My Milksheik brings all the boys to the yard

[Squiggles]

The Saudi 'takeover' is worthy of a separate thread away from the signings and transfer rumours.

[article] The Saudi League's four biggest clubs - Al-Ittihad and Al-Ahli of Jeddah and Riyadh's Al-Hilal and Al-Nassr - were recently taken over by Saudi Arabia's Private Investment Fund (PIF), marking the first steps towards privatisation. This development is potentially even more significant than the arrival of famous foreign players and coaches.
"What is significant about the privatisation process in Saudi Arabia is that it is intended to enhance the commercial performance of Saudi Arabia's pro league clubs," Simon Chadwick, professor of sport and geopolitical economy at SKEMA Business School, told MEE.
"We are talking about revenue generation in broadcasting, sponsorship and other commercial deals, merchandising and possibly even from inwards investment."
Chadwick adds that the authorities want to see these four clubs become commercial giants.

The target is for the quartet to join other global brands like Manchester United, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich in the top 20 rankings of the Deloitte Money League, which lists the clubs that generate the most revenue in the world. It may sound far-fetched but significant investment in sport can bring rapid change. That was demonstrated in shocking clarity in June, when Saudi money brought seismic changes in golf as the PIF-financed LIV Golf series merged with the long-established and prestigious PGA Tour.
[/article]

We're potentially looking at one of the most disruptive evolutions of football in our lifetime

So how big do we think it's going to go?
Will a global audience tune in enough for the investment to be worth it?
How do you anticipate UEFA to respond to an upcoming talent drain?
How do you anticipate the footballing landscape looking in 4-5 years?

 

[LeTallecWiz]

great title.

 

[Farkmaster]

I think this idea that all most people care about now is star players, and people don't follow teams, or care about history anymore is wrong. I don't think moving a bunch of past-it players on huge fees is going to do much. I also don't think most players want to live there. People aren't watching games to watch Ronaldo in a nothing league right now, so I doubt the other names moving are going to do anything.

Some people will tune in, but not enough for it to be worth it.

There's enough talent in football, and talent is made, not purchased; talent won't develop in leagues that aren't full of talent, and buying the same amount of talent will never be possible.

Shittier.

 

[James]

China tried to do the same, and then went to shit because people remembered they were watching the Chinese league.
Same will happen here.

 

[binomial]

China tried to do the same, and then went to shit because people remembered they were watching the Chinese league.
Same will happen here.

Didn't players stop moving to China because they introduced (more of the Government forcing) a salary cap thus making it an unattractive proposition?

 

[darkstarexodus]

Have a like for the title.

I agree with Farkmaster that this ultimately won't stand to make Saudi a top league. But it's undeniably generated more interest than they could have organically.

So the question is what's the end game? Do they want to host the 2030 World Cup? Doable, maybe inevitable. Do they want to establish Saudi league in the world top 10? More questionable. Do they want to completely disrupt European soccer and reach the top of the global club game? I don't see it happening.

But, also, are they in bed with the top European clubs and helping to provide a relief valve for all the poor financial decisions these clubs have made in recent years? This is the really shady answer that needs to be uncovered.

 

[Beamrider]

This has the potential to be a disruptor.
But if we look at the players signed so far, you're mainly looking at guys towards the end of their careers (Ronaldo, Kante) or players for middling clubs / out of favour (Neves, Mendy). If they really want to make a splash then they need to sign players in their mid / late 20s who are regularly driving their clubs towards domestic / European glory.
Even then, if they genuinely want this to be a successful enterprise (as opposed to pure sports washing, which is what it looks like so far) then they're relying on the players to drive public interest in the football aspects, because the clubs have no sporting legacy to attract a fanbase. And this idea of becoming a commercial powerhouse doesn't stack up to me. If you look at the Deloitte money-league clubs, broadcasting revenue is a huge factor (the top 20 derive 44% of their income from broadcasting). These clubs aren't going to match those numbers, especially without Champions League. They miss the idea that most fans' loyalty is to clubs, not players. So the idea that they will become self-sustaining on the basis of major corporates being desperate to get align their brands with ageing superstars on a retirement drive is ridiculous.
So then maybe you look at what they've done with golf and ask if they're seeking to repeat that with football. Sign up loads of the top (if ageing) players - check. Attract a huge fanbase because people are loyal to players and not clubs, nope. Try to reverse takeover European football. Errr, not sure.
And this is where FFP comes in (bear with me). Perhaps the agenda here is actually to push UEFA and national leagues to abolish FFP as it's the only way to prevent the talent drain of the guys who want the fat pay-cheque more than they want meaningful medals. In this respect, picture European football being in the same position as La Liga Javier Tebas, moaning that clubs can't afford Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo any more because they have to work within financial constraints that don't apply to Saudi clubs.
That's where I see it as a disruptor, because if the PIF can pressure the authorities to relax FFP then they can do whatever they like with Newcastle (and future acquisitions of other clubs). Sure, it's an expensive long game, but they've got money to burn.

