par James Bond 007 » 22 mars 2006 0:48
By Ken Pendleton
USSoccerPlayers (March 21, 2006) -- "If it's a business, then it's a losing business."
Such is the nature of owning a soccer team, or at least that's what the late Gianni Agnelli, owner of Fiat and benefactor of Juventus Turin, warned long ago.
The 18 clubs that comprise the G-14 (by the way, Chelsea is still not a member) do not appear to have heeded his words. They think that creating more revenue will make them profitable, or, in a few cases, more profitable. They are sadly mistaken.
According to G-14's official website, the major European clubs do not have a direct say in FIFA or UEFA and, as a result, the current regulations favor national federations over clubs.
Thus, G-14 is trying to use its financial power to accomplish three goals:
"Firstly, clubs and national associations should be protected from the cost of player injuries. Secondly, clubs should get some reasonable compensation for the contribution they make to international tournaments. Thirdly, a harmonized international calendar for clubs and national team football must be mutually agreed between clubs and federations."
Let's take these one by one.
First, should clubs and national associations be protected from player injuries? That certainly sounds reasonable. If a club is paying the vast majority of a player's wages, shouldn't FIFA, UEFA, and the national federations, such as the USSF, assume the risk of compensating the clubs if a player is injured while representing his country? This is the heart of the Oulmers case. The Belgian club Royal Charleroi is suing FIFA, who obliges clubs to release players for internationals without payment, because Morocco's Abdelmajid Oulmers suffered a serious ankle injury playing against Burkina Faso in November 2004.
FIFA has already taken out an insurance policy for injuries during the World Cup and there seems to be no reason that they cannot also do so for World Cup qualifiers. Presumably, UEFA could afford similar coverage for the European championships and qualifiers, but what about the other continental tournaments and friendlies? Surely, the G-14 knows that, say, that the governing body of African soccer, CAF, could not afford to insure Samuel Eto'o or that poor countries, like Argentina, might be priced out of playing friendlies because they have so many valuable players. Perhaps FIFA could subsidize insurance for all of these matches, but that means that there would be less money to allocate for worthier projects. Should the money go to European clubs or to youth development in nations like Gambia?
Finally, what happens if a player like Wayne Rooney gets injured playing for his club? Should the English FA be compensated by Manchester United because England's World Cup chances would then be behind the eight ball? Maybe FAs should be allowed to sue any club that plays too many matches. For example, surely France would have fared far better in Japan/Korea 2002 if Robert Pires would not have been injured and Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira would not have been exhausted because Arsenal was doing the Double.
Similarly, the idea of compensating clubs for the contributions their players make in international tournaments is probably unworkable. Should Ghana, for example, turn over some of its World Cup profits to Chelsea for using Michael Essien or plow them into youth development? It also presupposes that the sport should center around the clubs. Since the World Cup is far bigger than the Champions League or any domestic competition, should Chelsea should thank Ghana for garnering them so much free publicity? Should Chelsea compensate them for using Essien?
The bottom line is that there is a big difference between the members of the G-14, who are looking after their own narrow interests, and FIFA and the other federations, who are supposed to look after the larger interests of the sport. This was well illustrated by the disdain with which Arsene Wenger recently dismissed the idea that there should be a quota requiring teams to field domestic players: "If it makes the national team progress, I don't care. International football is low-quality."
The fact that figures like Wenger don't care about the general best interests of the sport explains how the G-14 can, on the one hand, call for a unified calendar, and, on the other, ask for additional Champions League matches, like Barcelona vice-president Ferran Soriano recently did ("We are not talking about doubling the number of games, it may be adding just one or two"). They simply do not recognize that nothing promotes the sport better than internationals, especially the World Cup, and they have the audacity to hope that, in the words of Silvio Berlusconi, the owner of AC Milan and prime minister of Italy, "The concept of the national team will, gradually, become less and less important. It is the clubs with which the fans associate." The G-14 doesn't really want a unified calendar, it wants to eliminate the conflict altogether.
The irony, as Agnelli's quote makes clear, is that implementing all of their demands would not make clubs more profitable. Sure, these additional revenue streams would generate more money for them, but all the additional income would eventually go to players. The demand for quality players, the ones on the right side of the bell curve, will always outstrip the supply unless the marketplace is heavily regulated and that has not been the case since the Bosman ruling.
Take Major League Baseball. A lot more revenue has been generated since free agency became a reality in the mid-70s, but teams are not necessarily more profitable because they have to bid against every other team for talent. By contrast, the National Football League is the holiest of cash cows because they have successfully implemented a hard salary cap to fetter the market.
Unless the G-14 members can find a way to regulate what amounts to a global market, it will always be more like MLB than the NFL: The greed of individual clubs will always undermine their collective aspirations.
Ken Pendleton has a PhD in philosophy and currently teaches at Oregon State University, but his first love, though he should know better, is soccer. He can be reached at:
kfsu@hotmail.com.
