Football's Magic Money Tree

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:45 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:18 am
Another new Podcast series - Football Uncovered - will be starting in the coming days looking at the weird world of football club ownership - first up will be a look at Venky's and our friends down the road who reach their 10th anniversary this month (yes that long) - all episodes features input from @SportingIntel so it should be informative at least - for now here is the trailer

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/f ... 1537818595
Episode 1 of the Football Uncovered Podcast looks at "Blackburn Rovers - The incredible story of the Venky's turbulent ownership"

and yes they have been in charge for 10 years

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:26 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunderland are sixth in League One after 10 games.

Royboyclaret
Posts: 4002
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1304 times
Has Liked: 711 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:49 pm

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:43 pm

The vultures are at the door

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:48 pm

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

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

BY JOHNWALLSTREET

November 11, 2020 2:55am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:10 pm

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

Government to host virtual summit on future of English football

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

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

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

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

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden will lead the talks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:04 pm

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:08 pm

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

Pay-per-view fiasco hits TV rights value

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:45 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:24 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:18 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:51 am

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:35 pm

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:49 pm

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

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

John King 6 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:03 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:10 pm
Not sure how this is going to help given the ineptitude on display at previous government hearings and debates - the government has announced that there is to be a virtual summit on the future of football next Tuesday - from the BBC

Government to host virtual summit on future of English football

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

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

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

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

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden will lead the talks.

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

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

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

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

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

Both the Premier League and the government have committed to comprehensive reviews, but there have also been demands for an independent regulator to be established.
So this virtual summit is scheduled for the morning - only you cannot find any real information on it anywhere - it is not scheduled to be broadcast on parliament TV - Oliver Dowden who is supposed to be hosting it has nothing at all about it on his twitter feed, the FSA have noting about it on their website and only a link to a Times article on their twitter feed - all very strange wouldn't you say

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:44 am

Still no sign that this virtual meeting is to be in public - it should have started by now, but this from the Telegraph shows that the government have considered a bargaining chip or 2 (apparently Boris had a virtual meeting on the subject with over 60 of his MP's last night https://twitter.com/SarBritcliffeMP/sta ... 1277316097)

Government to announce that cash-strapped football clubs will escape winding-up orders for rest of pandemic
The Culture Secretary is set to ease the cliff-edge threat facing at least 10 clubs unable as he addresses leading figures in the game

By Tom Morgan, SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT 17 November 2020 • 12:01am

The Government is on Tuesday expected to reassure football's leaders that cash-strapped clubs will escape winding up orders during the remainder of the pandemic.

Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, is set to ease the cliff-edge threat facing at least 10 clubs unable to pay wages this month as he addresses a summit of leading figures in the game.

The English Football League had been lobbying for a tax holiday to ease the pressure on clubs, and it appears ministers are willing to offer a compromise pledge that clubs will not be forced to fold.

As of last month, EFL clubs owed £77.6 million in unpaid taxes excluding VAT - £59.1m in the Championship, £13.6m in League One and £4.8m in League Two. That figure has soared to £90m in recent days, according to MPs.

While Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax codes will remain in place, HM Revenue and Customs appears to be ready to suspend any potential court action against clubs.

The reassurance from Government comes after EFL chair Rick Parry wrote to ministers asking for clubs to defer payments. Whitehall, however, is expecting concrete proposals from the EFL and Premier League over a pyramid bailout during a summit on the future of English football on Tuesday.

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

The heads of the Football Association, Premier League, EFL, National League, Professional Footballers' Association and Kick It Out have all been invited.

It comes after Richard Masters, the chief executive of England's top tier, promised "change is coming" for football's stricken pyramid. Masters says the strategic review which coincides with the collapse of Project Big Picture will be ready by March. However, he has maintained there will be no “blank cheque” for the EFL.

Julian Knight, the committee's chair, had branded the ongoing delays in agreeing a rescue package a "farce" as he disclosed how clubs are now in debt to the taxman to the tune of £90m and "10 EFL clubs are unlikely to make payroll this month".

Championship clubs are hopeful a loan package worth up to £200m will finally be agreed with Premier League by the end of the week. That package is in addition to the EFL accepting £50m for League One and Two clubs - provided it is handed over in grants, rather than a hybrid arrangement offered by the Premier League. The urgency of a bailout has intensified in recent weeks, with 10 clubs telling MPs they will be unable to pay staff and players this month.

Masters revealed how any future offer will be unconditional after discussions over clauses attached to potential bailout proposals proved "unpopular". The EFL and Premier League were unable to agree, he suggested, on a unified curtailment rule if Covid-19 infections surge again.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:50 am

Meanwhile, we are aware of the troubles in the French Ligue who decided to curtail last season in the belief of starting the current one on schedule with a new TV deal (and at the behest of the French government) was the best way to minimize losses - Jean Aulas the owner of Olympic Lyonnais challenged that strongly at the time is still seething about it, it cost them a champions League slot (and all the lucre that comes with it). Today @SwissRamble looks at the 2019/20 financial results of OL and also looks to the finances of the current season

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 1122121730

he has also done one of those lovely summary sheets https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 6336816128

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:14 am

Vysyble with a blog piece on Manchester United's Q1 results - "The Pain Game" includes a short element on what it means for the other 19 Premier League clubs

https://vysyble.com/blog-3

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:33 am

confirmation that today's government hosted virtual football summit is to behind closed doors

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1328634786290819073

this is the 2nd time recently that the FSA have participated in a behind closed doors meeting with parliamentarians - is this really the correct way for them to go about their business given that they (rightly) campaign for greater transparency and inclusion in the games decision making processes - I am far from impressed by this.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:25 am

Eoin Connolly of SportsProMedia with an good overview of the current issues facing broadcast media around the world when it comes to Sport

At Large | Four questions right now for the sports broadcast sector
A flurry of deals in recent weeks has sent many sports bodies and broadcasters into a new set of rights cycles, and industry watchers will be taking in every detail to try and understand where the sector is going.

By Eoin Connolly Posted: November 12 2020

If you squinted a bit this week, you could just make out the first contours of what will be the sports broadcasting landscape in the next few years.

You would have had to have been looking, admittedly; there has been some other news competing for attention. But a recent flurry of deals will take some big rights holders – Uefa, the Bundesliga and the Premier League among them – into their next cycles, while other agreements – like Cricket Australia’s multinational tie-up with Aser Ventures’ LiveNow – hint at a fresh set of options in balancing reach and revenue.

Every announcement is scanned for its deeper consequences. Take Amazon’s move for the rights in India to New Zealand Cricket matches. Is it the first step in a challenge to Disney, which draws power there from its ownership of Star and its access to the national cricket team and Indian Premier League? Is it a marginal play? What is up for grabs in India, a gigantic, fast-growing market and youthful media market with a distinctive local culture, but where all the global entertainment players are active? What are the implications of that for the rest of the world?

A period of massive transformation lies ahead, no doubt, but a lot of that progress will be incremental and sometimes imperceptible. The concern for sports media, in which such an overwhelming portion of the industry’s value still lies, is whether that change is the kind you get from good diet and exercise, or the kind a frog enjoys in boiling water.

With so many other parts of the sports business in suspended animation for most of 2020, the very fact that the broadcast sector has been operational has been a success in itself. That, though, does little to disguise the difficulties this year has brought, and nothing to remove the barriers that lie in wait.

Ultimately, the indicators of health most will be looking at are simple: money in, and money out. Still, the factors that go into delivering that are only growing more complex. In that spirit, based on some recent developments, here are a few questions whose eventual answers should help explain what comes next.

How will US media companies rebuild?
Few stories have more starkly illustrated the twin challenges for sports broadcasting of the Covid-19 pandemic and the longer-term shift in commercial models than those of the Sinclair Broadcast Group and ESPN.

The former has been forced to write down the value of its regional sports networks (RSNs) by US$4.23 billion. These are former Fox assets it acquired for US$9.6 billion a little under 15 months ago, when Disney shed them under the terms of its takeover of the Murdoch entertainment empire. Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that profits on those networks will drop 30 per cent this year, the result of a combination of cord-cutting by US viewers and shrunken, time-shifted regular season schedules.

The group could not agree terms with Hulu and YouTube to carry the channels. Ad revenues have been improving elsewhere – topped up by record buys of political campaign spots – but the pressures on subscription sales have never been more telling. Discussing a US$3.21 billion loss on a quarterly earnings call, Sinclair chief executive Chris Ripley was bullish about the future value of sports rights, but hinted that returns might increasingly come from betting and suggested “reinventing the RSNs around gamification, around community-based fandom and around direct-to-consumer”.

Over at the national sports network and global sports brand that is Disney’s ESPN, company president James Pitaro struck a more sombre tone when recently announcing a round of 300 redundancies and a purge of 200 open positions.

‘Prior to the pandemic,’ Pitaro wrote, in an internal memo picked up by American media outlets, ‘we had been deeply engaged in strategising how best to position ESPN for future success amidst tremendous disruption in how fans consume sports. The pandemic’s significant impact on our business clearly accelerated those forward-looking discussions.’

Quite what that means for ESPN’s future is only partially clear. In the short term, it appears to be trimming down for an upcoming battle for premium US sports rights, beginning with the NFL over the next few months. With its pedigree in the documentary space, it was also well positioned to further explore the possibilities of original IP – though the departure of Connor Schell, one of the originators of the pioneering 30 for 30 series, makes those ambitions harder to read.

ESPN has since announced a comprehensive overhaul of its management team but as it pulls away from the pandemic, it will be interesting to see what competencies it decides to bring in-house for a new era.

What is pay per view worth?
English soccer’s Premier League caused a furore with its recent decision to distribute games that had not been included in its domestic TV rights packages on pay-per-view (PPV).

Opaque messaging and a high price point of UK£14.99 made for a deeply unpopular decision. Nonetheless, it did raise questions about how the league plans to reach audiences over the next couple of rights cycles, and the ramifications that might have for payment models elsewhere.

Reports that surrounded the PPV initiative and the incendiary discussions about the future governance of the English game hinted at an appetite among some top clubs for selling games internationally on an individual basis. Meanwhile, anecdotally, a common refrain among supporters was that a lower price point – closer to UK£5 – would have been more palatable back home.

That was never likely in this case, given that it could have led to matches being screened at a loss – hardly the point of an exercise in protecting income. Yet if the demand for smaller one-off payments for games can be proven more substantially, it will determine a lot about future models.

The success of PPV has historically been anchored in high demand with ultra-low supply, which is why it is most effective for events like world championship boxing cards. But between the Natonal Basketball Association's (NBA) experiments with micro-transactions and OneFootball’s €3.99 German soccer matches from Sky Deutschland, it is a concept set to be repurposed in different ways. That would only highlight the more flexible approaches to come.

