FIFA intend to grab broadcast fees from UEFA & premier league

[Spursex]

Plans for biennial World Cup herald a bloody turf war between Uefa and Fifa
Turf war between Fifa and Uefa is drawing in clubs and will cause split between Europe and South America

Sam Wallace
Chief Football Writer
9 September 2021 • 8:00am

Gianni Infantino and Arsene Wenger will put Fifa's best foot forward Credit: PA

The battle for the future of football is upon us more swiftly than any might have imagined and after the skirmish of the European Super League it comes down to the bloody turf war between Uefa and Fifa, the two remaining governance superpowers of the game.
Enlisted in this battle as an elder statesman to front Fifa’s ambitious land grab is Arsene Wenger, who will appear on your screens on Thursday to reassure you that a World Cup finals every two years is exactly what frazzled players and an over-exposed game needs. Later this year Fifa will doubtless say the same about an extended, hyped-up, repositioned Fifa Club World Cup as its president Gianni Infantino prepares to carve some of those sweet broadcast millions off Uefa’s Champions League financial supremacy for his and Fifa’s own purposes.
The game is to go through a radical reorganisation post-2024 when many of the major international broadcast contracts expire, and the stakes are very simple. Whoever controls the international calendar, dictates the competitions that are played; and the hierarchy of those competitions determines what the broadcaster pays to whom. Control the calendar and you control the game's finances. Infantino is up for re-election in 2023; so too his Uefa counterpart Aleksander Ceferin. Both wish to retain control of their tumultuous organisations and to do so both must offer their members and allies a future of sporting possibility and financial certainty.
In a four-year cycle, Fifa’s revenues are just 60 per cent those of Uefa, the wealthiest confederation in the world. If Infantino is to secure the support of all his 211 national associations then he must be able to promise them the funds they say they need – and that is, in part, why we find ourselves in such a surreal position. With the 71-year-old former Arsenal manager, who would once routinely complain that the demands placed upon players were unrealistic, now telling us that international football must double up on its marquee competition.
Fifa and Wenger will have to demonstrate there will be no greater demands on players under its new calendar proposals. But it is yet to say how the Fifa Club World Cup will figure in the post-2024 landscape. The revenue generated by men’s World Cup finals, £3.3 billion for the most recent 2018 tournament, is no longer enough for Fifa. Infantino wants in on the elite club game too. Establishing a much bigger, higher-profile Club World Cup than the current format is a core part of that and the relationship with leading clubs was one of the reasons Fifa were initially so ambivalent when the Super League proposals emerged in April.