Source :
http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/latest_s ... 11219.htmlBy Ken Pendleton
USSoccerPlayers (March 21, 2006) -- "If it's a business, then it's a losing business."
Such is the nature of owning a soccer team, or at least that's what the late Gianni Agnelli, owner of Fiat and benefactor of Juventus Turin, warned long ago.
The 18 clubs that comprise the G-14 (by the way, Chelsea is still not a member) do not appear to have heeded his words. They think that creating more revenue will make them profitable, or, in a few cases, more profitable. They are sadly mistaken.
According to G-14's official website, the major European clubs do not have a direct say in FIFA or UEFA and, as a result, the current regulations favor national federations over clubs.
Thus, G-14 is trying to use its financial power to accomplish three goals:
"Firstly, clubs and national associations should be protected from the cost of player injuries. Secondly, clubs should get some reasonable compensation for the contribution they make to international tournaments. Thirdly, a harmonized international calendar for clubs and national team football must be mutually agreed between clubs and federations."
Let's take these one by one.
First, should clubs and national associations be protected from player injuries? That certainly sounds reasonable. If a club is paying the vast majority of a player's wages, shouldn't FIFA, UEFA, and the national federations, such as the USSF, assume the risk of compensating the clubs if a player is injured while representing his country? This is the heart of the Oulmers case. The Belgian club Royal Charleroi is suing FIFA, who obliges clubs to release players for internationals without payment, because Morocco's Abdelmajid Oulmers suffered a serious ankle injury playing against Burkina Faso in November 2004.
FIFA has already taken out an insurance policy for injuries during the World Cup and there seems to be no reason that they cannot also do so for World Cup qualifiers. Presumably, UEFA could afford similar coverage for the European championships and qualifiers, but what about the other continental tournaments and friendlies? Surely, the G-14 knows that, say, that the governing body of African soccer, CAF, could not afford to insure Samuel Eto'o or that poor countries, like Argentina, might be priced out of playing friendlies because they have so many valuable players. Perhaps FIFA could subsidize insurance for all of these matches, but that means that there would be less money to allocate for worthier projects. Should the money go to European clubs or to youth development in nations like Gambia?
Finally, what happens if a player like Wayne Rooney gets injured playing for his club? Should the English FA be compensated by Manchester United because England's World Cup chances would then be behind the eight ball? Maybe FAs should be allowed to sue any club that plays too many matches. For example, surely France would have fared far better in Japan/Korea 2002 if Robert Pires would not have been injured and Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira would not have been exhausted because Arsenal was doing the Double.
Similarly, the idea of compensating clubs for the contributions their players make in international tournaments is probably unworkable. Should Ghana, for example, turn over some of its World Cup profits to Chelsea for using Michael Essien or plow them into youth development? It also presupposes that the sport should center around the clubs. Since the World Cup is far bigger than the Champions League or any domestic competition, should Chelsea should thank Ghana for garnering them so much free publicity? Should Chelsea compensate them for using Essien?
The bottom line is that there is a big difference between the members of the G-14, who are looking after their own narrow interests, and FIFA and the other federations, who are supposed to look after the larger interests of the sport. This was well illustrated by the disdain with which Arsene Wenger recently dismissed the idea that there should be a quota requiring teams to field domestic players: "If it makes the national team progress, I don't care. International football is low-quality."
The fact that figures like Wenger don't care about the general best interests of the sport explains how the G-14 can, on the one hand, call for a unified calendar, and, on the other, ask for additional Champions League matches, like Barcelona vice-president Ferran Soriano recently did ("We are not talking about doubling the number of games, it may be adding just one or two"). They simply do not recognize that nothing promotes the sport better than internationals, especially the World Cup, and they have the audacity to hope that, in the words of Silvio Berlusconi, the owner of AC Milan and prime minister of Italy, "The concept of the national team will, gradually, become less and less important. It is the clubs with which the fans associate." The G-14 doesn't really want a unified calendar, it wants to eliminate the conflict altogether.
The irony, as Agnelli's quote makes clear, is that implementing all of their demands would not make clubs more profitable. Sure, these additional revenue streams would generate more money for them, but all the additional income would eventually go to players. The demand for quality players, the ones on the right side of the bell curve, will always outstrip the supply unless the marketplace is heavily regulated and that has not been the case since the Bosman ruling.
Take Major League Baseball. A lot more revenue has been generated since free agency became a reality in the mid-70s, but teams are not necessarily more profitable because they have to bid against every other team for talent. By contrast, the National Football League is the holiest of cash cows because they have successfully implemented a hard salary cap to fetter the market.
Unless the G-14 members can find a way to regulate what amounts to a global market, it will always be more like MLB than the NFL: The greed of individual clubs will always undermine their collective aspirations.
Ken Pendleton has a PhD in philosophy and currently teaches at Oregon State University, but his first love, though he should know better, is soccer. He can be reached at: kfsu@hotmail.com.
Source : [url]http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/latest_soccer_news/511219.html[/url]