What is the cost of being platform-agnostic?
Over in the world of videogames, the next generation is upon us. In the next few weeks, trailing across acres of media coverage, Sony’s Playstation 5 and Microsoft’s Xbox Series X and Series S will be available for retail at the high, high price of ‘most people will wait for a discount to commit’.

Still, while it may be a year or two before those particular premium items make a significant mainstream impact, their dual existences make an interesting case about the 2020s in consumer tech. Universal platforms are some way off yet, and as broadcasters and direct-to-consumer (DTC) curious rights holders think about where they can reach fans, investment in distribution will remain a live topic.

This is something many of us encounter on a casual basis all the time. Netflix is ubiquitous enough on smart TVs, for example, that many have a button on the remote, but Disney+ remains unavailable as a native app on Panasonic and Hisense sets. The impact that has on viewer numbers will vary, even if the underlying rule has been to get on as many platforms as possible.

Sports channels are well aware of this particular distribution challenge – DAZN has already launched its apps for the new Xbox and Playstation releases – but it is becoming more acute. Partnerships are critical but development resources will be weighed carefully against audience data. Broadcasters will need to be clear on where a bump in discoverability is essential, and where fans can stand a little friction and another dongle or box in the corner.

Will content still be king for broadcasters?
For most sports fans, most of the time, presentation is secondary. Broadcasters have primarily acted as gatekeepers to the coverage viewers want. Innovation, high editorial standards and production values have driven up the quality of the product but realistically, the core of the process is the deal that takes a sporting event to a given channel. Over the course of the next few years, however, those details will matter more and more.

Eleven very recently confirmed the acquisition of the MyCujoo streaming company and its Live Services technology stack, which will serve as the spine of a new global streaming service. It seems likely that that space will become more competitive, not only because of the technical demands of operating international streaming platforms, but also as the importance of the user experience and ancillary features grows.

Even if the global sports rights market gets bigger in the next decade, many rights holders, especially in the second and third tier, are preparing for a shortfall from the sale of conventional rights packages. The squeeze will come as premium rights get more expensive, and other rights less valuable in their role as ballast for traditional multi-sport channels.

That might make a different set of strategies more appealing: non-exclusive distribution to ensure a bigger, broader audience, with a better integration of sponsorship, gamification and betting, and direct-to-consumer sales of tickets and merchandise. In that context, the reliability of a technology stack becomes more important to the rights holder, while the viewer will be more inclined to seek out the best experience.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:48 am

The latest digital edition of FCBusiness is now available

https://cloud.3dissue.com/6374/7271/131 ... x.html?r=8

includes a piece on the bail-out to to EFL

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:23 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:51 am
John Nicholson with what is going to be a big news item next year particularly if UEFA's European Championships is to feature all those host countries. (it has been growing significantly over the last 18 months). The carbon footprint of football, in an era where clubs in Europe are jetting around on a weekly basis and teams like Arsenal (not the only ones) prefer to fly to Norwich, Southampton and Birmingham.

https://www.football365.com/news/footba ... int-insane
This story was everywhere yesterday including that of Arsenal being the first club to join the UN's climate action plan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54957075

then I saw this about the energy consumed by a Cristiano Ronaldo tweet - wow just wow - I am glad I this is my only form of social media

https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status ... 9649851392

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:37 pm

Another example of how Spanish Law is being used by La Liga giants to help them get through the pandemic induced financial crisis in football - British Law does not come anywhere close to this level of intrusion on legal employment contracts - from the Mail

Cash-strapped Barcelona are handed a £342m wage cap by LaLiga - £77m less than rivals Real Madrid and £245m less than last year due to financial pressure of Covid-19 pandemic
Barcelona have been given a £342million wage cap by LaLiga for this season
Real Madrid's salary cap is £419m which is £77m higher than their rivals
LaLiga president Javier Tebas said cuts were needed to bring down spending
Lionel Messi earns £500,000-a-week with Antoine Griezmann on £249,000
By KATHRYN BATTE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 12:13, 17 November 2020 | UPDATED: 13:21, 17 November 2020

Barcelona's wage cap has been reduced from £601million to £342m in the wake of the financial pressures caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Real Madrid's has been brought down from £574m to £419m meaning they have £77m more to spend on club wages than their rivals. Atletico Madrid have been reduced to £226m from £344m.

Barcelona's player wages took up around 61 per cent of the club's £940m income before the coronavirus pandemic took hold, meaning their current wage bill stands at around £573m.

The club have already been looking to cut player wages with the finances having taken a huge hit during the coronavirus crisis.

The club are yet to agree on more wage reductions after players agreed to a 70 per cent cut in March.

A statement read: 'Today, November 11, after several days of intense meetings, and the negotiation was exhausted, the parties have ended the consultation period, without reaching an agreement.'

Captain Lionel Messi the current highest earner at the club as he pockets around £500,000 per week (£26m per year) while Antoine Griezmann takes in around £249,000-a-week (£15.3m).

The statement detailed that while current negotiations have been 'exhausted', both sides have agreed an extension to the deadline, running until November 23.

Barca's latest figures showed the club had made an £88m loss and had racked up a net debt that had doubled to £440m.

Valencia have also been heavily reduced and have £77m less to work with than last season. The total wage limit for 20 league clubs is £2.9bn which is £546m less than last year.

LaLiga president Javier Tebas told Marca the cuts were necessary to bring down the 'excessive spending' of Spanish clubs, given supporters are still unable to attend matches.

'We still have excess spending of about 500 (£448m) million euros,' he said.

'Because the clubs cannot take out the players with the contracts. An exercise has been made to reduce the salary masses.

'The clubs are exceeding 500 million euros. Some have to continue working to reduce the wage bill again. The most affected in Spain are Valencia, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid.

Royboyclaret
Posts: 4002
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1304 times
Has Liked: 711 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:55 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:37 pm
Another example of how Spanish Law is being used by La Liga giants to help them get through the pandemic induced financial crisis in football - British Law does not come anywhere close to this level of intrusion on legal employment contracts - from the Mail

Cash-strapped Barcelona are handed a £342m wage cap by LaLiga - £77m less than rivals Real Madrid and £245m less than last year due to financial pressure of Covid-19 pandemic
Barcelona have been given a £342million wage cap by LaLiga for this season
Real Madrid's salary cap is £419m which is £77m higher than their rivals
LaLiga president Javier Tebas said cuts were needed to bring down spending
Lionel Messi earns £500,000-a-week with Antoine Griezmann on £249,000
By KATHRYN BATTE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 12:13, 17 November 2020 | UPDATED: 13:21, 17 November 2020

Barcelona's wage cap has been reduced from £601million to £342m in the wake of the financial pressures caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Real Madrid's has been brought down from £574m to £419m meaning they have £77m more to spend on club wages than their rivals. Atletico Madrid have been reduced to £226m from £344m.

Barcelona's player wages took up around 61 per cent of the club's £940m income before the coronavirus pandemic took hold, meaning their current wage bill stands at around £573m.

The club have already been looking to cut player wages with the finances having taken a huge hit during the coronavirus crisis.

The club are yet to agree on more wage reductions after players agreed to a 70 per cent cut in March.

A statement read: 'Today, November 11, after several days of intense meetings, and the negotiation was exhausted, the parties have ended the consultation period, without reaching an agreement.'

Captain Lionel Messi the current highest earner at the club as he pockets around £500,000 per week (£26m per year) while Antoine Griezmann takes in around £249,000-a-week (£15.3m).

The statement detailed that while current negotiations have been 'exhausted', both sides have agreed an extension to the deadline, running until November 23.

Barca's latest figures showed the club had made an £88m loss and had racked up a net debt that had doubled to £440m.

Valencia have also been heavily reduced and have £77m less to work with than last season. The total wage limit for 20 league clubs is £2.9bn which is £546m less than last year.

LaLiga president Javier Tebas told Marca the cuts were necessary to bring down the 'excessive spending' of Spanish clubs, given supporters are still unable to attend matches.

'We still have excess spending of about 500 (£448m) million euros,' he said.

'Because the clubs cannot take out the players with the contracts. An exercise has been made to reduce the salary masses.

'The clubs are exceeding 500 million euros. Some have to continue working to reduce the wage bill again. The most affected in Spain are Valencia, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid.
Cat among the pigeons.

Be interesting to see the reaction to any similar move in the Premier League !

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:21 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:33 am
confirmation that today's government hosted virtual football summit is to behind closed doors

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1328634786290819073

this is the 2nd time recently that the FSA have participated in a behind closed doors meeting with parliamentarians - is this really the correct way for them to go about their business given that they (rightly) campaign for greater transparency and inclusion in the games decision making processes - I am far from impressed by this.
that virtual summit lasted no more than 90 mins - crikey they questioned Richard Masters for that long last week at the DCMS hearing - and what did we get to learn form it - this vacuous puff piece from Oliver Dowden on twitter

"Constructive conversation with football leaders on governance & £, diversity & getting fans back

I want to work together with football to make progress on important issues for the game's long-term future

Discussions to continue as we start our fan-led review of governance"

https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status ... 2054720516
Last edited by Chester Perry on Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:01 pm

Royboyclaret wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:55 pm
Cat among the pigeons.

Be interesting to see the reaction to any similar move in the Premier League !
The Financial Times with more details on those La Liga enforced salary caps - you cannot see these kind of rules being incorporated into the Premier League, even if it would make sense to American owners, it would likely be perceived to weaken squads - our club would be fine under this kind of rule though - that last line from Javier Tebas could just as easily be directed at our club's fans though

Fire sale at Spain’s top football clubs forced by lower spending limit
MURAD AHMED NOVEMBER 17, 2020

Spain’s elite football clubs were forced into a fire sale of players after La Liga responded to their coronavirus-induced losses by implementing a more than €600m cut on the spending limits it imposes on teams.

Javier Tebas, president of La Liga, Spanish football’s top division, praised teams like FC Barcelona and Real Madrid for their “responsible” actions to drastically reduce spending on transfer fees and imposing steep salary cuts in recent months.

These measures were seen as a response to the pandemic, which has led to empty stadiums as well as discounts to broadcasters due to the suspension of games during spring lockdowns.

But Mr Tebas revealed on Tuesday that the cost-cutting actions of Spanish clubs were partly forced by La Liga and changes to the league’s rules on team spending.

There are so-called Financial Fair Play regulations across European football, designed to prevent clubs overspending on players in the pursuit of success. But in Spain, where there has been a long history of insolvencies among clubs, football’s authorities went further in 2013 by introducing an additional set of “economic controls”.

