Subscribe
More
    Home Blog Page 62

    Football Stands Together

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Over the last week, Russia has initiated a military operation in neighbouring Ukraine. Governments around the world have made major decisions and been outspoken towards the events. Murmurs of World War 3 or at least the involvement of other European countries have been increasingly more worrying and countries have already offered military, financial and social support to Ukraine and its population.

    So where does football come into this? In this blog, I will be assessing the status that football has and its ability to affect political situations. I will begin by describing the action that football has taken so far and then analyse how, why and when football can influence such global and political events and the issues this raises. I will also specifically look at the predicament that Chelsea have found themselves in alongside their owner, Roman Abramovich as a result of the war.

    Football’s Reaction

    Four years ago, the 2018 football world cup in Russia went ahead, despite calls for it to be boycotted or moved after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. With Russia now invading Ukraine during a world cup year, football immediately discussed the presence of the Russian national team and Russian clubs in global and European competitions.

    Firstly, the 2022 UEFA Champions League Final was set to take place on the 28th May at the Saint Petersburg Stadium in Krestovsky Island, Russia. One of the first measures that football took against Putin’s military operation in Ukraine was removing the privilege of hosting the UCL final. UEFA very quickly made the decision to move the final to the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, Paris.

    Another important issue to address was Russia’s upcoming World Cup qualifiers against Poland and then either Sweden or Czech Republic. Originally, FIFA publicly announced that, following discussions with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), they had decided to impose sanctions on the Russian national team. This included changing their name to the Football Union of Russia, playing in neutral venues with no fans in attendance and without the display of their flag or singing of their anthem. However, this fell short of expelling them from competing in the world cup qualifiers. Instead, it seemed similar to the IOC’s approach to Russia in the Olympics competing under the Russian Olympic Committee.

    These measures were put in place by the IOC to take a stance against the systematic doping problem in Russian athletes. Many agreed that the military operation called for more severe sanctions and punishments. As the military actions continued, FIFA recognised the need to take a more drastic approach to show that football condemned Russia’s actions. They changed the sanctions to ban Russia from all forms of international competition until further notice. This will include the men’s world cup qualifiers and the tournament itself and the women’s European championship. This has been received in a far more supportive way, including by government officials, than the original decision to simply change the name of the Russian national team. However, Russia has also announced that it will appeal the ban imposed upon them and this will go through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

    Poland, Czech Republic and Sweden reinforced the opinions of many as they mutually agreed to refuse to play against Russia, no matter what name they competed under, if FIFA were to let them. This pattern continued as Scotland, Switzerland, Northern Ireland and England agreed to adopt the same policy. Scotland were scheduled to play Russia more than once this year but were also set to refuse to play the fixtures unless the situation was resolved sufficiently before there were any sanctions from FIFA. FIFA’s ban now means that this will no longer be necessary. FIFA have also considered Ukraine’s World Cup qualifying fixture against Scotland to be delayed. Robert Lewandowski, the Polish striker and Bayern Munich star, set a precedent for footballers with a large following and influence around the world by outwardly speaking against Russia competing as a national team. This has also been echoed in leagues across the footballing world with displays of unity and solidarity being seen at the beginning of games or in goal celebrations by players, especially those of Eastern European heritage, and reinforced by fans in an unified stance against Putin’s use of force on Ukraine.

    At the time, Spartak Moscow were the only Russian team left in a European competition, the Europa League. However, UEFA issued a joint statement with FIFA and extended the sanctions on Russia to include a ban on all Russian clubs participating in competitions. Spartak Moscow will now be expelled from the Europa League. Formula 1 had already taken such a decision by cancelling the Russian Grand Prix for the 2022 season despite it not being set to take place until September. They have also removed Russian driver, Nikita Mazepin, from the Haas team.

    Whilst there are more important and critical situations unfolding in the country, inevitably, the military action has had a significant impact on football in Ukraine itself. The Ukrainian top division, the Premier Liga, has been postponed for a minimum of 30 days in light of Russia’s actions. The league includes major European clubs such as Dynamo Kyiv and Shakhtar Donetsk. Dynamo Kyiv have decided to continue to train in an act of defiance against the Russian forces. Other clubs have dealt with this in different ways such as creating a volunteer group where players and fans have stayed to fight on the frontline as part of the Ukrainian army. This includes the former Arsenal player and now coach, Oleh Luzhnyi.

    Chelsea and Roman Abromovich

    Russia’s influence on football reaches further than just its national teams and clubs competing in European cups, The Russian billionaire and long-term owner of Chelsea, Roman Abramovic, has been targeted as a prime individual with influence over both football and Russia. An MP in the House of Commons called for him to sell the club. Rather than sell the club, which he originally stated he had no intention to do, Abramovic instead made his first announcement that he was handing over ‘stewardship and control’ of Chelsea to the charitable foundation of the club. However, this seemed more of a symbolic rather than a meaningful notion as the chairman of the charity is also the chairman of the club already so very little changes in reality.

    Over the next few days, his decision changed and he publicly announced that he was now open to offers for Chelsea football club in the region of around a £4million asking price whilst also setting up a charitable fund for victims in Ukraine. This was more of a significant gesture in trying to detach Russian involvement from English football. It was part of Abramovic’s wider ploy to sell off his UK assets including his London mansion in fear that his assets may be frozen under a government-imposed sanction as a result of his relationship with Putin. His fears quickly became a reality as the sale of his beloved club was halted after the UK government sanctioned Abromovich and froze all of his assets.

    This has had a major impact on Chelsea FC already: their main shirt sponsor 3 have suspended their £40million-per-year partnership, no new contracts can be signed, no transfers can be made, no merchandise can be sold, their company credit cards were frozen by Barclays, no tickets can be purchased by spectators that are not season ticket holders and they have even been given travel restrictions that may result in their removal from the UEFA Champions League. Significantly, it has also stalled the sale of the club as Abramovic can now only continue with the sale under a special license granted by the UK government and under the condition that Abromovic will not personally benefit from the sale. It is hoped that the sale will be completed in 4-6 weeks. There also remains hope as major sponsors Nike and Trivago have agreed to continue their support and sponsorship of the team. With all the negative news surrounding Abramovic, a spokesperson for the businessman has claimed that Abramovic is also working on brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and using his position of power to seek an end to the violence in Ukraine.

    It is not only Chelsea that has been impacted by the war. Russian businesses and banks have positions as major sponsors in many football clubs globally. Most significantly since the military action began, Manchester United have removed the Russian state airline, Areoflot, as an official airline sponsor and other clubs have followed suit as the situation continues and worsens. Everton repeated United’s example by suspending all commercial sponsorship obligations with three Russian companies, USM Holdings, MegaFon and Yota in deals worth over £20million a season. Moreover, the world-leading sports brand, Adidas, have suspended their sponsorship deal with the Russian national team. However, China, a global powerhouse and political ally of Russia, has also made decisions in response to football’s reaction. They have cancelled their TV and Broadcasting deal with the Premier League and European football after the sanctions were put on Russian football. Meanwhile, the Premier League has taken directly opposing action by withdrawing the broadcasting of the Premier League in Russia.

    What Makes Football Get Involved?

    Political events create a substantial predicament for football. There are many contributing factors and considerations that need to be made when football’s governing bodies assess how football should react to such events. There have been several wars and political situations where football has not responded significantly, such as the Iraq war. If football is going to take on a responsibility as influencing and impacting political events, there must be a foolproof system in order to find the right balance of involvement. However, this is a very difficult task and often, whatever decision football makes, to get involved or not and to what extent, will be objected to by some.

    One question that could be asked about football and politics is the fairness of impacting individual players that do not carry any responsibility for the political actions they are being sanctioned for. The Russian national football team and its players may disagree with sanctions being imposed upon them as they themselves are not part of the politics and simply want to play football. And what about in the case of Chelsea? Do the fans, players and staff of this historic English club deserve to be victims of the ramifications of the sanctions placed upon their Russian owner? Here, football and its governing bodies have to decide whether the situation necessitates an intervention and imposition of sanctions on the football teams connected to the political issue as these punishments might help achieve a positive political impact despite ‘inconveniencing’ the athletes affected.

    What About When Football Doesn’t Stand Together?

    Football does not always stand together or take a united stance on politics. Back in 2019, Mesut Ozil spoke out in condemnation of China’s treatment of the Uighur muslims. Arsenal immediately distanced themselves from Ozil’s comments stating that they ‘do not involve themselves in politics’. This was an example of a global issue that football did not deem to be significant enough for FIFA to take action.

    Football is selective about which political events it responds to. It seems arbitrary to pick and choose which global politics are significant enough for football to react to. I believe that if football, its clubs and its players are taking a united stance against the military actions of Russia, it therefore has given itself the duty of doing so in all instances of conflict and war. It is great that football is able to have a positive influence on these things but it comes with a responsibility to do so in a fair and complete manner. It cannot simply opt not to involve itself in some events whilst taking significant action against others.

