EU legal adviser sides with UEFA, FIFA in Super League case USA Today|9 hours ago Super League was dealt a blow when an EU legal adviser proposed the European Court of Justice should back UEFA and FIFA in blocking the breakaway competition. Advocate General Athanasios Rantos proposed on Thursday that the court recognize FIFA-UEFA rules under which Super League should be subject to prior approval were compatible with European Union competition law.
When the court follows the advice, there's a very important consequence from it. The top clubs blackmailing UEFA into concessions to give more money from the CL to them suddenly have been disarmed. Time to restore equal pay for clubs not from big markets.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/uefa-ch...despite-legal-setback-ceo?device=featurephone The ESL geeks still in denial.
https://www.football365.com/news/psv-knife-throat-gakpo-deal-man-utd-lose-liverpool-ohara In here they quote "de Telegraaf" about the financial difficulties. They're talking about a 40 millon gap in the budget (part of it because of missing the CL), but that supposes the KNVB at the start of the season agreed that stupid budget with the far from warranted CL bonus. That's ridiculous.
Didn't they get into the same problem several years ago when they budgeted in CL money and then did not qualify?
Don't remember if that was the reason, but if so it's dumb to do the same again and being sanctioned by the KNVB to do so. It seems to me bullshit. I suppose it's more a covid thing than this CL miss.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/64536218 Football regulator: UK government confirms new independent body By Jonathan JurejkoBBC Sport Blocking clubs from joining a breakaway European Super League will be among the powers held by English football's new independent regulator. The plan for a regulator, recommended by a fan-led review last year, has been confirmed by the UK government. Preventing historic clubs going out of business is one of the aims, as well as giving fans greater input and a new owners' and directors' test. The significant move aims to protect English football's cultural heritage. The main purposes of the proposed new regulator will be: Stopping English clubs from joining closed-shop competitions, which are judged to harm the domestic game Preventing a repeat of financial failings seen at numerous clubs, notably the collapses of Bury and Macclesfield Introducing a more stringent owners' and directors' test to protect clubs and fans Giving fans power to stop owners changing a club's name, badge and traditional kit colours Ensuring a fair distribution of money filters down the English football pyramid from the Premier League "The English game remains one of the UK's greatest cultural exports, with clubs and leagues around the world modelling themselves on its success," the government said before its white paper on football governance - a policy document which outlines the proposed legislation - is released on Thursday. "That is why the government is today taking the necessary and targeted steps to ensure that continues for generations." The Premier League was understood to be wary of a regulatory body when the proposals were announced in April last year. The league says it is "vital" a regulator does not lead to any "unintended consequences" that could affect its global appeal and success. What will the regulator cover? European breakaway leagues Six English clubs - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham - were among a dozen from across the continent that announced plans to form a European Super League in a shock move in April 2021. It sparked a tumultuous few days in English and European football. Fans quickly demonstrated their anger at the plan outside English clubs' stadiums - with similarly vitriolic protests taking place across Europe - forcing the Premier League clubs to back down and apologise. Despite the U-turn, the debate over the future of top-level European football has continued. "The regulator will have the power to prevent English clubs from joining new competitions that do not meet a predetermined criteria, in consultation with the FA and fans," said the government. "That criteria could include measures to stop clubs participating in closed-shop breakaway competitions which harm the domestic game, such as the European Super League." Financial stability and fans' input A new licensing system will require every club - from the Premier League to the National League - to prove it has a sustainable business model implemented by responsible custodians as part of an application process. If clubs are not granted a license by the regulator, they will not be allowed to compete. Another key power of the regulator will be ensuring fans have a greater say in their club's strategic decisions. Moves by owners which may prove controversial - for example, changing the name, badge and traditional kit colours, or moving stadium - will not be allowed to be made before consulting fans. It will "put fans back at the heart of how football is run", says the government. New owners' and directors' test The test to determine the suitability of owners and directors of English clubs has long been under scrutiny. The regulator will introduce an "enhanced" test which will replace the current process implemented by the Premier League, Football League and Football Association. According to the government, it will lead to "ensuring good custodians of clubs, stronger due diligence on sources of wealth and a requirement for robust financial planning". The suitability of Premier League's owners' and directors' test has been criticised in the past, most recently following the Saudi Arabian-backed takeover of Newcastle. Amnesty International urged the league to change the test to address human rights issues, with the Saudi state accused of human rights abuses. A bid for Manchester United by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, the chairman of one of Qatar's biggest banks, has also raised concerns among human rights and LGBTQ+ groups. Fairer distribution of wealth The regulator will have backstop powers to impose a new financial settlement, which effectively means it can force the Premier League to share more money across the pyramid. EFL chairman Rick Parry wants a 25% share of pooled broadcast revenue with the Premier League, merit-based payments across all four divisions, and the abolition of 'parachute payments' to teams relegated from the top flight. But the EFL has told its clubs it is "not hopeful" of securing