 

[juniormember]

China tried to do the same, and then went to shit because people remembered they were watching the Chinese league.
Same will happen here.

The China situation was very different though. The Saudis are going all out with their limitless cash for the sake of sportswashing. As long as they have that objective their trillions of dollars in spare cash will allow them to keep going.
The Chinese, or more precisely Xi Jinping, was well into footy for a few years and wanted the sport to develop in China. They realized having some old stars did nothing in developing their own talent so decided to limit club spending to the extreme. And even at their peak they weren't paying what the Saudis are paying these players.

 

[Squiggles]

I think it's likely the Saudis will realistically do what they can to establish themselves on the global scene, not just sporting but in all facets. They will be desperate to shift their economic reliance on oil and that's why for me it's not going to be "another China". There's far broader motivations here ambitions than anything China had in mind.

As Beamrider says, being able operate outside of FFP, with almost unlimited cash reserves, puts them in a powerful position, but whether it will be a anything other than a retirement home for aging stars is hard to say.

Similar to the Golf, I wouldn't be surprised to see many injury prone players consider the pay too much to turndown. The likes of Pulisic, Keita, etc, etc. The big question is whether they can tempt top quality CL players in their prime to start going. I'm sure there will be plenty of offers already sent out.

 

[StevieM]

This has the potential to be a disruptor.
But if we look at the players signed so far, you're mainly looking at guys towards the end of their careers (Ronaldo, Kante) or players for middling clubs / out of favour (Neves, Mendy). If they really want to make a splash then they need to sign players in their mid / late 20s who are regularly driving their clubs towards domestic / European glory.
Even then, if they genuinely want this to be a successful enterprise (as opposed to pure sports washing, which is what it looks like so far) then they're relying on the players to drive public interest in the football aspects, because the clubs have no sporting legacy to attract a fanbase. And this idea of becoming a commercial powerhouse doesn't stack up to me. If you look at the Deloitte money-league clubs, broadcasting revenue is a huge factor (the top 20 derive 44% of their income from broadcasting). These clubs aren't going to match those numbers, especially without Champions League. They miss the idea that most fans' loyalty is to clubs, not players. So the idea that they will become self-sustaining on the basis of major corporates being desperate to get align their brands with ageing superstars on a retirement drive is ridiculous.
So then maybe you look at what they've done with golf and ask if they're seeking to repeat that with football. Sign up loads of the top (if ageing) players - check. Attract a huge fanbase because people are loyal to players and not clubs, nope. Try to reverse takeover European football. Errr, not sure.
And this is where FFP comes in (bear with me). Perhaps the agenda here is actually to push UEFA and national leagues to abolish FFP as it's the only way to prevent the talent drain of the guys who want the fat pay-cheque more than they want meaningful medals. In this respect, picture European football being in the same position as La Liga Javier Tebas, moaning that clubs can't afford Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo any more because they have to work within financial constraints that don't apply to Saudi clubs.
That's where I see it as a disruptor, because if the PIF can pressure the authorities to relax FFP then they can do whatever they like with Newcastle (and future acquisitions of other clubs). Sure, it's an expensive long game, but they've got money to burn.

Do you reckon the Saudi’s will go for a John Henry styled breakaway Champions League and throw money at top clubs to join - they really could do to football what they did to golf.

This kind of sets the groundwork - for including “their teams”.

The way to get around UEFA, is surely to “buy” FIFA - get that World Club Championship turned into a World Club League.

That might even bypass Champions League if they can get, via FIFA, “World Champions League” onto the football calendar.