    Conclusion

    Pressure continues to heighten on FIFA and other governing bodies to use the power and widespread influence of football to react to the military actions in Ukraine. As the biggest sport in the world, perhaps football governing bodies are capable of making major decisions that could influence war. However, it is not as simple as placing sporting sanctions on a country. There are many issues, obstacles, factors and considerations to be made before football’s governing bodies take decisive action to impact politics.

    The overlap of football and politics is, however, unavoidable. A sport with such a global audience has an important status. The policies of football’s governing bodies and the actions of players and fans can go as far as helping to prevent or stop the outbreak of war or influence other political events. Clubs and governing bodies should be aware of their power to influence and use their position in the public spotlight for the greater good, especially in crises.

    The Use of Yid: Are Offensive Terms Okay When They’re Chanted in Football?

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    The Origins and Connotations of the Word

    First and foremost, it is important to note that ‘Yid’ is a derogatory and offensive slang description of a Jewish person. It carries an underlying notion of anti-semitism. However, within this blog I will be assessing the different contexts that it is used in and specifically the impact it has had on football. I will focus on the widespread use of the word that has been heard in chants and in common usage by fans of Tottenham Hotspur and how this could be tackled.

    The term ‘Yid’ is derived from the variation of Jewish dialect known as ‘Yiddish’. It was a language that was commonly used before the tragedy of the holocaust and had notable similarities to the German language. The term then began to be used as a disparaging term with racist, anti-semitic connotations. In the 1970’s the Jewish community decided to attempt to overcome the word being used as a slur against their religion. In a manner that echoed the adoption of the N-word amongst the black community as a powerful identity of their community, the Jewish population also decided to recontextualise and reevaluate the use of ‘Yid’.

    Yid became a form of a defence mechanism, deflecting anti-semitism and regaining ‘ownership’ over the word. Jewish believers began to use the word as an endearing term for one another. This form of self-designation of their own people as Yids was a way of trying to remove the offensive connotations of the word. However much like the N-word for black people, it remains a racist and derogatory slur if it is used by anyone outside of the Jewish community.

    Tottenham Hotspur: The ‘Yid Army’

    Spurs have a large Jewish fan base. The assumption is made as the Jewish population of North London is high and the three chairmen of the club since 1982 have all been Jewish businessmen. The fanbase and the club are vulnerable to those with ignorant, anti-semitic agendas and have been subjected to abuse from rivals. Fans of opposing teams have occasionally been heard to use chants and songs that are fundamentally anti-semitic, it has even gone as far as Nazi salutes and deeply disturbing references to the holocaust. This is quite clearly abominable and has no place in football.

    It is the Spurs’ fans own use of ‘Yid’ that is also deeply controversial. In reality, the proportion of Jewish fans is not as high as is widely assumed. Despite this, fans within the stadium are often heard bellowing ‘Yid Army’ in ‘support’ of their own team. The Yid Army was a phrase created by the Spurs fans but has also been used by opposition fans against them. The Oxford English dictionary even added a second definition of ‘Yid’ in the 2020 edition. As well as defining it as an offensive term for a Jewish person they also added that it could be defined as a ‘player or supporter of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’.

    This was reacted to badly by many in the footballing world and in Tottenham Hotspur. What this seems to imply is that in the context of football and football fandom, ‘Yid’ can be seen as an acceptable term. It has become so normalised within this context to the extent that 50,000 fans can sing the word at the top of their voices on a Saturday in ‘support’ of their team. What if this was the same with the N-word to refer to a black team or chants of ‘P*** army’ to refer to a team of sub-continent ethnicity? This wouldn’t be seen as acceptable. Therefore, the fact that the use of ‘yid’ has become normalised by Spurs is troubling and people may have lost sight of it’s inherently racist connotations that are equivalent to those of the N or P-word.

    There is no justified distinction between using yid in the context of football and outside the context of football. It is unacceptable to shout ‘Yid’ at a stranger in the street and it is equally offensive to chant it at a football game. It is also irrelevant whether you are using the term to support your own team or not. It cannot be used in a positive way. It is a derogatory term.

    Some may argue that if it is used without malice within a Spurs game, by their own fans in support of their team, then this is different and acceptable. In my opinion it is unacceptable regardless of the intention with or context in which it is used. What about the numerous non-Jewish fans that are in attendance in the stadium that join in with the chants? They are not entitled to say the word in any sense. It is equivocal to a white person chanting the N-word. It is not a term that belongs to them and they do not have the right to say it. Furthermore, there will also be Jews in attendance, in support of Spurs or of the opposition that will understand the term for its fundamental disparagement of their religion. No fan of any team deserves to attend a football game and be exposed to, feel intimidated by and abused with racist chanting.

    Tottenham Hotspur recognised the rising issue and conducted a review of the use of the word amongst its fanbase. The survey and focus groups produced damning results. 94% of participants acknowledged the ‘risk of anti-semitism’ associated with using ‘Yid’. However, around 33% admitted to using it at football games whilst only 12% would use it outside of the football context. Presumably, this disparity comes from the difference in proportion of the actual Jewish community within the fanbase and those that just join in with the chants despite their non-allegiance to Judaism and having no inherent right to use the term. However, the most potent statistic is that over 50% of respondents agreed that it should be removed from chants.

    Of course, there is a difficulty with clamping down on the use of the word. Tottenham cannot eject 50,000 chanting fans each week for singing it. It is not as simple as a ‘removal from the stadium’ policy. The club, the FA, and the footballing world could instead lead initiatives in trying to mitigate the overt use of the offensive term.

    Education is absolutely vital. Football fans, especially young fans who have limited awareness of the historical origins of the word, may have a significant level of ignorance about the underlying connotations and anti-semitic implications of the word. A considerable emphasis on highlighting the offensive nature of ‘Yid’ may go some way in diminishing and eventually removing its use in football and a wider context.

    Conclusion

    I begin my conclusion by reemphasising how I began; ‘Yid’ is an unacceptable term. It can be compared to the N-word to describe blacks and the P-word for Asians. The Y-word belongs to the Jewish community. It has no place in a footballing context nor in society as a whole. It has become wrongly normalised and is seen in a different light to the other terms I compared it to. Education and awareness is vital. Ignorance of the connotations and the anti-semitic nature of the term plays a large part in its use in football games.

    The Derby Debacle: Administration in Football, and Can Rooney Help Derby Avoid Liquidation?

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Just over two decades into the 21st Century, there has already been a significant number of well-known football clubs in the UK that have been forced into administration. These have included big names such as Wigan, Bolton, Rangers, Southampton, Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Crystal Palace. Most recently, Derby County, the historic, 138-year-old former FA Cup and top-flight champions are on the brink of liquidation after declaring it was entering administration in 2021.

    In this blog I will analyse what administration means for football clubs. I will examine the pros and cons of being in administration and the system that the FA currently uses to govern the processes. This topic is particularly relevant as football clubs begin to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic in a less financially stable situation than before the virus.

    What is Administration?

    When a club is unable to pay off the debts they owe to creditors, they may be forced to declare their financial crisis and call administrators into the club under the insolvency act. These administrators are given complete control over the club apart from on the football pitch. They are given the license and support to restructure the club to an extent that makes it a more financially sustainable company. Restructuring will often involve offloading unaffordable assets such as the highest-paid players who will be sold onwards, finding more efficient financial strategies and may even include finding new ownership for the club. The main aim of these administrators is to help the club recover from their financial crisis. With administrators taking control of the club over shareholders, the club is protected from further action that creditors may take against them.

    Contrary to HRMC’s belief that all creditors should be treated as equals, there is a special ‘Football Creditors Rule’ that is adhered to by football clubs. This rule requires clubs to prioritise certain creditors to which they own a portion of the debt they have found themselves with. The priority creditors for football clubs are the players’ wages, managers’ salaries, other clubs such as through transfer fees and the association by which they are governed such as the FA in England. This legislation protects small clubs by preventing a domino effect within a league. In other words, if the club was not demanded to prioritise paying what they owe to other clubs, these clubs would then

    suffer financial losses and may themselves be forced into administration. After the priority creditors are remunerated adequately, clubs are then allowed to compensate external creditors if they are able to.

    It is important to note that a club, as with any traded company, can only enter administration if it is seen as still financially viable. This means that there must be a reasonable chance that the club has the potential to return to being a profitable business. The end result of entering administration is hopefully to come out stronger than ever before as a financial entity, through whatever means possible. It gives clubs the best chance of an effective recovery and aims for desirable outcomes. The best examples of these are Southampton in 2009 and Huddersfield in 2003, who emerged out of administration with a properly run and sustainably financed football club and have both enjoyed success at the top level of English football since their restructuring.