Each season, La Liga’s financial analysts set a specific spending limit for every team, based on factors such as turnover and debt.

Last season, before the pandemic, La Liga’s 20 teams were allowed to spend close to €3bn combined on transfer fees and player wages. On Tuesday, the league said this limit had been cut to €2.33bn this season, in response to the revenue shortfalls faced by Spanish clubs in the pandemic.

The rule change helps to explain the fire sale of players by Spanish clubs over the summer. At Barcelona — where its spending limit dropped to €383m from €656m last season — the club responded by offloading veterans such as Luis Suárez and Ivan Rakitic.

La Liga clubs slashed transfer spending by 66 per cent to €438m this year, from €1.29bn in the 2019-20 season. By contrast, the Premier League’s transfer outlay fell just 23 per cent to €1.32bn.

“I’m not saying the Premier League is irresponsible,” said Mr Tebas. “But what I am surprised about is the volume of transfers [at English clubs]. What we are trying to do is ensure our industry is sustainable, not just this season but in future seasons.”

Asked if La Liga’s measures would damage the competitiveness of Spanish clubs in European tournaments, such as the prestigious Champions League, Mr Tebas said fans should prepare for a “transitional year” for their teams and that “we can’t be as demanding this year as we have been in the past”.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:31 pm

This from the Associated press on the same subject - as far as I am aware La Liga is the only major league with a definitive salary cap, the Bundesliga has it's own restrictions but I do not think they operate in this way

https://apnews.com/article/madrid-coron ... 053a72b8d8
Barcelona affected the most by new salary cap in Spain
By TALES AZZONI today

MADRID (AP) — The salary cap for Spanish league clubs has been reduced more than $700 million because of the coronavirus pandemic, with Barcelona and Valencia in line to take the biggest hit, the league said Tuesday.

Barcelona and Valencia will be expected to make salary reductions of about 40% this season, with Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid needing adjustments of 27% each.

Because of the reduction, league president Javier Tebas said he expects a very quiet winter transfer market for Spanish clubs. He also warned that some of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will likely last for a few more seasons.

“It’s important we all understand that it will be difficult for new players to be joining the clubs,” Tebas said. “They are now looking to reduce costs. Some clubs will have to sell players or reduce their salaries. There’s no other choice.”

Tebas, however, said disciplinary action is not expected for clubs that go over the salary limit because of the unusual situation caused by the pandemic, but he warned that the clubs themselves would eventually feel the financial consequences of overspending.

The salary cap for the 20 clubs in the first division has been brought down to 2.3 billion euros ($2.7 billion) from 2.9 billion euros ($3.4 billion) before the pandemic hit a season ago.

The adjustments are part of the league’s longstanding financial control measures to reduce club debts and keep them healthy financially. Each club has a different salary cap calculated based on a series of factors that include revenues, costs and debts.

Barcelona will have nearly 383 million euros ($453 million) to spend on salaries, compared to 671 million euros ($794 million) last season. Madrid has the biggest cap this season at 468 million ($554 million), down from 641 million euros ($759 million) a year ago.

Atlético will have more than 252 million euros ($298 million) to spend, Sevilla nearly 186 million euros ($220 million), Villarreal 145 million euros ($171 million) and Valencia 103 million euros ($122 million). Promoted Elche will have the smallest salary cap at 34 million euros ($40 million).

“It’s not that Barcelona and Valencia were not being well managed,” Tebas said. “They were affected differently than other clubs. No one could have foreseen this situation.”

Valencia sold several of its top players in the last transfer window, and Barcelona has been negotiating salary adjustments with its players.

Tebas praised all Spanish clubs and said they have been acting responsibly considering the current situation.

“Clubs are doing what they have to do, this is an unusual year,” Tebas said. “This is going to affect a few more seasons, but hopefully we will be in a better situation compared to other European competitions.”

Spain was the league that had the greatest reduction in spending in the offseason transfer market, 66% less than in the previous year. The Premier League had a reduction of 23%.

“Real Madrid and Barcelona have fabulous squads,” Tebas said. “But I would consider this a transition year, you can’t be as competitive as you have been in the past.”

Tebas said the return of fans to stadiums will be key to helping clubs start generating more revenue. He also noted that the Spanish league will continue to be at a disadvantage over other leagues because of tax issues and restrictions on advertising from online betting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual cap by club is here https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/13 ... 1045891072

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:18 pm

The telegraph with some news from today's virtual football summit - appears that people have forgotten that members have to vote on these points and for a number it is not necessarily in their interests to do so when push comes to shove

Discussions over abandoning Premier League parachute payments in favour of £200million EFL solidarity fund
TOM MORGAN NOVEMBER 17, 2020

Ministers are hopeful the Premier League will abandon its parachute payment model to instead create an annual fund worth up to £200million to support the Football League.

England's top tier is understood to have expressed a willingness to radically change the solidarity model as part of a long-term strategic review which coincides with the collapse of Project Big Picture proposals.

The major reform was among a host of issues discussed between the key stakeholders in the game on Tuesday after they were summoned to a meeting with Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary.

Also on the agenda was the rise in abuse facing players online, and Government is understood to have signalled it will work closely with football to pressure the social media giants to introduce tougher curbs.

The abandonment of parachute payments would be a major victory for figures in Westminster and the lower league clubs, both of whom argue the current model of handing huge sums to a relegated club for several years distorts competitiveness.

However, proposals to put the entire pot of money into a EFL solidarity fund could be met with stiff opposition from some of the smaller Premier League clubs when it is put to any vote.

The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is independent of the ministry, had been calling for parachute payments to be abandoned as part of a dramatic "reset" since July.

The big clubs, earning hundreds of millions in TV money, were singled out for particular criticism after MPs agreed with Rick Parry, the EFL chairman, who called for an "overdue and necessary" restructuring of football finances in England.

At Tuesday's meeting, Parry is understood to have expressed disappointment that some of the key proposals in PBP, a revolutionary concept first reported by the Daily Telegraph last month, were dismissed out of hand by the top tier.

A fan-led review of governance, as outlined in the Conservative pre-election manifesto, and proposals for an independent regulator were also discussed at the meeting.

David Bernstein, the former Football Association chairman, was among a host of figures to address the meeting. "It was very positive that the secretary of state called this meeting and it was important to have all players around the table," he told the Daily Telegraph.

"There was a great deal of discussion and contribution but no decision was made. As set out in our manifesto for change, my colleagues - including Gary Neville and Andy Burnham - and I are looking for radical measures to bring serious reform to English football and remain with the strong belief this can only be achieved by the appointment of an independent regulator."

Royboyclaret
Posts: 4002
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1304 times
Has Liked: 711 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:19 pm

So, a 40% reduction in Wage bill required at Barcelona with immediate effect.

In theory Messi's salary reduced from £500k per week to £300k.

Good luck with that one.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:31 am

Royboyclaret wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:19 pm
So, a 40% reduction in Wage bill required at Barcelona with immediate effect.

In theory Messi's salary reduced from £500k per week to £300k.

Good luck with that one.
Indeed there have been a number of failed negotiations - they have managed to persuade some players to sign extended contracts which assume the pandemics end, greater revenues flooding back and therefore opportunity to pay players what they owe from existing monies at a latter date. To me this is just restricting them in the future,. Also with Messi wanting out next summer, there is little chance that this tactic could work him.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:33 am

KPMG's Football Benchmark looks at why investors and particularly American ones still seem keen on investing in European football

https://footballbenchmark.com/library/p ... _investors
This user liked this post: Danieljwaterhouse

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:48 am

Ben Cronin of SportsBusiness.com on the problems facing Premier League Chief Exec Richard Masters that Richard Scudamore swerved when he resigned in 2018

Masters needs to come up with football reforms before they are forced upon him
Premier League chief executive Richard Masters is being assailed on multiple fronts as the UK government threatens a systematic review of football governance and clubs plot European competition reform.

Ben Cronin, Europe Editor - November 17, 2020

It’s become commonplace to observe that Richard Scudamore was right to leave the Premier League when he did. The usual argument is that the former chief executive of the top-tier football league in England spotted the diminishing pay-television returns and exercised impeccable timing in stepping down just as media-rights valuations were perceived to have passed their peak.

Yet to watch his successor, Richard Masters, face questions during a recent UK parliamentary hearing was to appreciate that Scudamore swerved an even larger array of problems than the shifting media market when he exited in 2018.

Masters looked distinctly uncomfortable as he was quizzed by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee. The Covid-19 pandemic has triggered unwelcome political scrutiny for the English top-flight and he was summoned to address why it had yet to agree a financial package to support lower league teams through the crisis. Although the league has now agreed a £50m (€55.7m/$66m) bailout for League One and League Two, and conditional support for the English Championship, questions about its place in the football pyramid are unlikely to go away.

The UK government is holding a gun to the league’s head, having promised a “fan-led review” of football governance in its election manifesto. Should Masters not show a willingness to address some of its concerns, the Premier League could be forced to do penance for some of the sins committed at its creation.

Before it was founded in 1992, the top-flight’s predecessor, the Football League First Division, shared 50 per cent of its revenues with the three tiers beneath it. But until now, the Premier League has always shared a much smaller proportion of its income. The mechanism by which it distributes revenues through the rest of the game has gone through various iterations since, without ever really satisfying other stakeholders or the authorities. As it presently stands clubs relegated from the league receive parachute payments that share a decreasing percentage of the top-flight’s media revenues to soften the drop into the English Championship. This is supplemented by a series of solidarity payments to other EFL teams that were introduced at the start of the 2007/08 season to offset the distorting impact of the parachute allocation.

English Football League chairman Rick Parry – to some extent a poacher turned gamekeeper, having been one of the original architects of the Premier League’s split with the rest of the game – is now one of the most ardent advocates for reform. He appeared to be pushing at an open door when he described parachute payments in an earlier DCMS hearing as ‘an evil that must be eradicated’ and called for a ‘complete reset’ of the way football is run. When the issue has been raised previously, some MPs have called for a minimum of 7.5 per cent of the Premier League’s income to be distributed to grassroots football and demanded a fairer distribution model for the entire football pyramid.

Prompted by the threat of change being forced on the league from outside, Masters succeeded in getting all 20 Premier League clubs to commit to a strategic review before the pandemic. But the united front has been somewhat undermined by the leading clubs’ own Project Big Picture proposals. This alternative reform plan, formulated by Liverpool and Manchester United with the support of Parry, shows how the EFL chairman’s background and connections (he is also a former Liverpool chief executive), make him a formidable adversary, applying pressure from inside and outside the top flight. It also demonstrates how the collective thinking that underpins the Premier League’s successes has the potential to fray.