I think they know that loads of top European teams - Real, Barca, all the Italian teams, us, Chelsea, will absolutely jump at the chance to increase revenues.

That feels like the FSG endgame - get us in there, then sell at a premium.

 

[Beamrider]

Do you reckon the Saudi’s will go for a John Henry styled breakaway Champions League and throw money at top clubs to join - they really could do to football what they did to golf.

This kind of sets the groundwork - for including “their teams”.

The way to get around UEFA, is surely to “buy” FIFA - get that World Club Championship turned into a World Club League.

That might even bypass Champions League if they can get, via FIFA, “World Champions League” onto the football calendar.

I think they know that loads of top European teams - Real, Barca, all the Italian teams, us, Chelsea, will absolutely jump at the chance to increase revenues.

That feels like the FSG endgame - get us in there, then sell at a premium.

It's certainly a theory, and you could argue that this could become Superleague Mark II. It was something I thought about as an endgame but I'm dismissing the idea of the Saudis buying out FIFA, although I'm sure with the right amount of "exit bonus" going to FIFA delegates that they could swing it.
Absent that, under the first version of Superleague the clubs were expecting to stay in their domestic competitions. Unless the Saudis did buy out FIFA / UEFA, that wouldn't be possible here, and that makes it less attractive to clubs (whose thinking needs to be long-term) as opposed to players (who are only looking at the next few years and can always come back into the fold). In other words, if the whole thing might implode within 5 years, a player won't care but a club will be wary of joining up.
And then there's the vanity aspect of big European clubs accepting a load of tin-pot Saudi teams in the new, expanded Superleague. But that's how sports washing works.
I do think that it would totally fuck the structure of the existing game, and that is likely to spook sponsors - if you (like to pretend you) are an ethical brand, would you touch this? Be interesting to see what happens in golf as a pointer, but whenever I watch golf, the brands tend to be banks and golf gear. Football's appeal to brands is broader and if the global fanbase kicks off (which it will) then it would become pretty toxic quite quickly.
And I say "global" fanbase quite deliberately - because with this kind of money knocking around you could buy-out the fans in the ground by reducing their season ticket prices significantly (and even subsidising travel to overseas games) but your armchair fans, who'd probably be forced into pay per view to boost media values, would be harder to placate.

 

[StevieM]

It's certainly a theory, and you could argue that this could become Superleague Mark II. It was something I thought about as an endgame but I'm dismissing the idea of the Saudis buying out FIFA, although I'm sure with the right amount of "exit bonus" going to FIFA delegates that they could swing it.
Absent that, under the first version of Superleague the clubs were expecting to stay in their domestic competitions. Unless the Saudis did buy out FIFA / UEFA, that wouldn't be possible here, and that makes it less attractive to clubs (whose thinking needs to be long-term) as opposed to players (who are only looking at the next few years and can always come back into the fold). In other words, if the whole thing might implode within 5 years, a player won't care but a club will be wary of joining up.
And then there's the vanity aspect of big European clubs accepting a load of tin-pot Saudi teams in the new, expanded Superleague. But that's how sports washing works.
I do think that it would totally fuck the structure of the existing game, and that is likely to spook sponsors - if you (like to pretend you) are an ethical brand, would you touch this? Be interesting to see what happens in golf as a pointer, but whenever I watch golf, the brands tend to be banks and golf gear. Football's appeal to brands is broader and if the global fanbase kicks off (which it will) then it would become pretty toxic quite quickly.
And I say "global" fanbase quite deliberately - because with this kind of money knocking around you could buy-out the fans in the ground by reducing their season ticket prices significantly (and even subsidising travel to overseas games) but your armchair fans, who'd probably be forced into pay per view to boost media values, would be harder to placate.

That’s an interesting point about brand sponsors - not sure it works though - look who makes their national team strip - and we’ve seen a move towards online gambling, financial institutions etc that aren’t probably going to be phased by Saudi owners (cause they’re probably already part owned by the Saudi’s).

Different streaming partners is the norm now isn’t it?

Even in Australia you have to have different subscriptions - if you want to watch EPL, CL, FA Cup & League Cup you need Optus, Stan, Paramount & Kayo/Fox - don’t see that changing.

