Franchise FC?

News this weekend that Manchester United were to be the latest club subjected to a takeover bid came as little surprise. The recent history of the club suggested that it was ripe for new ownership. Since the fateful August day in the 1980s when Michael Knighton juggled the ball and left it nestling in the goal at the Stretford End, United has paved the way through plc status, Murdoch mania and now Glazer Hell. Of course, Knighton and Murdoch failed to in their bids to become outright owners of the club but a £1bn offer would surely be too much for the current owners to reject.

It comes atop of the farcical ownership of Portsmouth and Notts County, with the owners of Liverpool and West Ham United keen to divest themselves of their football interests. This is without delving into the equally turbulent waters that have surrounded Newcastle and Manchester City in recent seasons.

Even those clubs who are held as bastions of stability are not entirely immune from such machinations. All the while Stan Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov play out their expensive game of bluff, Arsenal cannot be certain that the plurality of ownership model which has stood the club in good stead for decades will survive.

It is little surprise therefore that ownership of the clubs changes frequently, investments made require a return and few if any of the clubs make sufficient profits for dividends to be paid. Directors remuneration, management fees or any description you wish to apply to the moneys withdrawn by owners can be substantial but borrowing heavily to buy a club does not signal a long-term investment, especially if the rate of interest to be paid is charged at a high rate. Quite literally, if there is a quick buck to be made turning over ownership, it will be made.

Problematically for football, few clubs now retain the community foundations upon which they were built. Of the top flight clubs, Lancashire provides perhaps the two strongest examples in Burnley and Blackburn. Others, such as Wolves, Bolton and Hull may argue to the contrary but even their ownership is tenuously linked to the towns or cities in which they are located.

The question is whether this entirely matters any more? Populations are more mobile than those of a century ago, further education and labour demands are more likely to relocate supporters of those team around the globe in the age in which we live.

Which begs the question as to what a club is believed to be. Times change; their function in society has changed as well. From being an outlet for the working classes, most Premier League clubs target wealthier individuals, wanting to attract them and their offspring, tapping into disposable incomes. Does their locality matter anymore?

If you consider that licences are becoming the vogue in regulation of clubs and the other financial strictures placed on those lower down the leagues, should clubs be considered individual entities any longer or are they simply franchises being operated on behalf of the authorities, being introduced via the back door? Constant espousals from the top of the game regarding consistent losses incurred being unsustainable or levelling the playing field, suggest that this the way that football is heading.

English clubs are by no means the biggest single offenders in the eyes of the football’s authorities when it comes to accumulating debt. They are those most culpable when it comes to single ownership, Real Madrid for example, are owned by the members even though the current reign of Florentino Perez has borrowed money to finance success at a level that would make most Premier League clubs blanche. Little, if any, criticism is directed to the Spanish capital which suggests he is either politically more astute than his peers or the model upon which he bases his footballing philosophy is currently more acceptable. The truth is somewhere between the two.

If franchises are formally adopted, football’s face changes irrevocably. Perhaps this is the bridge which authorities are too timid to cross, too frightened to take their beliefs to the natural conclusion for essentially all bureaucrats are politicians without conviction.

Uefa and governing bodies would certainly prefer this situation since it would give them total control of the game, arguments about club v country reduce to nothing since it becomes part of the franchise agreement. The question is whether they should take the final steps and would there be any noticeable difference to the current situation?

Fifa Broadcast Warning To England’s 2018 Bid

The World Cup draw in South Africa for next year’s finals allowed the English media to don its’ bombast hat and trumpet out loud about how easy the draw was, how progress could be made and the trophy won. Such jingoism is not unusual to read for those who inhabit these shores yet it also worked in Fifa’s favour.

Currently, the British government is reviewing those sporting events which should be listed to prevent pay-tv from purloining the nation’s broadcasting Crown Jewels. The Murdoch empire may screen these events but they cannot be the sole provider, terrestrial television must be allowed to carry them live. It is a fine principle, preventing the public from being cast into the televisual dark ages for the premier events.

