Football (Soccer) Thread

[Grey Fox]

Another example of a bad owner of this kind is Sheikh Abdullah al Thani, a minor member of the Qatari royal house who in 2010 bought Málaga and pumped it up to the point that it was starting to appear as a serious contender for the top spots in Spain. After a couple of years Málaga managed to reach the QF of the Champions League, but setbacks in the sports side (they got banned from European competitions by UEFA due to financial irregularities) and the Sheikh's own business side (several side projects that he had around Málaga failed around the same time) made him basically discard the football club as a broken toy, and he basically put up a figurehead to run the club and forgot about it in a rather negligent way (several times the players went unpaid because the figurehead president had to chase the Sheikh around in order to get him to sign off on the salary expenses), to the point that courts had to formally remove him from the running of the club, and it now languishes in the 2nd division.

Wait, why is being in 2nd division bad? Isn't this the exact thing you guys like so much?!

[Duque de Bragança]

50 shades of plutocrat territory.

Even russian oligarchs may vary from year to year such as for Monaco with Rybolovlev owning 2/3 of the club with the rest owned by the tax-haven ruling family of Monaco.

Didn't he buy the team and talked about making Monaco an European powerhouse only to basically quit on the team after a couple of years?

Yep, he actually made a profit, despite the hilarious firing and re-firing of Leonardo Jardim.
So very far from the soft power/influence goals of Qatar or Abu Dhabi.

Another example of a bad owner of this kind is Sheikh Abdullah al Thani, a minor member of the Qatari royal house who in 2010 bought Málaga and pumped it up to the point that it was starting to appear as a serious contender for the top spots in Spain. After a couple of years Málaga managed to reach the QF of the Champions League, but setbacks in the sports side (they got banned from European competitions by UEFA due to financial irregularities) and the Sheikh's own business side (several side projects that he had around Málaga failed around the same time) made him basically discard the football club as a broken toy, and he basically put up a figurehead to run the club and forgot about it in a rather negligent way (several times the players went unpaid because the figurehead president had to chase the Sheikh around in order to get him to sign off on the salary expenses), to the point that courts had to formally remove him from the running of the club, and it now languishes in the 2nd division.

Quite the contrast to QSI.

[The Larch]

Another example of a bad owner of this kind is Sheikh Abdullah al Thani, a minor member of the Qatari royal house who in 2010 bought Málaga and pumped it up to the point that it was starting to appear as a serious contender for the top spots in Spain. After a couple of years Málaga managed to reach the QF of the Champions League, but setbacks in the sports side (they got banned from European competitions by UEFA due to financial irregularities) and the Sheikh's own business side (several side projects that he had around Málaga failed around the same time) made him basically discard the football club as a broken toy, and he basically put up a figurehead to run the club and forgot about it in a rather negligent way (several times the players went unpaid because the figurehead president had to chase the Sheikh around in order to get him to sign off on the salary expenses), to the point that courts had to formally remove him from the running of the club, and it now languishes in the 2nd division.

Wait, why is being in 2nd division bad? Isn't this the exact thing you guys like so much?!

Not sure if serious...

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on UK government anger about this - City were always the most reluctant - but apparently a very trusted Johnson aide (previously worked for him in City Hall) who is now the UK special envoy to the Gulf informed government figures in the UAE that the Super League would hurt relations between the Emirates (because of Abu Dhabi) and the UK

Also reports now that Ed Woodward resigned from his Man United role because he disagreed with the Super League plans/thought they were a bad idea but the owners, especially Joel Glazer, were really pushing for them.

[Tamas]

Open question.

From the perspective of "legacy fans" ( ) who is worse (or best): the American owner-investors, the Russian oligarchs, or the oil states/sheikhs?

Americans.

Oil states are in it for reputational laundering purposes so they tend to be quite committed to their "project". They tend to build flashy infrastructure. They normally keep things like ticket prices affordable and in the case of City they still have loads of heavily discounted tickets/increased availability for young fans and for people who were fans when City were not in the Premier League. And, again, from just looking at City they have poured money into some of the poorer areas of Manchester and really helped renovate the areas. There are a huge number of moral issues with it and I think there are moral lines that each fan probably has so they might be okay with Abu Dhabi or Dubai but draw the line at the Saudi Crown Prince. But from a purely fan based perspective I think they're probably the best.

