I hope Javier Tebas spends
by tex29 (2022-06-15 12:59:51)

the rest of his life feeling like he has the husk of a popcorn kernel stuck in the back of his throat.


Sure. But it doesn’t make him wrong.
by NDMike2001  (2022-06-16 04:35:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There’s obvious hypocrisy when clubs such as Real Madrid continue to reap the benefits of the likes of Emirates and their influence in world soccer as their playground.

The backdrop of Qatar hosting the World Cup will give the world a glimpse into how those dollars influence the sport shows us just how much the game is subject to their control. There’s no doubt that the game we love is controlled by how much the oil rich nations and funds dominate the game. LIV is another glimpse into how we’re at the mercy of their control.

Newcastle will begin a sharp ascension into dominance of world soccer and supporters across the world will miss the parity that we see in the likes of the NFL.


He is wrong. And the hypocrisy doesn’t end there.
by tex29  (2022-06-16 13:21:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Spanish clubs have been propped up by the Spanish government in the past. And they are the worst offenders when it comes to overpaying and inflating the market for players. Regardless, none of the teams whining about City’s spending (which isn’t nearly as outlandish as other teams’ supporters and the media make it out to be) wants parity. Quite the opposite. They want to return to an era when the traditional big clubs could dominate their leagues without competition—thus ensuring the paydays that come with such dominance.

If you want parity, then I have some sympathy. But the solution is spending caps applicable to everyone. If you’re concerned about clubs folding due to debt, then the solution is rules limiting debt spending, and perhaps rules requiring escrows to cover the value of contracts.

FFP as it stands is a transparent attempt to stifle competition. And it’s bullshit.


Improper motive doesn’t make him wrong.
by NDMike2001  (2022-06-16 18:23:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Not regarding the underlying point…which is the manipulation of the sport (and market) for “sport washing” and the like. Obviously a country has an inherent reason to support its domestic league(s) and teams’ places in world soccer. And while hypocritical, his motivation is both obvious and arguably appropriate.

But Qatar isn’t investing in teams because the advertising is boosting air travel, and they obviously aren’t supporting their domestic leagues to bring revenue into their country. I suppose we can argue the degree of impact but if you can’t stipulate to their underlying motives then there’s no point in furthering the discussion.

And even if one were to disregard the ethical issues involved, there can be no dispute that there is an inherent danger in the influence of petrodollars in markets by entities that really have little to no vested interest in sustainability of the domestic leagues and teams themselves.


You’re moving the goalposts. Tebas isn’t whining out of
by tex29  (2022-06-16 19:25:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

concern about the moral dilemma posed by sportswashing. And FFP certainly wasn’t aimed at combatting sportswashing. If it were, there are again much more direct and effective ways to prevent that sort of thing without completely limiting the upward mobility of clubs outside the traditional powers. FFP is undeniably an attempt by the cartel of clubs controlling European football to prevent anyone from cutting into their share of the market—regardless of the source of the money driving that competition.

And the idea that Tebas, on behalf of Real Madrid, or Liverpool’s owners for that matter, is railing against those who don’t have an interest in promoting the sustainability of domestic leagues is laughable. These are the same clowns who orchestrated the European Super League, which would have absolutely decimated the domestic leagues.

If you want to impose moral purity as a qualification for ownership, I suppose that’s at least coherent and supportable in some manner. But be sure your favorite clubs’ owners would pass the test. And I suppose we should throw in sponsors as well. If we don’t want to take money from bad guys, that’s a pretty slippery slope.

In any event, you were voicing concerns about parity. And I pointed out that FFP has nothing to do with promoting parity. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It is designed to limit parity by allowing the same few elite clubs to have a perpetual competitive advantage over their peers.


I guess I didn’t realize you needed reminding.
by NDMike2001  (2022-06-16 21:48:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I assume everyone understands and appreciates the moral dilemma of taking oil money. My entire responsive post was premised on that. I spelled it out the second time because you seemed to have ignored it.

The other point is that the petromoney comes from people that use the sport for ulterior motives that have nothing to do with the people in the countries in which they invest.

I’ve never heard anyone claim Tebas was behind the Super League. That seems the laughable comment. If you have support for that I’ll stand corrected.

I did make a comment about parity. But the entirety of my post was about oil money manipulating world soccer.


Perhaps you can explain that moral dilemma
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-17 12:54:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Of taking oil money, as opposed to money from US, UK, Malaysian, Chinese, or Thai billionaires?

It didn't seem to be an issue until Man City started winning consistently since many top teams had and have Middle Eastern airlines as primary sponsors, not to mention other dubious associations including Visit Rwanda, Chinese and Far Eastern gambling concerns, and serially convicted money launderers like Standard Chartered.

As to the nonsense "sportswashing" smear, how much of that gets allocated to City's 24% of Chinese and American ownership? It seems a particular and new concern among City's rivals.


Kinda agree, but Qatar > the Walton family
by Irish2003  (2022-06-17 18:12:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I think it's few, if any (maybe Bundesliga with their ownership laws, although the RedBull, I mean Lawn-ball-sport fella cracked me up with his audacity) teams that have likable owners and are rather either some petrostate, hedge funder, or connected businessman, but there is also a difference between Qatar & Abu Dhabi having essentially unlimited funds and having a global pissing match for bragging rights, Emirates sponsoring Madrid (and as a dues-paying socio, I'll admit we have built-in advantages vs most teams), and "regular" billionaires like Enos Kroenke (who has spent a fortune on the Rams & reaped rewards) or John Henry (ditto with the Sox), let alone the guys who are rich by our standards but peasants to the above. Bayern has been throttling the Bundesliga, and I'd think they would want some sort of FFP precisely so Man City and QSG can't spend gobs of money.