Such policies though threaten to sabotage England’s 2018 World Cup, inflicting more damage than the bellicose pomposity of Jack Warner ever could. The World Cup final and home nations matches in the finals are listed. Under discussion is whether or not the whole of the tournament should follow suit.

Jerome Valcke, Fifa’s General Secretary, gave an unequivocal answer last week to the House of Commons committee reviewing the issue:

If the World Cup remained listed in its entirety by the time bids were received, England would not be selected unless, and until, Fifa had had discussions with the BBC and ITV and had struck a pre-contract agreement which gave Fifa full value for its broadcasting rights

It has long been known that broadcasters are the pipers who call football’s tune. The English Premier League came into existence as a result of the Machivellian manoeuverings of the televisions companies, promising to bring the game into a land of untold riches without quite explaining to the club chairmen how much of their souls they would have to sell. Too much as it turned out but by then events were too far progressed to prevent such an outcome.

Fifa does have a duty of care to maximise its revenues in order to re-invest into the game. However, it also has a duty to expose football to the widest audience, something which pay-tv will never be able to achieve. The two are not mutually exclusive; indeed a balance must be struck. Morally, the pendulum should swing in the favour of the masses. Realistically, money talks louder to football’s politicians.

Bostock Valuation Shows The Way Forward

European clubs confirmed their opposition to Sepp Blatter’s Quota Plans earlier this month, a hardly surprising result since had they supported them, it would have been the footballing equivalent of Turkey’s voting for Christmas. Does this mean that the ideas are without merit or is it simply a case of the vested interests of the club overriding their concern for the game as a whole?

Without doubt it is the former yet despite the derision of the media, fed by the clubs, there is some point to the idea behind quotas, albeit the methodology of achieving those aims is awry. Blatter’s intention is to create a strong international game; arguably, he already has it. However, there are exceptions to this rule and one of them in particular, England, is also the richest league in the world.

To have the English fail to qualify for Euro2008 was neither good for the game as a whole nor was it bad. One nation’s travesty is a benefit for another; Russia served notice that under Guus Hiddink’s leadership that they are not to be taken lightly, providing a delightful aspect to the competition. That they were eventually undone by the uncrowned Champions is no shame. They had recovered from a thrashing in their first match to reach the semi-finals, dismantling one of the tournament favourites en route.

That the English failure to qualify forced the Football Association to bring into existence a National Training Centre, situated in Burton-on-Trent, is further benefit to the game as a whole. It is shameful that they had not done so sooner. Any initiative that brings a standardisation to coaching for the elite of the game of any age should be applauded.

However, the idea of quotas is an anathema to any European governement which is a member of the European Union. To the bureaucrats of Brussels, everything is about levelling playing fields without barriers to its citizens. The only way for football to address the imbalance at a national level is to ensure that there is sufficient technical quality amongst natives.

One example of this is John Bostock. Aged sixteen, Crystal Palace valued him at £5m. It is ludicrous to believe that his true worth was anywhere near that yet Simon Jordan, The Eagles owner, used emotive language in describing the players valuation at £1.25m by a tribunal. Jordan has a vested interest, a desire to do the best for his club yet he epitomises all that is wrong in the transfer system. Had the deal not been struck by the tribunal, another player would have been lost to the lower divisions through the excesses of money that are believed to permeate the upper echelons of the English game.

There is merit in the argument that Bostock would have been better served by playing regularly for Palace but that is based on the assumption that he will be dumped into Spurs reserves. Perhaps he will be used in the same manner that Theo Walcott is at Arsenal, benefitting from a mix of substitute and starting appearances at Arsenal.

Whatever the case, transfer fees have to be regulated; this is the biggest cause of consternation at larger clubs. Some sense needs to come into the system otherwise indigenous talent is lost through greed. Yet protection of the lower league clubs is also needed, a balance must be struck. Simon Jordan observed that there is little incentive for clubs such as his own to nurture talent if they are not going to be suitably rewarded. As a businessman, he will recognise the paucity of his argument. If football clubs only survive because of transfer fees, something fundamental is wrong with their financial model.