    Football clubs can struggle financially for many reasons. In the past couple of seasons, clubs, especially in the lower divisions, have had to battle hard to balance the books during the Coronavirus pandemic. Financial pressures have been a result of a loss of gate income with fans unable to attend matches as well as TV Broadcasting income being lost when the season was halted completely. This has driven some clubs to the brink of administration and financial turmoil, with some clubs, like Derby County, suffering this fate.

    In more usual times, there are still financial issues that cause a club to require the assistance of administrators. Irresponsible spending by the club owner, excessive wage bills, relegations and other factors have played a role in the administration of some former high-flying clubs in the UK as they suffer a decline. In 2018, only 1% of clubs reported financial struggles whereas in 2019, before the pandemic existed, this statistic rose to 8%, reflecting the increasingly financially vulnerable nature of the football league.

    Once clubs have entered administration there are three main exits that can occur. Firstly, a new owner may express interest and a deal will be negotiated that involves the prospective owner agreeing to pay off the debt that the club has and adopt the new restructured club for the future. A large influx of money from a new owner is an effective way of exiting administration as long as there are sufficient strategies that have been installed to ensure the club operates in a financially sustainable manner. The second option is to come to a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA). Whilst this also includes a significant level of financial restructuring and the offloading of assets, it is a way in which a club can be able to recover. For this to occur, the administrators will negotiate with creditors to agree upon an instalment plan that will mean they are remunerated what they are owed over a period of time in several instalments as the club is able to pay it.

    The final exit from administration is one that is seen as an absolute last resort for any companies, let alone for football clubs. Liquidation, also known as dissolution,

    requires the complete redistribution of all assets of a football club. Put simply, the football club will cease to exist. Chester and Scarborough have both suffered liquidation recently although both clubs have since re-established themselves under different names, different ownership and financial management. It is the hope of all clubs entering administration that this will never be the case and they will do everything to avoid it but it is always a worrying possibility.

    Punishments

    Before 2003, there was no further punishment for football clubs for entering administration. It was used as a tactical strategy of eradicating debt and restructuring the club in an attempt to be more financially effective. The English FA recognised that clubs should be deterred from entering administration simply to avoid debts as it was an unethical practice. Consequently, the FA decided to enforce points sanctions and other legislation for clubs entering administration.

    For clubs in the leagues below the English Premier League, a 12-point deduction is applied when they enter administration. It is only nine points in the Premier League as there are less teams and fixtures. This was brought into place to preserve the integrity of competition and avoid misuse of administration. However, after this was brought into place in 2003, there was still a loophole in the FA’s deterrent for clubs not to enter administration. Leeds United exploited this in 2007 by declaring they were entering administration at the end of the 2006-2007 season. They were already relegated from the Championship at this point but it meant that they suffered the points deduction in that season rather than having to start in the third tier on -12 points for the 2007-2008 bid to immediately bounce back. This undermined the FA’s commitment to preserving integrity of competition in the English football leagues.

    The FA was then forced to bring in a new rule that if a club enters administration after the last Thursday of March, the points deduction will be delayed until the following year. This has prevented clubs from being able to escape further punishment of entering administration by declaring it once the points deduction does not affect their season. They also stipulated that clubs cannot be in administration for more than 18 months and across two seasons otherwise they will be disbanded from the football league unless an immediate resolution is found. Further to this, any prospective owners or directors of a football club is not eligible for these positions under the FA’s rules prohibiting their involvement if they have been involved in two former clubs that have entered administration or if the club they are interested in has been in administration twice in the previous five years.

    Derby County

    Derby County officially entered administration in September of 2021. This followed over a year of financial hardship perpetuated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mel Morris, a Derby fan himself and now former owner of the East Midlands club, spoke of how the pandemic cost the club a loss of £20million alone but estimates that in total, owning the club has taken approximately £200m of his fortune.

    Derby County has been seeking a new owner and has reportedly been negotiating with three prospective buyers including ex-Newcastle and Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley. However, it is proving very difficult to complete this sale due to the complexity surrounding the debt reportedly owed to creditors by the club. The main problem is the potential for a lawsuit for a compensation claim from Wycombe that may end up in court. Wycombe are disputing their relegation as, had Derby suffered their points deduction last season, it would be them competing in League One rather than Wycombe. If Derby are to survive administration without being liquidated, they must seek a reasonable compromise deal with Wycombe which will appease prospective owners and provide a more hopeful future for the club.

    Middlesbrough were also reportedly pursuing £40m in compensation for Derby’s failure to adhere to financial fair play rules in the 2018-2019 season where they beat ‘Boro by a single point to take the final Championship play-off spot. However, they have now struck the kind of deal that will help save the club. Although the details have not been revealed, it has been publicly announced by both parties that a resolution has been found. This is a positive step for Derby in their bid to remain a club in the EFL although Wycombe still pose the threat of driving the club into liquidation.

    Currently, Derby County are under strict instructions by the EFL that they are to provide proof that they will be able to fund the rest of their season and fulfil their fixture commitments or they risk being eradicated from the league. Although they were already granted an extension, they have now been given a further month until the 1st March 2022 to provide this proof.

    Derby is a historic club in English football. They have existed for well over a century and have collected numerous trophies and footballing accolades. It will be a drastic shame and loss for English football if this club was unable to find a successful exit strategy out of Administration. Fortunately, they are in the enviable position of having the English football legend, Wayne Rooney, at the helm trying to guide them to safety and fill the fans with an unusual sense of hope despite the current situation for the club. Perhaps the influence that Rooney has on English football will help the club recover, attract new investors and avoid liquidation.

    The Varying Impact of VAR

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    The Concept

    The concept of a Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was first explored by a committee of referees back in 2010. Its primary motive was to eradicate the existence of clear and obvious errors and mistakes made by referees. The timing was appropriate after the infamous Thierry Henry handball against the Republic of Ireland in the previous calendar year. It was an exciting prospect and as the idea grew it was seen in many major competitions around the footballing world before being officially implemented into modern football globally.

    After trials in the Dutch Eredivisie, US Major League Soccer, International friendlies and the Australian A-League, it was finally added to the laws of the game in 2018. The Bundesliga and Serie-A adopted VAR for the previous season beginning in 2017 and the UK followed suit as the English FA decided to implement VAR for all Premier League games in the 2018/19 season operating out of Stockley Park in London.

    Nowadays in modern football, a VAR is always named as part of the refereeing team for a fixture and they themselves also have an assistant to share the workload. The philosophy of VAR is “minimum interference and maximum benefit”. In other words, the VAR is supposedly in place to only interfere when necessary to benefit the referee if they have made a clearly incorrect decision in an important event or they might have missed something significant completely. The four scenarios that require the involvement of VAR named by FIFA are for penalties, goals, red cards and mistaken identity.

    On the surface, this instantly seems like a great concept. Football fans would be forgiven for thinking that VAR would be the answer to solving all refereeing errors and football matches would no longer be stricken with controversy over major decisions. However, this is not exactly the case. In this blog I will explore the issues surrounding the implementation of VAR, its impact on football and its referees and how there might be ways in which the system can be improved to reduce the stigma surrounding VAR.

    The Issues

    The volume of criticism that VAR receives has stemmed from the previous misconception when VAR was first brought into the modern game that it would make refereeing perfect and that mistakes and controversy would be a thing of the past. The ‘maximum benefit’ part of VAR’s philosophy is aimed at removing all room for error for

    the in-field referee. Previous disputes over whether a team should have had a penalty, a player was offside when he scored and whether someone should have been sent off were considered as solved by bringing in VAR. However, since the implementation of VAR, arguably there is more confusion than there is clarity that it hoped and football fans hoped it would provide.

    VAR may be seen as more successful in being able to objectively correct errors made by referees that are based on facts such as giving the wrong player a card by mistaking their identity. An offense such as an offside is also arguably objective; either the attacker is in front of or behind the last defender. However, even the VAR’s decisions on the offside rule are often controversial and cause backlash. It is even worse with the lack of consistency and inaccurate interpretations of fouls that lead to penalties and red card offenses such as foul play.

    There has been a significant rise in the number of penalties given in modern football as a result of VAR. The 2018 World Cup broke the record for the most number of penalties in a single tournament (29), beating the previous record of 17 in 1998 comfortably. This is because it is now common for referees to change their decisions regarding the awarding of penalties. The process is that once a referee denies a penalty, the VAR replays the event and will communicate to the referee that there may have been a mistake. The final decision is the on-field referee’s. They will consult the monitor themselves and make a final call as to whether to change their decision or not. This leaves the decision open to subjective interpretation as to whether the event deserves a penalty or not.

    Other than subjectivity, there are many problems with this process. Firstly, the pressure that is inevitably applied on the referee. Once called to check the monitor, the referee has almost been coerced into believing they might be wrong. They know that their decision is being questioned and in an attempt to appear in sync with the VAR, they are considerably more likely to change their decision once they view the monitor.

