Search: ' Club World Cup'

While there is a certain inevitability about this home victory, it’s only August and these two clubs have very different expectations and requirements from a season in League One, writes Julian McDougall

Away, at Hillsborough. In the days leading up to and following this match, it is in the news again with speculation about relatives of the 1989 disaster victims getting access to crucial documents and Billy Bragg releasing a song about the phone hacking scandal called Scousers Never Buy The Sun.

Read more…

Gary Andrews delves into this year’s FA Cup, which kicked off with a pioneering move that offered free football streamed online (for adults only)

When Ascot United were drawn at home in the FA Cup’s extra preliminary qualifying round to Wembley FC, their board may have reasonably expected a gate of around 100. That would have been a wild underestimate. After 88 fans watched their midweek Hellenic League draw against Ardley United, a record crowd of 1,149 made their way to the Racecourse Ground.

Those punters weren’t the only ones watching the tie. On Facebook 27,000 tuned in to a live stream of Wembley’s eventual 2-1 victory, all of whom chose to stay in on a Friday and watch two teams playing five steps below the Football League. That’s more than the average attendances of eight Premier League teams. The reason can be summed up in one word: Budweiser. The all-American beer hardly seemed the most natural fit for the FA Cup when the sponsorship was announced in June. Since then, however, the brewer appears to have demonstrated a better understanding of the competition than previous sponsors.

At the ground, fans were offered cheap beer and free burgers, while corporate razzmatazz was kept to a minimum. Online, users had to become a fan of the beer’s UK Facebook page (providing they were over 18) then click on a bespoke widget on the page to view the match.

Instead of the usual jerky, slow video, the quality of the stream was high, and commentators Dan Roebuck and Stewart Robson had done plenty of research. There were no patronising asides to second jobs as binmen that often characterise ESPN’s and ITV’s coverage, while occasional pitchside swearing and one fumbled handover seemed in keeping with the occasion.

But for Budweiser and the FA, Ascot v Wembley was about more than bringing attention to teams in a round of the Cup that would usually attract next to no sponsorship. Viewed as an experiment, the Facebook stream can be seen as a success and several parties will be analysing the data with interest. Facebook has over 700 million members, meaning there is a large captive audience, both in the UK and abroad. Having “Liked” the Budweiser page in order to watch the game, all users will see the company’s updates in their Facebook news feeds. The benefits to the brewer’s marketing arm are obvious.

Streaming games legally online is not new. All major broadcasters offer online streaming of their live games, while sites like bet365.com have an array of rights to foreign leagues. ITV.com even streamed Wantage Town v Brading Town at the extra preliminary qualifying stage of the competition in 2008. Although ITV did an impressive job, viewing figures were low and costs high, and the extensive coverage was quietly dropped the following season.

With cricket’s Indian Premier League signing a deal with YouTube and organisations as diverse as Major League Baseball and film studio Miramax experimenting with Facebook broadcasting, it was only a matter of time before football decided it wanted a piece of the action. The FA and Budweiser have now shown the appetite is there – the viewing figures for Ascot were certainly more than some broadcasters’ Europa League streams and, you would suspect, Premier Sport’s Conference coverage (although Premier doesn’t release any viewing figures).

With ongoing uncertainty over TV rights, not least due to Portsmouth publican Karen Murphy’s case against the Premier League, leagues and clubs are already having to plan for the possibility of a different media world. Facebook itself has ambitions to grow into a major broadcasting player. Although the cost may be prohibitive for individual clubs below the Championship to produce their own broadcasts (at least of the same quality as Budweiser’s), it wouldn’t be unexpected if the Conference, or sponsors Blue Square Bet, offer live streaming via Facebook when their current deal with Premier expires, if the sums add up.

However, unless Budweiser does further matches, it’s difficult to tell if the figures were down to a one-off novelty factor or a wider desire to watch grassroots football. But a large portion of younger fans were unable to access the beer’s Facebook page due to the age restrictions, meaning the numbers could be even higher if the brewer can find a way around this.

In the short term, it’s hard to criticise Budweiser and the FA too much, as they pitched their initial stream perfectly. In the longer term, it remains to be seen if Facebook viewing can be sustained and, if it can, exactly what kind of broadcasting monster it may spawn.

From WSC 296 October 2011

Adam Bate believes getting the press onside is an important skill for any football figure, but they don’t all seem to realise this

“I wasn’t a great communicator. Things are different now because I’m trying to get into media work, but I didn’t speak to the press then and that maybe didn’t help my cause. The thing is that at Blackburn and West Ham, my performances were OK and spoke for themselves, but that wasn’t the case here [at Fulham].” Ian Pearce, 2011.

Pearce’s attitude is indicative of many professional footballers. They take the view that there is no advantage to be gained from speaking to the ladies and gentlemen of the press. The media are simply out to get them and the safest course of action is to steer well clear. But, as Pearce suggests, this belief can actually damage a footballer’s career.

Of course, in a very different way, Joey Barton’s recent outpourings on Twitter have challenged the relationship between footballers and the media further. In embracing social media with alarming honesty, Barton has not only served to highlight the anodyne contributions of his peers but also left journalists reporting information that many of the public have already accessed directly.