Assailed by government scrutiny and club scheming on the domestic front, there is little solace to be found on the continent. Although reports that leading European clubs are again hatching plans for a breakaway European Super League should be taken with the customary pinch of salt, they can’t be ignored entirely. CVC Capital Partners, the leaders of the consortium that wants to buy a stake in Serie A’s new media-rights business, is sufficiently concerned about the distorting effect such proposals would have on domestic European competitions that it is reported to want a “breakaway” clause inserted into any contract its strikes with the Italian league.

Others will argue that the real purpose of the breakaway threat is to exert pressure on Uefa to agree to even more radical Champions League reform from 2024 onwards. While this is a more palatable outcome for the Premier League, it will hardly provoke rejoicing at its London headquarters. Led by European Club Association and Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli, teams from less competitive and commercially successful leagues are known to want to increase the number of lucrative European games between the best sides while reducing the number of matches in domestic leagues. Agnelli was also an advocate of a proposal to introduce promotion and relegation between Uefa’s three club competitions last year – a move that would have completely undermined interest in domestic competitions had it not ultimately been voted down.

Change is clearly coming to football, and something will have to give. For the Premier League to retain its pre-eminent position, Masters will have to balance demands for equitable reform at home, while seeing off attractive commercial proposals from abroad and even within.

As he put it himself in the DCMS hearing: “I suspect if we don’t come up with a unifying plan, someone else will write it for us.” Somewhere on a golf course in England – lockdown restrictions permitting – Scudamore will be thankful that the task doesn’t fall to him.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:05 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:14 am
Vysyble with a blog piece on Manchester United's Q1 results - "The Pain Game" includes a short element on what it means for the other 19 Premier League clubs

https://vysyble.com/blog-3
The Mail have made a rather dramatic article from this and other analysis by Vysyble - as tends to be their want

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

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:30 pm

supporters Direct Europe are launched a series of podcasts yesterday entitled "For a better football" - they will be released on Tuesdays and Thursdays

https://sdeurope.eu/introducing-the-for ... iniseries/

the first one with European Leagues Deputy General Secretary Alberto Colombo can be found

here on you tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZJny4Ps2GQ

here on spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/6s3sxkFd1JdeyQdQlQ0nha

or here on soundcloud https://soundcloud.com/sdeurope/fabf-mi ... to-colombo

Royboyclaret
Posts: 4002
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1304 times
Has Liked: 711 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:56 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:05 pm
The Mail have made a rather dramatic article from this and other analysis by Vysyble - as tends to be their want

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... eason.html
More a dramatic headline than anything else, Chester, which as you say is standard for this newspaper. The projected £200m Loss is based on Vysybles economic calculation (one which is unique to Vysyble) and not the more widely used and understood Operating Profit.

Their first quarterly economic calculation for United indicated a Loss of £49m compared to the Operating Loss situation of £27m. From my previous posts on this subject a more realistic projection for the financial year will be slightly in excess of £100m. Still painful, quite clearly, but not as dramatic as the figures indicated by Vysyble and the Mail.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:20 pm

I 2 years the world cup is scheduled to take place in Qatar - ever since that bid was won there have been huge concerns about the way workers building the stadiums and infrastructure have been treated - a new report from Amnesty International underlines how even now many of the same concerns expressed back then are still being played out now, often without FIFA being aware, even though it insists it has been closely monitoring the situation throughout

here the Independent report on "Reality Check 2020"

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 24430.html

the full Amnesty International report - Reality Check 2020

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Docume ... NGLISH.PDF

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:59 pm

Yesterday there was a short lived thread on the prospect of the return of fans before Christmas - I am guessing that it got political before it was removed - I was sceptical then and remain so now. Here the Telegraph demonstrate why it remains distinctly unlikely

Revealed: Why the current R-rate shows the return of crowds by Christmas is pie-in-the-sky thinking
LUKE EDWARDS NOVEMBER 18, 2020

A Telegraph study of infection-rate data has shown that only two clubs in the top four divisions of English football are located in an area where the Covid-19 infection rate is below 100 per 100,000 people.

That number could be key in deciding which areas of the country may have infection rates low enough to allow fans to return to outdoor stadiums to watch football and rugby games.

The Government is considering a surprise plan from ministers to allow supporters back at Premier League and Football League grounds by Christmas in areas with a low infection risk. But of the most recently verified weekly collated date which covers the week Nov 6-12, none of the Premier League clubs have an infection rate that is likely to be low enough to put them into a Tier 1 category if restrictions are eased, with authorities having to hope they fall significantly for the return of fans to be an option towards the end of the year.

Worryingly, the R-rate remains above one in every region of the country - which means every person infected passes the virus on to more than one person and the pandemic is still growing - apart from the North West, where the case numbers remain among the highest in the country.

As things stand, in the top four divisions only League One’s Ipswich Town and League Two’s Colchester United have an infection rate below the 100 per 100,000 mark.

Although infection numbers should start to fall as the impact of the national lockdown is felt over the next two weeks, the infection numbers per 100,000 people remain so high in the vast majority of towns and cities that they are likely to be placed into Tier 3 or a new Tier 4 when the national lockdown ends.

They would then be reassessed again two weeks later ahead of the busy Christmas fixture schedule, although many will be wary of the risks attached despite suggestions the Government is looking at ways to allow fans back into stadiums before the end of the year.

Infection rates per 100,000 people for week of Nov 6-12

Premier League

Leicester City 528
West Brom 494
Leeds United 445
Newcastle United 445
Burnley 395
Manchester City 385
Aston Villa 381
Manchester United 361
Wolves 356
Sheffield United 304
Liverpool 292
Everton 292
West Ham 197
Chelsea 194
Fulham 194
Brighton 177
Arsenal 175
Crystal Palace 147
Tottenham Hotspur 146
Southampton 140

Championship

Blackburn 577
Huddersfield 551
Stoke 532
Middlesbrough 475
Bristol City 430
Birmingham 412
Barnsley 407
Derby 407
Rotherham 387
Preston 335
Sheffield Weds 317
Coventry 282
Luton 273
Nottingham Forest 267
Bournemouth 237
QPR 230
Swansea City 225
Watford 197
Brentford 190
Wycombe Wanderers 156
Cardiff 154
Reading 149
Norwich 145
Millwall 120

League One

Hull City 752
Rochdale 531
Lincoln City 439
Wigan Athletic 439
Burton Albion 435
Bristol Rovers 430
Sunderland 419
Accrington Stanley 379
Doncaster Rovers 364
Blackpool 304
Fleetwood Town 304
Gillingham 281
Northampton 277
Oxford United 259
Crewe Alexandra 250
Shrewsbury 250
Portsmouth 246
Plymouth Argyle 222
Peterborough United 218
Swindon 208
Wimbledon 184
MK Dons 170
Charlton Athletic 164
Ipswich 84

League Two

Oldham Athletic 598
Grimsby 545
Port Vale 544
Bradford City 532
Bolton Wanderers 449
Scunthorpe 433
Salford 426
Walsall 406
Mansfield 310
Harrogate Town 283
Cambridge 281
Leyton Orient 227
Carlisle United 214
Barrow 188
Tranmere Rovers 185
Forest Green Rovers 184
Southend 170
Stevenage 167
Crawley 161
Exeter 161
Newport County 160
Cheltenham 155
Morecambe 143
Colchester United 91

rufus lumley
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 233 times
Has Liked: 7 times
Location: standing like a clock on the shelf

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by rufus lumley » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:47 pm

Wow thinks look bad in Hull I had no idea the rate was that high.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:41 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 1:27 pm
Academic paper on Covid-19 and the return of fans - co writers include @KieranMaguire and Dr Dan Parnell - it argues that in most strata football can only survive with fans in attendance and concludes that "Football is nothing without fans" lots of charts and diagrams so linked rather than transcribed

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 20.1841449
our friend The Esk will be hosting a discussion on Friday (in a podcast I suspect) with some of the writers of this paper the discussion will centre on this and a separate submission to the DCMS about the grassroots game - it should prove quite interesting - kudo's Paul

https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1329140691839152128

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 am

The government announces rescue package for sport - all sport except football (remember even the national league bailout was from the National Lottery I have posted before about the government not having a senior figure that is a football fan - hardly a surprise that Rugby is to be the biggest beneficiary in those circumstances - from the Guardian

UK government set to announce rescue package for ailing sports
Rugby union expected to be the prime beneficiary
Fund will not include help for Premier League or EFL

Paul MacInnes Wed 18 Nov 2020 20.09 GMT Last modified on Wed 18 Nov 2020 23.11 GMT

The government is set to announce a bailout for sport on Thursday, with rugby union expected to be the prime beneficiary.

The emergency fund, reportedly worth around £300m of grants and loans, will cover 11 sports but will not include help for the Premier League or the English Football League. The government has repeatedly said that the football’s top flight should offer financial support to the EFL, but it does now appear that other sports, which have suffered major losses, will receive state assistance.

Rugby union is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of the bailout while horse racing is also believed to have been made a priority for emergency funding.

Nigel Huddleston, the sports minister, confirmed on Wednesday he would be making a statement on financial support for the sport sector in the House of Commons on Thursday.

Football’s National League – the competition immediately below the EFL – has already received support to enable it to begin its 2020-21 season. The Women’s Super League is also likely to benefit from Thursday’s announcement along with rugby league, basketball and netball.

Rugby league has already been handed a £16m government loan and is likely to receive more with England hosting next year’s rugby league World Cup.

Earlier on Wednesday, Boris Johnson said his government was working to get crowds back into venues “as soon as possible”. Reports emerged on Tuesday that the government was exploring the possibility of spectators being allowed into venues by Christmas in areas with the lowest coronavirus infection rates. The prime minister is reported to have privately told MPs that reopening sports grounds is “a personal priority”.

Johnson did not offer any specifics on the issue, however, when the matter was raised during prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. “I understand the frustration over fans and we hope to get crowds back in the ground as soon as possible,” he said in answer to a question from Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln.

The former FA chairman David Bernstein, who was at a meeting of football leaders which also involved Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, on Tuesday, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There is an obvious desire and a need to get fans back into stadia but in reality this will depend on the progress with Covid. We have to be realistic and I suspect, if it happens, it will be a fairly small number of fans in areas that have a lower problem with the rate of Covid. I wouldn’t be overly optimistic but clearly everybody wants this as soon as possible.”