Fifa and Wenger will have to demonstrate there will be no greater demands on players under its new calendar proposal Credit: Getty Images
Expanded international tournaments for clubs and nations generate the revenue that the Fifa president wants to distribute to his members across the world, which in turn strengthens his position. So far he has been unable to secure the investment that he needs for a Club World Cup and now the Fifa president must demonstrate that his organisation can launch new revenue streams that are attractive for investors or lenders.
When we are finally done with Wenger’s presentation slides and whatever arguments Michael Owen and John Terry, newly added to the Fifa cheerleading roster, have for a biennial World Cup, it will come down to the money. Fifa will argue that Uefa enjoys disproportionate advantage. The biggest broadcast deals mean its clubs have the biggest spending power and the best players, a virtuous circle that has given the European club game pre-eminence. Even in the international game European power is spreading. All four semi-finalists at the last World Cup were European. It has not been won by a South American nation in the last four editions.
Over the next months the fight for alliances will take place across many different interested parties. The European Club Association (ECA) met this week, a powerful lobby much changed after the failed Super League coup but a potentially crucial ally for either Uefa or Fifa. Ceferin addressed the ECA conference in person. Infantino recorded a speech from Doha where he embarked on one of the more astonishing tangents of the afternoon, thanking the Qatari government for putting a 2022 World Cup “compound” at the disposal of Afghan refugees.
Expanding on the subject of refugee Afghan women footballers he asked the ECA conference to “please help us find a house for these girls, these ladies.” A laudable aim and given that Fifa literally spent £190 million on its own house – Fifa House in Nyon – no doubt he can guess what many in the room were thinking.
It suits the ECA, which represents Europe’s biggest clubs, to have Uefa and Fifa at war. It means they may outbid one another for the loyalty of clubs to their competitions. The likelihood is that the national associations will enthusiastically embrace the biennial World Cup finals. If it ensures that more revenue flows towards them then why not? The battle for football’s future will surely divide itself between the old money at Uefa and Conmebol, the South American federation also opposed to biennial World Cup finals on one side - and on the other Fifa, bolstered by the more impecunious national associations which Infantino will see as a crucial part of his powerbase.
Even more established national associations, including the English Football Association, may decide to take a back seat in any Premier League driven opposition to biennial World Cups with an eye on their own 2030 hosting bid. Perhaps that explains why Gareth Southgate chose his words so carefully this week. Shifting revenue towards Fifa’s new competition will have far-reaching implications, including the impact on domestic leagues where the money trickles all the way down to the grassroots.
As the Super League shambles illustrated – there are not billions more in revenue out there waiting to be spent on media rights after 20 years of price explosion. What Fifa wants is more of the share commanded by Uefa and the Premier League and in order to do that it is prepared to change the game beyond recognition. It will become a case of which tournament fights its way to pre-eminence and which does not. Which confederation under which president comes to control the calendar and, in the end, the game’s riches.

 

[Spursex]

Arsène Wenger’s World Cup plan ignores financial sacrifices of match-going fans

Supporters save for years to attend — a biennial tournament would unfairly stretch their resources, Henry Winter writes
Henry Winter
, Chief Football Writer

Thursday September 09 2021, 12.00pm, The Times
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cial-sacrifices-of-match-going-fans-86pxj862h

Arsène Wenger’s proposal for a biennial World Cup could well receive the go-ahead from Fifa in December because of the financial benefits to confederations around the world. Europe is the epicentre of resistance to Wenger’s plan, not least from clubs, but African and Asian support looks already assured.
The traditionalists rightly demur at the devaluing of a great competition. The clubs are concerned about players not resting in the summer (and, of course, impinging on lucrative tours). Wenger today continues his charm offensive to win over the sceptics, arguing that his plan will not add to players’ workload, will bring some much-needed order to a chaotic calendar, and that the public wants meaningful games and more World Cups gives them that.

Fifa appears to have forgotten that match-going fans create atmosphere, even for a TV audience
LIU JIN/GETTY IMAGES
Yet Wenger needs to differentiate between the viewing public — and Fifa will always have both eyes on the broadcast billions — and the match-going public. Because one of the reasons that World Cups are so special is 200,000 fans from around the world congregating on Copacabana Beach or partying in fans parks across Russia, exploring a new country, perhaps even broadening horizons and becoming more respectful of others. Countless fans save up for this party every four years.

Wenger has not factored match-going supporters into his plans. Even though there were no away fans allowed here in Warsaw last night there were England fans in the stadium watching the draw with Poland, a couple even with flags. They were surrounded by more than 55,000 passionate Poles, many of whom will doubtless set off for Qatar to support Robert Lewandowski and his team if they qualify. It’s what fans do, they travel, often in huge numbers, and Wenger does not seem to have understood the cost.
Fans budget for tournaments. They begin putting money aside months, even years in advance. Even with fans’ habitual cost-cutting ingenuity, including the usual taking overnight trains to save on accommodation, World Cups are not cheap. If, as expected, Wenger’s plan kicks in from 2028, fans could be facing outlays taking in USA/Mexico/Canada in 2026, then possibly China in 2028 followed two years later by perhaps Uruguay/Argentina if not Europe (Spain/Portugal or a joint UK and Ireland bid). The Saudis, who are backing Wenger’s plan, will doubtless want to host the finals at some point.

