtually,” he said. “This is something that we’ve been trying to do for a long time, and now you take the opportunity in the circumstance.

“I think it’s customer behaviour that will stick, and I think there’s the opportunity for us to make it work. We won’t get it right straight away, a lot of it comes down to tone and the type of conversation. I still feel you need to mix what the group is seeing with what they’re seeing on screen, to be able to influence that in some way.

“At the same time that is for a certain type of audience. There are a lot of viewers that won’t want this and will just want to watch the game, so it’s important that we cater for both. So we believe that the behaviour will stick, and we believe that this is the right moment to do it.” SC

Virtual NFL draft gave the league ideas
Though typically a glamorous affair and a major media event in its own right, the 2020 National Football League (NFL) draft saw college prospects learn their professional fate from the comfort of their own living rooms as a result of the lockdown measures in place due to Covid-19.

To tackle the challenge of producing the occasion remotely, the NFL deployed home live stream video production kits to more than 200 prospects, coaches, general managers and owners, while feeds of more than 300 fans were also incorporated into the telecast.

The success of the remote production already has John Cave, vice president of information technology and football solutions at the NFL, thinking about how the league can capture and use fan reactions from their homes if the 2020 regular season has to start behind closed doors.

“We’re hoping for full stadiums this fall,” he said. “It doesn’t mean we’re going to get that everywhere because of the restrictions that we’re in, so imagine if we’re playing a game in an empty stadium, how do you engage your fans so that we’re capturing their reactions?

“If you think of a touchdown, a big play that’s just happened, we’ll [usually] show the reaction of the team who just scored, maybe their head coach, and then ESPN our broadcast partner would pan around the stadium and show fan reactions. But we won’t have that.

“If I can get that low latency video into the homes [of fans], literally like one second, I could capture them cheering and maybe even provide that audio back to the stadium, and the video to broadcast. It could be really compelling, but I’ve got to get them down to sub-one-second latency.” SC

[Chester Perry]

Mediaset make an interesting challenge of the prospect of free to air Serie A games during it's restart. By allowing only existing partners to air games free to Air the Premier League has benefitted from avoiding such issues - particularly given that the BBC does not have advertisers. From SportsBusiness.com

Mediaset ‘raises antitrust concerns’ over free-to-air Serie A
Martin Ross - June 12, 2020

Italian commercial broadcaster Mediaset has approached Italy’s antitrust authorities over the plans to showcase Italy’s Serie A on free-to-air television, it has been reported.

The broadcaster has raised the issue with the regulator to “report the possibility of discriminatory conduct and distorting of competition”, according to Italian news agency ANSA.

The broadcaster is also thought to have outlined its opposition in a letter yesterday (Thursday) to Lega Serie A and Italy’s Sports Minister, Vincenzo Spadafora.

Mediaset’s stance has been to ask that either all broadcasters are able to broadcast Serie A matches on a free-to-air basis or that no advertisements can be carried if just one broadcaster is chosen.

Pay-television broadcaster Sky Italia is this week said to have been edging closer to striking a deal with Spadafora and the league for free-to-air coverage of the Italian top flight upon its resumption on June 20 behind closed doors.

Spadafora has proposed a similar system to that introduced by German pay-television broadcaster Sky Deutschland for the Bundesliga. He has suggested a Diretta Gol show – the broadcasting of near-live goals and action from various simultaneous matches in a single broadcast – on a free-to-air basis.

Sky Deutschland has made its ‘Konferenz’ coverage of Bundesliga and second-tier 2. Bundesliga matches available following the resumption of football in Germany. Sky’s Konferenz has been available on the free-to-view Sky Sport News channel and free via a live stream on the Sky Sport website.

The broadcasting of certain matches on TV8, Sky Italia’s free-to-air digital terrestrial channel, has also been under consideration.

After lockdown measures commenced in earnest in March, the Lega and Sky Italia hit out at comments by Spadafora criticising the lack of free-to-air access to behind closed doors matches amid the crisis.

Sky Italia stressed at the time that it had made the Juventus-Inter match available on its TV8 and fellow free-to-air channel Cielo. Sky Italia holds the rights to Serie A jointly with subscription OTT platform DAZN.

The pair are in the penultimate season of their agreement with Lega Serie A. Sky holds the rights to seven of the 10 weekly fixtures, a total of 266 matches broadcast on its platforms per season. DAZN holds the rights to the remaining three matches giving it a total of 114 per season.

The deals with Sky and DAZN are worth €973m ($1.03bn) per season. Both deals are exclusive and platform neutral and run from 2018-19 to 2020-21.

[Chester Perry]

Many may think that Football returns on Wednesday, it doesn't. the Premier League does in an almost video game version of itself (with the Championship to quickly follow in a similar vein). In this article on TheFootballCollective.org.uk Mark Doidge clearly explains why.

Be careful what you wish for: the return of the Premier League juggernaut
June 10, 2020 By Mark Doidge

The Premier League juggernaut has turned on the ignition. The engine is fired up after three months of sitting silent during covid-19. Their media partners will now inundate us with news stories about how the ‘Greatest League in the Universe’ ™ is about to restart and how the general public will be lifted from their covid-19 malaise and can watch football again. Hurrah.

