|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 27, 2011 6:39:17 GMT
Any group of "top" clubs which cares about themselves is actually worse than FIFA/UEFA et al. GUARDIAN Raphael Honigstein in Munich Europe's top clubs threaten Fifa revolt
• 'Now is the time to intervene' declares Rummenigge • Call for revolution against football's top leadershipKarl-Heinz Rummenigge, the chairman of the European Club Association (ECA), has called for a club-led "revolution" against the "corrupt people" who govern football and called for his members to have a say in Fifa's decision-making process. The 55-year-old chief executive officer of Bayern Munich said he despaired at what he described as the "daily corruption process at Fifa" and asked the footballing authorities "to recognise that it's time for democracy, transparency and the right balance in the football family". "I don't accept any longer that we [should be] guided by people who are not serious and clean," he said. "Now is the moment to intervene. Because knowing something is wrong is an obligation to change." The ECA replaced G14 as the representative body for the leading European clubs and numbers among its members Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. Rummenigge said there was a groundswell of public support for his stance in the wake of recent scandals, the life-ban for Mohamed bin Hammam and "questions about the Qatari World Cup". "It's not just the top clubs, it's all the clubs," he said, adding that the feeling of discontent was felt strongest in Germany, Switzerland and England, where he has recently met the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, and club officials. Fifa itself was unable to change, he said. "Sepp Blatter is saying [that he's cleaning up shop] but the fact that no one believes him tells you everything you need to know. I'm not optimistic because they believe the system is working perfectly as it is. It's a money machine, World Cup after World Cup. And for them, that's more important than serious and clean governance." There was also, in his opinion, little chance that the national associations would exert pressure for reforms. "I don't believe [that they will get involved]. The current system is tailor-made for the associations and voted for by the associations. They won't go against [Fifa]." Having a representative of the clubs on Fifa's executive committee was not enough, he said. "I would go further. All stakeholders – clubs, associations, players, referees, and women's football – have a right to be involved in the decision-making process." Rummenigge also professed himself unhappy with the amount of international games clogging up the fixture calendar. "When I won the European Championship [in 1980], there were eight teams in the finals. That figure will treble by 2016. In the World Cup, it used to be 16 teams, now it's 32. The clubs pay the players but are not part of the decision-making process.We are not treated respectfully." Rummenigge hinted at a possible breakaway from international associations if the ECA's grievances over fixture congestion are not addressed. "I will give them a chance but I'm ready for a revolution if that's the only way to come to a solution," he said. www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/26/europe-top-clubs-fifa-revolt
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Jul 27, 2011 6:51:38 GMT
He does have a point about Qatar though, they ban Hammam for life for corruption, but they tell us the Qatar Qorld Cup was and is 'clean' when Hammam is from Qatar and had a hand probably a very big hand in Qatar winning that bid.
|
|
|
Post by rousdonhoops on Jul 27, 2011 8:03:54 GMT
where were they when England needed their vote of no confidence against FIFA. Seventeen in support and over 200 backed Blatter and his cronies. Then, to add insult to injury, turned on the FA and said it was sour grapes for the failed World Cup bid
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on Jul 27, 2011 8:08:50 GMT
i actually agree that we need a democracy here.