It is hard to escape the feeling that Fifa thinks of viewers first, match-goers second, but then one of the reasons that TV loves the World Cup is the loud, colourful backdrop provided by fans in the stadium. Even the vuvuzela had a certain charm. What Fifa risks by costing out the traditional support is to turn match-day into even more of a corporate occasion, the ground full of sponsors’ guests. World Cups need to generate money, and this worshipping before the altar of the patron’s dollar is well-established, but Fifa will ruin the atmosphere if they price out those fans who scrape every last euro, pound, zloty or yen together, borrowing from relatives, maxing their credit cards, to make sure they are there, in the stadium, backing their team.

Wenger, with Liverpool manager Klopp, is on a charm offensive to try and get his plans approved
ANDREW POWELL/GETTY IMAGES
Wenger is blowing too many fans’ budgets. As he outlined in L’Equipe, Wenger also plans for qualifiers to be staged in one block in October (and possibly a smaller international window in March), when fans like to spread costs across the year; instead, they will be flying all over, home and away, in October. For many fans, debts could mount in Red October.
Fifa will doubtless chase the broadcast money, Wenger’s plan will go through, and much of the additional revenue from a biennial World Cup will be ploughed back into grass-roots schemes around the world. There are some positives to Wenger’s plan, and the international calendar urgently requires work, but it will make the World Cup the Corporate Cup.
There are further damaging consequences. Wenger wants to protect international football in a world where the clubs are increasingly ravenous, as seen by the European Super League plot. Yet by introducing a block of qualifiers in October, Wenger risks taking international football off the agenda from November to May (unless Fifa votes for the option of a second, smaller window in March). The mixing of international weeks with the hectic club schedule is tricky, and club fans get frustrated by the stop-start nature to the season, but at least it ensures international football does not get put in the attic for six months, gathering cobwebs.



Wenger’s plan would damage interest in international football. It will also kill off the friendly, and some of the qualifiers against lesser lights, which many fans will definitely delight in but, then, how do Andorra and San Marino develop? And when does the national coach experiment tactically or blood new players? Friendlies also give teams an opportunity to face opponents from outside their continent, useful preparation for tournaments.
And what will the national-team coaches do for that long period without access to their players? Go to games? Go on holiday? Some associations may consider making the role part-time or at the very least making the coach involved in other work, probably in development. They may have more World Cups to prepare for but their work is now crammed into a quarter of the year.
The plan for a biennial World Cup would undermine international coaches and threaten the loyal match-going fans with penury, let alone devalue a historic competition. If Fifa was really concerned about addressing the calendar for footballing not financial reasons, it would scrap the Club World Cup for a start. That takes place this December, the same time as Fifa is likely to vote for a biennial World Cup. The irony.

 

[muttley]

My opinion is quite simple. It comes in 2 parts:

1) Fans money should be going directly to the clubs they are watching first and distributed onwards as a second motion. It doesn't matter whether you watch a game at the stadium, on TV or via the web. Start using technology appropriately to assign the allocations and stop pointless entities like the PL and UFEA getting their hands on the money. The more fans (partisan or neutral) you get watching your club, then the more you take from the pot. At the top of the pyramid, clubs manage their own infrastructure and there are no restrictions who can screen it. So if a million people watch a NLD then both clubs get half the revenue each. We then measure whether people are consuming it from Spurs TV, BBC, ITV, Sky, BT Sport and hand out their allocation. Like a PAYE system, the more Spurs earn, the more they contribute as tax to a central pot for governance, grass roots etc.

2) Just like other sports, the international version of football is equally important. It should never be put as a second priority to club football. Let's not get confused because the money men have brainwashed us into the domestic product over the international game. That can be corrected.

The other part of my thinking is about roles and responsibilities, i.e. governance.

FIFA and UEFA should be collapsed into one entity and just have worldwide and continental sections. They are no more than a thin layer program management organisation to help orchestrate football activities like the rules of the game. They themselves have no voting rights as such, just like any normal PMO model. They certainly should never appear like a "voted in" government. They can also orchestrate event management like world cups and EURO's.