    Furthermore, the replays seen by the VAR and shown on the on-field referee’s monitor are both real time replays as well as slow motion. Slow motion is always difficult to interpret. Often a real time replay will look less incriminating than a slow motion repeat of the same event. This can influence the referees to change their decision that in real time was probably the correct one originally. This also can take a considerable amount of time which has a negative impact on the speed, intensity and momentum of a match. The average VAR consultation takes at least 80 seconds to come to a final decision. This makes football less appealing to an audience and this becomes even more frustrating if the final decision seems to be the wrong one and unnecessary.

    The same issues are applicable to penalties and to red cards. Ultimately, they are subjective decisions so VAR is unable to completely eradicate refereeing decisions causing controversy and being disagreed upon. No matter which side the referee decides in favour of, there will often be room for other fans to see the situation

    differently and condemn the decision. VAR is currently not succeeding in its role of assisting on-field referees and appeasing football fans. It is widely criticized and its usefulness is questioned. In the next section, I will explore how the VAR system and processes can be improved in a way that will change the impact of VAR to one that is seen as positive by the football world.

    The Positives

    In its basic, fundamental form, I believe that VAR can be very useful for football. The reason why the concept of VAR was first devised needs to be considered in order to understand how it can have a positive impact on football games. A year after the blatantly obvious Thierry Henry handball that led to William Gallas’ goal against the Republic of Ireland, VAR was conceived of as an idea as to how to prevent obvious errors or mistakes made by referees on the field.

    This is how VAR should be used. If the decision is taking a considerable amount of time to reach a conclusion then it is not worth the hassle. Penalties and red cards will always be subjective and will never be agreed upon by everyone, so why bother to take so long deliberating a decision that is not obviously wrong? In these cases, greater credibility would be given to a referee who stays strong in their own convictions and sticks with his original decision that wasn’t an obvious mistake. VAR should only change a decision and impact the game if the decision originally made is a clear and obvious error. Moreover, small mistakes are part of the sport. It is part of the emotional rollercoaster and enjoyment of the sport. If this is taken away by trying to seek perfection then VAR is having a negative impact. To prevent this there should be a high bar that has to be met by a decision for VAR to rightfully intervene and halt proceedings of a match, rather than difficult, unclear decisions.

    VAR is also helpful with objective mistakes. The goal line technology system and helping referees with mistaken identity are examples of how the VAR can be correct and avoid disagreement and upset. Once these objective mistakes are identified, the process to correct them will not take long as a debatable and inconclusive decision review would. This helps the referees in avoiding obvious errors such as a ball crossing the line of the goal or a significant offside and these cannot be disputed. In summary, VAR should only be used in football for CLEAR and OBVIOUS mistakes, just as it originally intended by rectifying glaring errors and objectively wrong decisions.

    Importantly, the referee should not feel the pressure of VAR, nor should they be intimidated by it. Instead, they should see it for what its role is, an assistant to them. A referee should be allowed to make a decision themself to go to the monitor and have a decision checked by VAR to avoid being coerced into changing a decision and potentially making the wrong one. The referee could see an event in real-time and, as humans are not perfect, they might be unable to conclusively make an accurate

    decision on what they had just seen. In this case, the referee would be praised for making the personal decision to consult VAR and watch the replays on the monitor before making a decision. This is preferable over making an original decision and then being pressured and humiliated by changing their decision. It is not as admirable if they are told to reconsider their decision than it is for them to choose to assess it further before making the decision in the first place.

    Another way in which VAR can be improved is by increasing the level of education that they are given regarding the physical elements of the sport of football. There has been heavy criticism towards VAR decisions as demonstrating a lack of understanding of how footballers’ bodies move and make contact during games. VAR can be improved by consulting ex-professional footballers, those that fully understand football and adopt new perspectives on certain events. Football is a contact sport to an extent and this needs to be considered by VAR when making decisions over physical events in a match. By understanding this more clearly, VAR is more likely to intervene in a positive way rather than resulting in questionable decisions.

    Finally, and this suggestion may be more complicated than the others I have made, is to increase the transparency of VAR for football fans, players and teams. If the communication between the on-field referee and the VAR was to be available publicly, either in live time or after the match is complete, fans would be able to gain a better understanding as to the decision making process and the result. This is already the case in the Decision Review System in Cricket and the Television Match Official in rugby for example and has made for better viewing for fans as well as helping them understand decisions. This may be a difficult suggestion to implement as it could have an adverse effect and lead to more controversy and more disagreement from fans. However, there is such a significant volume of debate over how and why VAR and the on-field referee reach some of the conclusions they do that this might be a way of reducing this criticism.

    The Best Footballer in the World: Ballon d’Or Vs FIFA’s Best

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0
    Photo by Ank Kumar (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nomad_gsx/) on Flickr (licensed under CC BY 2.0)

     

    Introduction

    At the end of every footballing year, there are two major individual awards that claim to recognise the World’s best footballer for that year, the Ballon d’Or and The Best FIFA Men’s Player. These awards can produce different and inaccurate winners and have been subject to significant criticism in the footballing world. In this blog, I will consider which award has the most credibility and recognition amongst football fans and how there might be a solution to the problems identified with them.

    The History

    The Ballon d’Or is the longest established award; recognising the best footballer in the world since 1956 when England’s Stanley Matthews was named as the very first winner. The award is translated into English as ‘The Golden Ball’ and was created by the French sports news magazine France Football. However, the award was only for European players up until 1995 when it was made global.

    In 2016, on the 60th Anniversary, the magazine decided to conduct an international reconsideration of the almost 40 years of only-European winners. On completion of this it was decided that Pele would have been awarded the Ballon d’Or seven times, equalling the record currently held by Lionel Messi and closely followed by Cristiano Ronaldo with five wins.

    Up until 2006, the Ballon d’Or was voted for by international journalists alone. Since then, managers and international team captains have also been given a vote. Each voter nominates their top ranked footballers of the year, their ranking is scored as points which are then added together to eventually award the Golden Ball to the player who receives the most voting points. There are almost 150 journalists from different countries that are given the right to vote as well as the managers and players.

    The Best FIFA Men’s player, formerly known as the FIFA World Player of the Year, was established in 1991 as a direct competitor to the Ballon d’Or. However, it also claims to take into consideration on and off field behaviour and conduct, as well as footballing performances. Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane and Ronaldinho are amongst the names with multiple FIFA World Player of the Year titles. As well as naming an individual as the best footballer on the planet for that year, they also choose the FIFA’s Best XI team as part of the ceremony.

    The voting system for FIFA’s award differs from the Ballon d’Or as it includes the opinions of the fans. Whilst the media, national managers and national team captains comprise 25% each of the votes, global football fans have a 25% stake in the voting system. The fans have been given this right to vote since 2016. It is also done on a nomination basis and then uses a points-based ranking system to determine the winner.

    The awards have not always been separate. Between 2010 and 2015, an agreement was made upon a single award, known as the FIFA Ballon d’Or. A partnership between France Football Magazine and FIFA meant that for these years, a single player was announced as the world’s best. Then again, since 2016, the awards were split into two and became competitors once more.

    The Issues

    There has been considerable criticism aimed towards both of these awards. Some football media have even claimed that the Ballon d’Or no longer matters. It seems a shame that, especially in the era of the Ronaldo versus Messi rivalry, there is not a respected and advocated award objectively recognising the greatest footballer of the year. So why is it that the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player awards have been criticised so widely?

    One of the biggest criticisms of these awards is that it seems to be significantly biased towards attacking players, especially in recent years. The closest a defender has come to winning the Ballon d’Or in the last decade was Virgil Van Dijk who actually had more first place rankings than the winner Lionel Messi, but lost out on the award based on the points system. This seems unfair to lean towards attacking players as the world’s best footballers each year and plays a part in the lack of respect that these awards are given.

    This situation is worsened by the strange voting that is released to the public each year. The public are able to see a breakdown of who votes for which players and often there are many confusing rankings. This has led to criticism and accusations of the awards as corrupt and inaccurate.

    The inaccuracy of awarding the ‘world’s best footballer’ can be demonstrated by looking at the 2018 winner of the Ballon d’Or, Luka Modric. 2018 was a damaging year for the reputation of the award as quite obviously, Modric was not the best player in the world that year. It seems that he was given the award based on his role as captain of the Croatia team that reached the world cup final, and his input into the Champions League winning Real Madrid side. The same can be said in 2021 with Jorginho coming third for the award by being part of Chelsea and Italy whilst Mohamed Salah came seventh and Lewandowski failed to win it, despite his 41 goals in 29 league games. These awards are individual awards and should not be based on simply being a part of a successful team. In 2018, Modric scored a measly 2 goals in 43 matches for Madrid.