Lawrie Madden is a footballer-turned-journalist who now gives media training courses for the League Managers Association (LMA). At a Lilleshall seminar in July 2011, he said: “I still don’t think football clubs, players and agents fully understand the role of the media and what it’s there for. A lot of players want to deal with the media when it suits them, or when they’ve got a book to promote, but most of the time they don’t want to know. If you want to build a career in the media it’s a lot easier if you worked on that relationship when you were playing. It’s not rocket science but sometimes you’d think it is.”

It’s not just players that need to work on their relationship with the press. As Madden knows from his role with the LMA, managers could also do themselves a few more favours. He added: “Sir Alex Ferguson bans people from press conferences just to teach them a lesson. At any one point there might be three Premier League managers refusing to talk to Sky. Some of them are missing a trick because the media can provide a career beyond football – as long as a player or manager conducts themselves correctly.”

Perhaps it’s not so crucial for a man such as Ferguson – he celebrates his 70th birthday on New Year’s Eve and septuagenarians with knighthoods aren’t known for clogging up the dole queue. But while Fergie is working from a position of strength, others can be significantly helped or hindered by the press coverage they receive when the going gets tough.

Gordon Strachan is a manager who became infamous for his surly attitude towards the press. Richard Rae, writing in the Independent last year, acknowledged: “Plenty of journalists have been the subject of an acerbic put-down, which [Strachan] accepts probably doesn’t help when his managerial record is being analysed.”

In stark contrast, Harry Redknapp remains notorious for his tendency to court sections of the media. Birmingham Mail reporter Chris Lepkowski recently revealed on Twitter that when Redknapp’s Portsmouth defeated West Bromwich Albion in an FA Cup semi-final in 2008, one of the wags in the press room was heard to say: “Thank God the quotable manager won.” Of course, maybe he’s just that kind of guy. But it provided food for thought when Tottenham struggled their way through a difficult three-month period in the spring that brought just one solitary win in 13 games. While many Spurs fans were dismayed, the usually over-reacting tabloid press remained firmly in support of Redknapp.

Neil Ashton, formerly of the News of the World, demanded fans get off Redknapp’s back. Charlie Wyett of the Sun – a paper for which Redknapp has written a regular column – was particularly incredulous and appeared to be seeking vengeance. Wyett went so far as to suggest that the Spurs fans who had criticised the manager deserved for the club to be relegated the following season.

Contrast this with the treatment of Fabio Capello. The Italian endured an undoubtedly disappointing 2010 World Cup as England manager. However, when the Sun is producing back-page headlines labelling Capello a Weirdo and a Jackass, it is legitimate to consider the possibility that there are other elements at work. His refusal to interact with the media as freely as some of his contemporaries is a factor that perhaps should not be overlooked.

Don’t expect Capello to be tweeting the reasons for his team selections any time soon. But you can certainly expect the relationship, or lack of it, between players, managers and the media to continue to shape public perceptions for some time to come.

From WSC 296 October 2011

Dermot Corrigan reviews a new film and its focus on young footballers chasing success and fortune in Europe

It is said that football can provide a route out of poverty, with FIFA often claiming that the game’s commercial revenues can “trickle down”. Soka Afrika, a new feature-length documentary which follows two young African players as they try to make it in European football, sets out to show another side to this story.

The film’s two subjects are well chosen. Ndomo Julien Sabo was playing youth football in Cameroon when a French agent persuaded his parents to mortgage the family home to “invest” in their son’s future. Brought to Paris, he trained in a clandestine network of camps around the city’s outskirts, playing trial games against other young imports.

When he got injured the agent disappeared, leaving 16-year-old Sabo completely alone and cold and hungry. He befriended fellow Africans sleeping rough and avoiding the police, and eventually managed to get back to Cameroon, but his parents were not overly happy to see him returning penniless. In Yaoundé he recovers his confidence and form, and returns to Europe better prepared for a professional career.

Ndomo’s story is cut with that of Kermit Erasmus, who was spotted by Feyenoord playing youth football in South Africa. This move went much more smoothly – at only 18 he is playing first-team games for satellite club Excelsior, showing off his fancy mobile phone to a former school-mate in a Port Elizabeth township and playing a football game on his big-screen TV in his nice apartment in Holland. He’s a cocky enough character but still likeable. We see him scoring three goals at the 2009 Under-20 World Cup in Egypt, but also struggling to make the step up with his club and the national senior team.

The film is stylishly put together by director Suridh Hassan and producers Simon Laub and Sam Potter, looking more like a relatively big-budget current affairs feature documentary than a typical fly-on-the-wall football film.

There are funky colourful credits and titles, an African drum-heavy soundtrack and edgy camerawork digitally filtered to bring out the greenness of Yaoundé and the greyness of Europe. The film-makers got great access, with the camera in the South African dressing room for pre-game team talks, on the touchline with openly unscrupulous agents at games in Cameroon and even with Sepp Blatter making a patronising contribution to a “Football for Hope” conference in South Africa.

