Saudi Sportswashing
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
I dont think its "sportswashing" necessarily. Its 2 things.
1. MBS wants to be a bigger Dubai.
2. MBS has so much oil money and has to spend it on something (they wont share it with their poor), so he decided to buy football players. Its more a case of a football nerd having too much money. Their wealth fund has $700 billion. If we woke up tomorrow with $700 billion, we both would be buying up soccer teams and signing players. He's a football nerd at heart.
@Allan McMurray
My turn to ask “what say you?”
Mitrovic reportedly has asked Fulham for a release. Balogun L’s name has come up as a replacement. What say you?
My turn to ask “what say you?”
Mitrovic reportedly has asked Fulham for a release. Balogun L’s name has come up as a replacement. What say you?
Good article.
apnews.com
The Saudi Government now owns 4 teams. I don't understand how FIFA allows this as they are very big on the separation of government and football. Not to mention the ethics and immortality of paying extreme over- market salaries to footballers when that money should go to its poorest people.
After stocking up on big-name players, Saudi Arabia's ambitious soccer league starts Friday
The Saudi Pro League kicks off Friday after a spending spree on new players grabbed the soccer world’s attention.
apnews.com
The Saudi Government now owns 4 teams. I don't understand how FIFA allows this as they are very big on the separation of government and football. Not to mention the ethics and immortality of paying extreme over- market salaries to footballers when that money should go to its poorest people.
I thought about starting a thread on the free board about Neymar signing for two years/300 million today.Good article.
After stocking up on big-name players, Saudi Arabia's ambitious soccer league starts Friday
The Saudi Pro League kicks off Friday after a spending spree on new players grabbed the soccer world’s attention.
The Saudi Government now owns 4 teams. I don't understand how FIFA allows this as they are very big on the separation of government and football. Not to mention the ethics and immortality of paying extreme over- market salaries to footballers when that money should go to its poorest people.
FIFA needs to ban the Saudi FA from international competitions. Having a medieval king buy football players is not good for the game. At the very least, they should be banned from the Club World Cup if they made it but that would be basically no deterrent. Banning them from the World Cup did. Listen, I am all for paying market rates but when a King, who rules a country like its 1154 and cannot be voted out, is paying way over market simply because he doesn't share the money with his peasants, FIFA needs to step in.
They didn’t step in regarding Man City or PSG and soon to be New Castle. They aren’t stepping in now.
UEFA teams have to make an attempt to make a profit or they cant play in continental tournaments. Because of that, Kings cannot spend monopoly money in UEFA like they can in the AFC. MBS is making no attempt to make a profit in Saudi Arabia. He is spending because he can.
Sorry for the massive delay. I didn’t even see this in my feed last month.
It’s been turbulent. Mitro has pretty much been cast away. He allegedly made a comment after Fulham refused to sell him that he’d never train or play for Fulham again. He didn’t feature in any of the 4 preseason matches. He was reported to have agreed to personal terms with the Saudi team but Fulham didn’t care.
Now thing may have healed since he featured at Everton but he has some work to do. I like Khan telling the Saudi’s to piss up a tree and glad he didn’t sell him.
But it’s reared it’s head again as Sunday it was reported they came back with an improved offer.
We will see…
They are big on the separation of the government from the running of the national teams. Because they don't want competition for the bribes. They do not, and never have, given a rat's arse about governments owning any club team anywhere on the planet.
Its not something that has ever been thought of because the kings cannot spend recklessly in UEFA for reasons I mentioned. Now that MBS is doing that in the Saudi league, they need to take a look at this. Spending "public" money without a realistic chance to make a profit isn't good for the sport or the country.
YOU might think that, but it's pretty obvious that everyone doesn't agree. For instance I will guarantee you that the country of Saudi Arabia thinks it's good for the sport in their country, and the fans of the teams in Saudi Arabia most likely think that it's just great.
And I guarantee you that even the players who have no interest at all in playing in Saudi Arabia think that them driving up the transfer market and salaries in general are pretty happy about it.
What you really mean to say is that it's not good for YOU, because now there are some good players who previously you might happen to watch on occasion and now you won't get to see them. Or in other words, another example of how the real world doesn't revolve around you, much to your dismay.
