G-14 sticks it to Fifa

RedCanuck

You could see this one coming from a mile off, the gloves are off!
Soccernet

The Hairdryer

This is stupid. Some people think that FIFA are sitting on billions of pounds. All of their profits go back into the national association and the rest is ploughed into the goal program and other programs to help grass roots football. You can download fully audited financial reports from their site if you don't believe me. If G-14 get their way, it will be football that suffer, taking this money away from countries means player development will suffer.

In countries like France, money received from FIFA helps pay for the national academy where players like Thierry Henry and Patrick Vierra were developed. If it weren’t for the expert tutorage there they wouldn't be half the players they are today. Maybe FIFA and the French Football Association can claim compensation for the development of these players.

It's another case of the rich wanting to get richer and it will be the poor that suffer. You can kiss goodbye to grass roots football every where and International football. G14 is sinister organisation, and a leech on the institution of football and whoever thinks other wise it a gullible twat.

BezsMaracas

neither FIFA or the G14 are particularly nice groups. you can say that fifa have fully audited accounts, but a lot of unsavoury companies do. im sure i've argued this with you before, but an audit doesn't stop directors creaming off a lot of the cash as elaborate expenses (which to an extent is legal, but not what we should be getting from FIFA), as well as other ways to make a bit of cash from a cushy job.

theres no simple answer to the problem of financing, but both of these groups are in it for themselves, being very insular, especially FIFA. maybe if they were more open with their dealings and how they come to certain decisions, they may get a bit more respect.

Diego Forlans Headband

FIFA's executive committee get paid €150,000 a month, FOR LIFE, even after they retire. They are sitting on quite a lot of money!

Looking Busy

That's 1.8m per year. Are you sure?

The Hairdryer

FIFA represent 210 national bodies. G14 represent 18 Clubs, It's such an elitest group that all members have to vote yes before a new member is admitted. You don't have to be rocket scientest to work out who would give more money back to grass roots football.

As for the FIFA exectutive creaming money, can you prove this or is just wild specutation? While I find some of their actions bewildering, and their President a bigot when it comes to football they have generally got things right over the last few decades.

The Hairdryer

That's ridiculous. In this article written in 2002 it clearly states that Exectutive Committe members get paid a £35,000 annual salary. I seriously doubt it's gone up a few hundred percent since then. they also get an extra £350 dollars a day while they are on FIFA business, still nothing near the figure you quote. I also seriously doubt they get paid after retiring, if fact I remember a media beat up about Blatter because he paid US$25,000 out of his own pocket to a former committee member who was strapped for cash as he no longer had a job.

Red Dreams

everyone is forgetting the millions that get ploughed back into Blatter's pockets

RedCanuck

From Fifa Financial Report 2004 (Page 18)
So Fifa spend as much on its operating expenses - 27% (mostly salaries and other goodies) as they do on development - 24%.
The French FA can submit a bill if they think they are entitled to payment.
That's a bit melodramatic. Why should Charlroi have to pay for a player injured on international duty?
I don't know why you think G-14 is the leech. Clearly Fifa take out more than they put in to football.

EricC

All The G14 are asking for is support if one of there players has to miss time due to playing a international match. Most think this is only far, the clubs pay big money these days for players that are needed, if the player is misses time due to playing a club match then this is covered under the clubs own systems, however to make clubs hand over players - sometimes even if they are not fully fit for match's that in some case have no purpose at all is just plain wrong.

All that will happen is that in a friendly international match the big names will not have to turn out, this could be good for the smaller clubs as there players will get the chance to turn out for the international sides and get more exposure in the long run. How much more do you think a player playing for Bolton or City will be worth if they get to play for England or any other international side.

In any case the current system is plain daft, we pay £xxM for a player who has to travel half way around the world to play in Match's that don't count for anything half the time.

Three options
1.. stop Friendly matches ( They are pointless )
2.. Pick players from clubs outside the G14 clubs for friendly matches
3.. Pay the clubs for any costs or losses due to players taking part in these matches.

For me just stop these matches, players have to play to much and travel to much as it is!

Red Dreams

FIFA was a good idea until cnuts like Blatter started using it to enrich themselves.
It is a totally corrupt organisation. These guys retain their power by bribing the FAs of Asian and African federations...who do fuck all to plough the money back into the game in their own countries.

FIFA can be ratlled if UEFA and CONMEBOL threaten to withdraw....would force FIFA to clean up house.

Slabber

To be fair, the G14 are the self-appointed elite out only for their own interests.