What they mean of course is Premier League men’s football. Very little else is deemed important enough for the media, least of all those in the thrall of the economic televisual juggernaut. Thousands of people play football, but they cannot return to their leagues. Across the country, thousands volunteer their time to prepare pitches, wash kits, sell tickets and administer our favourite sport; yet their football is not returning. The Women’s Super League has already been completed on a points per game basis, long after the rest of the women’s leagues were stopped; their football isn’t returning. As of 9th June, every league has been curtailed apart from the men’s Premier League and Championship.

Despite the media frenzy that will celebrate the return of (men’s elite) football, many fans are desperate for football to return. Football is the one constant in many of our lives. The rituals of the sport strengthen our social relationships, shape our identities and reinforce our sense of selves. Whilst we can now retire Bill Shankly’s oft-quoted ‘more important than life and death’, football is still important to many people. But we should be careful what we wish for.

We are not going to witness the return of football; we will see a hollowed-out reality television show featuring footballers. It will not be football as we know it, and, I argue, it is likely to lead to a significant change in how football is consumed in England. The Premier League is implementing a number of new rules. The ones that work will remain. But who determines that they work is the reason why this is a problem: few fans will have had their say in what is kept. Most changes will benefit the television audience at home, rather than fans in the stadium. As the Premier League derives the majority of their income from television revenues, these voices will be heard more vociferously.

Football without fans in the stadium is not football. Granted, most games of football do not have fans. But professional clubs are professional because fans pay to watch matches. Historically this has been through physical attendance in the stadium, although since the formation of the Premier League and Champions League in 1992, more is coming from television contracts. This means that football starts to adapt for this audience.

Since the formation of the Premier League, games have been moved from their traditional 3pm on a Saturday timeslot. When the Premier League restarts on 17th June, every team will be shown live on a variety of platforms, including the BBC, BT Sport, Sky Sports and Amazon. They will circumvent the regulations that state that no football can be played between 2.45 and 5.15 on Saturdays so as not to encourage fans to stay home. Will this remain in place when the new season returns? Likewise, matches will be played at various times throughout the week. The seasons starts at 6pm for the Aston Villa match against Sheffield United. This will be followed by Manchester City against Arsenal at 8.15. If this is popular on television, it is likely to stay in place. And when people return to work, will they be able to get to the stadium for 6pm normally?

The state of exception we find ourselves in may not become the exception, but the norm. Armchair fans have already highlighted that the Bundesliga matches are not entertaining without fans. The K-League and Bundesliga have experimented with artificial crowd noise, and La Liga and the Premier League are looking to use it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52950715). Again, where are the safeguards to take this away when fans return to the stadium? What is to stop clubs or media companies piping in their own fan chants to drown out protests against owners, or even to sell advertising?

Ultimately, the return of the Premier League (and Championship), undermines the foundation of English football. It says that these leagues are privileged (as if we didn’t know), and the rest are just detritus that can be discarded. English football is a pyramid. Most of the focus is on the Premier League and the three leagues directly below it: the Championship; League 1; and League 2. The financial issues of lower league clubs are well documented. This season Bury went out of business, and was nearly followed by Bolton Wanderers. We are likely to see more in the coming months.

There are many more teams that want to play football, and fans who wish to return to grounds. There are thousands of teams across the men and women’s football pyramids. Many of these clubs run on limited resources, and thousands of amazing volunteers. These matches are not being resumed and there seems to be no roadmap to start next season. At the same time, the Premier League is trialling innovations such as stadium atmosphere without fans and new kick off times for matches, including ones that ignore the 3pm blackout. Covid-19 may have had a massive impact on football clubs, but there is another factor in the difficulties that will continue to face lower league and women’s football. The Premier League juggernaut drives on, destroying all in its path.

[bodge]

Can't say i agree with the premise of that article.

Great thread this Chester.

[Chester Perry]

Many of you will have no doubt read today about the state of football's finances based on a new report from Deloitte

Here is the actual report - Deloitte Annual review of Football Finance 2020: Home Truths

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/D ... e-2020.pdf

This years musical theme comes courtesy of the Queen back catalogue though the report itself is noticeably more downbeat than last years offering

One of the distinct features of this report was the attention it focused on the EFL and it's madcap finances - This piece from the I by Daniel Storey was one of the better articles inspired by the report and one of a number that looked at the Championship in isolation

The Championship has no choice – change or its clubs are doomed
Clubs in the second tier are gambling beyond their means in the hope of reaching the promised land of the Premier League. It cannot go on

By Daniel Storey - June 12, 2020 8:29 am

You can distil the financial uncertainty of the Championship down to the marketing of its play-off final.

The FA Cup final has never been headlined as “The £3.6million match”. Wimbledon singles finals are never billed as “The £2.25m contest”. For both, the prestige of winning the trophy is the whole of the law. Their meaning lies in intangibles – glory, honour, greatness. You cannot put a price on glory.