the settlement it is looking for. While discussions between the bodies are ongoing, the new regulator will force arbitration if an agreement is not reached. "The Premier League remains the envy of club competitions around the world and the government remains fully behind its continued success," said the government. "But in order to secure the financial sustainability of clubs at all levels, a solution led by those running the leagues and their clubs is needed, and remains the government's preferred outcome. "However, if the football authorities cannot reach an agreement the regulator would have targeted powers of last resort to intervene and facilitate an agreement as and when necessary." Why was this move necessary? The Premier League's existing domestic and international television deals are worth almost £10bn The need for the introduction of a regulatory body in English football has divided opinion. But its creation is seen as one of the most radical transformations of the game's governance since Sheffield FC was formed in 1857. Last year's fan-led review was chaired by former sports minister Tracey Crouch following a number of high-profile crises in the sport. The government initially promised a fan-led review in its 2019 general election manifesto after Bury were expelled from League One following the collapse of a takeover bid. The review was brought forward as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused matches to be held behind closed doors and affected revenue, along with the failed attempt to launch a 12-team European Super League in 2021. The review's recommendations seek to address concerns over the financial disparity between the Premier League and the Championship, with clubs in the second tier breaching profitability and sustainability rules in attempts to gain promotion. What has the reaction been? UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the "bold new plans" would put fans "back at the heart of football". "Since its inception over 165 years ago, English football has been bringing people together, providing a source of pride for communities and inspiration to millions of fans across the country," he said. "Yet despite the success of the sport both at home and abroad, we know that there are real challenges which threaten the stability of clubs both big and small. "The new plans will protect the rich heritage and traditions of our much-loved clubs and safeguard the beautiful game for future generations." Labour welcomed the move for a independent regulator but shadow culture, media and sport secretary Lucy Powell MP said the Conservative government should have published the white paper sooner. "Fans are desperate for a say on the future of their clubs and the game. We can afford no further delay," she said. "The government should urgently bring forward legislation, or take responsibility for any clubs that go under, spiral into decline or which are bought by unsuitable new owners, in the years they've wasted bringing the regulator." Kevin Miles, chief executive of the Football Supporters' Association, said the group "warmly welcomed" the introduction of a regulator. "The football governance white paper clearly addresses our key concerns around ownership, rogue competitions and sustainability," Miles said. "We support any proposals that offer fans a greater voice in the running of their clubs." The Premier League said it appreciated the government's "commitment" to protecting the league's success, but cautioned: "It is vital regulation does not damage the game or its ability to attract investment and grow interest." A statement added that the league would work "constructively" with stakeholders to ensure the regulator "does not lead to any unintended consequences that could affect the Premier League's position as the most-watched football league in the world". Crystal Palace co-owner Steve Parish said there would be "a lot of intense detail to work out" from the proposals. "It is unprecedented, we will be the only sporting industry to be regulated by the government," he told BBC Newsnight. "Of course there is a lot of fantastic broad brushstrokes in the press release and the white paper, but the devil will be in the detail." The English Football League said it supported the proposals around enhanced regulation. "The EFL has been clear that the English game needs a fundamental financial reset in order make the game sustainable," a statement read. "The white paper represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity that must be seized to address the systemic issues that football has been unable to sort itself over the last 30 years." Football Association chief executive Mark Bullingham highlighted the recommendation to increase funding of the grassroots game as being an important part of football's long-term future. "The white paper rightly focus on ensuring our game moves forward with well-run clubs operating on a more sustainable financial footing," Maheta Molango, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, said. "We will work to ensure that the important mechanisms and structures that exist to protect players' rights and conditions are properly understood and maintained as part of any future financial reforms in the game." Timeline August 2019: Bury were expelled from League One following the collapse of a takeover bid. December 2019: Conservatives promise a fan-led review in its 2019 general election manifesto in response to Bury's demise. 2020-21 season: Covid-19 pandemic causes matches to be held behind closed doors, affecting revenue. April 2021: A proposed European Super League, involving six Premier League clubs, collapses within days amid widespread condemnation from other clubs and players as well as governing bodies, politicians and fans. October 2021: Amnesty International urges changes to the Premier League owners' and directors' test "to address human rights issues" following the Saudi Arabian-backed takeover of Newcastle United. November 2021: An independent regulator is among 10 recommendations made by a fan-led review, chaired by former Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, on how to improve football governance. March 2022: Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich is sanctioned by the UK government as part of its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with Abramovich selling the club to American businessman Todd Boehly in May. November 2022: Representatives of 29 clubs write to the government urging it to press on with plans for an independent football regulator.