Seeking talent is to be eulogised yet seeking reward as their only solace through this opportunity is folly. Finding a talented youngster is the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; many average players must pass through the doors for the ‘chosen ones’ to be found. If a club’s future is dependent upon this result, something is rotten in the state of Denmark and owners must look to their own weaknesses for a longer term solution.

Blatter’s Quotas Still In The Air

Sepp Blatter has given an interview in The Times regarding his pet subject of the moment, quotas. Despite meeting a brick wall in the face of the European Union, Blatter is ploughing ahead with the project. There is little doubt that he sees this as an ideal solution to protect the status of international football, an aspect of the game that is becoming marginalised by the continued commercial success of the UEFA Champions League and the wealth of the upper echelons of club football.

Specifically in the interview, Blatter focuses on English football which is hardly surprising given the newspaper involved. He says,

Club football at the beginning had a local identity, later a regional and now some of the leagues – I am speaking here about the big clubs of the Premier League – there is no more national identity

It seems to be the contradiction that FIFA has not come to terms with fully. The governing body of football globally is does not grasp the international appeal of the Premier League. Blatter is right to a degree though. The international flavour of the players on show each week ensures that the broadcasting rights dwarf revenues that FIFA can generate from its quadrennial World Cup tournament. The fear that the clubs are taking over the game is not misplaced yet FIFA has enabled this through transfer regulations that make purchasing players from different continents only subject to national and pan-continental laws.

Blatter’s desire to see strong international football co-existing with its club partner is a laudable one yet the two have been on a collision course for decades. Satellite broadcasters transmitting matches around the world learned their trade at successive World Cups. The nature of that tournament is its strength; a tournament every four years gives it a prestige that it deserves. The more junior continental competitions are slowly catching up but will never have the global appeal of the elder sibling.

However, the timescales have meant that international friendlies take place with more frequency and are irrelevant to the modern game. Permitting African, Asian and American countries to play matches in Europe ensures that the clubs hold the whip hand. FIFA has to accept some of the blame for pandering to the clubs needs to have their best players available the weekend after a designated international fixture. Players return injured or later in the season become tired due to the number of fixtures in which they participate.

Blatter wants to limit the number of games players are involved in yet shows no inclination to reduce the international calendar. His demands are incompatible with FIFA’s aims. The principle of the quotas, that half of a team must be eligible for the national team of the country in which their club is based is theoretically sound for improving the standard of those countries. Yet it is also fundamentally flawed. The talent in each country is there already but so his theory goes, it is suppressed by foreign players taking their places.

Blatter claimed in the interview,

If you go to the Premier League – which is a wonderful competition – something is wrong if only four or five teams are fighting for the title and all the others are happy not to be relegated because something is wrong in the essence of football

The ‘six plus five’ rule is designed to make domestic football more competitive. The reality is that it will emphasise the gap between the top four and the rest. Consider the scenario that Blatter alludes to. If the top four have to ensure that they have six native players, their squads are likely to include double that number. This means that they will require forty-eight players between them who are eligible for England. The international squad requires twenty-four players, meaning the likely outcome is that the entire squad will come from four clubs because they have the financial muscle to buy the best English players either at a young age or from other clubs.

Even allowing for the odd one or two who may play for Spurs or Aston Villa or their ilk, Blatter’s aims will be diluted. Add into the scenario that the top four will continue to purchase the cream of the international crop, the situation becomes more polarised and the top four more impregnable.

The only way that the naturalisation rule can achieve the outcome of a more competitive league is if football becomes more altruistic, more communist in its wealth distribution. The clubs who compete in the Champions League would have to share their revenues amongst the rest of the game to facilitate more competition. Private ownership of clubs dictates that this will never happen, killing off investment in one fell swoop were it ever to do so. Failing that, the implementation of a draft system akin to that operated by the NFL would have to take place. The weak get the strongest choices upon which to build a base. Except that the smaller clubs would opt out of this to a certain extent by choosing to transfer their draft choices to the highest bigger in order to survive financially.