This new organisation is not a P&L as there is no revenue per se. They have to perform because they operate as a tax on the business they support, just like any PMO in a company.

Now when football corrects its governance model, then I'll care about frequency of World Cups and other trivial things. They have to fix what is broken first and that probably means some pain. A good example this week is the UK telling FIFA to stick their PL bans on players this weekend. Just tell them they aren't empowered to make that decision any longer. I would.

 

[Spursex]

Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin: Europe and South America prepared to boycott biennial World Cup

exclusive
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter, Nyon
Thursday September 09 2021, 2.15pm, The Times
Football

Ceferin says that Fifa’s plans are contrary to the basic principles of football
OZAN KOSE/GETTY IMAGES



Uefa’s president has warned of a World Cup boycott by European and South American countries if Fifa pushes ahead with moves to hold the tournament every two years.
Arsène Wenger, the former Arsenal manager who is Fifa’s head of global development, has laid out a revolutionary plan for a new calendar with a major international tournament every summer and the World Cup and Euros on alternate years.
In an interview with The Times, Aleksander Ceferin said that a biennial World Cup would “kill football” and criticised Fifa for going public with their plan before holding any talks with Uefa.

Asked how Uefa can block a two-yearly World Cup, Ceferin said: “We can decide not to play in it. As far as I know, the South Americans are on the same page. So good luck with a World Cup like that. I think it will never happen as it is so much against the basic principles of football.

“To play every summer a one-month tournament, for the players it’s a killer. If it’s every two years it clashes with the women’s World Cup, with the Olympic football tournament.

“The value is precisely because it is every four years, you wait for it, it’s like the Olympic Games, it’s a huge event. I don’t see our federations supporting that.
“I hope they [Fifa] will come to their senses, because I don’t see the right approach to go everywhere except the confederations, not to speak to us. They didn’t come, they didn’t call, I didn’t get a letter or anything. I just read in the media.”
A meeting of all Uefa’s 55 member countries has been called for Tuesday when the Fifa plan will be raised.
Ceferin said that Uefa would not want to hold its Euros more often, adding: “Both competitions should be every four years. The Euros and the World Cup are so interesting because they are every four years. Two would not bring double the amount of revenues.



“It might be good for Uefa financially but the problem is we would be killing football like that. We are killing the players. I don’t see the clubs allowing the players to go and that would divide us completely.
“We have seen the clubs saying they don’t want to let the players go now [if they have to quarantine]. But what if they say we don’t let them go at any time any more. I don’t know if these people know what they are playing with.
“I have spoken to Zvonimir Boban [the former Croatian international] and he has said players are not fully recovered from a World Cup or Euros until the November. Imagine that happens every year.”

The value of the World Cup and the Euros, according to Ceferin, lies in their infrequency
FRANK AUGSTEIN/AP
Wenger’s plan would involve fewer qualifiers, based in one or two international windows during the year, and then a major tournament in the summer.
Wenger told an online news conference: “I have been asked by 166 countries how it is possible to hold a World Cup every two years. Overall I have had a very positive response and the decision will be made by the 211 countries who are members of Fifa.
“Our mission is to plan and shape the football of tomorrow and to improve the competition of global football. The objectives were first less travel for players, no increase in the number of the games, guaranteed rest for players and more meaningful games, that’s what the fans demand, and more chances to shine, and to close the gap.
“All the confederations have to have access to top, top games, not just Europe and South America.”
He pointed out that 133 countries have never qualified for a World Cup, and that these plans would give more nations a chance to play in the finals.
He said the changes would represent the wishes of the new generation of sports fans, and pointed out that no concerns had been raised about the fact that Euro 2020 and the 2022 World Cup have ended up being so close together.
The former Brazil World Cup winner Ronaldo insisted the prestige of the World Cup would not be damaged by holding it more often. “I am sure that is going to be a great change for everyone involved in football,” he said.