https://www.soccernews.nl/news/agnelli-slaat-super-league-alarm-kijk-naar-ajax-feyenoord-en-psv/ Agnelli slaat Super League-alarm: ‘Kijk naar Ajax, Feyenoord en PSV’ SN Redactie 12:34 25 feb 2023 Andrea Agnelli, tot 2021 voorzitter van Juventus, is nog steeds pro-Super League. Dat vertelt de Italiaanse beleidsbepaler in De Telegraaf vandaag. Agnelli was één van de oprichters van het plan omdat hij de monopolie-machtspositie van de UEFA wil doorbreken. In de ogen van Agnelli kunnen clubs in de huidige situatie geen geschikt topbeleid voeren. “Ajax werd in 2019 kampioen van Nederland, won de beker en de Johan Cruijff Schaal en speelde de halve finale van de Champions League. Twee maanden daarna had de club zomaar uitgeschakeld kunnen worden in de voorronde van de nieuwe Champions League. Met dergelijke onzekerheid kan je als club geen goed gezond en structureel beleid voeren. Daarom ben ik voor een League-systeem in het Europese topvoetbal met financiële en sportieve kansen voor elke club.” Andrea Agnelli to @telegraaf on ESL & threat of the EPL: "Only the Premier League is growing and growing and is already a glorified Super League. They raise €4bn a year, Spain about half, Germany €1.5bn and the Netherlands €100m. English dominance threatens European football." pic.twitter.com/BODPcXxqCp — Ben Jacobs (@JacobsBen) February 25, 2023 ‘Weinig spannend’ Volgens Agnelli zijn de winnaars van veel competities nu ‘op voorhand al bekend’. “Zie hoe overdadig de Premier League is vertegenwoordigd in de eindfase van de Europese bekertoernooien. Met Spanje daar vlak achter en een enkeling zoals Paris Saint-Germain en Bayern München. Maar relevant voor een sportcompetitie is dat iedere deelnemer kans maakt om te winnen. Dus ook Ajax, Feyenoord en Juventus. Blijven ze in Nederland naar het internationale voetbal kijken als Ajax, Feyenoord of PSV nooit kans maken om te winnen of zelfs mee te doen?” En dus wil Agnelli voor een Europees systeem met promotie- en degradatieregeling gaan. Kwalificatie voor dat internationale toernooi kan dan in de nationale competities bereikt worden. “Onder voorwaarden die gelijke kansen bieden aan clubs. In Europees verband krijgen de grootste markten ook nu de meeste toegangsbewijzen voor de Champions League en dus de meeste inkomsten. Zo hou je het huidige systeem in stand en wordt het verschil tussen vooral de Engelse en Spaanse clubs en de overigen alleen maar groter. Heeft een club uit Polen niet het recht om succes te boeken? Hebben de Poolse fans niet voldoende passie voor het voetbal?” Surprise surprise: De Telegraaf, interviewing Andrea Agnelli for first time since his ban, ‘reveals’ he works with A22, the strategy company endorsing SuperLeague on media and presenting themselves as independent. So if A22 speaks, then same SuperLeague presidents are speaking pic.twitter.com/SkvDDUQR67 — Tancredi Palmeri (@tancredipalmeri) February 25, 2023 Uithaal naar UEFA Dat het Super League-plan in 2021 niet doorgezet werd, is volgens Agnelli de schuld van de dwarsliggende UEFA. “Je wordt door de UEFA verbannen als je met mij praat of het met mij eens bent. Als club openlijk verkondigen dat je een beter, rechtvaardiger Europees competitiemodel wil, maakt je niet geliefd. Maar onderhuids is er bij veel clubs, maar ook bij spelers, publiek, televisiemaatschappijen, commerciële partijen en investeerders voldoende animo voor nieuwe competitie-initiatieven. Alleen heeft de UEFA het monopolie en houdt alles tegen. Als machthebbers willen zij alles bij het oude houden. Iedere verandering wordt tegengewerkt.”
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ie-entity-europe-premier-esl?ref=upstract.com It lives. It breathes. It walks the earth again, out there scratching at the doorjamb, rattling the handle, gripped by a renewed and surprisingly self-righteous (fan engagement? Sustainability? Uh, really?) kind of life. The European Super League never really died of course. Instead it simply collapsed under the weight of its own billionaire-grade stupidity, offering up an initial power-grab so poorly conceived it failed even to satisfy the three elements in its own name. The ESL Mk1 wasn’t super. It wasn’t really a league. And it wasn’t ultimately European enough to live without the cooperation of post-Brexit Britain. Football supporters took to the streets in protest. Even the semi-competent human blancmange of vanity and vice serving (for want of a better world) as prime minister could threaten to kill the ESL with “a legislative bomb” because he thought it would make some people like him for a bit. European Super League aims to build support by courting clubs outside elite Read more But this was only ever going to be a temporary banishment to the shadows. Two years later that coffin lid has begun to creak. And as of Thursday morning the ESL is back, rebranded via its latest press release as caring and austere, as real football for real people. And above all empowered by the startling case of the Premier League v Manchester City, a charge sheet of alleged financial chicanery that may, by the law of unintended consequences, have handed the ESL a significant angle of attack. “The walking corpse that is the European Super League twitches again with all the self-awareness one associates with a zombie.” This was the Football Supporters’ Association’s instant response to Thursday’s comeback. The FSA has been hearteningly robust all the way through this thing, the only party in any