The more that Blatter tries to regulate football, the more danger he poses to FIFA’s authority. Even in the egalitarian example above, there are further challenges to overcome such as the Bosman ruling or Article 17. Whichever way FIFA’s President turns, he is hamstrung by the law. Yet ever the optimist or blinkered autocrat depending on your view, Blatter believes the legal challenges are there to be negotiated away,

The law is one thing but it can be adapted, amended, if there is general consensus

Problematically for Blatter, general consensus between the clubs and national associations has been in short supply over the last decade. Despite the subsuming of the G14 into UEFA, consensus on this issue is far away and likely to cost FIFA dear.

Quota’s Likely To Find Support In England

The plans for Sepp Blatter to impose a quota system on football have long been derided. Indeed, there was some cause for opponents of such a scheme to celebrate when an EU spokesman stopped long enough to wipe the gravy from his mouth to espouse that any system that prevented the free movement of labour was contrary to the principles of a common market and against European law.

Which means absolutely nothing whatsoever in the great scheme of things. European football politics and those at a governmental level are built of a tradition of horse-trading. On this subject, there is much to be done. The first point of contact for Blatter as far as English football is concerned will be his meetings with Richard Scudamore and Lord Trieseman. Having being voluble in their opposition to such plans, both men have much to gain by turning into Blatter’s most vociferous supporters.

The Premier League clubs may not have been surprised by the opposition to their ludicrous proposal for a thirty-ninth game. Blatter treated the idea as if it were worse than stepping in a pile of dogs you-know-what when the plans accidentally on purpose became public knowledge. Yet the league which has much to lose by capping the number of foreign players has more to gain financially through acceptance of their idea to play matches on foreign soil. Similarly, the Football Association want his blessing for their 2018 World Cup bid; what better way to achieve that aim by becoming an ardent supporter of a quota system?

Whilst the quota system is designed to protect national sides, it is a questionable methodology to apply to achieving that aim. Simply increasing the number players indigenous to these shores does not guarantee a successful England team. Indeed allowing sub-standard players to rise to the top could be a short term folly – even a long term one. The logic applied by the Governing Body appears to be that quality will show through in greater numbers if they have more spaces to fill in each team on the pitch. It is illogical to assume that this holds true for there is no evidence of such a convergence taking place. Simply increasing vacancies means that more ‘average-ness’ surfaces, certainly in the short term.

The clubs are trying to develop more local talent; they make no bones about this. However, if it is not there in the indigenous population, it is not there; it cannot be developed out of nothing or magically appear from thin air. On this aspect, Blatter cares not one jot. He wants to protect the national games. Yet he misjudges the detrimental effect that his plans will have worldwide.

There is no condescension intended in the following but the national teams of Africa have benefited from their players plying their trades in the French, Spanish, Italian and English leagues. It has opened up these individuals to a world of improved technique and different tactical ideas, benefiting the national sides. Those players possessed ability and technique in abundance beforehand; pastures new improve any player of any standing or nationality, foreign lands ensure education on a personal and professional level.

Yet Blatter seeks to shut doors to a large number of these individuals. If a club has to field a minimum of six ‘indigenous’ players, the opportunities for players to move abroad diminishes. In turn, the national teams reach a plateau far quicker than they might otherwise have done through lack of exposure to higher professional levels. It seems that Blatter has not made this element of his plans as vocally as the ‘protecting your interests’ angle.

Simply put, the big clubs will benefit from this plan more than the average. They will become more ‘choosy’ about individuals whom they train in their Academy; the best will be enticed to the top clubs, the average will find their choice of clubs wider but to whose benefit? And what of UEFA’s quaint classification for youngsters poached from abroad? Presumably this ruling will still be allowed by Blatter – he has yet to put the detail behind his sweeping plans – and it begs the question, exactly what changes? Perhaps a shift towards more dominance by the financially strong leagues? Already there, Sepp old bean. Indeed, with the lax nationality rules applied by European nations, there is a strong suspicion that Blatter could make the situation worse.

It is an ill-conceived plan, where the vested interests of a ruling body are acting against the interests of the game as a whole.