With Duque's qualifier about Russian oligarchs actually having the funds, then I think they will spend a lot of money on the club. They will build it up and again normally make improvements to the infrastructure. But there is a risk they will get bored/not allowed to enter the country and the money taps turn off.

The Americans fundamentally want to run it as a business. So - in English sport experience - they tend to buy the clubs in a leveraged buy-out so load them up with huge amounts of debt. They want to make money so they will try and increase ticket prices. They have form for not running clubs well - I think FSG are good at the football/sports side of that, but I don't think the Glazers, Kroenke, Lerner, Khan, Short or Hicks and Gillett experience has been great from a football/sports side of running a club. And I think they understand relegation in theory but don't get it in practice - that's something I've read about Lerner and Short that they both thought there would be some way of somehow getting out of it. But because they ran the club badly on the sports side - especially overpaying for players - they got relegated and in enormous financial trouble and their asset lost a huge amount of its value - so I think Randy Lerner got Aston Villa for £65 million in 2006, ten years later after relegation and a firesale of over-paid players he sold it for £75 million. We're still waiting for the end game with FSG, Glazers, Kroenke etc - but I can't think of many American ownership groups that have left their club in a better place than when they took over.

And obviously the most dodgy/one to avoid is Chinese ownership at the minute - because of a combination of capital controls meaning they sometimes literally don't pay the bills and other times do some very dodgy accounting/company law tricks. So Wigan had this last season and I still don't fully understand what happened. They were 13th in the Championship. The club owner was a Hong Kong holding company. They then sold their entire shares to another Hong Kong holding company who put the club into administration. This meant that even though they had been 8 points clear of relegation because they were now insolvent they got a 12 point deduction and were relegated - I think they've now been bought by Bahraini business group. But the whole administration is really bizarre and it was not an insolvent club, they were put into voluntary administration and apparently the owner of the buying Hong Kong fund had been asking about the administration process in England before buying the club - so I can only assume there was some strange accounting ticks going on in the background.

This is all true but also a matter of perspective.

Because the third-worlder owners (well, not the Russian one(s) as they are small potatoes nowadays) pour insane money into the European system, causing runaway inflation other clubs literally go bankrupt trying to keep up with. This is in part due to how the European system is different from the American sports.

In this sense, the Americans are the reasonable long-term actors and the third-worlders the locust swarm.

[Tamas]

https://www.economist.com/business/2021/04/22/europes-super-league-scores-a-spectacular-own-goal

They promised to "deliver excitement and drama never before seen in football", and for a few short days they succeeded—just not in the way they had hoped. On April 18th a dozen of Europe's top football clubs announced plans to disrupt the game with a breakaway "Super League". Investors cheered. But fans revolted, broadcasters turned up their noses and governments vowed to block the plan. Within 48 hours half of its founding members dropped out. It was soon declared dead.

What began as a daring bid to seize control of elite football now looks like a damaging own goal. The Super League promised its members financial security and sporting prestige. Instead the "dirty dozen" rebels have been forced to grovel to supporters and in some cases jettison their bosses. Their bargaining power over rival teams and league organisers has been weakened. They may face tighter regulation by governments responding to furious fans.


The plan was for 20 clubs to compete in a Europe-wide league, kicking off in August. Fifteen "founding" clubs would be guaranteed a spot every year, with the remaining five places awarded competitively. The 12 clubs that broke cover comprised England's "Big Six" (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham), plus three from Spain (Barcelona, Atlético Madrid and Real Madrid) and three from Italy (ac Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus, whose part-owner, Exor, also owns a stake in The Economist's parent company). JPMorgan Chase was to stump up €3.3bn ($4bn) of financing to get the league off the ground. An equivalent women's competition was planned.

The venture's stated aim was to give the world's best clubs more chances to play each other than Europe's main existing club competition, the Champions League. Barcelona and Bayern Munich have faced each other fewer than a dozen times in their history. Big clashes would bring in more viewers and more money: the Super League's organisers had hoped that broadcasting rights might generate €4bn a year, nearly double the €2.4bn brought in by the Champions League in the 2018-19 season.


Automatic qualification looked even more appealing. Unlike American teams, European sides play in open leagues, where poor performers get demoted to a lower tier, with stingier broadcasting and sponsorship deals. Club owners thus gamble on making it to the top, investing generously at the expense of profits. In closed contests like America's National Football League (no relation to what Americans insist on calling soccer), clubs face no risk of relegation and so co-operate more. "Draft" systems allocate talent more equally and wages are often capped—something that the Super League hinted it might do, via an agreed "spending framework". Clubs in closed leagues must worry only about economic competition from rival leagues, which require more upfront investment to start than an individual club.