    In 44 matches, Ronaldo scored 44 goals and Messi had 65 goal involvements in 54 games, yet Modric was the best player of the year according to the Ballon d’Or voters.

    It seems to be self-explanatory why the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player award are not respected as they seem to produce the obviously wrong results. Awards that claim to recognise the best player in the world that is then so widely disagreed upon, will struggle to establish great credibility amongst the footballing world.

    To make matters worse, the 2020 Ballon d’Or was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a considerable outcry from the rest of the footballing world who believed that Robert Lewandowski was an obvious winner of the award. This created further criticism of the award as being unfair and corrupt. Even with the input of national team captains in recent times, there have been issues with fairness and bias. Ronaldo has never once voted for Messi despite voting for himself, whilst Lionel has only voted for his rival twice. This makes these awards very subjective rather than objective. Ronaldo and Messi are voting tactically rather than for who is actually the best player in the world. This is why objective awards are respected more than the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player. Accolades such as the golden glove and golden boot in the Premier League are more respected by football fans as there is no room for subjectivity and corrupt or tactical voting, it is simply given to the player with the most goals or the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets.

    The Best FIFA Men’s Player epitomises the bias present in the subjective individual awards by their selections for their Best XI. This year, the best XI played a bizarre formation of 3-3-4, which many claimed was simply to ‘make room’ for Cristiano Ronaldo alongside Haaland, Lewandowski and Messi. It was a clear demonstration of the favouritism that these awards show towards attacking players. For either the Best FIFA Player of the Ballon d’Or to be considered as meaningful, credible and respected awards there must be a system devised that makes the winner a more objectively agreeable selection, regardless of their position on the pitch.

    A Potential Solution

    In my opinion, there is no better group of people to accurately decide and vote for the best players in the world than the players themselves. They understand the game and the ability of their opposition or teammates to the greatest extent possible. An award could be created which allows the votes of all professional footballers to decide who is the best footballer on the planet. I believe this award would carry more credibility and produce more accurate results than the current awards.

    There would, of course, be issues with this award. Players would once again be accused of voting tactically or with a bias towards their teammates and friends. However, a system could be implemented that includes the use of data and potentially

    incorporating a method of nullifying the possibility of bias and instead, would produce more objective results.

    Conclusion

    Unfortunately, there may never be an award for the best player in the world that can be given objectively. The media, teammates, fans and coaches will always have subjective, and potentially biased opinions of who deserves the award. Even if data was used to decide the winner, someone then has to decide what data deserves more recognition and will struggle to compare goalkeepers to strikers for example.

    It is important to recognise individual talent and awards like the Golden Glove and Boot are good ways of doing this. Perhaps it is best to keep awards for best players separate on a positional basis rather than an award that could be seen as favouring certain positions over others, such as attackers versus defenders.

    The important aim for these awards is to aim to be as objective and agreeable as possible. The shortcomings of the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Men’s player are currently the lack of respect and credibility that they are given by the footballing world. They risk becoming totally meaningless and irrelevant if they continue to be swamped with criticism and results that are quite obviously wrong.

    Africa United: The Importance of AFCON for Football

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

                From January 9th to February 6th, 2022, five cities in Cameroon will host the 2021 African Cup of Nations, which had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been controversy around the competition in the news, firstly with the decision to go ahead with the event, despite the ongoing Omicron variant and a security threat in Cameroon. Further issues have risen following Emmanuel Dennis’ absence from the Nigeria side as he will instead stay and play for Watford as he was ‘threatened’; Senegal also accused the Premier League club of refusing to release Ismaili Sarr for the tournament. Due to the lack of media coverage, promotion of players into ACFON and hype surrounding the competition, Arsenal legend, Ian Wright, labelled the Premier League’s and the clubs’ attitudes towards AFCON as “embedded with racism”. This was reinforced by Crystal Palace manager, Patrick Viera, who tried to emphasise the value of AFCON.

                This is what I will focus on in this blog. Despite the negativity surrounding this year’s tournament, AFCON holds significant sentimental, financial and cultural value for the nations, players, governing bodies and fans that are involved. I will assess the importance of this competition.

    Back in 1957, three nations, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia competed in the inaugural African Cup of Nations (AFCON). Since then, it has been held every two years and is now comprised of 24 African nations competing to be the best footballing country on the continent. Egypt boasts the best record having won the competition seven times.

    Value

                I will present the value of AFCON in two categories, the socially and economically beneficial impacts of the competition. There are problems dispersed across different areas of the continent of Africa; extreme poverty, high infant mortality rates, government corruption, violence and insurgency and poor healthcare affect many areas. AFCON can go some way in helping to tackle these problems through raising awareness and boosting economic investments, even in its current form and has the potential to be even more of a beacon of hope and unity against political, social and economic issues.

                Socially and culturally, AFCON can play an important role in highlighting prevalent issues on the continent. For example, all the way back in its very first year in 1957, the tournament was supposed to involve a fourth team, South Africa. However, in a football and AFCON-led stand against the Apartheid regime in the country and their insistence on only white players being part of the team, South Africa were banned from competing. They would also be served a 10-year ban from the tournament in the eighties and were only allowed to enter once again after the Apartheid era was ended. AFCON has also created global attention and awareness for other problems that damage the continent such as civil wars, other dictatorships and insurgencies. Issues with animal poaching and threats to species are also brought into the spotlight of a world audience to help prevention as well as helping to tackle human poverty in African countries by promoting humanitarian charities throughout the tournament.

                On a problematic, but beautiful continent, AFCON seems like the perfect model to celebrate the brilliance that Africa has to offer whilst helping the rest of the world to become aware of how they might be able to help the areas that need it. For the people of Africa, it is uniting, it brings them together for a month of celebration of the best footballing talent that the continent offers. The average attendance in the 2019 edition of AFCON was 18,136 per match and brought together football fans from across the continent, increasing the income from tourism, hospitality, entertainment and investments into the areas surrounding the venues. Whilst these attendance figures could be significantly higher, it is important to recognize the competition for its social benefits.

                The tournament has considerable economic benefit too, especially in the host country. This is why the rights to host AFCON are so sought after and campaigned for. After Cameroon were unable to host the 2019 competition due to the threat of extremism, Egypt managed to generate an estimated revenue of $83million which was a similar figure to that generated by the host nations, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon in 2015 and 2017 respectively. This allows the countries to invest into their infrastructure before and after the tournament, boosting their economies and improving the quality of life and financial situations of the population.

                In 2016, the petrol company, Total, signed an eight-year primary sponsorship package deal estimated to be worth around $250million for the naming rights of the tournament. The company will support 10 Confederation of African Football (CAF) competitions, including the Women’s and Youth AFCON tournaments. They join the likes of secondary sponsors, Orange Mobile, Yamaha and Visa in supporting and boosting the revenue generated by AFCON. The tournament has also boasted previous sponsors such as Pepsi, Samsung and Adidas. Lucrative sponsorship deals can only be of benefit to African football, the CAF governing body and the nations involved in the tournament. The prize money in 2019 was higher than ever as a result; $4.5million for the winning nation, $2.5m for the runners-up, $2m for the other two semi-finalists and $1m for those who reached the quarters. The minimum sum of money that any of the 24 competing nations received for their participation in the tournament was $600,000. These are vital sources of revenue for the African nations that can be reinvested into the development and improvement of their football team and society.

    Issues

                There are underlying issues that present obstacles for AFCON to overcome in order to be seen as a flawless football competition. As a result of poorly educated and underpaid footballers and staff coupled with corrupt governments or even football governing bodies, AFCON has struggled to avoid controversy. Groups from the global North have been known to offer life-changing sums of money to vulnerable players in return for match-fixing commitments such as the allegations for the Mali vs Benin game in 2008. This also filters into campaigns for hosting the tournament being thwarted with accusations of bribery and foul play. Even when countries are given the rights to host the tournament this doesn’t always guarantee they will be able to follow through with it. Countries like Libya and Cameroon in recent times have been deemed unable to host AFCON safely despite being awarded the tournament due to civil war, political problems and security threats.

                Despite all of this, one of the biggest concerns for AFCON is the respect that it is shown around the world. If we consider how much publicity and hype the Euros are given, it creates the impression that AFCON is not as important or respectable. This is further demonstrated through the reluctancy of certain European clubs in letting their players go mid-season in order to represent their countries in the competition. Some of the best players in Europe currently; Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mane, Edouard Mendy, Riyad Mahrez and Achraf Hakimi compete in AFCON.