 

[Woland]

The English league became the most popular while Spain and Italy were dominating Europe because of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter who these medieval weirdos sign, it's always going to be shit and it's never going to be popular.

 

[HC]

Perfect timing , they've watched a tear-away European super League fall on its arse and instead hellebtn on filling the league they own with Galacticos.

They have the money , ethics is seemingly no barrier and they're not actually doing anything wrong. Too much money to fail ?

 

[rurikbird]

[article]
Gary Neville has called on the Premier League to prevent players from transferring to the Saudi Pro League. "The Premier League should put an instant embargo on transfers to Saudi Arabia to ensure the integrity of the game isn't being damaged. Checks should be made on the appropriateness of the transactions. "I do believe, at this moment in time, transfers should be halted until you look into the ownership structure at Chelsea and whether there are beneficial transfer dealings that are improper."
[/article]

 

[binomial]

What are the Premier League gonna do, honestly? Not a thing. Just like with China.

They see the big money coming in as a positive thing that can help sustain the economy of the clubs in their league.

 

[moron]

I will watch the league where LFC play,
Thats my only interest,
In the past I used to love watching the WC because of Brazil, but they are utter garbage since the 3 R's quit. As I have no affiliation with Brazil, i dont really care other than supporting England, in Euros and WC. As for the CL it has no meaning to me when Liverpool are not in it. So unless Liverpool decide tonplay in this new Saudi league it has zero impact on me.

 

[rurikbird]

What are the Premier League gonna do, honestly? Not a thing. Just like with China.

They see the big money coming in as a positive thing that can help sustain the economy of the clubs in their league.

It would have been different if they were just signing random players from various clubs like Chinese superleague did. But it seems Chelsea are almost the only club who are having their unwanted players actually SOLD for inflated prices: already 4 or 5 names mentioned. And we know that Saudis own part of the Boehly consortium, but they refuse to reveal how much they own. It’s absolutely corrupt and unacceptable - the season will be irrevocably tarnished if the league lets it slide.

 

[Fabio]

What are the Premier League gonna do, honestly? Not a thing. Just like with China.

They see the big money coming in as a positive thing that can help sustain the economy of the clubs in their league.

I think it's different to China, as no Chinese football owners owned shares in PL teams. Chelsea are getting a massive ffp relief for free...like they did when abramovich and the govt. Wiped out their debt

 

[rurikbird]

All 4 clubs owned (or part owned - we don’t know whether it’s part or the majority in case of Chelsea) by the same entity. You see nothing wrong with this picture?

I strongly suspect Boehly is just a figurehead for the Saudis, he’s their Amanda Stavely 2.0

 

[Fabio]

Footballs rotten to the core

 

[Hansern]

Boehly is just Stavely without make up and a dress.

 

[Beamrider]

[article]
Gary Neville has called on the Premier League to prevent players from transferring to the Saudi Pro League. "The Premier League should put an instant embargo on transfers to Saudi Arabia to ensure the integrity of the game isn't being damaged. Checks should be made on the appropriateness of the transactions. "I do believe, at this moment in time, transfers should be halted until you look into the ownership structure at Chelsea and whether there are beneficial transfer dealings that are improper."
[/article]

Neville's taking the wrong approach here. He should be calling for the Premier League / UEFA to investigate links to Chelsea / others and then adjust the prices down to true market value under FFP rules - i.e. there's already a process for this, it needs to be enforced, no bottling out as per. If the Saudis want to pay over market value for players then they're free to do so (they're certainly promising to do it on the wages) but clubs should NOT get an FFP advantage if there's a link (i.e. the excess profit doesn't count for FFP). Blocking the transfer deals altogether would quickly become political and we all know which way the government will bend.
If I were a player, I'd also be wary about whether I'd actually get paid. I was involved with the sale of a player to a club in the Middle East and recommended we get a bank guarantee on the transfer fee because my gut told me they'd never pay. Sure enough, we needed to rely on the bank guarantee to pull in the transfer fee.
Without the protection of an established FA (or PFA) these players risk getting shafted further down the line (seem to recall that happened with a lot of the Chinese clubs).

 

[Beamrider]

That’s an interesting point about brand sponsors - not sure it works though - look who makes their national team strip - and we’ve seen a move towards online gambling, financial institutions etc that aren’t probably going to be phased by Saudi owners (cause they’re probably already part owned by the Saudi’s).