 

[muttley]

Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin: Europe and South America prepared to boycott biennial World Cup

exclusive
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter, Nyon
Thursday September 09 2021, 2.15pm, The Times
Football

Ceferin says that Fifa’s plans are contrary to the basic principles of football
OZAN KOSE/GETTY IMAGES



Uefa’s president has warned of a World Cup boycott by European and South American countries if Fifa pushes ahead with moves to hold the tournament every two years.
Arsène Wenger, the former Arsenal manager who is Fifa’s head of global development, has laid out a revolutionary plan for a new calendar with a major international tournament every summer and the World Cup and Euros on alternate years.
In an interview with The Times, Aleksander Ceferin said that a biennial World Cup would “kill football” and criticised Fifa for going public with their plan before holding any talks with Uefa.

Asked how Uefa can block a two-yearly World Cup, Ceferin said: “We can decide not to play in it. As far as I know, the South Americans are on the same page. So good luck with a World Cup like that. I think it will never happen as it is so much against the basic principles of football.

“To play every summer a one-month tournament, for the players it’s a killer. If it’s every two years it clashes with the women’s World Cup, with the Olympic football tournament.

“The value is precisely because it is every four years, you wait for it, it’s like the Olympic Games, it’s a huge event. I don’t see our federations supporting that.
“I hope they [Fifa] will come to their senses, because I don’t see the right approach to go everywhere except the confederations, not to speak to us. They didn’t come, they didn’t call, I didn’t get a letter or anything. I just read in the media.”
A meeting of all Uefa’s 55 member countries has been called for Tuesday when the Fifa plan will be raised.
Ceferin said that Uefa would not want to hold its Euros more often, adding: “Both competitions should be every four years. The Euros and the World Cup are so interesting because they are every four years. Two would not bring double the amount of revenues.



“It might be good for Uefa financially but the problem is we would be killing football like that. We are killing the players. I don’t see the clubs allowing the players to go and that would divide us completely.
“We have seen the clubs saying they don’t want to let the players go now [if they have to quarantine]. But what if they say we don’t let them go at any time any more. I don’t know if these people know what they are playing with.
“I have spoken to Zvonimir Boban [the former Croatian international] and he has said players are not fully recovered from a World Cup or Euros until the November. Imagine that happens every year.”

The value of the World Cup and the Euros, according to Ceferin, lies in their infrequency
FRANK AUGSTEIN/AP
Wenger’s plan would involve fewer qualifiers, based in one or two international windows during the year, and then a major tournament in the summer.
Wenger told an online news conference: “I have been asked by 166 countries how it is possible to hold a World Cup every two years. Overall I have had a very positive response and the decision will be made by the 211 countries who are members of Fifa.
“Our mission is to plan and shape the football of tomorrow and to improve the competition of global football. The objectives were first less travel for players, no increase in the number of the games, guaranteed rest for players and more meaningful games, that’s what the fans demand, and more chances to shine, and to close the gap.
“All the confederations have to have access to top, top games, not just Europe and South America.”
He pointed out that 133 countries have never qualified for a World Cup, and that these plans would give more nations a chance to play in the finals.
He said the changes would represent the wishes of the new generation of sports fans, and pointed out that no concerns had been raised about the fact that Euro 2020 and the 2022 World Cup have ended up being so close together.
The former Brazil World Cup winner Ronaldo insisted the prestige of the World Cup would not be damaged by holding it more often. “I am sure that is going to be a great change for everyone involved in football,” he said.

A great example above. Why does Cefferin think he is empowered to say that every country in Europe would boycottt a biennial WC? His job is to say that he's in the process of asking the country FA's (his bosses) to socialise the concept and give him feedback. Cefferin shouldn't have an opinion. Not his job.