    The issues lie in the discouragement of playing in AFCON. It is a massive honour for these players to represent their home nation and their participation boosts the attractiveness of the tournament as a spectacle which would draw the eyes of the footballing world to some of the best players on the planet. On top of this, the greater the audience for AFCON, the greater the exposure for African football and their emerging talent. The dream of most young African footballers is to find a lucrative move to the European leagues which has the added benefit of bringing in revenue for African football from their transfers. However, if the competition is not given the respect and global recognition that it deserves then these rising stars are not given the exposure and opportunities that they deserve, despite what they might be capable of. The problem is exemplified in the volume of players at European clubs that sense the lack of respect and recognition that AFCON is given and so instead opt to represent different countries they are eligible for rather than their African roots. Premier League superstars such as N’Golo Kante and Antonio Rudiger could have played for Sierra Leone and Mali respectively. This is further demonstrated by the Boateng brothers, Jerome and Kevin Prince, one of whom chose to play for their home of Ghana whilst the other found the opportunity of capitalizing on his German eligibility more appealing.

    Solutions

                There are many aspects in which AFCON could be improved. It holds the potential to be an iconic biannual football event that celebrates not only the footballing talent of the African continent but the magnificence of the continent itself. In short, I believe that AFCON needs to be appropriately respected, governed and funded.

                European clubs and the rest of the footballing world need to understand the importance and value of AFCON in providing the opportunity for players to represent their country as well as its role as a display of the football talent the continent has to offer. The tournament deserves greater media exposure and positive publicity in order to demonstrate its worth. Players should be celebrated and congratulated for playing in the tournament rather than held back or seen in a negative light by not committing to their club. Once the tournament is given the respect that it deserves, it will be able to flourish and fulfil the potential that it has as a celebration of African football.

    Football is an integral part of African culture and AFCON is an opportunity to promote and improve it. The governing bodies across CAF have a duty to come together and ensure the tournament is given the support it deserves. If these football organisations are able to properly market the tournament, attract sponsors and spend the investments wisely, the potential of AFCON could be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is a need to create a safe and accessible environment at the events so that fans and sports tourism can thrive and bring further benefits to the host country. With players as world-class as Mohamed Salah playing in the tournament, stadiums should be sold out and bringing fans to support their countries should be a priority of CAF. This can be done by sensibly pricing tickets and travel arrangements to lower the obstacles that are posed to fans.

    There also needs to be a deliberate and sustained effort to protect the integrity of the competition, preventing the influence of corruption in any form, from bribery to match-fixing. It could be seen as a duty for FIFA to intervene here by creating projects and providing sufficient funds for AFCON to support the education and fair treatment of players in African nations to discourage and prevent integrity issues. This will increase the global respect for the tournament and the extent to which it is appreciated across the footballing world. If these issues are resolved and a strategy is put into place that will market and advertise the competition sufficiently, then I have no doubt that AFCON will fulfill its limitless potential as a celebration of the continent that has produced some of the best footballing talent seen in Europe in recent years. It is time to ensure that the African players and their countries are given the respect that they deserve.

    Major League Soccer, Major Potential

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

                Back in 2011, the commissioner of Major League Soccer (MLS), Don Garber, claimed that the US football league would be one of the best in the world by 2022. He repeated his claims in 2013 and 2015 and his views were echoed by other significant figures in the league including the Inter Miami co-owner who believed its status would surpass European leagues such as Serie A.

                As 2022 approaches, this blog will explore how the MLS has fared against these bold predictions made a decade ago. I will first explain the current status and development of the MLS and the signs of hope for the future as well as the obstacles it faces as a fledgling league.

    In the Beginning

                The USA prepared to host the 1994 FIFA world cup without an established elite national soccer league. This forced the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) to create the MLS in 1993, although the first season of the league did not occur until 1996. The first season consisted of just 10 teams and was won by DC United.

                Rather than traditional teams as per the European football leagues, the MLS consists of franchises. The most successful franchise to date is LA Galaxy, based in Los Angeles, California, claiming five MLS titles since its formation.

                The MLS has come to be seen as something of a ‘retirement home’ for some big names in football towards the back end of their career. Superstars such as Wayne Rooney, David Beckham, David Villa, Frank Lampard and Zlatan Ibrahimovic have graced the league with their presence. I will analyse the implications of this reputation in the next sections of the blog.

    Can It Really Compete as a Top Football League?

                Now in 2021, the number of franchises in the MLS has risen to 27. Charlotte FC are the most recent addition to the league and paid an admission fee of $325million. This shows the increasing monetary value of being a part of the MLS as back in 2013, New York City FC broke the record for a franchise admission cost when they paid just $100million to be a part of the league.

                There are several other areas where the MLS has experienced significant financial growth. The league is in its final year of a five-year media and broadcasting rights contract with ESPN, Fox and Univision to televise matches. The deal has been worth $90million annually since 2015 but the hope is the next year the new deal with be considerably higher and perhaps might add to the argument that the MLS will soon be competing with the best leagues in the world. They have also signed a major sponsorship partnership with Procter and Gamble worth somewhere between $80m and $100m for the next five years. Major investments such as this will assist in propelling the MLS towards fulfilling its potential and make positive movements towards Don Garber’s mission to be one of the best global football leagues. The value of individual franchises is also on the rise. The rapper, Yo Gotti, recently invested into DC United after their valuation projection was reported as $730million, demonstrating the potential for the MLS’ franchises to become football powerhouses.

                The fanbase of the MLS continues to rise. Although there has only been a small rise in average game attendance since the inaugural MLS season, from 17,400 in 1996, to 21,900 in 2021, this is partly due to an increase in the number of franchises funnelling soccer fans to different games. The overall number of those attending MLS games is undoubtedly rising. A major factor in the growth of soccer in the United States is the growth in the Hispanic population which is expected to make up 28% of the national demographic by 2060 and consequently will cause a significant further growth in the popularity of the MLS. The expansion of the MLS fanbase, media coverage, social media presence and investment opportunities all provide an excited foundation to help a league grow and fulfil its potential.

                One of the most important opportunities for the MLS to utilize if it is ever to reach the claims that it will become one of the world’s best leagues, is the 2026 FIFA World Cup which returns to the states for the first time since 1994. When the world cup last came to the US, the MLS didn’t exist so there was no league to promote and place into the global spotlight. This time, it is imperative that the World Cup is used as a vital opportunity to promote and demonstrate the potential of the MLS by boasting its impressive stadiums and devoted fanbase. If the rest of the world is able to see the MLS as the global competing league that it is hoped to be, it stands a better chance of reaching these heights.

    Obstacles

                The US is not known for the MLS and ‘soccer’ as the primary national sport. Basketball, American Football, Baseball and Ice Hockey all compete alongside soccer for the sporting spotlight in the States. This could be part of the reason for lower attendances as sports fans divide their time between other sports. In the UK for example, football is by far the most popular sport ahead of cricket and rugby. This has allowed the Premier League to become such a successful competition with huge financial and commercial value.

                One of the biggest constraints that the MLS faces is its enforcement of a salary cap. This means that franchises are unable to pay the wages demanded of the best footballing talent. The average player in the Premier League is paid over £3million per year, the MLS is far behind with players earning an average of just $312,000 annually.  The league is therefore less likely to attract the biggest names in the game at the peak of their career and instead offers them a final couple of years at the end of their career, as was the case for the names I previously mentioned. However, whilst it is a benefit that ‘legends’ of the game eventually end up in the MLS, there is an argument to be made that this actually provides another difficulty for its growth. 57% of players in the MLS are foreign, perhaps this high statistic prevents home grown players breaking into the league and competing at the highest level. For those that are good enough, such as Chelsea’s Christian Pulisic, they are more likely to move to a better league rather than helping to raise the standard of the MLS.

                One way in which the MLS would be a more attractive option for home grown talent is for it to have a greater financial and commercial value. The league currently lacks significant investments. This is demonstrated by the fact that the television and broadcasting rights of $90million annually is under half of what NBC pay to show the English Premier League games in the US. It is also problematic that shirt sponsor deals are only worth around $4million in the MLS compared to over $20million for most of the top European clubs. Finally, the overall market value of the league shows there is a long way to go to compete as a world-leading league. TransferMarkt values the MLS at £905million whereas the Premier League is £8.17billion.

    Summary

                In the final section I have demonstrated that there is a large gulf between the MLS and the best current global football leagues. There are obstacles that are restricting the ability of the league to fulfil its potential. However, I have also shown that the MLS is not without hope. The claims that it will one day be one of the best leagues in the world are ambitious but not completely unrealistic.

                If the league is able to attract greater financial investment and grow its fanbase, the MLS will go some way in fulfilling the potential that it has. The World Cup in 2026 is a fantastic opportunity for the US to show the world that football has a strong foothold as a leading sport in the country. It is vital that the league capitalizes on this opportunity and reap the rewards of having the eyes if the football world on them.

                In my opinion, I project that the MLS will indeed compete as one of the best three leagues in the world by 2026, after the Premier League and possibly on a par with La Liga.