Different streaming partners is the norm now isn’t it?

Even in Australia you have to have different subscriptions - if you want to watch EPL, CL, FA Cup & League Cup you need Optus, Stan, Paramount & Kayo/Fox - don’t see that changing.

I think some sponsors will have an issue with it, and you can discount alcohol after what happened to Budweiser at the World Cup (plus the Saudis might baulk at alcohol anyway). If I were Budweiser (or AN Other drinks company), faced with the choice of ploughing sponsorship money into the NFL or a Saudi Soccer Superleague, it'd be a no-brainer.
The likes of Gazprom won't give a fuck.

 

[peekay]

This has the potential to be a disruptor.
But if we look at the players signed so far, you're mainly looking at guys towards the end of their careers (Ronaldo, Kante) or players for middling clubs / out of favour (Neves, Mendy). If they really want to make a splash then they need to sign players in their mid / late 20s who are regularly driving their clubs towards domestic / European glory.
Even then, if they genuinely want this to be a successful enterprise (as opposed to pure sports washing, which is what it looks like so far) then they're relying on the players to drive public interest in the football aspects, because the clubs have no sporting legacy to attract a fanbase. And this idea of becoming a commercial powerhouse doesn't stack up to me. If you look at the Deloitte money-league clubs, broadcasting revenue is a huge factor (the top 20 derive 44% of their income from broadcasting). These clubs aren't going to match those numbers, especially without Champions League. They miss the idea that most fans' loyalty is to clubs, not players. So the idea that they will become self-sustaining on the basis of major corporates being desperate to get align their brands with ageing superstars on a retirement drive is ridiculous.
So then maybe you look at what they've done with golf and ask if they're seeking to repeat that with football. Sign up loads of the top (if ageing) players - check. Attract a huge fanbase because people are loyal to players and not clubs, nope. Try to reverse takeover European football. Errr, not sure.
And this is where FFP comes in (bear with me). Perhaps the agenda here is actually to push UEFA and national leagues to abolish FFP as it's the only way to prevent the talent drain of the guys who want the fat pay-cheque more than they want meaningful medals. In this respect, picture European football being in the same position as La Liga Javier Tebas, moaning that clubs can't afford Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo any more because they have to work within financial constraints that don't apply to Saudi clubs.
That's where I see it as a disruptor, because if the PIF can pressure the authorities to relax FFP then they can do whatever they like with Newcastle (and future acquisitions of other clubs). Sure, it's an expensive long game, but they've got money to burn.

I do think a lot of posts in this matter approaches this from a very eurocentric perspective. Where the honorable way to approach a career is strive to join one of the legendary teams in the top leagues located mainly in Europe. Even though, one of the main reasons players move to the PL is the salaries on offer.

For example, Neves has been accused of chasing money at the cost of his career. He has come to England paid his dues and performed to the best of his ability in the hope of being noticed by a club which has a chance of winning trophies. He has not hidden his ambitions of playing in the CL. He has not been able to do that. So what is wrong in chasing money? Also if you are super rich, the quality of life in middle east and other countries in Asia is amazing and potentially better than what you experience in the western world. It is not the case for middle class and lower but if you are in the elite class, you get access to world class schools, shopping, fashion, housing, restaurants, hospitals, etc.

Football is reaching a point where players at a select few clubs only can expect to win trophies. So what is wrong in players belonging to other clubs saying screw the system and join such leagues in Asia, whether it is Saudi or Qatar or maybe a new Chinese league. For example, in the french league, I can see these new money rich leagues being attractive to a horde of players who are not good enough to be at PSG, maybe not good enough to get a place in the French national team, but still good enough to play in Saudi league and make significantly more money. Now they are targeting the stars but once that rush is over, maybe they will target the middle level "working class" players from the big leagues to lift the overall level.

Another point not being discussed is that maybe they are not targeting the traditional fans based in Europe. When I was watching the IPL, there were tons of ads for Saudi tourism. So potentially their goal could be fanbase in India, China, and even other South East Asian bloc whose GDP is expected to be comparable to EU countries in a decade or so.