The real star of the film is Jean-Claude Mbvoumin, a former Cameroon international who played club football in the 1990s in France before founding Paris-based NGO Culture Foot Solidaire. Mbvoumin describes the way promising young African players are brought to Europe as “child trafficking” and helps join the dots to make the film’s case.

Clubs and agents in both Europe and Africa, national football federations and under-age coaches, FIFA, even players and their families are all complicit in the system. Everyone involved knows the unwritten rules of the game. There is no surprise when Sabo is dropped from the Cameroon Under-20 squad as he cannot afford to pay the required bribe. “Corruption is everywhere,” Mbvoumin says. “I can’t say one country is more corrupt than others.” It would be better for everyone if African players stayed at home until they were ready – both in a footballing and personal sense – for the move to Europe he reckons.

Football for everyone in Soka Afrika is a means to get rich (or get by), not a goal in itself. Both Erasmus and Sabo really believe in the “rags to riches” possibilities. The film concentrates more on their concerns about making a living and building a career than training methods or tactics or trophies. We see a modern business structure feeding on the hopes of the resource and information poor. A few thrive and are successful, but many of those who make the big bucks are not the most deserving. The context could be any similar industry – perhaps fashion or music – where large numbers of talented young people with dreams are chewed up and spat out by the system.

Soka Afrika is produced by Masnomis and was screened in London during the Kicking & Screening Soccer Film Festival on September 23-29. For more information see sokaafrika.com

From WSC 296 October 201

Steve Menary explores the growing number of transfer fees that remain undisclosed and the reasons behind it

Debate over the size of transfer fees is part of football, but an increasingly endangered part. Players now – certainly at lower levels – are increasingly sold for “undisclosed” amounts. Clubs, players and agents are within their rights to withhold the relevant figures but this trend is also short-changing fans.

AFC Bournemouth reputedly received £1 million from selling striker Danny Ings to Burnley recently, but the fee – like that of six other players sold over the past year – was undisclosed. Estimates suggest debt-free Bournemouth will eventually earn £3m but manager Lee Bradbury is bringing in free transfers and loans.

With club accounts repeatedly delayed, Cherries fans are split. Chairman Eddie Mitchell is either praised for righting a debt-laden ship or decried as an asset-stripper. The situation works in reverse too. Driven by an ambitious chairman, a club splashes out untold sums on players for undisclosed fees, then the chairman disappears as the club collapses. Those left picking up the pieces are often the fans, who – if transfer fees had been disclosed – could have queried their club’s spending much earlier.

Transfer fees are lodged with the FA and available in club accounts but the figures quoted are often an amalgamation, and few lower-league clubs voluntarily make any financial details available anyway. FIFA-licensed agent Faizal Khan explains: “To aid cash flow, it may be a transfer fee of £20m is paid in instalments over three years with a player in exchange and other benefits. The £20m deal may only be £7m in cash today and be made up of instalments, player bonuses, a high-profile pre-season friendly and lump sums after the player makes international caps to, in time, all add up to £20m.

“To not rock the boat, it is sometimes best not to disclose everything. If the selling club publishes that they sold a player for £20m yesterday and do not spend near £20m in that transfer window on replenishing the squad, some fans will go beserk.”

That creates pressure on managers and owners, but the most thick-skinned of the latter simply carry on regardless, particularly in the lower divisions where there is less focus. “Figures are reported in mainstream media and you get that figure from people close to the deal, like the buying or selling club or the agent,” says Nick Harris, chief sports news correspondent at the Mail on Sunday and editor of sportingintelligence.com. “Sometimes those figures are accurate, sometimes that are very wide of the mark. Premier League clubs will be scrutinised as more journalists are asking questions, but in the second or third division, if the local papers don’t have the will or the power and the owners don’t want people to know, there’s not a lot you can do.”

Since October 2010, clubs transferring players internationally must lodge details – including fees – with FIFA’s Transfer Matching System, which was used for 2,451 international transfers in the first transfer window of 2011. The combined transfer value of those deals was $320m (£197m) and FIFA estimate more than 4,000 clubs use a system that is bound by Swiss data protection laws and confidential.

With FIFA mired in allegations of corruption and the debacle of the failed England 2018 World Cup bid, there is an urgent need for more transparency in football. The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) recently launched a campaign to make the game subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This, however, would only apply to governing bodies rather than clubs. “We haven’t got a policy on disclosing transfer fees, but it’s something most fans would want to see,” says Michael Brunskill, FSF director of communication.

The FA and Football League do not have policies on disclosure of transfer fees, while Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson says: “It’s down to individual clubs and some feel it is commercially sensitive so choose not to. Also, it’s sometimes a case that what the buying and the selling club wish to present are slightly different variations – adding in or not taking account of various clauses such as appearance, international or success payment triggers in the contract.”

Even the most blinkered fan must appreciate that disclosing how much money has been paid out or received during a transfer window is not conducive to good business. If a player is attracting interest from a club flush with cash from a big sale of its own, a bigger fee will be demanded.

In the longer term, annual disclosure of money spent during a season would at least give fans greater clarity on what is happening to their club and some of their money.

From WSC 296 October 2011