McCartney also asked Johnson about the EFL rescue package. He said: “We don’t want any football team to go out of business as a result of this pandemic and we’re doing everything we can.” The top flight has made offers of support and clubs in Leagues One and Two are now in negotiations over a £50m rescue package from the Premier League understood to be made up of £20m in grants and £30m in loans.

MPs are on Monday to debate a petition to exempt golf courses from the list of venues forced to close.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:24 am

An intriguing thread about anti-doping violations in the Premier League last season and the level of restriction that is placed on the information at various stages - this is far from being a transparent process

https://twitter.com/honestsport_ew/stat ... 2358371331

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:30 am

TwoHundredPercent.com looka at the the latest developments in the frankly strange distribution of rescue funds in the National League


The National League’s Uncivil War
by Ian | Nov 18, 2020

Since the very beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak, more than eight months ago, most of our worst fears about how professional and semi-professional football would react to it all have been realised. Most clubs and leagues have proved themselves to be fundamentally unable or unwilling to pay attention to the wellbeing of the game to any significant extent, and almost every decision that has been reached over money has been marked with squabbling that is chipping away at any remaining vestiges of solidarity between clubs and leagues during these uniquely challenging times.

Even in cases where money has finally been agreed, the arguing doesn’t seem to be ending. It was announced several weeks ago that a deal had been agreed through the National Lottery to provide emergency funding to the tune of £10m to the 66 clubs of the National League, but to suggest that this story stops there would feel a little like Donald Trump calling the US presidential election for himself. The agreement to provide funding to the league’s clubs has instead proved to be the start of an argument that is not only still ongoing a month later, but if anything actually seems to be escalating.

The breakdown of how this money was to be distributed was roughly as follows:

- 7 National League clubs to receive £95,000 per month.
- The other 16 National League clubs to receive £84,000 per month.
- 5 clubs from the National Leagues North & South to receive £36,000 per month.
- The other 37 clubs across the National Leagues North & South to receive £30,000 per month.

It didn’t take long for the flaws in this distribution model to become apparent. The split made within the divisions was calculated upon two factors: which division a club is in, and average attendance, but explanation was given as to why the matter of attendances between divisions wasn’t taken into account. Did the National League believe that the fixed costs of running Boreham Wood or Wealdstone are more than double the running costs of York City or Chester?

And furthermore, the club that would receive the most per supporter throughout this period, Boreham Wood, were not only going to be receiving multiple times as much money as the least funded clubs on the list, but they also also just happen to be the home club of the culture secretary, Oliver Dowden MP. Even if this were a coincidence, the complete lack of transparency throughout the entire process has been highly concerning, especially when viewed through prism of the rates of distribution that it produced.

Since then, of course, the situation regarding the state of the non-league game has significantly deteriorated. Clubs at Step Three and below had been allowed to let in limited crowds, but the introduction of the second lockdown two weeks ago kicked that into touch, and leagues below the National League have been suspended until the start of December, at the absolute earliest. Meanwhile, the National League plays on, but the recent tightening of lockdown restrictions doesn’t seem likely to be lifted at the end of this month, and the idea of paying supporters being allowed back into grounds before Christmas doesn’t seem terribly likely, either.

At the end of last week, the wheels started to fall off the wagon. Nine National League clubs called for National League chair Brian Barwick to resign over the allocation of £10m of the government funding, with it being clear that the National League had reneged on guarantees that payment would be proportional to lost gate revenue. The outgoing chairman of Hereford FC, Andrew Graham, spoke on behalf of nine clubs – AFC Fylde, Telford, Chester, Dulwich Hamlet, Hereford, Kidderminster Harriers, Maidstone United, Dorking and Chesterfield – when he said:

£10m has been handed to the National League thus far. This is a significant amount of money for which we are extremely grateful. However, there has been unsatisfactory transparency over how funds were allocated and there are inexplicable inconsistencies which amount to some clubs receiving five times as much in funding as others, per absent spectator. As a result, some of our clubs will now face income shortfalls, which may threaten their existence.

On top of this Barwick was also coming under pressure from MPs such as Helen Grant, Harriet Harman, Mark Garnier, Toby Perkins, Tracey Crouch, Lilian Greenwood and Mark Menzies to explain himself, with their open letter describing the allocation process as “wholly unfair and appears to contradict the reason was originally provided”, before going on to add that, “the only way for lost revenues to be truly compensated and for football clubs to receive certainty about their immediate financial futures is for the funding to be allocated according to lost gate receipts.”

The National League’s response, it turned out, was a lengthy open letter to the Non-League Paper in which, to the surprise of just about nobody, sought to push the blame for this row entirely onto clubs that have been critical of their approach, claiming that these clubs have “brought our Competition into disrepute”, and defending Brian Barwick as having an “unblemished reputation of the highest level.” Clutching at their pearls – because hey, we all know who the real victims are here, right? – they wrote:

Tempting though it has been for us as a Board, who have been libelled as a group and in some cases individually, to resort to legal action, we have for the moment kept our counsel, taken all the criticism on the chin, and simply battled on to seek to ensure that this funding is renewed after the initial period. Not one of our critics has offered to assist us, merely to criticise us, sometimes in the vilest of terms.

Of course, they don’t go into any detail about how they reached the decision that they did reach. Rather, they prefer to nitpick over semantics:

You quote from a Commons answer given by the Sports Minister and then fail to reach the correct conclusion from it. He stated (as long ago as 30th September, well before an agreement was reached with Camelot, not the DCMS, by the way) that gate receipts will “drive the criteria.” He did not say then and clubs have never been told that they would be the only criteria. Attendances and gate receipts were an element of the methodology of distribution and continue to be, but they are not the only criteria to be taken into account.

Okay, fine, so what were the criteria that were taken into account? There’s no mention of that anywhere else in their little exercise in self-justification, and it would be reasonable to assume that the aggrieved clubs feel as though they had the wool pulled over their eyes with regard to this, judging by the fact that their anger only became public once the amounts to be allocated had been made public.

So, what happened here? Were these clubs as unhappy with this allocation before the allocation was publicly announced? And if so, why weren’t their concerns satisfactorily addressed sooner? Dover’s Jim Parmenter, let us not forget, had threatened to close his club at the August in a similarly hectoring tone after his players refused to take a 20% cut. Small wonder that this similarly petulant “open letter” should appear in full on Dover’s official website. But this is where we are now, isn’t it? No hint of conciliation, or even empathy with other clubs who now find themselves in a potentially serious position, only some “we’re the real victims here” and baseless accusations of defamation. For those of you still labouring under the misapprehension that the National League is somehow still closer to where the heart and soul of football resides, you should probably start recalibrating accordingly.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:52 am

yet more turmoil and questionable behaviour from Ahmad Ahmad President of CAF - this time an ethics based investigation into a questionable TV contract - from the New York Times

Africa’s Top Soccer Official Faces New Ethics Investigation
The president of the Confederation of African Football, Ahmad Ahmad, and another top official face questions about revisions to a multimillion-dollar television deal.

By Tariq Panja Nov. 18, 2020

FIFA ethics investigators have asked the top soccer official in Africa to explain why he agreed to revise a television contract in a way that appeared to benefit a commercial partner over his own organization — the latest ethical concern for a governing body that was subject to direct FIFA oversight as recently as February.

The official, Ahmad Ahmad, the president of the Confederation of African Football and a FIFA vice president, and Constant Omari, CAF’s powerful vice president, have been asked by FIFA to provide details about amendments to a television contract with the marketing company, Lagardère Sports. The changes to the deal, which covers all of the region’s top club and international competitions, have the potential to move millions of dollars in losses from Lagardère Sports onto the books of the African soccer body, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The new investigation is just the latest problem for Ahmad, who was briefly detained last year by French authorities investigating allegations of embezzlement and who faces a separate FIFA ethics probe involving complaints of sexual harassment by several female employees and consultants. It also comes at a pivotal time for African soccer, which has lurched from crisis to crisis under his leadership: Ahmad is seeking a new four-year term early next year, and sanctions related to any of the open cases could disqualify him from running.

At the heart of FIFA’s new investigation was the decision by CAF, after discussions led by Omari and approved by Ahmad, to change the terms of a long-term contract with Lagardère Sports in a way that allowed the France-based company to reduce the minimum amount it guaranteed for CAF’s television rights and at the same time shed its responsibility to collect almost $20 million in unpaid fees from a sub-licenser.

In agreeing to take on the risk of those unpaid fees, CAF’s leadership also agreed to pay Lagardère a $6.7 million fee. In effect, CAF agreed to buy the unpaid debt at a discount, trusting that it could recover the full amount itself from a company that had already defaulted on the debt multiple times.

FIFA last month wrote to both Ahmad, who has taken a 20-day convalescence leave after contracting the coronavirus, and Omari, who on Monday stepped in to temporarily fill in as CAF president, asking them to explain their decisions to alter the television deal. If they do not, the men could face charges under FIFA’s ethics code. Like Ahmad, Omari, 62, is a member of FIFA’s governing council.

FIFA declined to comment on the new investigation, citing its policy of not commenting on the work of its ethics committee.

Ahmad declined to comment on the substance of the investigation, saying in a text message that he respected the principle of confidentiality even when others did not. Omari, who has accumulated significant power in African soccer as the confederation’s No. 2 official, did not respond to a request for comment.

Television rights are soccer’s most lucrative source of revenue, and they were central to the criminal case brought by the United States Department of Justice in 2015 against a group of officials and executives in the Americas who were found to have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars of income from broadcast contracts to accounts they controlled. That case has led to a host of criminal convictions, and to new investigations in Switzerland and France related to the sale of World Cup television rights in territories across the globe.

African soccer, long seen as a source of talent and potential revenue, has been of particular interest to FIFA’s president Gianni Infantino, who since his election in 2016 has tried to exert and grow his own influence across the region. He campaigned on behalf of Ahmad during the soccer official’s successful battle in 2017 to become African soccer president, but in the years since Ahmad’s victory the relationship between the men has deteriorated.

Infantino was embarrassed in 2019 when, a day after he said FIFA had moved on “from being toxic, almost criminal,” French investigators detained Ahmad for questioning in an ongoing corruption inquiry. Ahmad was released and denied wrongdoing.

Around the same time, several current and former CAF employees provided internal documents and testimony to investigators in which they accused Ahmad of mismanagement and sexual harassment, and FIFA announced that it would be sending its most senior administrator, Secretary General Fatma Samoura, to effectively take control of CAF. It was the first time CAF had taken such action against one of its regional confederations.