The Championship play-off final, conversely, is all about the money. Australian broadcaster ABC called the 2019 final “the world’s richest game” and CNN dubbed it “the most lucrative match in football”. Others went with eye-watering figures to grab attention: “The £170m game” was used by three different newspapers in the UK. Sporting glory? Well, yeah, but..

The Championship was operating on borrowed time long before Covid-19 threatened the financial future of English football. The latest review of football finance by Deloitte calculates that Championship clubs spend 107 per cent of their entire revenue on wages. If that may be slightly mitigated by a new broadcasting deal that is worth 35 per cent more than the last, it barely scratches the surface. Championship clubs deliberately activate a financial time bomb and then spend the next 46-49 matches trying to sprint away from it.

Financial experts reason that a wage-turnover ratio of 60 per cent is sensible, with anything over 90 per cent unsustainable. To reiterate, 107 per cent wage-turnover ratio is only the Championship’s average – Reading’s was 226 per cent. Aston Villa and Sheffield United gained promotion with ratios of 181 and 190 per cent respectively.

Now add the implications of Covid-19. Most clubs will be forced to issue refunds on season tickets, and have no timescale for the return of supporters to matches. Many Championship owners will have had their resources dented by the financial impacts of the crisis. Cash injections from owners was the most common method used by clubs to delay financial implosion. How long can that continue at a time of global economic downturn? A financial apocalypse is coming to the Championship. Its clubs have thinner armour than ever.

There are three obvious answers. The first is a widespread system of wealth distribution from the Premier League down, and you can congratulate me for keeping a straight face for the entirety of this sentence. At a time when Premier League clubs are concerned about their own futures, asking them to donate swathes of their own revenue is fantastical, at least without regulation (that they would presumably be allowed to vote on and kibosh).

If that sounds like pure avarice, a) welcome to the Premier League, you must be new here and b) you can see their point: “Why should we fund your own rampant overspending when its aim is to try and take our place in the Premier League?”. You might make one or two turkeys vote for Christmas, but good luck persuading the whole rafter to cover themselves in streaky bacon and butter.

The second option is to reorganise the current sharing processes, which means disbanding the parachute payments scheme and distributing its proceeds across the leagues rather than leaving them purely in the hands of the relegated clubs. That plan has clear benefits, even if it only covers a small part of the combined £382m operating losses in the division last season.

Instead, the Championship is going to have to implement its own transfiguration. Deloitte’s own suggestion is to enforce a wage cap of 70 per cent of club revenue, with a potential grace period to allow clubs to acclimatise. As with the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (which have done nothing to arrest Championship losses), points deductions would be handed to clubs who refused to comply.

No perfect solution exists. Lower wage bills would mean smaller squads of less capable players. The potential increase in opportunities for academy graduates is worth celebrating, but any enforced parsimony would widen the gap between the Championship and Premier League. But then that is the lesser of two evils; the current gap is only bridged by spit, sawdust, impossible dreams and financial extravagance. You cannot build foundations with those ingredients.

Most importantly, clubs have to want to change. They must cede to financial reality and abandon the pursuit of loopholes that have dogged the Championship’s last three years. Players must understand that their earning potential outside the Premier League will drop. Supporters must learn not to demand vast spending on new players as the go-to shortcut to a promotion push and buy in to long-term, sustainable improvement. Governing bodies must feel empowered to punish rule-breakers to the full extent of their power in an efficient manner.

There is a theory that the greatest inspiration comes in times of emergency. Only by allowing people to peek over the edge of the cliff to see the rocks below can you persuade them to take a few steps back. If there is one silver lining to the Championship’s Covid-19 crisis, it has removed the thin strips of supposed financial sustainability that have been placed haphazardly over the widening cracks. Catastrophe has created a mandate for change. Perhaps only catastrophe could have created a mandate for change. But it will not be pleasant; parcity rarely is.

There will be a shared delight when the Championship returns; it marks the restoration of a social normality that has been deeply missed. But it is not just the lack of match-going fans that signals the implementation of a new normal.

This is – this must be – the start of a new age for the second tier. When the only choice is between change or obsolescence, change must be welcomed.

Anything else, and the Championship will merely rage forlornly against the dying of its own light.

[Chester Perry]

Can't say i agree with the premise of that article.

Great thread this Chester.

Which is fine -

The Football Collective are Academics and (as I have said a few times) are prone to let their politics drive their line of argument. I don't think that this the case here.

The point is that football is a game that is participated in by millions of people in this country as fans, players, officials coaches and volunteers, just because 44 teams are returning it is wrong to argue that football is returning, when for the overwhelming majority it is not. Further, by these privileged few returning in this way it may lead to the prospect of it not returning for many more. I personally see a real reason for such fears.

[bodge]

Football is returning though, it's being taken too literally, everyone knows it's only at the top 2 levels, whether that's right or not is immaterial. The rest of football can't return because it is deemed to be unsafe to do so, that's the point.

It's arguing over semantics.