    How to Own Football Clubs: The Intricacies of Club and Multi-Club Ownership

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

                7th October 2021 was an exciting day for Newcastle United. After over a year of negotiations and obstacles, the club’s ownership was taken over by a Saudi Arabian public investment fund. The saga sparked debates throughout the world of football and divided opinions. Owning a football club is an important responsibility; owners have a large influence in manager appointments, transfers and other significant decisions for a club and are able to have shares in more than one.

    There are several rules and regulations surrounding football club ownership and multi-club ownership. In this blog I will analyse how these regulations are implemented and explain their importance in protecting the integrity of football.

    The Importance of Regulations

                The governing bodies of football have a duty to protect the integrity of football as a competitive sport. Upholding the core values and principles of competition is vital, and regulating club ownership is imperative for doing so.

                In a world where a multi-billionaire could own majority stakes in several football clubs, inevitably the integrity of competition will be undermined, especially if the clubs compete in the same competition. This was the case in 2000 when ENIC, an investment company, had shares in six European football clubs including 42% of AEK Athens and 96% of Slavia Prague who were both in the European cup competition. This was prohibited under UEFA club ownership laws and ENIC took legal action, claiming that the regulations restricted investment into football. However, their appeals were rejected on the grounds that the regulations were in place to guarantee integrity and fair competition.

                What would have happened if, for example, there were no rules preventing ENIC from owning more than one club and Athens and Prague were drawn in the same group? The impact could go even further and one of the clubs may have been needing a victory against the other for qualification whilst the game had no consequences for the other team. In this situation, ENIC, who have decision-making influence over both clubs could ensure that the club that was able to qualify would win. This undermines the core principles of competitiveness in football and in sport and demonstrates why there is a need for rules that regulate club ownership and prevent instances like this.

    The Current Situation

                In 1998, UEFA implemented the Integrity of UEFA Club Competitions legislation. The key clause within this was that no two clubs can be directly or indirectly controlled by the same entity or person to the point where they have ‘decisive influence’. National football associations and governing bodies use the ‘interest in another club’ guidelines outlined by UEFA in order to adapt and stipulate their own national rules around multi-club ownership.

                Interest in another club is defined by three main points; having majority voting rights in two or more clubs, having the right to appoint or remove board members and authoritative figures in two or more clubs, such as a manager or sporting director and finally, owning shares in two or more clubs competing in the same competition. These guidelines aim to prevent and prohibit a conflict of interest, potential corruption or undermining of the core values of the sport and competition and increase transparency.

                Most governing bodies and football associations ensure that potential club owners are inspected and investigated to determine whether they are prohibited from buying the club due to interest in other clubs. For the English FA, there is also a ‘fit and proper person’ test that has been used since its creation in 2004 to assess prospective club owners. The fit and proper person test looks at criminal records, financial situations and other relevant information but it also accounts for any shares that the interested buyer might have in other football clubs. The FA has banned multi-club ownership of over 30% in a second club.

                The Royal Spanish Football Association (RFEF) and the English FA have the strictest regulations for multi-club ownership. However, there is considerable disparity in the regulations around club ownership in different national associations. For example, the UEFA laws allow 100% ownership in one club and up to 50.1% in a second club after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) implemented the 50.1% rule. The Premier League only allows for 30% in a second club. There are differences throughout global football and localized regulations means that countries and football clubs are operating under varying regulations which is problematic. If an independent regulator such as FIFA created a set of laws regarding club ownership that are enforced globally then discrepancies and disputes would be avoided or at least mitigated.

    The City Group and Other Multi-club Owners

                An interesting case to think about when discussing football club ownership is the Abu Dhabi United consortium, better known as The City Group, and Sheikh Mansour who have majority ownership in 10 football clubs globally, all of which have been legal. Their biggest team is Manchester City, but they have expanded their portfolio to New York, Melbourne, Japan, Uruguay, Belgium, China, India and extends as far as ES Troyes in the French second division. They have interest and stakes in the biggest key football markets in the world and have been very successful. The teams exchange players and play friendlies against each other but they avoid conflicts of interest and therefore the multi-club portfolio is permissible under regulations.

                The City Group isn’t the only multi-club investor into football. The energy drink company, Red Bull, currently owns four football clubs globally, RB Salzburg (Austria), RB Leipzig (Germany), New York Red Bulls (US) and RB Bragantino (Brazil). The company has a major influence in each club which extends as far as naming rights on the clubs’ stadiums; Salzburg, Leipzig and New York play at the Red Bull Arena.

    Below is a list of the most well-known multi-club owners in the world of football:

    • The Pozzo family own Watford and Udinese and sold Granada (Spain) in 2016.
    • Atletico HoldCo are the owners of Atletico Madrid and purchased Atletico San Luis who often loan players from their parent Spanish club. They previously owned Atletico de Kolkata in the Indian Super League.
    • The King Power group acquired Leicester City in 2010 and then further invested into Oh-Leuven (Belgium) in 2017.

    The prevalence of multi-club ownership in football seems commonplace and widely accepted, However, all of these examples will have been scrutinized to ensure that no unethical conflict of interest or undermining of the principles of competition occurs.

    The Benefits of Multi-Club Ownership

                There are three main reasons why multi-club ownership is an attractive option for those that are fortunate enough to be able to afford it. The major advantage is that the owners have such an influence over these clubs that they can avoid big transfer fees. This occurs by ‘parking’ players at their feeder clubs before signing them for small amounts. For example, Red Bull Salzburg are a feeder club for RB Leipzig and also use a pilot club in the Austrian league for young, developing players before they are able to play at the highest level.

                Loans are also made easier by having stakes in different clubs. This is a popular system at Manchester City who loan young or unproven players to Girona to develop their skills before moving back to Manchester without any obstacle or negotiating difficulties.

                Another benefit of having control of the financial situation at several clubs is that players can be paid from different club accounts to avoid financial fair play infringements. However, football governing bodies have recognised this as a potential shortfall of FFP regulations and are trying to create legislation that prevents this.

    Conclusion

                Owning a football club is often a dream for individuals or companies that are wealthy enough to be able to afford one. It is also an exciting and popular business venture. However, it is clear that problems can arise if prospective club owners are not thoroughly assessed or if they have interest and influence in another club.

                The most important element of regulating football club and multi-club ownership is that the integrity of competition and the core values and principles of football are upheld and guaranteed. This does not mean that multi-club ownership is completely eradicated as a possibility, but it ensures that it is done in a fair and non-conflicting way, such as with the City Football Group.

    Know Your Worth: The Value of Valuating Football Players

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    In episode three of this series, I focused upon the growing use of data analytics in, how agents can use this data and the prospects for a future of purely data-driven football. In this episode I will be looking at how data is also used, in increasingly complex and intricate ways, to determine the value of an individual player and client.

    In 2000, a German agency founded, what is now the most complete hub for football statistics and news, Transfermarkt. It began as a forum to track and monitor players and transfer targets. It is now the first point of call for agents, scouts, players, coaches and football fans when researching and investigating players, clubs and football news or rumours.

    More recently, other platforms have emerged, such as Transferforum, which now claims to have developed the most accurate ‘expected transfer value’ (xTv) system. The system creates a predictive model for a player’s transfer value using a vast array of parameters and tries to determine the value of the player in the most objective way possible. Rather than subjective opinions on the estimated worth of a player and discussions of how much they should be transferred for, these systems provide concerned parties with a useful benchmark to work around that is not based upon personal opinion. The system also increases the transparency of the football market, making this information readily available to fans across the world.

    How to Determine the Value of a Player

                In football, players are essentially commodities, bought, sold and traded between clubs. They become assets at the club that purchases them and their value rises and falls the same as any other asset in business. This new way of valuating players allows the world of football and particularly interested clubs and agents to monitor the worth of any player.