Early this year, though, FIFA was forced to withdraw Samoura and a team of officials it had sent to Africa after CAF’s senior leadership declined to extend its request for oversight. FIFA declared the job of cleaning up African soccer complete, but that same month details of an audit were made public in a 55-page report that revealed an ugly picture of financial chaos and mismanagement inside the African confederation, including millions of dollars in development funds unaccounted for; curious payments to private bank accounts of regional soccer leaders; and lavish spending on gifts and overseas travel.

It remains unclear why FIFA’s ethics committee has taken so long to provide a judgment in its investigations into Ahmad, but if the ethics committee substantiates any of the charges he faces — or rules against him on any new ones — he would be ruled out of standing for re-election next year. That would leave four candidates to replace him as CAF president at an election scheduled to be held in Morocco on March 12.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:59 am

Anyone wondering what Premier League football in December on Prime has actually done for the clubs the answer is relatively little - the games were essentially given away at the cost of production. Inevitably it seems that Amazon were the big gainers from the exercise again. Some clubs, yes the big ones, are starting to see some follow through though as seasonal marketing deals begin to appear - unlikely to reach us I am afraid, but surprised that Manchester United and Liverpool (the 2 biggest audience generators) have not found a way to exploit the opportunity presented (could be an ethical decision or a desire not to compete with their own merchandise). This thread explains

https://twitter.com/Lu_Class_/status/13 ... 9518661637

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:28 am

Ivan Gazidis ( a man, it strikes me, whose reputation far exceeds his actual output for the clubs he has worked for). He is currently a senior executive of AC Milan (he has been there since leaving Arsenal several years ago) a club seeking to revive past fortunes and he is also very active representing his club at the ECA (and no doubt involved at UEFA). In this article from ESPN he is pushing the benefits of an MLS/Liga MX joint league, on first glance it looks like Americans just looking at the money (that is true) but from an old European Group of 14 perspective (the predecessor of the ECA of which his old club Arsenal were a founder member like his current one) it would also provide a precedent for a continental super league, like the other talked about one for Europe. Of course with the Serie A in a a period of structural and revenue turmoil which Private Equity is seeking to exploit his club need all the privileged opportunities they can find


AC Milan's Ivan Gazidis: MLS, Liga MX merger could be good for growth

Nov 17, 2020 Gab Marcotti - Senior Writer, ESPN FC

AC Milan executive and former Major League Soccer deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis said that a merger between MLS and Liga MX is something that should be considered.

Gazidis helped launch MLS in 1996 and believes that a merger between the top flights of the United States and Mexico would be beneficial for the sport's growth.

"I've always thought that it needs to be looked at," Gazidis told ESPN. "A league that encompasses North America including Mexico is something that would be a tremendous driver of interest."

The relationship between MLS and Liga MX has intensified following the March 2018 announcement of a strategic partnership between the two, much more so than during the SuperLiga summer tournament that was held between 2007 and 2010. It has so far given rise to the birth of Campeones Cup, a one-off game featuring the MLS champion and Liga MX's Campeon de Campeones, and the Leagues Cup, which featured four teams from each side in a neutral-site tournament in Las Vegas.

An All-Star game between the two leagues was planned for the summer before being called off due to the coronavirus pandemic.

"MLS has more flexibility, probably because they don't have the kind of history and established structures that exist in European football and that are so difficult to change. Obviously the CONCACAF Champions League already exists, but this could be developed in different ways and the most extreme would be a merger of the leagues," Gazidis added.

"I don't know if that's the answer but there is a tremendous opportunity in a transnational competition."

MLS commissioner Don Garber and Liga MX head Enrique Bonilla have repeatedly hinted at increased collaboration but have stopped short of openly supporting a joint league.

Gazidis served as MLS deputy commissioner from 2001-2008, where he then became chief executive at Arsenal. He departed the London club for AC Milan in 2018. He added that he has been impressed with the growth of the sport in U.S. and especially MLS.

"I think it's good that soccer in the U.S. is held to a higher standard but sometimes it's also healthy to step back and look how far it has come," he added.

"Today MLS is a phenomenal case study for a really modern, forward-looking league, not afraid of change. With the tools available to it, it has done an incredible job. It has amazing stadiums, a game that is growing at a tremendous pace, a real relevance, very progressive attitudes, engaged ownership and a healthy financial foundation... these things are extraordinary given where we started back in 1994.

"I remember trying to get investors and what a struggle it was...the [1994] World Cup was two weeks away and people were convinced even then that the stands would be empty. And now look at it."

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:05 pm

FIFA have released new regulatory frameworks for the Employment of female players and all football coaches

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/news/fi ... ll-coaches

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:16 pm

We have become familar with the concept of FIFA normalisation committees through the trails and tribulations of the Trinidad and Tobago FA, but what exactly are they and how do they work? - here LawinSport.com seeks to explain

FIFA’s normalisation committees – what are they and how do they work?
Published: Tuesday, 10 November 2020 Written by Hannah Kent

This article was last updated on 10 November 2020 (originally published October 2018).

Whilst FIFA has been a topic of discussion over recent years for a variety of reasons, FIFA’s powers to intervene in its member associations’ governance receives little attention. Such powers are exercised by imposing “normalisation committees” on member associations that FIFA determines are not complying with the FIFA Statutes (the “Statutes”)[1].

Out of FIFA’s 211 members, a significant number of associations have recent or current experience of normalisation committee intervention – Kuwait, Guinea, Guatemala, Greece, Argentina, Thailand, Mali and Benin to name a few. Since the date on which this article was first published, normalisation committees have been established in Madagascar[2], the Dominican Republic[3], Egypt[4], Comoros[5], Iraq[6], Pakistan[7], Venezuela[8], Namibia[9] and Trinidad and Tobago[10], with the latter the focus of much media attention in the past few months.

The mandate of the PFF Normalisation Committee (Pakistan Football Federation) has been extended until the end of 2020, having been due to expire on 15 June 2020, by which point it is expected that the PFF will have successfully held the PFF elections. One of the reasons given for this was the general disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic in Pakistan[11].

In light of this, this article analyses the role of FIFA’s normalisation committees. Specifically, it looks at:

When FIFA is entitled to intervene
- Circumstances in which FIFA has intervened
- How normalisation committees are constituted
- The scope of their powers
- What happens if there are disputes, including a case study on the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association
- Key examples of normalisation committees
- Comparisons with other sports
- Legitimacy of FIFA’s interventions


When is FIFA Entitled to Intervene?

FIFA’s power to intervene is derived from the Statutes. Article 8 provides that:

- “All bodies and officials must observe the Statutes, regulations, decisions and Code of Ethics of FIFA in their activities.
- Executive bodies of member associations may under exceptional circumstances be removed from office by the Council in consultation with the relevant confederation and replaced by a normalisation committee for a specific period of time.
- Every person and organisation involved in the game of football is obliged to observe the Statutes and regulations of FIFA as well as the principles of fair play” [emphasis added][12].

The “exceptional circumstances” in which FIFA may intervene are not clearly defined, but tend to involve a member association’s failure to “manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties…”[13] even where such influence is not the fault of the member association[14]. Further, member associations are required to comply with the principles of good governance, including but not limited to political and religious neutrality, prohibition of discrimination, and judicial independence[15].

The appointment of a normalisation committee is regarded as a last resort, when FIFA considers that the domestic governance of the game has irretrievably broken down. The constitution of a normalisation committee usually follows the suspension of a member association by the Council, where that member association is unable to confirm that it has demonstrated that it is able to comply with the requisite principles of good governance.

Whilst suspended, a member association loses all of its membership rights as defined in Article 13 of the Statutes, and national and affiliated club teams are not entitled to take part in international competitions until the suspension is lifted. Other member associations are also not permitted to have sporting contact with the member association during its suspension.


Circumstances in which FIFA has intervened

Government Interference
FIFA appointed a normalisation committee for the Kuwait Football Association (KFA) on 18 January 2018 following a 2015 suspension for alleged government interference in the affairs of the KFA[16]. Similarly, FIFA intervened in Mali’s Football Association (FEMAFOOT) for government interference after the Mali Sports Minister dissolved the executive committee of FEMAFOOT[17].

Breaches of Ethics and Regulations
FIFA intervened in the governance of the Uruguayan Football Association after the sudden resignation of its president in July 2018. His resignation followed the release of compromising audio recordings, the content of which is unknown (although there are some suggestions that these recordings contained comments about sports administrators, a member of the government and sports journalists). FIFA’s intervention was “based on the lack of guarantees for the electoral process”[18]. The normalisation committee for the Ghanaian Football Association was appointed following similar concerns regarding breaches of ethics in the member association and government interference.

In the case of the Football Association of Thailand (“FAT”), the executive committee was removed following a ban to the FAT’s president for a breach to FIFA’s Code of Ethics. He was given a suspended 16 month sentence by a Thai court for falsifying documents to amend the FAT statutes ahead of the FAT’s presidential election. A normalisation committee was set up in 2015[19].

Power Vacuum
Recent appointments of normalisation committees appear to have been motivated by the departure of presidents of football associations which has caused a “power vacuum”. In Egypt, FIFA installed a normalisation committee following the sudden resignation of the Egyptian Football Association’s (EFA) President, Hani Abou Rida, and other members of the EFA in the immediate aftermath of Egypt’s exit from the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations[20].

Following the passing of the Venezuelan Football Association’s (FVF) acting President, Jesús Berardinelli, 16 days after his arrest in July on charges of misusing public money, the FVF was left facing a “leadership vacuum” which FIFA determined would prevent the FVF “from taking key administrative and sporting decisions during these critical times, which could impact negatively on the development of Venezuelan football at all levels”[21]. Further to this, restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were likely to prevent the convening of an appropriate election. The mandate of the normalisation committee is due to run until 30 June 2021 at the latest[22].

Financial Management
The recent high-profile appointment of a normalisation committee in Trinidad and Tobago followed a “fact-finding” mission to the Republic to assess the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association’s (TTFA) financial situation. That mission found that the TTFA had poor financial management and a massive debt (believed to be around $5.5 million[23]), which resulted in the TTFA facing a “very real risk of insolvency and liquidity”. FIFA stated that “such a situation is putting at risk the organisation and development of football in the country and corrective measures need to be applied urgently”. This appears to be the first situation in which FIFA has intervened for reasons of financial management alone, with there usually being at least one other reason linked to government intervention, breaches of ethics or a power vacuum.


Constitution of Normalisation Committees

Normalisation committees are composed of an adequate number of members identified by FIFA and the relevant confederation and stakeholders. What is viewed as an adequate number of members varies, and normalisation committees have been composed of four members in Ghana[24], five in Venezuela[25] and six in Thailand[26] by way of some examples.

