Search: 'media'

The struggle to become Asia’s top football executive has just begun, and it mirrors wider continental conflict, writes John Duerden 

Mohammed Bin Hammam’s global profile has certainly improved in recent months with fans and media outside Asia now familiar with the shiny pate and the goatee. Unfortunately for the Qatari this isn’t a consequence of becoming the president of FIFA. He is not even president of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) any more after being banned from all football activities.

His crime? According to FIFA’s ethics committee, it is buying the votes of Caribbean Football Union members during the presidential election against Sepp Blatter, an act that earned him a temporary suspension on May 30, just two days before the vote was due to take place. According to supporters, it was having the audacity to challenge the slippery Swiss supremo at all. For the second time running, Blatter ran alone, while on July 23, the ethics committee turned Bin Hammam’s yellow card into a permanent red.

After nine years in charge of Asian football, the 62-year-old is not about to give up his seat at AFC House in Kuala Lumpur without a fight. Claiming that the committee is biased, he is to appeal the decision. That will take time but he has that on his side as the AFC agreed not to elect a new president until May 30, 2012, a year from his original suspension, at the earliest.

Labelled secretive and dictatorial in his running of the confederation, he did at least manage the football equivalent of running the trains on time and more besides. There is money pouring into the game from both outside and inside the continent, the Asian Champions League was introduced in 2003 and has prospered, his Vision Asia programme has helped some of the continent’s lesser lights, and standards have risen all over the continent, albeit inconsistently.

In Asia, progress is always going to be inconsistent. The sheer size of the continent and its population is both blessing and curse. It brings importance and growing influence but its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity makes it hard to govern. The divisions are strongest between the western and eastern sides of the continent. Bin Hammam did well to keep a lid on much and was fairly even-handed. Despite past battles, there would be no real problem in Seoul, Beijing or Tokyo if the Qatari was to continue in office. The issue is that nobody expects that to happen. The talk around Asia is that Bin Hammam is finished and now it is all about his successor.

East Asia’s big boys believe that it is time to bring the presidency back. South Korea, Japan and, to a lesser extent, China feel that the smaller nations, especially from the west, are much more concerned with political power for its own sake rather than genuine football development for Asia. Korea and Japan perform at World Cups, appear at FIFA Club World Cups and develop and send players to the big leagues but at the same time have seen their influence in the AFC diminish. Suspicions about the west are shared but what to do about it is a different question. The eastern bloc is rarely a bloc at all, unsurprising with the history between China, Japan and South Korea.

China’s Zhang Jilong is the acting president and a contender. Japan wants an East Asian president but not one who is Chinese. The Japanese grew tired of the AFC’s machinations but as improvements have come on the pitch, the country wants more influence off it. The popular head of the Japan FA, Junji Ogura, is too old to run. Korea’s Chung Mong-joon is the highest-profile figure in Asian football politics but the former FIFA vice-president has, as yet, given no indication that he has lost his traditional indifference to Asia.

The western side is much more likely to back a single candidate, though it remains to be seen who that is. Bahrain FA president Sheikh Salman ran Bin Hammam close in a May 2009 election for his seat on FIFA’s executive committee and is a possibility. UAE’s Yousuf Yaqoob Yousuf al-Serkal is another. There is room for a compromise candidate, probably from south-east Asia, and Malaysia’s Prince Abdullah Ibni Sultan Ahmad Shah could fit the bill. And Bin Hammam? As if we needed reminding, 2011 has shown that those in power hate to give it up but his campaign to clear his name is likely to be not much more than an interesting sideshow to the main event.

From WSC 296 October 2011

It hasn’t always been easy for Shamrock Robers but a famous European win has boosted the League of Ireland, writes Steve Bradley 

UEFA’s competitions are often derided as pandering to the needs of big clubs. While there is some truth in this, it ignores the fact that both the Champions League and Europa League group stages have featured entrants from most European nations. Those countries yet to feature are largely a roll-call of small islands, principalities and sparsely populated mini-states – with one notable exception. The Republic of Ireland has a population of 4.5 million people, a respectable international team and a history of talented players – yet it has made little impact on international club football to date.