The combination of less risk and less competition for talent produces higher profits for owners. Forty-three of the world's 50 most valuable sports teams are American, according to a ranking last year by Forbes magazine. By contrast, European sport is a dicey business: between 1992 and 2014 there were 45 insolvencies in the top three tiers of English football, 40 in France and 30 in Germany. "Football is essentially insolvent," notes Stefan Szymanski, a sports economist at the University of Michigan. Without their deep-pocketed owners, most clubs would not be going concerns. The American owners of teams such as Manchester United and Liverpool look at the European system and wonder, "Why this insecurity?" says François Godard of Enders Analysis, a research firm. That explains why investors liked the Super League. United's share price rose by as much as 10% the day after it was announced and that of Juventus by 19%.

Fans saw it differently. "Created by the poor, stolen by the rich", read one of the banners displayed outside Manchester United's ground. A poll by YouGov found that 79% of British football fans opposed the Super League, 68% of them "strongly"; opposition was fiercer still among fans of clubs outside the "Big Six". Sensing the mood, broadcasters including Sky and Amazon hurried to distance themselves from the league. Boris Johnson, Britain's prime minister, vowed to "do everything I can to give this ludicrous plan a straight red". All six British teams pulled out on April 20th, followed by Atlético Madrid and the two Milanese teams. At that point the league's organisers pronounced it dead.

Some of the clubs involved are thought to have seen the idea as, at worst, a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms with their existing league. The top clubs have long argued that, as the main attraction, they deserve a bigger slice of revenues and a bigger say in how leagues are run. Breaking away has always been used as a threat—and has often worked. In 1998, the last time the idea of an elite European competition was raised, Europe's football association responded by enlarging the Champions League, as the big teams had requested.

The Super League's implosion shows the threat was empty, says a director of another top-flight Premier League club. The debacle presents "an opportunity for the wider community to drive a harder bargain", he says. A new round of Premier League broadcasting rights is to be auctioned soon. The Big Six are in a weaker position than before to negotiate their cut.

Another threat comes in the form of regulation. Britain's sports minister, Oliver Dowden, promised to "put everything on the table" to stop the new league, from competition law to governance reform. On April 19th the government launched a wide-ranging review into how football is run. British fans have noted that no German club joined the rebels, which they attribute to Germany's community-ownership model (though ownership by fans did not dissuade Barcelona and Real Madrid from joining). The French, Spanish and Italian leagues, which are in poorer financial health than England's, will be watching the outcome closely. "Owners should remember that they are only temporary custodians of their clubs; they forget fans at their peril," Mr Dowden declared. Spectators who enjoy a sporting upset could be in for an exciting season. ■

Recommended
BUSINESS
Europe's top football clubs plan a Super League of their own

BUSINESS
Brace for the Amazon effect on live sport

BRITAIN
Boris gives the European Super League the boot

[celedhring]

So, Laporta has finally spoken and... he just said that the Super League is absolutely necessary. 

These people just can't read the room...

Oh I think he can read the room pretty well, but we're so fucked that it's probably Superleague or death 

He's couched it with a lot of language about finding a good compromise for all parts, etc...

[Jacob]

I'm slightly amused by the co-option of Marxist rhetoric on those tshirts.

"The fans" by denotation means all fans, whether they're in Barcelona or Shanghai, but by connotation everyone knows it only means the former.

You amusement seems predicated on the assumption that the fans in Shanghai want substantially different things than the fans in Barcelona. I'm not sure there's evidence for that assumption.

[Sheilbh]

This is all true but also a matter of perspective.

Because the third-worlder owners (well, not the Russian one(s) as they are small potatoes nowadays) pour insane money into the European system, causing runaway inflation other clubs literally go bankrupt trying to keep up with. This is in part due to how the European system is different from the American sports.

In this sense, the Americans are the reasonable long-term actors and the third-worlders the locust swarm.

I think all of that is true - and I think one of the issues driving Madrid, Barcelona and Juve has been the failure of UEFA to successfully enforce any real financial controls (not for want of trying v Man City at least). I think a really, really important part of the Super League for these clubs was the salary and transfer limits. Although I would query if you're a reasonable long-term investor if you need to make money and you're investing in football, while if you're a nation state or someone who, for example, owns Russia aluminium you can probably take the hit.