of this you can actually trust. Agree or disagree, you know what you’re getting here, a de facto unionising of supporters against the bosses. Abramovich’s Chelsea and Man City were first to walk away in 2021. Would they now? But while the zombie metaphor – for me, Clive – is a good one, things have also happened to zombies in recent years. Zombies used to be slow, bovine and pack-based. There was a satisfying mathematics, a kind of human Tetris, in dodging these staggering hordes. The original George Romero zombie-verse of the 1970s ultimately offered hope that human ingenuity could outmanoeuvre the spectacle of nemesis, collapse, disaster, apocalypse. In the end we’re always smarter and more nimble. Then something bad happened. Zombies got faster. They became wolf-like and swift, incapable of being outrun or fooled into doodling around shopping centres. It got worse. Zombies started having feelings. The last Living Dead film had a zombie king with a gleam of furtive intelligence in its eyes, out there mobilising zombies, giving them purpose and hope, nursing sly zombie schemes. Chelsea fans protest the original ESL plans outside Stamford Bridge in April 2021. Photograph: Reuters And this is also the thing with the ESL. Victory may be miles off, even more so given the European court’s early backing of Uefa’s natural monopoly. It may still be a zombie entity. But it is no longer drooling and frothing, dropping half-baked late-night plans, easily brained with a polo mallet. The ESL has got smart. Two years ago Europe’s domestic leagues could take the high ground by presenting themselves as robust and morally righteous, proper sport in the face of this charade, this WWE variation. The optics were perfect. Underprepared for any real resistance, the ESL was jeered out of town. If this is to be the battlefield, the ESL now has a line of its own to peddle, a way of prising apart that hole in the perimeter fence, presenting itself as the good guys, alternative to a Premier League that has now laid charges of cheating against its own champion team. How far can they take this thing? Right now the only significant content on the website of the new ESL vehicle, the A22, is still an old video message from its chief executive, the slightly unnerving Bernd Reichart, a German sport marketing executive who is pictured staring straight out of the screen looking like he’s about to start selling you a sensitively packaged male hair colourant shampoo and, possibly, a dildo. Reichart talks passionately about transparency and proper governance, speaking here on behalf of his invisible disruptive overlords. “I am convinced football can do better,” he concludes with a cod-religious zeal, a quality that might seem more convincing if he hadn’t been hired from a TV company to apply a facade of synthetic human feeling to a corporate takeover plan. But this is the wider point. The ESL is at least learning, tailoring its plan in a way that feels a little more ominous. Terrible PR killed this thing first time around. Maybe good PR can make it work. And that brightly coloured target the City case offers up is already being hungrily addressed. The new master plan warns against “third parties who benefit without taking any risk …. Spending should be based only on resources generated, not from competition-distorting capital injections.” This is very close to just saying it: no to government wealth funds, political projects, odd-looking connected sponsorship deals. This is the ESL gleefully taking the moral high ground, in a way that will be hard to rebuff while the Premier League fights its internal battle. Bernd Reichart: ready to give you the hard sell. Photograph: Mariscal Agencia/EPA Later the document talks about “respect for European Union law and values” demanding “stakeholders embrace the values, laws and fundamental freedoms of the EU”. And yes, this is human rights stuff. Here we have another attack line, the sound of poor old human rights and freedoms being waved around as a sword, essentially to stop some carbon-fuelled football club buying Gavi for £150m; which, we can all agree, is what human rights and freedoms were invented for. In the meantime some of the other obstacles have cleared. Roman Abramovich was the first owner to leave the room in 2021. Todd Boehly is more likely to be the first guest hammering at your door wearing a tequila holster and chaps, draped across a hen party he met on the tube. City turned against it too. Would they now? It was in the end feelings, the emotional response, that stopped this thing in its tracks. But feelings are mutable and attention spans short. Words such as transparency, probity and destructive greed can now be employed by the other side. At the very least we have something new; the sense, in a brutally transactional industry, that this is now an entity that can be sold. This article was amended on 11 February 2023 to correctly refer to George Romero rather than Sergio Romero.
Vitesse Arnhem is in serious trouble and on the verge of losing their licence. The reason is the lost court case against the owner of the stadium they play in. They can't agree on the rent for the stadium and Vitesse took it to the court. With the loss they have no stadium and for their licence they had to submit on march the first proof of having a stadium to play in. Most likely the KNVB gives more time to get a deal, but at a price, points deduction or a fine, but it's not a certainty.