 

[Gary Onedaysoon]

My opinion is quite simple. It comes in 2 parts:

1) Fans money should be going directly to the clubs they are watching first and distributed onwards as a second motion. It doesn't matter whether you watch a game at the stadium, on TV or via the web. Start using technology appropriately to assign the allocations and stop pointless entities like the PL and UFEA getting their hands on the money. The more fans (partisan or neutral) you get watching your club, then the more you take from the pot. At the top of the pyramid, clubs manage their own infrastructure and there are no restrictions who can screen it. So if a million people watch a NLD then both clubs get half the revenue each. We then measure whether people are consuming it from Spurs TV, BBC, ITV, Sky, BT Sport and hand out their allocation. Like a PAYE system, the more Spurs earn, the more they contribute as tax to a central pot for governance, grass roots etc.

2) Just like other sports, the international version of football is equally important. It should never be put as a second priority to club football. Let's not get confused because the money men have brainwashed us into the domestic product over the international game. That can be corrected.

The other part of my thinking is about roles and responsibilities, i.e. governance.

FIFA and UEFA should be collapsed into one entity and just have worldwide and continental sections. They are no more than a thin layer program management organisation to help orchestrate football activities like the rules of the game. They themselves have no voting rights as such, just like any normal PMO model. They certainly should never appear like a "voted in" government. They can also orchestrate event management like world cups and EURO's.

This new organisation is not a P&L as there is no revenue per se. They have to perform because they operate as a tax on the business they support, just like any PMO in a company.

Now when football corrects its governance model, then I'll care about frequency of World Cups and other trivial things. They have to fix what is broken first and that probably means some pain. A good example this week is the UK telling FIFA to stick their PL bans on players this weekend. Just tell them they aren't empowered to make that decision any longer. I would.

Muttley gets my vote as chairperson of the new, unified governance organisation.

 

[Departed]

This will end in a Superleague independent of these clowns.

 

[muttley]

This will end in a Superleague independent of these clowns.

And who can blame the clubs and the footballers for taking back what is rightly theirs. After all, they are the product that people buy.

 

[Spursex]

Arsene Wenger's World Cup plan - what is it all about?
By Simon StoneBBC Sport
Last updated on
9 September 20219 September 2021.From the section Football

Arsene Wenger stepped away from football management in 2018, and became Fifa's chief of global football development
Arsene Wenger says he is "100% convinced" his plan for a new international match calendar based on a World Cup every two years is the best way forward for the game as a whole.
Europe's major leagues have already declared their opposition to the proposals, with La Liga president Javier Tebas saying they are "a threat to the overall tradition of world football".
Over the past week former Arsenal boss Wenger has been speaking to scores of prominent former players in Doha in his position as chief of football development at world governing body Fifa.
And he outlined the plan he feels will provide the structural change needed to reduce the number of matches and travelling involved at the top level, while delivering more meaningful games.
"I am 100% convinced it is the right solution," he said.
"In football, if you don't play big competitions, you will play small competitions - don't think we won't play.
"Because this proposal respects the current 80/20 balance between club and international football, I would sign with two hands if I was in a club."

• 'Firm and unanimous' opposition to plans for World Cup every two years

Wenger's grand plan
There are few people involved in football who argue against major reform of the international match calendar.
After 166 member associations voted to approve a feasibility study when it was proposed by the Saudi Arabian federation, Wenger was tasked by Fifa president Gianni Infantino with finding the best way to change it.
The former Arsenal boss has a number of ideas, including:

• A biennial World Cup in even years.
• Confederation tournaments (including the European Championship) in odd years.
• Either one (October) or two (October and March) mid-season international breaks, for a month in total, when qualifying for major tournaments will take place. Groups of four countries are envisaged, with a play-off, for a maximum of seven matches.
• Guaranteed rest periods for players once tournaments are over.

According to Wenger, this would reduce by half the amount of travelling players have to undertake.
"Today's calendar is outdated," he said. "We want to organise it in a more efficient way.
"The current four-year cycle was established in 1930, yet 133 countries have never been at the World Cup."