Read more…

Slavia Prague were brought to their knees by financial chaos and mysterious ownership. Sam Beckwith reports that the Czech club’s future could be just as murky

The 2007-08 season seemed like a new dawn for Slavia Prague. Having finally qualified for the Champions League’s group phase at the sixth attempt, the Czech Republic’s oldest club went on to win their first league title since 1996. The following season, the popular Prague side moved in to their newly reconstructed Eden stadium and won the title again. Talk of the Sesivani (literally “sewn-togethers”) replacing rivals Sparta as Czech football’s dominant force seemed justified. Then it all went wrong.

Read more…

Glen Wilson examines at a new online TV venture which looks set to maintain the general trend towards manufactured controversy

We have all received emails that though provoking initial interest, we know to be bad news. We are tuned in enough to realise he is not really a retired Nigerian general, that millions of single women are not actually waiting online specifically for us and that, ultimately, despite the “scientific proof”, it is unlikely to add two inches. In July I received such an email, this time from a “brand new TV sports channel”, and it proved another which promised a lot and delivered only disappointment.

The email came from Sports Tonight Live, an online TV channel set to launch at the start of the Premier League season. “We will broadcast from 7pm-11pm every night and will discuss, debate and deliberate over the big sporting stories of the day.” This sounded promising enough, but things went downhill rapidly. “We are aiming for an opinionated and entertaining discussion show, led by presenters which include Mike Parry.” And kept going. “The new channel is being backed by a group of city investors, including Kelvin Mackenzie.” Some sales pitch.

It landed in my inbox because Sports Tonight were in the process of recruiting fan representatives of each club to appear on the show. “We’re looking for someone who is eloquent, opinionated, informed – controversial but clean cut,” read the email though the appointment of Parry would suggest that two out of five would ultimately suffice.

“Ideally they would also need a bit of banter” – banter of course having become a quantifiable commodity since professional footballers began referring to people as “tweeps” and hanging out with James Corden – “and a thick skin as we aim to be controversial, with Parry at his outspoken best.”

It is often suggested there is too much football on television. Perhaps a better argument is that there is not enough actual football in relation to the coverage which surrounds it. This is an argument that Sports Tonight, having outlined three aims, to be controversial, opinionated and entertaining, only further enforces. Would it pain Sports Tonight that much to strive to be informed, or accurate instead, or perhaps seek a presenter who is lauded for being intelligent rather than outspoken?

But this is the direction in which much football reportage continues to stumble, with the game itself increasingly subsumed beneath opinion masquerading as fact. Coverage of the sport is becoming less about the game on the field and more about what is happening around it, all delivered in basic cliched rhetoric. “Football programming” of this level is akin to going to the local cinema only to find that instead of screening films they are just dishing out copies of Heat magazine. Here you go, flick through that. I know it is the artistry of cinematography you really enjoy, but have you seen George Clooney’s new beard?

Increasingly, and disappointingly, football comes down not to knowledge, but who can shout the loudest. Earlier in the year Sports Tonight recruited staff for its new venture with adverts featuring the line: “You will be ambitious and almost certainly yet to be discovered. Sport will be your drug and you have plenty to say but until now nobody was listening.” Would it not perhaps be wise to examine why no one was listening to these undiscovered twitching football dependents? I mean, there is a bloke who sits a few seats away from me at the Keepmoat Stadium who has plenty to say and nobody is listening, but I (and anyone within ten seats) would sooner see him sectioned than behind an exciting new television channel.

The email also featured a familiar line, one which I see regularly in correspondence I receive: “We will not be able to pay people for appearing on Sports Tonight Live, but… we’ll happily acknowledge and advertise your fanzine.” Football bloggers are being increasingly looked on by those at the top of the media tree as freelancers with an emphasis on the “free”. And yes it may be our hobby, but if Parry is being paid to trot out soundbites and be “at his controversial best” about clubs he knows little about, why should comparative experts be expected to give their time and insight for free?

Speaking to the Guardian in May, McKenzie described the venture as “Sky Sports News meets TalkSport”. I cannot think of anything the game needs less and so, as you have probably guessed, I declined my invitation to be involved with his “exciting new programme”. Besides, the exposure it would have brought my fanzine is nothing compared to the investment I have recently been promised in a much more encouraging email from an exiled Ugandan prince.

From WSC 296 October 2011

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