Belgian professor Robby Houben has kicked off the ball in AD Sportwereld series on how the oil sheiks take over football. This is part one: https://www.ad.nl/buitenlands-voetb...dit-is-groter-dan-het-bosman-arrest~ab9fd25a/ He has been publishing about it already in here: https://www.euractiv.com/section/competition/opinion/uefas-crumbling-fortress/ Politics should regulate European football, introducing standards of good governance, setting clear criteria for creating, and accessing new leagues, as well as guaranteeing independent oversight, argues Robby Houben. Robby Houben is a professor of sports enterprise law at the University of Antwerp. On 11 and 12 July, Luxembourg took centre stage in the European football scene. The European Court of Justice heard the parties in Super League vs. UEFA. The stakes are high. The Court will have to assess if the conflict of interests attached to UEFA’s double-hatted structure conforms with the EU’s antitrust laws. The Court could go as far as sanctioning UEFA’s dual role, requiring them to adopt either the role of regulator or operator of professional European football. This would shake professional football to its core, surpassing even the importance of the 1995 Bosman ruling. If the interventions of the judges at the hearing are telling, UEFA can brace itself. Judge Wahl, a competition law heavyweight, emphasized that this case is not about the Super League, but about UEFA. He noticed that in any other sector UEFA’s conduct would qualify as a boycott, and explicitlty queried why this should be acceptable simply because it is soccer ‘entertainment’. At the very least, UEFA must be rapped on its knuckles for the absence of objective and transparent criteria for alternative competitions, against the backdrop of mandatory arbitration in Switzerland. There are valid reasons for arbitration in football, yet arbitration in Switzerland means that UEFA’s decisions do not have to be made within the context of EU rule of law. In a conflict on EU law, with EU citizens in EU territory, this is problematic. The Court can only do so much. Its ability to uphold the rule of law depends on the eventuality of a case making it to court. The outcome of the case depends on the facts and the legal questions presented. Structural solutions require the intervention of politicians enacting statutory law. The time for that is now. From the outset, the European Commission underlined that the autonomy of sporting organisations is subject to compliance with laws and good governance principles, including stakeholder representation. Against that benchmark, UEFA underperforms. Stakeholders (such as clubs, leagues and players) are largely excluded from the decision-making process and lack any real means to exert pressure. UEFA’s supreme body, the Congress, is comprised of a majority of non-EU countries, including those considered undemocratic, as well as very small states (eg Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein), all with the same voting power as those with strong football traditions. UEFA’s double-hatted structure creates conflicts of interest between UEFA and its stakeholders. Legal grounds for legislative action are available: the EU treaties allow for the regulation of the business of professional football with feasible majorities. What it therefore boils down to is political will. A condemnation of UEFA by the Court in the pending case initiated by the Super League, on top of governance flaws and increased public expectations from professional football after subsidization following COVID-19, might just be the necessary tipping point inciting politicians to roll up their sleeves. In the words of Dutch football player Johan Cruyff, “Often something needs to happen, for something to happen”. However, at the hearing, many states intervened claiming UEFA is the saviour of football and the guardian of solidarity with grassroots football. The opposite is true. The resistance against UEFA is not confined to large clubs; small clubs, underwhelmed by UEFA’s solidarity, fuel it too. Just a few days ago Luxemburg club Swift Hesper launched a claim arguing that UEFA’s territorial model of football is designed to keep small clubs small. It prevents them from growing and denies them even a chance to bridge the gap with clubs from which they are distinguished only through their location in a larger country. This explains why Villarreal can prosper and Swift Hesper cannot. The Swift Hesper example is a warning to those who too easily accept UEFA’s smokescreens. That said, what should politicians regulate? Firstly, introduce basic standards for clubs and agents to access the market of professional football: clear standards regarding good governance (noticeably financial), transparency and compliance, all under supervision and with the ultimate threat of sanctions. Secondly, regulate access of new leagues to the football market via objective and transparent criteria. In doing so, politicians could open up the market and create a Bosman for clubs and leagues, allowing them to truly benefit from internal market freedoms. This could be the key to a more competitive football sector in Europe, whereby top football is not confined to only a few countries. Domestic leagues could rise to the occasion and create transnational leagues. Thirdly, an independent regulator should supervise the sport. That could be UEFA, provided it no longer functions as market operator. At a minimum, a clear separation between its regulatory and operating functions should be enforced, falling under EU oversight. Such an independent supervisor could also be an EU body, or any other trustworthy body capable of supervision under the rule of law. Alternative competitions currently stand no chance. UEFA’s governance is oriented towards its own interests, and UEFA would naturally oppose any competitors, given its monopoly position. The Super League saga is illustrative of this point, notwithstanding their own missteps, which made it easy for UEFA to dismiss their arguments. Is a Super League really such a threat to European football? If designed in the right way, as an EU competition with clubs from the entire Union, it need not be. Such a project could enthuse EU citizens and politicians alike as a real Union flagship initiative, able to compete with the now dominant Premier League. Links with domestic or transnational competitions via relegation and promotion and solid solidarity mechanisms could ensure the project’s firm rooting in the European model of sport. The Super League could exist alongside UEFA club competitions and both market participants could push each other towards increased product excellence in the quest for market share and fans. Solidarity with grassroots football overall could increase. One thing is for sure: Over the next few months, the eyes of the football world will be fixed firmly on Luxembourg and 15 judges.