RedCanuck

When no one else is taking care of your interests you have to stand up for yourself.

The Hairdryer

Clearly that's not the case at all. You seem to live in an imaginary world were monkeys out of tin shed can run a multi-million organisation like FIFA with over 200 affiliates.

Most businesses try to aim for their total operating expenses to be around 50% of their total income. In a lot of cases it’s is about 66% and in many other cases it’s a lot higher. FIFA’s total Financial and other operating income comes to 24% of their total income and represents 32% of it’s total Expenses. This is very good for a non-profit organisation and theirs nothing sinister about it what so ever.

The other 68% being in the form of Event-related and Development related Expenses, whether it be in the form of money given to each association, of the goal program or into the cost incurred from events such as the World Cup, goes back into the game.




Why should FIFA have to pay for it? Do UEFA have to pay for compensation for injuries that have occurred in their tournaments? The bottom-line is this won’t stand-up in any court. They will put the responsibility back on the National Body, and they will be liable for the expenses.

How do you expect some of these countries like Cameroon and Nigeria to pay the wages for of their stars like Samuel Eto’o and Jay Jay Okocha if they are injured for a long period of time? What will happen is that these players just won’t be called up on International Duty any more for the fear of them being injured and the national body having to shell out of fortune, which means wide-eyed youngsters and football fans in those Countries are deprived of watching players who originated from their part of the world. And what happens if they do call them up and they are injured? It means there’s less money that goes towards the development of the next generation of Samuel Eto’o’s and Jay-Jay Okocka’s which means these European Club’s will not have the same pool of talent to chose from, which will have an effect on the quality of football being played.

It doesn’t just work like that in Africa either, in many European Countries elite youngsters are put into high performance programs organised by their national bodies. If these countries are having to shell out for the wages of their injured players then it means there’s less money for those programs. Even if FIFA have to pay it, it means less money will go back to the National Bodies which means less money goes to developing players.

MThomas

why shouldnt there be given compensations ?
national football isnt half as interesting as it used to be,useless friendlies occuring during important latters of a season. if a club suffers a major blow due to one of their most important players getting injured in a friendly,why shouldnt they be compensated? £70 000 a week to a player thats sidelined for 2months due to injury against a national team we havent heard about, is that fair ?
we all know how important one player can be,losing a importent player could ruin your season.

T-Zolla

surley there should be some agreement that if a player gets injured during international duty say anything over a 2 month lay offm the football association of that country shoudl pay the wages of the player, this might work due to the fact that its very rare for a player to be out for a long time, i cant think of an england player being out for months after a international?

Bodzilla

G18 aren't doing anything. They are paying off Charleroi to be a "lab rat" for them.

Quite transparent one would think.

The Hairdryer

Not all FA's are as well off as the English FA, and why is any FA's fault that these Clubs choose to pay their player ridiculous wages?

Some of the Eastern European Nations, Asian and African Nations probably run on a smaller budget than some of their players get paid annually.

This is just the start BTW, it's also G14's intention for National Bodies to pay their players wages whilst they are on International Duty.

FresnoBob

Even if top English (Spanish/German/Italian) clubs pay rediculous wages to players, they are paying those athletes to produce results for the club. If it's worth it to the club and is what the market will bear, the wage is irrelevant to anyone other than the employer and employee. To the extent that FIFA, UEFA, and the national FA force the club to loan a primary asset to them for use, gratis, the associations are putting these players in a potentially dangerous situation where injury could threaten both the player's career and the club's sizable investment in his talents.

If some Andorran crazo decides to rearrainge Ruud's knees, Nesta gets a real "Maltese cross", or any other top flight player gets blindsided by some kid who in real life couldn't make a Serie B reserve side but is trying to make a name for himself on his national side; a world-class player, a club, and the league that club is in all lose something of value--be it the palyer's career (and futhre income) the club's chance to win the league or compete in Europe, or the league's attraction and prestige (for quality of players and appeal to fans--which affects value of media contracts).

The international associations sponsor tournaments that make a lot of money, both at the gate and from media rights. While they might give some pittance to "grass roots" football, it is not "grass roots" football that is taking the financial risks of the competition.

Perhaps it is proper for FIFA and UEFA to set aside a portion of their profits to insure that those making the investment in training and paying the athletes do not suffer collateral consequences from the football player's participation in an extraneous event that does nothing for the club, be it a G14 member, Charleroi, Aberdeen, or anyone else.