If FFP were designed to level the playing field and
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-20 11:21:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

allow for some level of capital investment, I would understand and could support such a system. If it regulated debt, which was one of the original focuses, all the better.

The FFP passed as a bulwark against City and future investment was designed instead to lock the structural advantages of traditional powers through cash flow spending and prevent significant investment or initial capital infusions for anti-competitive reasons.

The truth is City now don't need outside investment and haven't for years.
Their consistency in making Champions League (11 years on the trot), having the good fortune of sharing in the Premier League TV contracts, and regular league successes put them will keep them in the top 3-5 in global revenue for the foreseeable future, so long as they can maintain on field performance, which is fortunate for their fans, as they are exceptionally well-run.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, BTW.


Thank you, likewise, and wish I had a better solution!
by Irish2003  (2022-06-25 16:52:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

On paper, I should greatly dislike City as a petroclub and with Pep, but actually respect how they've built a real club rather than just grab-bagging like my own Galacticos (the recent restraint has been a pleasant surprise) and more recently Qatar's binge, and guys like Kompany, Silva, KDB are also very likable. Your our last paragraph is dead-on too, where they may have needed the capital initially, but they're now a well-run machine (Ferran IMO is whom PSG lacked) that has a structure and revenue in place to consistently win. Barca's financial collapse has been sad to watch, and while I don't know what the exact solution is, I think something like your point on debt + the Bundesliga model may be more sustainable for the game as a whole, even if big money is here to stay


That revenue certainly won't come from ticket sales *
by siegfried08  (2022-06-21 12:00:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


City are 6th in the Premier League in home attendance.
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-21 14:19:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

288 per game behind Liverpool.


I believe they are in the bottom half of capacity %
by siegfried08  (2022-06-21 14:26:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Just some ribbing, ticket sales are a drop in the bucket compared to TV and sponsorship money.

And to the larger point, two responses. First, I don't think it's fair to equate shirt sponsors to actual ownership of the club -- those are clearly two different things. But regardless, I don't think City's ownership is nearly as problematic as PSG or Newcastle. The latter two are pretty clearly sportswashing endeavors owned by regimes that cast aside human rights like tissue paper. The UAE/Sheikh Mansour seem to be just splashing cash on a vanity project. Arguably bad for competitive balance, but if the money is being spent within the rules, I don't have an issue with it.


All good
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-21 18:23:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I mostly was responding to Mike's comment that no one can should oil money by noting how pervasive those and similar socially challenged industries are throughout football, through ownership and for far longer through sponsorships that were never seen as particularly problematic.

I like to think the City Group is more than a vanity project and that the team acquisitions (most recently adding Uruguay, Brazil and Italy (the latter two not yet closed) is a pretty innovative and well run model, but recognize I'm disposed to that conclusion.


Exactly. If you want to limit City’s spending, along with
by tex29  (2022-06-20 20:15:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

everyone else’s, so that no club can get a competitive advantage by outspending opponents, I can support that. Even if it’s bad for my favorite club. There is something to be said for promoting parity and allowing supporters of all clubs to feel like they have a chance to win if their organizations are run well enough.

But Tebas and the rest of the old elite who are complaining about City’s supposedly outlandish spending—besides being complete hypocrites—aren’t interested in having a level playing field. They want to have the deck stacked in their favor. It’s a sham, and it isn’t justified by concerns about sports washing.

And if we are going to start canceling football owners because we don’t approve of their off-field relationships, that’s fine—they just did it to Chelsea. But you should be consistent in that endeavor as well. So no sponsorships or investments originating from countries with dubious human rights records. And why limit it to human rights? What about unethical business practices? I find it interesting that the moral lines in the sand everyone seems willing to draw end right about at the point where it would start adversely affecting the other big clubs.


Tee hee.
by NDMike2001  (2022-06-17 13:54:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I guess Phil Mickelson must be a City supporter who is just taking flack from rivals.

And those voicing concern about Qatar and the World Cup are also just whining about City.

I have no interest in debating a subject with folks that refuse to acknowledge a pretty well known issue.


That's about what I expected. *
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-17 15:31:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Nonsense.
by tex29  (2022-06-16 22:05:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Tebas was whining on behalf of Real Madrid, because they missed out on Haaland. And he said he felt in his gut that City must have breached FFP, and PSG too, because how else could Real Madrid miss out on Mbappe and Haaland?

To suggest he’s whining because Arab owners aren’t committed to the sustainability of domestic leagues is just stupid. Especially given that he’s whining on behalf of clubs that are committed to destroying domestic leagues through the Super League.


OK never mind.
by NDMike2001  (2022-06-17 00:39:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I’m not going to keep explaining.


Nobody does entitlement quite like the Spanish clubs *
by dwjm3  (2022-06-15 15:20:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


He's certainly a piece of
by CuzTeahan  (2022-06-15 13:15:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

work and sore loser.

And hypocritical given Real Madrid's and Barcelona's histories of record breaking transfer fees and salaries, including RM's purchases of Hazard for 100M and Mbappe bid of 150M+ euro each with a year left on contract and Barcelona's 140M acquisition of Coutinho and record overbids and salaries across for years.

RM excepted, La Liga is at risk of a dark age so he can kick rocks.


He’s like the football equivalent of Pierce Morgan,
by tex29  (2022-06-15 15:37:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

only dumber and with less shame.