https://www.voetbalprimeur.nl/nieuw...enmodel-eredivisie-impact-kan-enorm-zijn.html Diarra kan bom leggen onder verdienmodel Eredivisie: 'Impact kan enorm zijn' 09:45, Vandaag Lassana Diarra kan zomaar de nieuwe 'Bosman' van het voetbal worden met verstrekkende gevolgen voor onder meer de Nederlandse clubs. Dat stelt Robby Houben, hoogleraar sportondernemingsrecht aan de Universiteit Antwerpen, in het Algemeen Dagblad. Bij het Hof van Justitie in Luxemburg dient dit jaar de zaak rond Diarra. De Franse middenvelder raakte in 2014 in conflict met zijn club Lokomotiv Moskou, waartegen hij sindsdien diverse rechtszaken uitvocht én won. Houben typeert hem als een nieuwe Bosman, omdat hij het bestaande transfersysteem van de FIFA en de aangesloten bonden aanvecht. Hij wijst daarbij naar het Europees recht. Saillant detail: hij heeft dezelfde advocaat als Jean-Marc Bosman in 1995. "Deze zaak is zo interessant omdat het vrije verkeer van arbeid binnen de EU ter discussie wordt gesteld", zegt Houben in het AD. "Oftewel: strookt het transfersysteem zoals we dat kennen wel met het Europees recht? Dat kun je je ernstig afvragen. Bijzonder is dat spelers hun contract niet eenzijdig kunnen opzeggen en vrij naar een andere werkgever kunnen vertrekken, zoals bijvoorbeeld een chirurg of een journalist dat wél kan. Is het voetbal zo bijzonder dat zo’n afwijking aanvaardbaar is?" In het voetbal lijkt niemand daaraan te twijfelen, maar Diarra weet zich gesteund door het Europees recht. Volgens Houben valt het niet uit te sluiten dat het hele transfersysteem zoals we dat kennen verdwijnt door de oud-speler van Real Madrid en PSG. "Als er dan geen werkbaar alternatief voor in de plaats komt, komt het hele ecosysteem van het internationale voetbal onder druk te staan. Veel clubs zijn afhankelijk van transferinkomsten, zeker ook in België en Nederland." "De exacte gevolgen zijn nog lastig in te schatten, zoals dat destijds ook bij het Bosman-arrest het geval was. Maar ik merk wel dat er bij clubs nog amper kennis is over deze zaak. De impact kan enorm zijn, gigantisch", aldus de Belgische hoogleraar.
https://www.ad.nl/nederlands-voetba...n-top-10-van-winstgevende-transfers~ad511a74/ Ajax en PSV in bijzonder rijtje: Nederlandse clubs in top 10 van winstgevende transfers Ajax en PSV staan in de mondiale top 10 van clubs met het meest winstgevende transferbeleid, blijkt uit een onderzoek van Transfermarkt en eToro. Sportredactie 14-03-23, 11:24 Laatste update: 12:09 De Portugese topclub Benfica was de afgelopen vijf jaar op financieel gebied het meest succesvol op de transfermarkt. Benfica kwam tot 356 miljoen euro ‘winst’. In het onderzoek zijn de vergoedingen voor zaakwaarnemers en andere kosten niet meegenomen. Met winst wordt in het rapport het verschil tussen de aankoop- en verkoopprijs van een speler bedoeld. Ajax staat tweede op de lijst met de grootste transferwinsten sinds de transferperiode in de zomer van 2018, blijkt uit The Football Investment Report. De Amsterdammers behaalden de afgelopen vijf jaar een winst van 308 miljoen euro op transfers. Ajax dankt dat bedrag voor een groot deel aan de verkoop van Antony en Lisandro Martínez aan Manchester United. De Zuid-Amerikanen zorgden gezamenlijk voor ongeveer 130 miljoen euro winst. PSV is de nummer 8 van het klassement met 189 miljoen euro. De Eindhovenaren verkochten dit jaar Cody Gakpo en Noni Madueke aan respectievelijk Liverpool en Chelsea. Naast Benfica en Ajax deden ook Lille, Red Bull Salzburg, Sporting, Olympique Lyon en AS Monaco het beter dan PSV. Ook Porto en de Deense club FC Nordsjælland staan in de top 10. FC Nordsjælland, de voormalig club van Ajacied Mohammed Kudus, maakte 125 miljoen euro winst op transfers. Volgens het onderzoek is Ajax ook de nummer 2 ter wereld als het gaat om de verkoop van spelers uit de eigen jeugdopleiding. Sinds 2013-2014 verkocht de regerend landskampioen spelers met een totale waarde van 376 miljoen euro. Matthijs de Ligt werd voor ruim 80 miljoen euro verkocht aan Juventus en Frenkie de Jong verkaste voor een soortgelijk bedrag naar FC Barcelona. Echter moest Ajax voor De Jong nog een deel afstaan aan Willem II en RKC. Benfica hield het meest over aan de verkoop van zelf opgeleide spelers. De club van trainer Roger Schmidt hield ruim een half miljard euro over aan het transfereren van spelers uit de eigen jeugd: 543 miljoen euro. Real Madrid deed het met de verkoop van zelf opgeleide spelers net iets minder dan Ajax: 375 miljoen euro. De top 10 wordt gecompleteerd door Europese clubs: Sporting, AS Monaco, Red Bull Salzburg, Porto, Manchester City, FC Barcelona en Atlético Madrid. Bayern heeft waarde selectie meest laten stijgen door transfers Bayern München slaagde er het best in de waarde van de selectie te verhogen door middel van transfers. De waarde van de Duitse Rekordmeister, waar onder anderen Matthijs de Ligt onder contract staat, is naar schatting met 545 miljoen euro gestegen. Volgens het rapport heeft de selectie van Bayern een waarde van zo’n 992 miljoen euro, terwijl die voor 447 miljoen euro is samengesteld. AC Milan (320 miljoen euro waardestijging) en Tottenham Hotspur (319 miljoen euro) maken de top 3 compleet en Real Sociedad (286 miljoen euro) is de verrassende nummer 4. De selectie van Liverpool heeft volgens het onderzoek een waarde van ongeveer 927 miljoen euro, maar daar is ook 706 miljoen euro voor betaald. Dat komt neer op een waardevermeerdering van 221 miljoen euro, waarmee ‘The Reds’ tiende staan in het klassement. FC Barcelona, Arsenal, Internazionale, RB Leipzig en Villarreal - de nummers 5 tot en met 9 - maken de top 10 compleet.