As to whether the imposition of a normalisation committee is compliant with national law, or how a national association would render a normalisation committee compliant with national law, this would depend on the specific laws to which a national association adheres. For example, if FIFA determined that The FA was unable to “manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties…”[27] even where such influence is not the fault of the member association[28], for whatever reason, and decided to impose a normalisation committee, the existing directors would need to resign or be removed in accordance with The FA’s articles of association and the relevant legislation. It is also worth noting that there is little way around this - a member association’s statutes are required to include a provision to “always comply with the Statutes, regulations and decisions of FIFA”[29]

Members of normalisation committees are not required to have any particular skill-sets, but it is usually the case that members hail from the country in which the national association is based. Normalisation committees tend to be made up of members from different backgrounds, albeit with some knowledge or experience of football and financial and legal affairs.

For example, in Uruguay, the normalisation committee’s three members included a member of the FIFA Governance Committee, a former executive of one of Uruguay’s top clubs[30], and an economist (the former Secretary of Economic and Financial Affairs at the Uruguayan Football Association[31]). The four members of the Ghanaian Football Association’s normalisation committee included a well-connected businessman known for sponsorship deals for Ghanaian football clubs, a former CEO of a telecommunication network, a lawyer, and a former board member of a Ghanaian football club.

The members of the normalisation committee are then confirmed by FIFA’s Bureau of the Council (which deals with all matters requiring immediate attention between two meetings of the Council[32]). FIFA retains the right to add or remove any members of the normalisation committee as it sees fit.

All members of the normalisation committee are required to pass an eligibility test[33] in accordance with the Statutes and the FIFA Governance Regulations[34], which is conducted by the FIFA Review Committee[35]. FIFA describes the content of such eligibility checks as “open-ended and vague”[36] which require clarification on a case-by-case basis. FIFA aims to make their application as objective and certain as possible. In conducting these checks, the Review Committee has been mindful of the guidelines stemming from decisions taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in a small number of cases relevant to the conducting of integrity checks. Standards vary depending on the position for which the eligibility checks are applied, as the CAS has held that the integrity check is an abstract test to assess whether a person is perceived to be a person of integrity for the function at stake[37]. As such, a direct violation of the FIFA Code of Ethics is no prerequisite to a person not passing the integrity check. However, a history of financial impropriety and an involvement in national or local government are severely frowned upon by FIFA[38].

It is worth noting that the Review Committee does not have any investigatory powers and makes a decision based on the information available to it at the time.

The constitution of normalisation committees is not without its criticism from stakeholders however. In Pakistan, a normalisation committee was appointed on 27 June 2019 on the basis that “only free, fair and transparent elections of the [Pakistan Football Federation] PFF executive committee would reunite the football stakeholders in Pakistan”. Because of the inherently politicised nature of the PFF and its various stakeholders, there has been a great deal of criticism of the constitution of the normalisation committee – to the extent that the Balochistan Football Association (BFA) wrote to FIFA to claim that the appointed committee members were biased, are allegedly receiving “huge salaries” and are placing “controversial figures” in provincial committees, and the BFA requested that FIFA send a vigilance committee to Pakistan to examine the normalisation committee’s performance[39]. Pakistan’s government wrote to FIFA in August 2020 to request FIFA’s intervention, which was refused. FIFA responded to this request by asking for evidence of the allegations made. The normalisation committee chairman, Humza Khan, has publicly stated “there are only two factions, one is of Hayat, and the other is of Ashfaq Shah, and we have their representatives in the NC. Both factions are not happy with me, so I believe we must be doing something right, something good”, adding that “my job is getting the elections done but not participate in it.”[40]

Gianni Infantino has welcomed the dialogue with Pakistan’s government, but stated that FIFA “obviously don’t accept inference in sporting matters”[41].


Scope of Powers

The normalisation committee takes over the day-to-day running of the member association whilst drafting new statutes and policies for the association that adhere to the FIFA Statutes and the relevant national law. The new statutes must contain, at a minimum, provisions relating to neutrality in politics and religion, prohibition of discrimination, independence from any political interference, judicial independence and respect of the Laws of the Game.

The normalisation committee also organises and conducts elections for a new executive committee. None of the members of the normalisation committee are able to run for any of the vacant positions in the elections. Members of the existing executive committee are required to vacate their posts whilst the normalisation committee undergoes its work. If they wish to take up positions in the new executive committee, they are expected to contest the positions in the elections organised by the normalisation committee. Potential candidates for the executive committee are required to undergo integrity checks as per the FIFA Code of Ethics, regardless of their previous position, which are carried out by the FIFA Review Committee using the same guidelines as set out above.

FIFA can continue to monitor the member association’s progress by way of a monitoring committee, implemented on a case-by-case basis. The normalisation committee remains in place for a specified period of time and will disband when all the required tasks are complete. FIFA has the discretion to extend the relevant period of time for as long as it is required, as in the cases of the Pakistan Football Association, extended until 31 December 2020, the Egyptian Football Association, extended until 30 November 2020, and the Ghanaian Football Association, which was extended twice. This is particularly so given restrictions in place across the globe as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential difficulty or delay in holding suitable elections. There is no limit as to how many times FIFA can extend a normalisation committee’s mandate, although it expects the normalisation committee to provide a roadmap so that the mandate can be fulfilled in the time provided to it.[42]


What happens if the member association disputes the appointment?

There are no easily available records of member associations challenging the appointment of a normalisation committee. The Statutes provide that confederations, member associations and leagues “shall agree to comply fully with any decision passed by the relevant FIFA bodies which, according to these Statutes, are final and not subject to appeal”[43]. Further, member associations are obliged to “comply fully with the… decisions of FIFA bodies at any time”[44].

Some member associations have attempted to challenge the appointment of a normalisation committee through local judicial means. FIFA tends to respond to these sorts of challenges by promptly suspending the member association until the election of a new executive committee is conducted, as was the case for the Benin Football Association (FBF) after a local judicial court approved an injunction to impede the holding of the 2016 presidential election, despite the FBF having being overseen by a normalisation committee since September 2015[45].

Member associations have been willing to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on a number of matters involving FIFA, including audit orders (in the case of the Ivory Coast Football Federation[46]) and membership[47]. However, the outcome of such an appeal would be difficult to predict. Whilst the CAS has upheld appeals against FIFA in cases such as the Gibraltar Football Association’s application for FIFA membership[48], it has also shown a willingness to approve a sports governing body’s intervention in governance matters where necessary – for example the suspension by the IAAF of the All Russia Athletics Federation from IAAF membership[49]. Any appeal to the CAS would most likely turn on its facts. A representative of the Samoan Football Association appealed to the CAS in 2008 against the appointment of a normalisation committee, and was unsuccessful albeit without going into the merits of the case, on the basis that a decision of FIFA to establish a normalisation committee is final and binding.[50]


Case Study: Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (“TTFA”)

On 17 March 2020, FIFA released a statement that the Bureau of the FIFA Council had decided to appoint a normalisation committee for the TTFA in accordance with the FIFA Statutes. As set out earlier in this article, this was on the basis of the TTFA’s “low overall financial management” and that the TTFA was facing a “very real risk of insolvency and liquidity”[51]. This decision came after a fact-finding mission by FIFA delegates in February 2020. In a strange twist, it is alleged that the TTFA only learnt of FIFA’s decision through social media as the email had been sent to the wrong email address.

FIFA’s decision has been met with a great deal of animosity, with a TTFA board member accursing FIFA of acting like a “colonial absentee landlord”, and with the former Premier League footballer Shaka Hislop calling the appointment a “coup”[52].

The constitution of the three-person normalisation committee was announced on 27 March 2020[53]. This initially included a businessman who is one of three Chief Executive Officers of the HADCO Group, a retired Director and Partner at Moore Trinidad and Tobago (a former chairman of the JMMB Bank) and an Attorney and Environmental Law specialist[54].

The TTFA (through a medium named “United TTFA”) initially sought to challenge the decision through the CAS, however was not able to raise the funds to cover the advance of costs required and withdrew from the process.

On 19 May 2020, FIFA was notified that the TTFA had commenced proceedings against it in the Trinidad and Tobago High Court of Justice. In these proceedings, the TTFA claimed that FIFA’s Statutes cannot override the TTFA’s Constitution, the power of which is derived from an Act of the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and that no power exists that enables FIFA to remove the Board of the TTFA except as set out in the TTFA’s Constitution.

On 8 July 2020, FIFA released a statement that it “does not, and will never, accept the jurisdiction of a local court in Trinidad & Tobago to decide on the legality of the appointment of the Normalisation Committee”[55]. The statement went on to say that FIFA only recognises the authority and jurisdiction of the CAS in these matters, and that any dispute regarding the appointment of a normalisation committee “falls squarely” within the jurisdiction of the CAS, and CAS alone.

The High Court decided against FIFA in August 2020, and FIFA formally appealed the decision on the basis that the only recognise path to resolve this sort of dispute is with the CAS, in accordance with FIFA’s Statutes. FIFA also issued a press release stating “the insistence of the TTFA former leadership to bring this matter to a local court instead of the established dispute resolution forum at CAS greatly endangers the overall football structure in the country and endangers the position of Trinidad and Tobago football internationally”[56].

FIFA’s response has been swift and firm, indefinitely suspending the TTFA for “grave violations” of the FIFA Statutes (specifically article 59 which expressly prohibits recourse to ordinary course unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations). In its statement, FIFA made clear that “this suspension will only be lifted when the TTFA fully complies with its obligations as a member of FIFA, including recognising the legitimacy of the appointed normalisation committee and bringing its own statutes into line with the FIFA Statutes”[57].

On Friday 24 October 2020, the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision and decided in FIFA’s favour that only the Court of Arbitration for Sport had jurisdiction to hear the dispute[58]. In response to this decision, the TTFA held an extraordinary general meeting and voted overwhelmingly to comply with the normalisation committee – a decision the TTFA communicated to FIFA, and that FIFA is considering internally[59]. If the TTFA does not comply with the normalisation committee, it will be excluded from the Qatar 2022 World Cup qualifying campaign, as well as the Concacaf 2021 Gold Cup tournament. It remains to be seen what the final outcome of this dispute will be, but it seems likely that the risks of not participating in these tournaments may prove too much for the TTFA to bear. For a full case analysis of the TTFA’s High Court claim and Appeal Court decision, and the legal implications, see Dr Despina’s article[60].


Past Examples

Whilst normalisation committees can achieve FIFA’s desired outcome, there are notable examples which open the process up to criticism for being largely ineffective and for preserving the status quo rather than revitalising the situation.