By the way, working in the middle east is seen very favorably among Indians, Sri Lankans (and potentially other South East Asian countries, maybe @Frogfish can chime in here?). Quite a few of my friend circle and distant relatives work in that area from blue collar to white collar to engineers, teachers, etc. Several folks in my circle have visited Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman etc. for honeymoon, vacation, etc. That might be the crowd they are aiming this league at outside of the locals.

Growing up in India in 1990s I became a LFC fan. Maybe in ten years, the young peekays of India will start supporting one of these clubs due to stars, connection due to fathers or uncles jobs, etc. I am not disagreeing with your or any of the points made in this thread. I am just presenting another point of view, which I feel is missing.

 

[the count]

Neville's taking the wrong approach here. He should be calling for the Premier League / UEFA to investigate links to Chelsea / others and then adjust the prices down to true market value under FFP rules - i.e. there's already a process for this, it needs to be enforced, no bottling out as per. If the Saudis want to pay over market value for players then they're free to do so (they're certainly promising to do it on the wages) but clubs should NOT get an FFP advantage if there's a link (i.e. the excess profit doesn't count for FFP). Blocking the transfer deals altogether would quickly become political and we all know which way the government will bend.
If I were a player, I'd also be wary about whether I'd actually get paid. I was involved with the sale of a player to a club in the Middle East and recommended we get a bank guarantee on the transfer fee because my gut told me they'd never pay. Sure enough, we needed to rely on the bank guarantee to pull in the transfer fee.
Without the protection of an established FA (or PFA) these players risk getting shafted further down the line (seem to recall that happened with a lot of the Chinese clubs).

Did you ever read Eamon O Keefe's account of when he played in Saudi Arabia in the 1970's?

Regarding the transfer of players what is to stop Newcastle selling any of their deadwood or youth players to one of the Saudi teams at hugely inflated fees to increase their income and further circumvent FFP rules?

 

[tombrown]

Do you think Boehly had advance notice (12 months ago) of the PIF takeover in Saudi, with a promise to buy Chelsea deadwood, thereby allowing him to buy a gazillion players to see which would stick & then sell the rest to PIF clubs?

He can now rinse & repeat every summer with little to no risk.

 

[Beamrider]

Did you ever read Eamon O Keefe's account of when he played in Saudi Arabia in the 1970's?

Regarding the transfer of players what is to stop Newcastle selling any of their deadwood or youth players to one of the Saudi teams at hugely inflated fees to increase their income and further circumvent FFP rules?

No to O Keefe - anything of note to share?
Re Newcastle, the FFP rules require that transactions with affiliated entities are at fair value (that's what I'm saying Neville should be pushing) but we know UEFA / the FA shat it over City's sponsorship deals. In that case, they accepted City's assurances there was no connection, but I doubt Newcastle would be able to argue no connection with entities under control of the PIF, so the argument would be about value.

 

[Beamrider]

Do you think Boehly had advance notice (12 months ago) of the PIF takeover in Saudi, with a promise to buy Chelsea deadwood, thereby allowing him to buy a gazillion players to see which would stick & then sell the rest to PIF clubs?

He can now rinse & repeat every summer with little to no risk.

No, I think Boehly is an idiot who might just have got lucky, or else the Saudis have targeted Chelsea because they know Chelsea need to sell.

 

[rurikbird]

Neville's taking the wrong approach here. He should be calling for the Premier League / UEFA to investigate links to Chelsea / others and then adjust the prices down to true market value under FFP rules - i.e. there's already a process for this, it needs to be enforced, no bottling out as per. If the Saudis want to pay over market value for players then they're free to do so (they're certainly promising to do it on the wages) but clubs should NOT get an FFP advantage if there's a link (i.e. the excess profit doesn't count for FFP). Blocking the transfer deals altogether would quickly become political and we all know which way the government will bend.
If I were a player, I'd also be wary about whether I'd actually get paid. I was involved with the sale of a player to a club in the Middle East and recommended we get a bank guarantee on the transfer fee because my gut told me they'd never pay. Sure enough, we needed to rely on the bank guarantee to pull in the transfer fee.
Without the protection of an established FA (or PFA) these players risk getting shafted further down the line (seem to recall that happened with a lot of the Chinese clubs).

Can “fair value” be conclusively calculated though? Isn’t “market price” whatever some club will pay, even if it’s just one club and they are making a stupid decision, like when United signed Pogba?