https://en.as.com/soccer/who-are-the-most-valuable-footballers-in-the-world-n/?omnil=resrelart Why do people, especially sports journalists, quote Treansfermarkt valuations while these are based on thumb sucking and nothing else. At Napoli there are players who were unknown up till the Napoli CL run, but donot get the valuation they are worth by Transfermarkt because od Transfermarkt thumbsucking valuation. Clubs would be stumbling over each other to pay the low ball prices mentioned. To believe you actually would be able to get Feyenoord's Giménez for 9 million is hilarious.
Oh dear, when fat cats start whining about fatter cats https://www.telegraaf.nl/sport/1015...anciele-toekomst-bijblijven-steeds-moeilijker ’We worden dan minder aantrekkelijk voor de fans, die sterren willen zien’ Zorgen bij Bayern München over financiële toekomst: ’Bijblijven steeds moeilijker’ 3 uur geleden in VOETBAL Voorzitter Herbert Hainer van Bayern München maakt zich zorgen over de toekomst van de Duitse voetbalclub. Volgens de 68-jarige preses is de balans in het Europese voetbal zoek door clubs die in handen zijn van kapitaalkrachtige investeerders, zoals Paris Saint-Germain en clubs in de Premier League. „Bijblijven wordt voor een club als Bayern München onder deze omstandigheden steeds moeilijker”, zegt Hainer in het Duitse blad Kicker. De voorzitter heeft zijn hoop gevestigd op een nieuwe regeling van de Europese bond UEFA, die voor meer financiële gelijkheid moet zorgen. „Het succes van deze nieuwe regeling zal afhangen van hoe streng de sancties zijn, ongeacht welke club het is”, zei Hainer. „Het is vooral belangrijk dat de regels duidelijk zijn.” Hij zegt dat een recent gesprek met UEFA-voorzitter Aleksander Ceferin hem wel vertrouwen heeft gegeven. „Ik denk dat iedereen beseft dat het voetbal zo niet verder kan. We hebben eerlijke concurrentie nodig.” Het baart Hainer ook zorgen dat de inkomsten van de Bundesliga zijn teruggelopen. „Het is voor de Bundesliga belangrijk dat de clubs blijven presteren, maar daar heb je goede spelers voor nodig. Als Bayern geen geld meer heeft, kunnen we geen spelers meer aantrekken die aan de hoogste eisen voldoen. We worden dan minder aantrekkelijk voor de fans, die sterren willen zien.”
He has a point. Bundesliga requirment for public ownership of clubs puts them at a disadvantage. Bayern are a great marketing operation and can partially overcome the money differential but not completely.
He's right about UEFA lacking in enforcing the financial rule book, but he was profiting of the same lacklustre behaviour when UEFA in an attempt to keep the big clubs break away skewed the CL money distribution in his and other big league clubs direction. He can f**k himself.
Roma, according to Voetbal International, is high on financial dope. In the Conference League winning season they managed a whopping loss of 219.5 million=3 times Feyenoord's turn over. The last three years their total deficit amounts to 600 million!!! Just shy of pSG's 700 million loss in that time frame. I really hope Feyenoord kicks them out of the EL, as that means they can say goodbye to the chance to qualify for the CL big paycheck.