What is good for players doesn't mean its good for the sport. A medieval kingdom is artificially driving up prices, not the market. That isn't good. And I am sure there are more people against this in Saudi Arabia than for it. They just arent allowed to say it. For a country with about as much wealth inequality as any on Earth, it is not good for the king to be spending on soccer and not his poorest peasants. FIFA needs to step in.
Even by your standards that's really dumb.
Would it be bad for world soccer if MLS was so happy with the Messi to Miami move that they allowed every team in the league to do a deal like that with a high level player, even though it would drive up the prices? Would someone be arguing that it's bad for a country with as much wealth as the United States has to be bringing in soccer players on exorbitant contracts when there are people who are homeless or going hungry every day in this country?
That's a terrible comparison. MLS teams are owned by regular rich people who are attempting to make money. If every MLS team could sign a Messi-like player, that would be very good for the sport because it means a growing market like the US has 30 teams who could sign a Messi and still make money. And it isnt the responsibility of Inter Miami or LAFC or whoever to feed and house people in their cities. Its the government's responsibility, if anyone. These Saudi teams cannot make money paying these amounts. There's a reason Man City, Real Madrid, PSG, etc cannot pay these salaries. They would lose money. We have a medieval king essentially taking money from his people to LOSE a ton of money on football.
If the US government decided it was going to fund MLS then I'd say that would be bad for FIFA. However, even that wouldn't be the same because the American people have a say. If they dont like their government paying Messi or Mbappe or whoever, they can vote them out. In Saudi Arabia, they cannot do that. So you have, literally a king, a medieval "ruler" like out of Game of Thrones or something spending all this money, not as an investment, not to make money. But because he has an infinite amount of money and likes soccer so its his pet project.
So what? Literally, so what? If a team is spending a bunch of money it doesn't have and can't make back because their owner is rich and doesn't care what difference does it make if that rich entity is Todd Boehly or the PIF?
It's only a terrible comparison because I'm comparing the people that you don't like to the ones that you do, and pointing out that in the soccer world they are no different. And you don't like someone pointing that out.
Like I said, your problem is that YOU don't like it, so you think that no one likes it and it shouldn't be allowed. As if you are the dictator of the soccer world.
It's as if that SMF just can't wrap his head around the idea that this is all about the money. When it's the money of people that he's OK with then that money is fine. When it's the money of people that he doesn't like then it's a problem that needs to be stopped ASAP.
UEFA would have to accept the Saudi Arabia FA. I dont see that happening. But, maybe that would be good for the US? If UEFA expands into the Middle East, perhaps they'd expand to the US? UEFA needs some Big Ten folks running it.
That first qualifying match between one of the Saudi teams and Maccabi Haifa would be must see tv.
UEFA, which is part of FIFA, has that law which states you have to break even. They dont want kings and oligarchs running these teams with monopoly money. Bad for the sport. That's UEFA. That's not me. I just happen to agree. UEFA is very influential with FIFA for obvious reasons. Would they lobby FIFA to take this same stance with the SA FA and/or their league? There is no attempt to make money as they have 4 teams owned by a king. He isnt running a business. He is playing a video game. Good for the players? Yes. Good for a few fans in the kingdom? Yes. Good for world football? No.
Are you really dumb enough to believe that is the case?
I mean I don't even think you are dumb enough to believe that, are you telling us that you actually are?
Huh? Juventus is banned from Europe next year and there have been many others who have received various levels of penalties.
Financial Fair Play: Which Teams Have Been Punished?
Which clubs have fallen foul of FFP? And why can some others seemingly circumvent the rules?
sqaf.club
Again, the King cannot spend monopoly money on Newcastle. They would get banned from Europe.
Barca was literally more than $1 BILLION in debt. They have now sold off more than half of many of their future revenues so that they can continue signing players to huge contracts. How many years have they been banned from UEFA competitions?
And Juventus isn't banned from Europe because they lost money. They are banned from Europe because the people running the team falsified financial records. To the point where they are now in prison. Because you can get away with falsifying records to UEFA (ask Chelsea), but you can't get away with falsifying tax documents in your home country.
But if you think that teams losing money will get them thrown out of Europe, explain Barca. Or, if you prefer, explain Man City with the financial shenanigans they do to cover up the fact that they lose money. Or PSG, who does similar stuff.
Ok, so we are clear here, if the Mad King spent on Newcastle like he is spending on his Saudi teams, it is your premise that they wouldn't get a Europe ban?