Former Brazil star Ronaldo is one of scores of players who Wenger has been speaking toThe positive spin-offs
Wenger spoke about "his baby", which is to "give every talent a chance".
He believes young players do not have an equal chance to fulfil their potential because of where they are born. Put simply, the richest countries have the best youth programmes.
According to Wenger, a World Cup every two years would generate more money that could be invested globally.
"We want to provide an incentive to invest in youth programmes," he said. "We know the quality of work at youth level has a deep correlation with senior level."
The opposition
The World and European Leagues bodies are opposed, while La Liga chief Tebas says the proposed calendar changes "would disrupt the domestic leagues to the extent that interest would be lost and continuity jeopardised".
"This would have a cascading effect on the entire football pyramid, with fans losing interest in the sport," he added.
It has also been suggested the World Cup as a product would be diluted, while, in an interview with The Times,
Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin stated European nations and those affiliated to the South American Conmebol Confederation, may boycott the entire thing.
However, these comments contradict a statement made less than three years ago by Conmebol president Alejandro Dominguez,
saying his organisation had proposed a biennial World Cup to Fifa.
Those in support
The general view is that there are enough countries who stand to benefit from Wenger's proposals for them to get through.
Evidently, the politics involved are clouding the debate, putting competing interests against each other just months after they were united in attacking the doomed European Super League plan.
Wenger rejects the claim of tournament dilution by pointing out the impact of Covid-19 means this year's major international competitions in Europe, South America and North America will be followed by a World Cup next year.
Legendary Brazilian striker Ronaldo observes that the Champions League retains its attraction despite being an annual competition.
Former Australia and Everton star Tim Cahill admitted Fifa is a big supporter of the Aspire Academy in Qatar, where he is chief sports officer.
However, after speaking to fellow former professionals in Doha this week, he is adamant Wenger's plans benefit the game as a whole.
"Listening to each other's stories and understanding the emotion, a lot of us started to think holistically rather than personally," he said.
"I spoke to [former Wigan and Reading keeper] Ali Al-Habsi, who spent 19 years trying to qualify for a World Cup [with Oman] and never made it - 133 countries never have.
"I know from personal experience how difficult all the travelling is when you combine international football with playing in the Premier League.
"Then there are the qualifiers. It takes Australia three years to qualify for a World Cup - you do it in Europe in a year."
When will the decision be made?
Wenger hopes the consultation process will be concluded by the end of the year. Any final decision on the proposal will have to be made by a Fifa Congress, which usually takes place in May.

 

[Spursex]

Last night I was out with a Professional player and his girlfriend; his girlfriend is in a senior role with a subscription channel here.

She forecasts that should this proposal come about then it will be a financial disaster for the PL and most of Europe's elite leagues; simply put they are one of if not the elite media buyers of the product would have to consider the impact of having to buy into screening these 'new' bi-annual' events - her view was that it would price out 'free to air' screenings on BBC and ITV in fairly short order (probably less than one cycle). So they'd have to compete for the FIFA local packages and that will probably take the lion's share of their available funding...

I asked if she'd done any impact projections, they have.

They see PL media rights dropping by as much as 50% or more if these new international calendars, fixtures, and events take hold.

Fifa's income could soon take up 75%!! of all global media payments for football rights.

They of course will simply act as they have always done, i.e. pour money into the second and third world FA's so as to continue to secure their support and their cosy arrangements and cosy incredibly well-paid jobs.

We talked a lot more about the impact on jobs, infrastructure investment/academies and stadiums and ticket pricing here - it is a depressing picture, and we can look forward to seeing the PL probably holed beneath the water line for once and for all.

In short, Wenger will help destroy Western European Elite leagues to achieve his political ends (he's a champagne socialist and always has been). Whilst it can be claimed that huge advantages will be given to lesser leagues around the globe, the West's will slowly over time be stripped bare.

So make the most of it chaps, by all accounts the vote in May is already a foregone conclusion and FIFA have already tested the media rights packages and it's crystal clear that their power will grow exponentially in line with their bank account whilst everyone else's will shrink and we'll be reduced to holding out a begging bowl whilst FIFA dispenses it's "noblesse oblige"...