fifa are actual scum, and its not a new revelation. we all just seem to get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 27, 2011 8:30:06 GMT
Trouble is this "big clubs" League is concerned for these clubs. And screw the rest of us. At least the football associations - whatever corruption, etc - at least in INTENT (Yeah I know!) Are designed for the good of football; not the wealth of Man U & Chelsea and Barcelona.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 28, 2011 6:55:15 GMT
Guardian/Matt Scott
Top European clubs threaten to break away from Fifa and Uefa
• ECA teams unhappy about finances and international fixtures • Clubs may bypass governing bodies and run their own affairsEuropean clubs will break away from Fifa and Uefa and create their own super league unless the world governing body urgently addresses their growing concerns over international fixtures and finances. It would be the most radical development in the history of football since the first World Cup in 1930, ripping up the established world order of the game and seizing power from Sepp Blatter, Fifa's president. The Guardian can reveal the background to Karl-Heinz Rummenigge's comments on Tuesday about a "revolution" for football: a European super league that would see the clubs seize control of their own affairs from the regulators. The European game is currently ordered through a memorandum of understanding between clubs and Uefa that was signed three and a half years ago. It runs until 2014, and when it expires the top European clubs will no longer be legally bound to play in Uefa's Champions League or, crucially, to release their players for international friendlies or tournaments, including the World Cup. In a reflection of their belief that Fifa lacks legitimacy – especially in the wake of the damaging bribery allegations currently surrounding the organisation – the clubs will not shrink from breaking away if they do not receive sufficient guarantees. A board member of the European Club Association of which Bayern Munich's Rummenigge is president told the Guardian on Wednesday: "The fact that Bayern Munich, who have always been close to the institutions, are being so vocal and loud about the situation is a clear sign we're very close to breaking point. We have a memorandum of understanding with Uefa that expires in 2014. After that time we can no longer be forced to respect Fifa statutes or Uefa regulations. And we won't be obliged to compete in their competitions." When asked what that would mean for clubs' finances if they were to withdraw from the Champions League, which generates tens of millions of pounds a year for his organisation's richest and most influential members, the ECA board member responded: "Don't be naive. Don't think there would be no alternative competition." Although the ECA has a broad constituency, representing 197 European clubs, it is the interests of nine in particular that will drive this agenda. They are Real Madrid, Milan, Liverpool, Internazionale, Manchester United, Barcelona, Arsenal, Chelsea and Rummenigge's Bayern. When the Guardian contacted the four English clubs for their views on the matter, all declined to comment. However, a director at one of the clubs said: "[Financially] there is a lot of unfulfilled potential in football as it stands." The English experience of the past 20 years, since a breakaway group of the leading clubs withdrew from the Football League to form the Premier League (albeit under the auspices of the Football Association), has been exceptionally lucrative for the game domestically and the hawks within the ECA are pushing for a replica at European level. The news will not come as a surprise at Uefa where in some quarters there is a long-held view that the clubs will seek to go their own way. This has arisen from a number of points of conflict with the world football authorities. As revealed by the Guardian last month there is considerable disquiet about perceived moves to expand the international calendar, forcing clubs to release their expensively remunerated players to national associations without any payback. Fifa denies there have been any discussions about the subject but the ECA source claimed that the matter will be ratified at a Fifa executive-committee meeting in the autumn. As is consistent with relations between Fifa and the clubs, the decision will have been taken without any formal negotiations with the clubs about how the additional fixtures would be accommodated. There is a further grievance, this time with Uefa about insurance. The ECA alleges Uefa has pulled back from its commitment to provide insurance for players who are called up for international duty. "Uefa said we would have our insurance after their presidential elections [in March]," the source said. "Now the elections have taken place and we're still waiting for talks." A spokesman for Uefa did not respond to the Guardian's call. Yet despite the details of the enduring dispute between the clubs and Fifa and Uefa, there is an overriding financial motive. "When you have every club losing money every year and the only winners the players and Fifa," the source said, "how can that be allowed to go on?" www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/27/european-clubs-breakaway-fifa-uefa
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 28, 2011 6:57:15 GMT
Guardian/Matt Scott
Six key questions on why top clubs could stage a European revolt
• Europe's biggest clubs could start breakaway league in 2014 • Owners motivated by possibility of generating more moneyWho are the teams involved? It is the biggest brands in football that are driving this agenda. Between them Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Internazionale, Milan, Manchester United, Liverpool and Barcelona have won 36 European Cup and Champions League titles, almost two-thirds of those played. Where these clubs play money will undoubtedly follow. Added to this are Arsenal and Chelsea who, despite never having won Europe's elite trophy, boast international fanbases that would assist in driving the revenues of a competition. There would also be invitations to the other big names from across Europe: Juventus, Roma, Ajax, Porto, Marseille and a few others — Manchester City perhaps? Why do they want to do it? The short answer is: money. And lots of it. A new breed of football owner has emerged who does not see the proprietorship of their sporting assets as a benevolent activity. Men such as Silvio Berlusconi have used football club ownership to push a popular political agenda, or Roman Abramovich to raise his profile overseas with a trophy asset. Both have been content to sustain huge losses in support of their clubs. But the US owners who began entering the football market with the 2005 Glazer takeover of Manchester United are used to generating cash from their sports franchises. They consider it