Did Barca get banned for going over $1 billion in debt? Has either Man City or PSG gotten banned for their spending far more money than they take in (unless you include the money that they take from their owners left pocket and put it in his right pocket)?
Newcastle could run a huge deficit every year from now until both of us are dead, and if they have anyone running the team with even a modicum of intelligence they will NEVER get a Europe ban.
Better yet, Beitar Jerusalem. I watched a documentary about them a bit back on a youtube channel called HITC Sevens. I'm not sure they could have the matches in either Saudi or Jerusalem.
Can you then explain why Newcastle had the 10th highest payroll in the EPL despite being owned by a King who has an infinite money supply? I guess he wants to run Newcastle like a legitimate business and make money, right? Or, or, he knows that if he pays Neymar $150 million/year and Ronaldo $250 million/year and Benzema $100 million/year, Newcastle would be banned from Europe. Nah, that cant be it.
Because unlike the owner of Chelsea, who clearly thinks that the answer to winning is to just continue to throw ever increasing piles of money at any and all players who have any interest in signing with you, the people running Newcastle went a completely different way, hiring competent people to run the show who know that you don't have to have the highest payroll in the league to make the Champions League, you just need to spend your money wisely. They realize that it's better to spend $20 million on a player who fits your team perfectly than to spend $50 million on one who doesn't.
Now it's your turn. For the third time (at least), if UEFA won't let teams lose giant sums of money operating the team explain why teams like Barca, City and PSG have never been banned from playing in their events.
And don't worry, we all understand why you refuse to answer the question.
That's funny. Newcastle has to run a club like the Pirates because the Mad King wants to be super smart about it. Or maybe he knows they cant pay players $100 million/year and play in Europe. Nah.
As for the other questions, not all expenses count. If you want to build a new stadium or put in gold-plated lockers, or make other non-football investments, UEFA doenst care. Barcelona had other issues which werent all brought on by paying Saudi type money.
"Only a club's outgoings in transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, finance costs and dividends will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, sales of players and prize money. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included."
Its a pretty simple formula actually, much simpler than actual tax reporting formulas.
Another L for the Financial Fair Play denier.
Good god are you dumb.
No one said that Newcastle HAD to do anything. You asked what they WERE doing, and I told you.
The notion that Barca ran up all that debt on things that "don't count" is simply wrong. They have had, by far, the highest payroll and pay the highest transfer fees in the world. That's why they can't make money, even though they also have some of the highest revenues in the world. The notion that Man City or PSG would be making money if it weren't for things like building new stadiums (which, of course, neither of them has done) is wrong. They make money for one reason, and one reason only. They have sweetheart deals where they essentially pay themselves far more than it's worth for all sorts of sponsorships. Who pays City and PSG for their jersey sponsorships, for example, and how much more do they pay them than other similar teams make?
It's hilarious that you subscribe to all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy type theories, but on something that is real and is actually happening and that lots of people have complained about you bury your head in the sand and pretend not to notice what's right in front of your face.
Not having any ticket revenue in their 100K seat stadium for a year also badly hurt. Perhaps, UEFA gave them a pass due to Covid. I dont know. That said, Barcelona's financial situation was bad but it wouldn't be in the same stratosphere if Al-Nasr was in UEFA. Barcelona paid too much for players but were making an attempt to make money. Its a business and they made some bad "investments." The Mad King is making no attempt to make money. And their losses will dwarf Barcelona's every single year. So if he spent at Newcastle like he does domestically, they'd sure be banned. And that's why you dont see Newcastle spending.
If Barca was actually trying to make money they the people running that club were the most inept business people in the history of the world. Not in all of soccer or all of sports, in the history of the world.
They weren't making money because they had absolutely no intention to make money. I mean were they hoping that eventually someday it would work out? Yeah, sure, of course they were. But they made decisions, year after year, decision after decision, to pay transfer fees and sign players to contracts that they absolutely could not afford if they wanted to have any hope of making money, and yet they did it anyway.
Because they knew, completely and fully, that there was no way that UEFA was ever going to sanction them for their actions. As is shown by the fact that they could run up well over a billion dollars in debt and have never even been told by UEFA to cut it out, let along been kicked out of the Champions League. If isn't UEFA that is making them get their finances in order, it's La Liga that's doing it.
Because the people running La Liga care about the competition, whereas the people running UEFA care about the money. To the exclusion of just about everything else.