Blattering Ram

Sepp Blatter has made a reputation for himself that very few football supporters actually envy. With every passing year, a man who is politically astute in the world of football shows himself to be more and more incompetent and delusional as far as the real world is concerned. And of equal importance, confirms that he is out of touch with football’s audience.

Last week in a teleconference with journalists, Blatter signalled that he was ready to take on the European Union and the lawmakers to get his own version of protectionism into football, directly contradicting European Law. The plan to limit the number of foreign players in any one Club’s starting XI is being widely and rightly derided. Whilst the ideal is to some degree a reasonable idea, promoting the cause of native players, to try to bring this into effect by 2010 is unworkable, the quality of the product on offer will invariably suffer. In doing so, Blatter has proven that he is also missing a fundamental opportunity to put in place a long term solution to the problem as he sees it.

English football has a high percentage of foreign nationals plying their trade, the number increasing year on year. A number of these players have without doubt enhanced the Premiership in its various guises. There are however an equal number or perhaps higher proportion who are no better than their English counterparts. The reason for this is that at the peak, managers such as Wenger, Ferguson and Benitez demand higher technical standards which few, if any, English players can meet. The style of passing that they desire from their charges makes it impractical to for them to continually sign English players.

There are solutions to benefit the long term game in England that can be implemented over a longer time frame with more sustainable results that do not cause any drop in standard of the weekly fare and can only be of benefit to the National team. Instead of concentrating on the first team, Blatter would be better advised to direct his attention to the set-up supporting it. UEFA insists that each Champions League squad fulfills a quota of youth players coming through the Academies of that Club and their country. FIFA need to get the EU onside to a harsher regime, namely that the players have to qualify for that countries national team and apply it to the domestic games.

One of the key reasons for looking abroad is cost and value for money. It has long been a truism of English football – and that elsewhere for that matter – that domestic talent is more expensive and represents a larger investment for less immediate returns. The current system of transfers has undergone a huge change in the past twenty years with the advent of the Bosman Ruling and tinkering around the edges to deal with valuations of players through the use of formulae when considering the eventual transfer price at the end of a contract. It needs to be taken one step further and to implement a mechansim that can be used to determine all transfer fees, irrespective of contract position. It would encourage the larger clubs to look inwards rather than to the various continents of the World, providing a regulatory framework to reflect the investment made by the selling club. To compensate those clubs, funding needs to come from without. There is a limited amount of funding that can be sought externally but the Football Association should be lobbying the Government to get more tax breaks specifically relating to their Academies. If they were allowed relief from this expenditure, the incentive is there for them to reinvest profits on the sale of those players, creating ‘production lines’ for the players. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for this to happen; HM Revenue & Customs have given such incentives to the Film Industry in the UK, the football authorities need to get out of their chairs and press for more help to develop national talent.

Coaching is often criticised as being a root problem. It is however not the individuals at fault, more the belief system behind it. That the FA have still not completed the National Centre for Excellence in Burton beggars belief. That they have still to decide the format shows their complete inability to look beyond the ends of their noses. English Football requires such a centre if there is to a long term future for youth football; it ought to be a place not just for the players; coaches should be encouraged to adopt a more ‘European’ outlook in the theory of the sport, improving technique above effort.

The key thing with younger players is to remove geographic restrictions that currently prevent clubs looking outside of an approximate fifty mile radius which is imposed through the time constraints applied to training young players. If Arsenal, for example, cannot recruit a player from the North East, it is little wonder that they look abroad for youth players. The regulations were set up to protect smaller clubs from the larger clubs taking the cream of the crop of young talent but why should this be the case? Simply being a large club does not automatically mean that they have the best coaches but they will be amongst the best and the facilities will be of an equally high standard. There are more than enough players around to ensure that the smaller clubs survive; if more talent can get into bigger clubs, the opportunities for those who are good enough increase at their more natural level.

FIFA’s President wants the game to thrive at a National level. He needs to take a longer term view to ensure that it does. Picking fights with the elite clubs is not the route that will produce that result; all it does is make it more likely that those clubs will move outside of FIFA’s control.