insane that almost every entity at the top of the world's most popular sport haemorrhages cash. How could they make a breakaway actually happen? Legally they would be entitled to break away from football's existing structures in 2014 when the current accord between the clubs and Uefa, which in the Champions League runs the club game's most lucrative competition, elapses. Eyeballs follow Lionel Messi, Wayne Rooney and Fernando Torres wherever they go. And with fan interest come the dollars of sponsors and broadcasters – as Fifa has found with the explosion of its revenues over the past decade and a half. In 1997 Fifa's entire annual revenue was $22.5m; by 2009, at the same stage in a World Cup cycle because it was also one year before a tournament took place, Fifa had generated $1bn from their events. With that amount of money to share between them the clubs could make anything happen. How would a breakaway work? To maximise revenues and to provide security of income for those clubs involved, access to the tournament is likely to be restricted. Although a closed league would probably not play well with European fans used to promotion and relegation, a simple play-off system for a single place may be the kind of sop that clubs aim to get away with. Similarly to the existing Uefa Champions League, it would probably be a midweek tournament. Already Real Madrid and Barcelona operate B teams in lower leagues – top clubs would hope to employ such second strings in their national-league commitments. Domestic competitors may not like the elite breaking away but are unlikely to tell them they cannot play in traditional competitions since their incomes are tied to those of the big guns. What about international football and the World Cup? Arguably the biggest gripe among clubs is the international fixture calendar. The early‑August friendly date has angered the game's employers since they must release their players at exactly the time they want to be organising friendly matches of their own: lucrative pre-season tours overseas. If 20 teams are to participate in a fixed tournament, as well as the introduction of an end-of-season knockout competition along the lines of US sports' play-offs, there will be no room for the top players to commit to biennial international tournaments. This, clearly, would be the most politically sensitive area of the elite clubs' plans but its impact may be softened by the clubs pooling their players in a separate tournament played in international shirts – but without Fifa involvement. Why is it different this time? Clubs have indeed been down this route before, when the combative Florentino Pérez of Real Madrid was chairman of the G14 movement. A strategy document developed in 2007 by the G14's then general manager, Thomas Kurth, talked of "a detachment of the top professional level from all remaining levels underneath, if this was agreed upon by the clubs". The threat petered out after Uefa pledged to distribute a bigger share of Champions League income to the clubs. But they regretted not taking on Fifa at the time and, in the world governing body's moment of weakness, the clubs are sensing their opportunity anew. The arrival of US owners, Uefa's dirigiste financial fair play rules and the lack of profitability for clubs are combining to create a critical mass. www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/27/uefa-champions-league-european-revolt
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 29, 2011 5:37:26 GMT
Guardian/Jamie Jackson
Football Supporters' Federation warns against elite clubs' breakaway
• Fans' body says super league would lead to 'disintegration'
• Top European clubs accused of opportunism over Fifa woesThe Football Supporters' Federation has accused Europe's elite clubs of potentially provoking the "disintegration" of football with their plans to break away from Uefa and Fifa.The FSF, which represents more than 180,000 fans and members of organisations from clubs throughout the football pyramid in England and Wales, argues that the leading clubs would suffer – along with the fans and the wider game – if they created their own super league. Europe's top teams are ready to break away from 2014 unless Fifa, the world governing body, addresses their concerns over finances and international fixtures. Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the FSF, said he viewed the threat as "just another round of sabre rattling by the big clubs" but would be worried if it became reality. "Basically the game starts disintegrating if people cede away and they ultimately might be the people who suffer," he said. "Having said that, we at least share with them their attributed view that Fifa needs major reform." In the wake of corruption scandals related to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, chairman of the European Club Association and chief executive of Bayern Munich, called for a "revolution". He said: "I don't accept any longer that we should be guided by people who are not serious and clean. Now is the moment to intervene because knowing something is wrong is an obligation to change." But Clarke questioned Rummenigge's motives. "It sounds more like a bit of an excuse for changing things than a genuine concern about the governance of Fifa," he said. "What would they do? Set up a completely separate organisation? And what relationship would it have with all the leagues? If they're planning to set up a completely stand-alone league, unless it's got links into the leagues that come under the auspices of the associations, then it is just going to be a closed [competition] that stays closed for ever. How boring is that? "The whole system relies on any club having aspirations to reach the top. So once you start sealing off a group of elite clubs on the basis of their money, and not on what they've done on the field in the previous season, you start losing a lot of the attractiveness of the game. "If they ever did that, they might find that their internal league is very boring after a few years. Whatever we think about the Premier League, it still links into the rest of the English league system. I know we have big problems about the wealth distribution and imbalance but you still have three clubs relegated and three clubs promoted." Clarke pointed to other sports where breakaways have formed. "A lot of these clubs get almost too big for their boots. They think they're invincible," he said. "Look at sports like boxing and darts [each has more than one governing body] – they're far smaller sports but when things start to break up and people start to disassociate themselves from the governing body it doesn't do them or the sport a lot of good. Boxing and darts are a bit of a joke. I don't think it'd do football much good to go down that route." www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/28/fifa-fans-super-league-opposition
|
|