The example of Guinea demonstrates how smoothly the normalisation committee process is supposed to run, with a relatively quick and positive outcome. Guinea had a normalisation committee imposed on it by FIFA in April 2016 following “internal wrangles” which brought all football competitions in the country to a halt[61]. The normalisation committee completed its task 11 months later, with the adoption of a new constitution and the election of a new president in March 2017[62].

The case of the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) is particularly dramatic. FIFA intervened in October 2016[63] following extensive governance issues including the Greek Sports Ministry’s cancellation of the Greek Cup final in 2016 as well as the postponement of the 2016-17 season due to a dispute between Greece’s football clubs, the HFF and the government over the selection of referees. FIFA established a normalisation committee in October 2016. Elections were held in August 2017, despite threats and an alleged arson attack. The new executive committee is still monitored by FIFA. The normalisation committee was criticised for its inclusion of some individuals who could be deemed to have a conflict of interest and links have also been drawn between those implicated in match-fixing cases and their potential influence over referee appointments. It has also been reported that as many as 75% of second tier games in Greece are showing signs of match-fixing[64].

The Argentine Football Association was largely leaderless until Luis Segura became president after a suspicious 38-38 vote by a 75 person Congress[65]. Segura was later charged by US authorities with fraudulent administration[66] and FIFA set up a normalisation committee in July 2016[67], which was plagued with issues including a players’ strike for non-payment and postponement of the Argentinian league[68]. Many have criticised the new executive committee. The new President is a former president of a Third Division football club and is joined on the board by the presidents of Boca Juniors and of Independiente[69]. People have, unsurprisingly, questioned the suitability of the new board members.


Comparisons with Other Sports

FIFA is not the only organisation in pursuit of good governance and it can be suggested that FIFA’s actions compliment the wider change of attitude towards governance issues in sport.

Other sports governing bodies have taken steps to intervene where serious issues over governance have been raised – see for example the unprecedented decision[70] in December 2017 by the IOC to withdraw funding from the Association of International Boxing Associations (AIBA). The IOC undertook a six-month investigation into the federation and later created the Olympic Boxing Task Force (BTF) in June 2019, with a view to keeping boxing on the sports programme for Tokyo 2020 but to suspend recognition of the AIBI due to concerns over finance, governance, ethics and refereeing and judging.

The IOC has placed other federations under similar scrutiny, such as the International Weightlifting Federation and the International Biathlon Union.


Legitimacy of Intervention

The protection of the integrity of the game is of utmost importance to FIFA[71] particularly at a time of significant scrutiny (and reform) of its own governance. FIFA’s own governance is still in the process of changing, but many have noted that the 2016 reforms did not go far enough - with standards falling far short of those expected of a UK listed company, for example[72]. Whilst normalisation committees often have the desired effect of bringing a member association’s governance in line with FIFA’s expectations, the difficulties lie in the determination of what good governance is in the context of a truly global sport.

Further, given the integrity issues historically faced by FIFA, questions could be raised regarding the organisation’s role as moral arbiter - perhaps an independent body would be more effective in decisions such as these.

The establishment of a global independent body as method of oversight of regulatory and governance affairs would be an admirable aim, however the hurdles of doing so are unlikely to be overcome any time soon. Any independent body would first face the challenge of obtaining sufficient funding to conduct such wide-ranging and extensive work. There would need to be agreement from FIFA’s 211 affiliated associations as to the mandate of the independent body and people of sufficient expertise would have to be appointed to carry out that mandate. How these independent people would be chosen and the integrity standard to which they would be held is another area of contention – including the question of whether they would be subject to the same integrity checks as currently imposed by FIFA. As we have seen, global governing bodies such as WADA are not immune to criticism, despite broadly being seen as the legitimate and authoritative body for matters within their scope of expertise.

To FIFA’s credit, its assertion of authority over the governance of its member associations cannot be questioned. FIFA has certainly not been afraid to flex its muscles in ensuring its authority is not undermined as has clearly been demonstrated in the case of the TTFA.

Could FIFA Go Further?
Whilst it does seem, at first glance, that a significant number of national associations have been subject to FIFA intervention in the form of normalisation committees, the number of national associations affected from the 211 affiliated associations is relatively low.

Questions have been raised in respect of the scope of FIFA’s powers in this regard. Arguably, FIFA could do more to take preventative action rather than simply reactive. This could be in the form of conducting audits over each national association’s governance structures every few years. This would have the benefit of tackling issues of corruption and mismanagement head-on, however the reality is that this would be unlikely to be proportionate. Whilst FIFA does in fact conduct audits of member associations in respect of development funds received through the FIFA Forward Development Programme[73] (with the reviews taking place between 1 July and 30 August of each year by independent auditors appointed by FIFA ), the audit of a member association’s broader governance and financial structures is a different prospect. FIFA, like many sports governing bodies, simply does not have the resource to undertake such an enormous task. FIFA comes under a great deal of criticism for its current levels of intervention, so it is highly doubtful that an increased level of scrutiny would be well-received by member associations unless they are able to see a direct, and most likely a financial, benefit.

Conclusion
These examples of intervention should serve as a stark warning of the significant consequences of corruption within football. FIFA is willing to step in to member associations when it considers its position is being undermined, with suspension of (and subsequent imposition of a normalisation committee on) the member association a very likely consequence.

FIFA provides global rules which must be universally applied. These rules were not designed for the purpose of a single situation, which creates challenging situations when applying specific rules to hundreds of countries around the world, each with different ideas of standards of governance. The regulations put in place by FIFA are binding and must be observed at all times by every member association. The compulsory nature of the FIFA regulations flows from the need for FIFA to be able to achieve its objectives as set out in the Statutes.

Although individuals will have varying opinions on FIFA itself, normalisation committees have been effective in a number of cases and continue to work as a method of implementation of good governance. Whilst the use of an independent body would be desirable, the status quo is working and FIFA remain the only organisation with sufficient authority to enforce such action. FIFA must however be alive to criticism in acknowledging its failures and be prepared to monitor member associations, scrutinise the appointments of committee members, and keep a watchful eye over the suitability of candidates for executive committee positions.

Chester Perry
Posts: 20147
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3297 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:23 pm

The parent company of Mediapro (of French Ligue TV deal notoriety) have publicly admitted to bribery in securing World Cup rights - from SportsBusiness

Mediapro parent Imagina acknowledges role of executives in World Cup rights case
SportBusiness Staff - November 19, 2020

Spanish sports media group Imagina, parent company of the Mediapro agency and production firm, has publicly acknowledged that former executives paid bribes to secure broadcast rights to Fifa World Cup qualifying competitions.

The move by Imagina follows a Non-Prosecution Agreement that it entered into with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) in July 2018 as part of the wide-ranging probe into corruption in world football and as a Florida-based unit of Imagina pleaded guilty to bribery charges.

In a statement, Imagina acknowledged that it was responsible, as a corporate entity, for the criminal conduct of its agents; and that the criminal conduct for which it was responsible involved the payment of bribes to secure the rights to World Cup qualifying matches in the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf) regions for the 2014, 2018, and 2022 World Cup cycles, in violation of US law.

Imagina has confirmed the criminal conduct involved three employees, two of whom pled guilty to paying numerous bribes, and the third, a former effective co-chief executive of Imagina, who agreed to the payment of a $1.5m (€1.27m) bribe to secure certain qualifier rights and authorised, directed, and facilitated the payment of $500,000 of that total amount.

Imagina stressed that all three have had their employments terminated and have not been involved in the management of the group or any of its subsidiaries since December 2015.

It added: “In this regard, and in light of certain accusations that have been made during the last several months, Imagina wants to clarify that none of the activities of Imagina’s other lines of business (i.e., production and content) were implicated in the DoJ’s investigation of the company, and also that Mediaproducción, SL, the company that operates, among other businesses, Imagina’s rights division in Spain and in other countries around the world was not itself charged with, convicted for, or used to facilitate the course of conduct described in the above-mentioned investigation.

“As was made clear at the time of the NPA, none of the activities of Imagina Group’s other global sports rights, production, or content business lines in any of the 30-plus countries in which it operates were implicated in the investigation, nor were the production or content units of its US operations.

“Since executing the NPA in July 2018, and beginning even before, Imagina has implemented a wide range of policies and procedures to ensure compliance with all laws and best practices in anti-corruption in all of the regions in which it conducts business, and has this past summer obtained the highest international anti-corruption certification (ISO 37001) for its primary companies in Spain, the United States, and Portugal.”

In July 2018, US Imagina was ordered to pay $24m after pleading guilty to bribing Latin American football officials. Erika Lucas, US Imagina’s general counsel, told the US District Court hearing that the company started to bribe officials from the Caribbean Football Union, as well as the national associations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, around 2008.

The bribes were paid to secure media and marketing rights for qualifying matches ahead of the 2014, 2018 and 2022 editions of the World Cup. US District Judge Pamela Chen ordered Imagina US to pay a fine of $12.9m, plus damages of about $6.7m. The company was also told to forfeit about $5.3m in criminal proceeds. The fine was to be paid by the division’s parent company.

At the time, Imagina said that as part of the agreement, no charges would be brought against Spain-based Imagina Media Audiovisual SL, adding that it “received credit for its continuing and substantial cooperation” with the government’s investigation.

Imagina issued a follow-up press release today (Thursday) stating that the release earlier in the week “contains no new allegations or admissions beyond those identified in the July 2018 NPA, all of which were made public at that time and were previously referred to in several public communications made by the Company”.

The follow-up statement continued: “This week’s press release was issued solely to clarify that the Company acknowledges the facts set forth in the 2018 NPA, in light of certain statements made by Company personnel that were inconsistent with the NPA. The DoJ has not alleged—and the Company has not acknowledged that the Company has engaged in any additional wrongful conduct.

“After an exhaustive investigation which concluded in 2018, the Company agreed to the facts set forth in the NPA and as part of the NPA also agreed to a financial resolution. To be clear, any allegation that the Company paid a fine to stop a further investigation is completely inaccurate.”

Earlier this month, Hernan Lopez and Carlos Martinez, two former executives at US-based media group 21st Century Fox, failed in their attempts to have a separate trial from sports marketing agency Full Play as part of the ongoing US government probe into corruption in world football.

Lopez and Martinez, along with Full Play, pleaded not guilty in April to criminal charges in New York as part of the long-running corruption investigation into matters relating to Fifa, world football’s governing body, and regional confederations.

Lopez and Martinez, who oversaw Fox’s Latin American sports business, had been charged with allegedly paying millions of dollars in bribes to help Fox Sports win the lucrative United States broadcast rights to the 2018 and 2022 Fifa World Cups.

Post Reply