 

[Departed]

And who can blame the clubs and the footballers for taking back what is rightly theirs. After all, they are the product that people buy.

Exactly. FIFA is nothing but a middleman. As is UEFA. Too many layers in a technologically advanced world. They WILL get cut out and if FIFA are lucky they will still have the World Cup. The CL will be a shadow of its former self as the Super League will ignore it.

 

[steveperryman]

How are they going to get everybody on board with the Super League? Nobody wanted it bar the owners.

 

[Departed]

How are they going to get everybody on board with the Super League? Nobody wanted it bar the owners.

It will be a completely separate entity. FIFA are effectively competing with the domestic leagues for revenue now.

When and how does a governing body ever come to the conclusion that taking money away from its members by competing with them is a good idea?

They've naffed themselves.

 

[Spursex]

premier League clubs are unanimously opposed to Fifa proposals for a World Cup every two years.

Concerns over player burnout were expressed as club executives discussed whether they could derail the world governing body’s plan.

Although Mark Bullingham, the Football Association chief executive, addressed the clubs via video-call, the governing body has stopped short of criticising Fifa.

Opposition to a biennial World Cup was also voiced by Uefa, which launched fresh criticism on Wednesday over Fifa’s “methodology”.

“Uefa is disappointed with the methodology adopted, which has so far led to radical reform projects being communicated and openly promoted before having been given, together with other stakeholders, the chance to participate in any consultation meeting,” a statement said.

Uefa added that it had “not yet received a reply from Fifa” over a request for a meeting about the proposals.

At the Premier League meeting in London, the green light was given to pursue a money-spinning television-rights deal with the United States.

With a host of major broadcasters, including Disney, thought to be lining up offers, the clubs are hopeful the next round of rights could be worth more than £1 billion - double that of the current six-year deal with NBC.

Anger over the World Cup plan comes as clubs already face the disruption of next year’s Qatar tournament falling in the middle of the season. Premier League executives have been told the FA Cup final will take place in June, and the league season will start earlier than ever.

Clubs have dropped plans to discuss a revised nine-point “owners’ charter” to guarantee no future breakaway plots. A final draft of the document was sent to the 20 shareholders last week after months of debate around safeguarding the competition following two previous rebellions - the European Super League and Project Big Picture. There remains some opposition to the final draft but sources cited time constraints for the document not being raised.

 

[Departed]

premier League clubs are unanimously opposed to Fifa proposals for a World Cup every two years.

Concerns over player burnout were expressed as club executives discussed whether they could derail the world governing body’s plan.

Although Mark Bullingham, the Football Association chief executive, addressed the clubs via video-call, the governing body has stopped short of criticising Fifa.

Opposition to a biennial World Cup was also voiced by Uefa, which launched fresh criticism on Wednesday over Fifa’s “methodology”.

“Uefa is disappointed with the methodology adopted, which has so far led to radical reform projects being communicated and openly promoted before having been given, together with other stakeholders, the chance to participate in any consultation meeting,” a statement said.

Uefa added that it had “not yet received a reply from Fifa” over a request for a meeting about the proposals.

At the Premier League meeting in London, the green light was given to pursue a money-spinning television-rights deal with the United States.

With a host of major broadcasters, including Disney, thought to be lining up offers, the clubs are hopeful the next round of rights could be worth more than £1 billion - double that of the current six-year deal with NBC.

Anger over the World Cup plan comes as clubs already face the disruption of next year’s Qatar tournament falling in the middle of the season. Premier League executives have been told the FA Cup final will take place in June, and the league season will start earlier than ever.

Clubs have dropped plans to discuss a revised nine-point “owners’ charter” to guarantee no future breakaway plots. A final draft of the document was sent to the 20 shareholders last week after months of debate around safeguarding the competition following two previous rebellions - the European Super League and Project Big Picture. There remains some opposition to the final draft but sources cited time constraints for the document not being raised.

It begins. Stupid FIFA. Stupid UEFA.