                The process looks at an enormous variety of parameters in order to provide the most accurate valuation. According to the leading platforms in the valuation systems, whilst footballing ability and performance are significant contributors, there are far more specific and intricate details that influence the expected transfer value of an individual player. Below are the most important parameters that are looked out but this is far from an exhaustive list:

    1. Skill, performance and ability: Of course, this is a major factor in determining how much a player is worth to a buying club. Clubs are willing to pay large amounts for the best players on the planet!
    2. Age: Almost everyone would agree that Jack Grealish is not as good of a footballer as Cristiano Ronaldo. However, Grealish was just bought for £75million more than him. Grealish’s transfer value will be a lot higher than Ronaldo’s as he is only 26, is continuing to get better and has plenty of years left in his career if he remains uninjured. Ronaldo, on the other hand, is now 36 and may not be sold on from United until he finishes his career. Therefore, his expected transfer value will be far lower, despite his superiority in ability.
    3. Contract length: As a player nears the latter stages of their existing contract, their transfer value will decrease. This is because the selling club are less likely to demand a large transfer fee as this will risk no willing buyers coming forward and the player may leave on a free at the end of their contract instead.
    4. Selling club circumstances: The selling club may be in a position where they are financially secure and doing well so will not have any intention of selling the player unless a large sum is offered. This will increase the expected transfer value of a player. This is also the case if the player is a prized asset of the club such as with Harry Kane at Tottenham. There is also the other side of this, where a club may be performing poorly or is financially struggling. In order to raise funds to improve this situation or too have enough money to bring in another player, they are more willing to sell players and so the transfer value may be lower.
    5. Position on the pitch: It is well known that forward players are usually always valued higher than defensive players. This is because they are the most sought-after assets for a football club.
    6. Resale value: As mentioned with the Cristiano Ronaldo case, Manchester United are unlikely to be able to sell him on for a healthy fee. His resale value is minimal and therefore his original transfer value is lower.
    7. Cashflow generation and off-field value: This may be a surprising factor in assessing the value of a transfer target but it plays an increasingly significant role. When clubs bring in superstars, they are willing to pay a premium on the transfer as bringing in a player of such stature will benefit them financially off the field through attracting major sponsors and boosting shirt sales. This correlates with a boost in the player’s expected transfer value.

    There are many more minute details and analytics that influence and altar a player’s expected transfer value. It is also important to consider the situation of world football when making player valuations. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath, expected transfer value for every player will have lowered as football has been impacted financially.

    It is important to note that whilst this aims to be a predictive valuation and considers the future of the players, it is not entirely accurate. For example, it cannot consider future injuries or drops in performances and therefore, the expectations and judgements made around age, ability and performance may not come to fruition. However, for many parties in football, this is still the most accurate and valuable data statistic for assessing players and their value.

    The Benefit for Agents

                For agents, accurate player valuations are an important tool to aid them in negotiations. Forums, such as Transfermarkt, that provide information on player contracts, statistics and other pieces of information are useful, but a set figure on how much a player is worth is a crucial advantage for the agent in negotiations.

                Agents use the estimated value of their clients or target clients as a benchmark which they can negotiate around. The value is used by the agent to inform themselves of the kind of transfer fee that they can expect for their client. Knowing the expected transfer value of a client leverages the agent’s ability to either achieve a higher valued new contract with the player’s current club, or to know which clubs are suitable to pursue and the minimum transfer fee that would be expected.

                Expected transfer value allows the agents to improve in their roles as matchmakers. Knowing the worth of a player enables them to narrow down the list of potential buying clubs and match the player to a suitable customer and for the right amount of money that reflects the value of the asset.

                An agent marketing their client is able to present the value of their client to buying clubs and to prospective brand endorsements. It is important for an agent to be able to effectively market their players to negotiate the most lucrative deals for the client themselves. The data point of expected transfer value is the simplest way of unbiasedly demonstrating the worth of their client in the football world.

    Conclusion

                In this blog I have shown that, through the power of data analytics, platforms are able to estimate the expected transfer value of a player with increasing accuracy. It is a meticulous process that considers a large amount of data sets that influence the value of a player.

                Providing an estimate for the expected value of an asset helps clubs, agents and other parties in their negotiations and seeking of suitable candidates. It sets a benchmark for agents that can be worked around and aids their negotiations in securing lucrative deals and transfers.

    Family Affairs: The Problem of Nepotism in Football

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    What is Nepotism and Favouritism?

                The Oxford Dictionary defines nepotism as a noun referring to the practice of giving unfair advantages to your own family if you are in a position of power, especially by giving them jobs.

                Nepotism has been a widely recognised and problematic aspect of society since the beginning of humankind. Whilst it is seen as an issue, it remains visible and pertinent throughout almost every industry, from banking to education to the army. Favouritism is a similar concept but involves friends being placed into positions or benefitting in a different way, rather than family.

    Importantly, both concepts are common within football. Many significant figures in the world of football, from sporting directors, agents, coaching staff, scouts and even players are able to benefit from relatives and are placed into roles as a result of their family’s influence over clubs. In this blog I will first present a brief outline of nepotism and favouritism that occurs within football before exploring the motivations, legality and ethical implications of the concepts.

    Examples

                There are many examples of Nepotism and Favouritism in modern football. From Zinedine Zidane signing his son as a player to Carlo Ancelotti employing his son as his assistant coach at Everton, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich to former Arsenal chairman, David Dein, helping his son sign players like Thierry Henry and Cesc Fabregas!

                One notable serial-offender of nepotism is the all-time great, legendary Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson. He begun by signing his son, Darren, for four years at United. He then placed his brother, Martin, into the role of Chief European Scout for the club, despite having no previous scouting experience. Despite Sir Alex’s public dislike of agents, labelling them the biggest problem in football, he then helped Darren’s twin Jason in sports media before becoming an agent and, at one time, managing 13 Manchester United clients. Darren then benefitted again from his father’s power as manager of Preston and Peterborough as his father loaned him many young talents and boosted his financial prospects.

                Nepotism happens across the world of football, regardless of the country or the league. At Bayern Munich, the President, Karl Heinz Rummenigge’s brother and son both operate as agents. Uli Hoeness, another club official at Bayern has also helped his brother, Dieter, as an agent and Dieter’s son, Sebastian, become a Bayern Munich youth coach and Hoffenheim manager.

                Roberto Mancini epitomised nepotism when he signed his sons, Andrea and Filippo, for Manchester City and neither of them played a game whilst collecting their wages. The same with Tony Pulis, who signed his son, Anthony, at three of the clubs he managed, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Stoke. Again, Pulis’ son featured minimally for each team and twice in four years for Stoke!

    Why does it happen?

                Of course, a natural instinct for humans is to protect and help your family and friends. Lots of the motivation for acts of nepotism in football come from this. Many benefit from the power of relatives and friends and are able to be put into positions they would otherwise not have been able to obtain.

                Not all of it is about family love. A lot of nepotism is incentivised by financial reasons. Direct and indirect kickbacks are commonplace through nepotism. Club officials, such as Sporting Director’s may have family or friends in agency and will either give information to them about a certain player who the club may want to sign or sell and will involve the relative or friend in the deal. They will then be entitled to some of the remuneration that their friend or relative receives and benefit financially from the process.

                Sometimes, it is even more direct. A club official will point a player in the direction of a certain agent or connect the player’s agent with a family member or friend that will then off them a split in the deal, made attractive by the inside information the relative or friend may have been given to help involve themselves in the transaction. Once again, eventually, the club official ends up receiving kickbacks from the deal whilst also helping their family or friends.

    What’s the problem and is it legal?

                In the UK and European countries, nepotism is currently not illegal under present legislation laws. However, in the US, it is a punishable criminal offence. Just because it is legal, does not mean that it is ethical.

    The problem with nepotism lies in the immorality of gifting a person a role or financial benefit despite them not warranting it by their own merit. For example, if a manager signs his son instead of a more talented youth player, the opportunity is unfairly taken away, despite having better capability and potential than the son. There is never a fundamental issue with a family member or friend gaining employment for a significant role if they are qualified and successful enough to have earned the job based on merit. If a family member is given a job in a club, one must question whether they have deserved this employment through their own aptitude or whether they benefited from the power of a relative in being able to gift them the job.

    It is clear that nepotism in general, and specifically in football, is an unethical practice. So, we can question why there has not been legislation created to prevent it. Football governing bodies should consider nepotism a significant enough problem in football that they should invest in policies of minimizing or eradicating it. Regardless of national legislation, football could have its own rules around investigating and monitoring the relationships between family members and friends at football clubs and in powerful roles.

    Whilst it is certainly a difficult task to control as it could be subjective whether a family member or friend is good enough for the role they obtain within a club, it is important that others are not deprived of opportunities in football because of nepotism allowing underserving candidates to succeed ahead of them. It is a consideration that will improve the morality of the football world.

    Conclusion

                I have shown in this blog that nepotism is a very relevant issue in the football world. At the highest level, from the Premier League to La Liga to the Bundesliga, nepotism is rife throughout even the top clubs.

                Nepotism allows individuals, families and friends to benefit financially and in their careers through the power of their close circle in being able to place them into important positions such as scouts, club officials, players, coaches and agents.

                I have also explained that nepotism and favouritism, whilst not illegal, is an unethical practice. It is difficult to legislate against and attempts to prevent it from occurring must be considered thoughtfully and cautiously. However, it is vital that, in order for football to become more morally endearing, nepotism should be minimized by football governing bodies and their own laws.

    1...61626364Page 62 of 64

    Subscribe To Our Free Magazines

    Explore our exclusive newsletters, designed to keep you informed and engaged with every aspect of the game. Sign up today to stay ahead.

    Site Map

    The Football Week is an innovative sports media company designed to become the premier source of information, education, publishing, event and networking for stakeholders in the football industry.

    © Copyright 2025- All Right Reserved By The Football Week.