Wow. https://www.footballtransfers.com/n...geheim-meer-dan-100-miljoen--euro-aan-vitesse Abramovich leende in het geheim meer dan 100 miljoen (!) euro aan Vitesse Roman Abramovich heeft door de jaren heen in totaal ruim 117 miljoen euro geleend aan Vitesse, blijkt uit onderzoek van The Guardian. De KNVB deed tot twee keer toe onderzoek naar vermeende banden tussen de voormalig eigenaar van Chelsea en de club uit Arnhem, maar kon beide keren niet hard maken dat er financiële banden waren of dat Abramovich invloed had op welke manager in de GelreDome aangesteld werd. Mareb Jordania nam in 2010 de Gelderse club over en verkocht hem in 2013 weer aan Alexander Chigirinsky, die al sinds de overname van Jordania financieel betrokken was bij de club. De bedrijven van Chigirinsky blijken een cruciale rol te hebben gespeeld in het proces. Twee bedrijven van Abramovich op de Britse Maagdeneilanden blijken geld te hebben geleend aan twee ondernemingen die verbonden zijn aan Chriginsky. Die bedrijven leenden het geld vervolgens aan Marindale Trading, dat de overname van Jordania had gefinancierd. Uiteindelijk is via de verschillende belastingparadijzen tot eind 2015 117 miljoen euro aan Vitesse geleend. Dat is voor de Arnhemmers een enorm bedrag. The Guardian merkt op dat de begroting van Vitesse in het seizoen 2014/15 zo'n veertien miljoen euro bedroeg. De netto-omzet van de club bedroeg in 2021/22 23,6 miljoen euro. In gesprek met de Engelse kwaliteitskrant bevestigt Jordania dat Abramovich en Chigirnsky hem geld leenden. "Het was mijn persoonlijke project en ze hebben me veel gesteund toen ik de club kocht. Soms had ik niet genoeg geld en heb ik ook het geld van mijn vrienden gebruikt, vooral dat van Abramovich en Chrigirnsky." Vitesse is ook verwikkeld in een langlopend conflict over het gebruik van het GelreDome-stadion. Onlangs werd bekend dat het conflict volledig uit de hand dreigt te lopen. De Arnhemmers zijn er tot op heden niet in geslaagd om met stadioneigenaar Michael van de Kuit een nieuw huurovereenkomst af te sluiten en dreigen zonder stadion te zitten komend seizoen. De KNVB dreigt dan de proflicentie in te trekken. tps://www.theguardian.com › world › 2023 › mar › 29 › roman-abramovich-secretly-bankrolled-dutch-football-club-leaked-documents-suggest Roman Abramovich secretly bankrolled Dutch football club, leaked ... VandaagThe documents, reviewed by the Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, appear to reveal for the first time at least €117m (£102.8m) in secret funding from Abramovich for the...
This is what Ajax is going to miss: https://www.voetbalzone.nl/doc.asp?uid=417216 Woensdag, 5 april 2023 om 17:15 • Rian Rosendaal • Laatste update: 18:38 Het financiële rapport over het seizoen 2021/22 dat woensdag door de UEFA is uitgegeven laat duidelijk zien dat Ajax een behoorlijke voorsprong heeft op de andere Nederlandse clubs. De Amsterdamse club werd vorig jaar al in de achtste finale uitgeschakeld in de Champions League, maar desondanks toucheerde men bijna twintig miljoen euro meer dan alle overige Nederlandse deelnemers aan Europese toernooien bij elkaar. Ajax streek in de voorbije voetbaljaargang in totaal 65,5 miljoen euro op, al is dat exclusief recettes voor de vier Europese thuisduels in de Champions League. De coëfficiëntenpremie op basis van de Europese resultaten van de afgelopen tien jaar bleek de grootste inkomstenbron te zijn: ruim twintig miljoen euro. De startpremie in het miljardenbal zorgde ervoor dat er nog eens ruim vijftien miljoen euro werd bijgeschreven op de rekening in Amsterdam.
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...super-league-talks-matches-will-be-sell-outs/ By Kieran Maguire 6th Apr, 2023 | 12:59pm An analysis of the validity of the second coming of the Euro superleague., Kieran Maguire makes Rangers and Celtic claim after Super League talks - ‘matches will be sell-outs' There is ‘zero chance’ that Rangers and Celtic would be prioritised alongside the European elite if they joined the Super League proposals. That is the view of finance expert Kieran Maguire, who exclusively told Football Insider that Scottish clubs would not receive the same ‘top dollar’ as other clubs from a proposed Super League. As reported by the Daily Mail, A22 Chief Executive Bernd Reichart has confirmed talks have been held with the two Scottish giants about the prospect of joining a new European Super League. Reichart claimed “domestic kings in lesser leagues” would benefit from joining the revised proposals for a super league, which now includes between 60-80 European teams across multiple divisions. Rangers and Celtic have been informed that the proposal would include a minimum of 14 midweek European games, which would supposedly provide a significant financial boost. However, Maguire has questioned the finances of the proposal and how it will be spread among the multiple divisions, with Rangers and Celtic unlikely to be invited to the top tier. “Bernd Reichart is a salesman and he is trying to woo those clubs in the mid-tier of football by trying to offer them some form of guaranteed return,” Maguire told Football Insider. “But the more you look into the A22 proposals, it’s actually to create a European league. “The main question is about where the money is going to be focused. “If there are multiple divisions in this European league, there is zero chance that Rangers and Celtic will be in the top tier. “They will be in the lower tiers and that will rob them of the top dollar being promised. “They would of course sell-out matches as they already do, but their opposition wouldn’t be the top European clubs as they would be in the top division.”
I hear in this week's Voetbal International there's an article about Wallstreet taking over football. Voetbal wordt Wall Street: hoe Amerikanen de waarde van Vitesse willen verdubbelen Vi|3 days ago Vijftig Europese clubs zijn in handen gevallen van Amerikanen. Vitesse is er een van. In een document bedoeld voor investeerders, presenteert de Common Group hoe het de waarde van de Arnhemse club wil @Brilliant Oranje Didnot you have a subscription?