Abramovich taking over Chelsea in 2004 changed the game for club owners, Abu Dhabi changed it again - and even the richest men and clubs will struggle to compete with literal nation states.

But having said that I do slightly if it has ever been thus - so in the 30s I think Sunderland were called the Bank of England because their local backer was richer than the rest of the owners of clubs in the League. In the 60s (there's a recent - really interesting book about this that argues the 60 is  the start of "modern" football) it was Everton who were backed by Sir John Moores who were the Mersey Millionaires and paid record-breaking fees to bring the best players to the club (he also tried to start an English baseball league - again, plus ca change).

Just as the game has expanded from being a domestic interest the owners have moved from local magnates to oligarchs, sovereign wealth funds, shady Hong Kong listed shell companies, American vulture funds and everyone in between. And of them all very, very few people make money out of investing in football (I think this is, again, a disappointment for American owners - I am very curious, for example, to see what the new American owners of Burnley plan to do).

[Sheilbh]

Interesting from one of the Guardian reporters on their podcast taht apparently they've heard some clubs were surprised at the push-back and lack of support from global fans.

I still wonder if they have any basis for the idea that "legacy fans" hate this but global fans are actually desperate for it - I think the global fans in part took an interest in various European clubs because of the brand they had already established with their "legacy fans". It just all feels a bit New Coke that because you like Coke you must really, really want New Coke

Also Josh Kroenke is taking questions at the Arsenal Fan Forum - after the customary apology the first question was more of a comment than a question "do you not understand English football, you do not interact with fans, you have no clue, English football is clearly not for you, you should leave." So it's not going well

[Grey Fox]

Is it because they think the global fans would like to see his team in person?

[Sheilbh]

Is it because they think the global fans would like to see his team in person?

Maybe and I do think the end goal is either moving clubs as franchises to new markets or playing in a permanently travelling almost exhibition style league. This was something the Copa del Rey have done and the Premier League have considered (a 39th game in a neutral international venue).

Now again the issue is that to a lot of these teams have iconic grounds that are part of their branding - especially Anfield, Old Trafford and Nou Camp. So the global fan might want to see real competitive games with their team, but they really want to see them at Anfield - they want to see the Kop.

But I think this does sort of get to the point made by Stephen Bush - those tournaments do sort of exist in pre-season. So Arsenal have the "Emirates Cup", there's the International Champions Cup - they're pre-season and they don't mind because they're just purely exhibition tournaments played in Europe and Singapore and the US and China. They don't make a massive amount of money because they don't mean anything - and I'm not sure there's enough peril or reward in the proposed Super League for it to be that different. I feel like if there was a big demand for this - instead of the Champions League - that those pre-season tournaments would be more popular.

[Josquius]

The Americans are the most morally OK but worst for running your club.
The Russians the most immoral.
The Arabs probably a balance of being not quite as shifty as the Russians and getting better results.

Sunderland had an American owner who was absolutely shite. He put a decent mid table premier league amount of money in but didn't understand football and kept making terrible hiring decisions on rapid fire.
Newcastle fans were pretty excited about the Saudi take over and seemed thoroughly non plussed about the morals.

[Valmy]

I know I am not the most sophisticated financial mind on these boards but the whole concept of leveraged buyouts, and how they devastate otherwise very well run and profitable companies, just pisses me off as a consumer. Yes thanks for buying a business whose products and services I enjoy for no money and ruining the business trying to pay your debts. It is terrible for the company and not good for its customers. I wish it was illegal or at least highly restricted.

Like maybe buy a company if you actually have the money? Or at least you shouldn't be able to use what you are buying as your means of paying back what you borrowed, you should be able to demonstrate you have the capital to pay off the debt without putting the company you bought into bankruptcy.

But as for other aspects of American sports franchise owners being shit...believe me I know 

[Admiral Yi]

You amusement seems predicated on the assumption that the fans in Shanghai want substantially different things than the fans in Barcelona. I'm not sure there's evidence for that assumption.

My amusement is based on language use.  I don't assume fans in Shanghai want to watch only BIG MATCHES ALL THE TIME.  That's the assumption of the super league proponents, and that assumption is mirrored in the writing on the tshirts.