RedCanuck

Apparently you have confused the Caf with the land of Oz, nor have I compared fifa to a bunch of flying monkeys. However, I can see the similarities between the Wicked Witch and Slack Bladder (particularly in their socks).
I think you are using the wrong model for your comparison. A closer approximation would be to a non-profit business like a charity. In those cases, and fifa's, the organization is simply a 'flow-through' agency. After all, fifa incurs no costs to produce the product they sell. There is no value added to the product in the case of fifa and yet their consumption is equal to the amount of money distributed. Whether or not this is acceptable would require a far more detailed analysis than possible with the info provided by fifa. For instance, exactly what is represented in the Event-related Expenses under the 'Accrued Expenses' of 167-Mill?
If the player was injured during a tournament that fifa receives the income from then clearly they should be responsible for the costs. The suit filed will act as a test case from which claims against Uefa will be advanced if the suit is successful. The court may put the responsiblity on the the appropriate FA, G-14 simply want that decision. It won't matter to the clubs which international body picks up the tab.
That is why G-14 have started the process by joining a suit against fifa. Depending on how the court finds, the FA's may need to renegotiate the financial arrangements with fifa. What the court may decide is that fifa is responsible to pay, that way the FA's are off the hook.
While I'm tempted to respond with a simple 'Who cares?' I'll provide a little more. The situation right now is that the clubs are forced to bear the cost of all these international games without receiving any of the income from the events, that is unfair to the clubs and the fans that support them. If fifa, Uefa or the FA's are found to be responsible for paying players under some set of conditions, then good. They will then have to compensate clubs for players injured while at their events. The current conditions were imposed on the clubs, not negotiated. The current conditions are written wholly in the interests of the international groups without any concern for the clubs. If it takes the courts to straighten it out, then so be it. Perhaps then fifa will deign to negotiate the rules rather than imposing their rules unilateraly.

If the cost of injured players is found to be the responsiblity of fifa, then so be it.

The Hairdryer

I'm not going to even try reason with you on this. If you believe FIFA are some corrupt entity bleeding the game dry then provide evidence. All you can come up with is some bewildering concept that their 2004 report is somehow maligned. Any financial annaylist worth their grain of salt will tell you their operating expendature compared to the money they generate is extremely good for a non-profit organisation. The FACT is that ALL their accounts are FULLY audited by a third party. I'm sure they would provide you with a full report on application if you feel the need to do so.


FIFA or UEFA does not employ the players; their respective Club employs them. They are the ones that choose to pay these players absurdly high wages. UEFA is a governing body, whose committees are elected by National Bodies, whose committees are elected by the Clubs to organise and run these competitions. They are a NON-PROFIT organisation. Money made from competition such as the UEFA Champions League goes back to the Clubs. Any application by Clubs to have UEFA pay compensation on players injured in one of their tournaments will be laughed out of Court.

Same goes at National Level. Money like TV Rights recieved in tournaments such as the World Cup and World Cup Qualifiers go back to the Nations playing in them, which filter down to the Clubs. The local FA's are responisble for how this money is distributed.




If FIFA are left to foot the bill, which is highly unlikely. Where do you think the money will come from Canuck? Even if FIFA are corrupt, the money will come from the pool of money that is given back to the FA's around the world. This means that either way, it's the National Association that will get left high and dry. While the English, Spanish, Italian, German, French FAs and some others are relatively rich, the majority of the 200 National Bodies around the World rely heavily on the money they get back from FIFA. For a lot of them it would most likely make up a good percentage of their annual budget. Which means MORE money will be taken from grass-roots football, and giving to professional teams which all ready receive a hell of a lot of money from FIFA's affiliates such as UEFA.

Again, this is not good for the game and will only result in FA's not calling up their best players, as they just can't afford the repercussion if one of their players just happens to get injured.

Club Football and International Football from a symbiont circle without each other there would not be the same love of the game around the world. If G14 get their way you can kiss bye good to International Football as you know it.




...and ThomasM, I'm sure if Norway or where ever you are from can no longer afford to call up their star players for the World Cup you would be the first one bitching.

Namliam

Correct me if I'm wrong, but players are under a contractual obligation to play for their clubs but are under no obligation whatsoever to play for their nations. They simply choose to play for their countries if called up, and hence I see no reason why the relevant national FA, much less FIFA should be responsible in any way if injuries occur.

Its not that the player's club is responsible; if anything, it is the player that is responsible for getting injured whilst being employed by the club. The outcome of course is that the player's club will suffer, but that is no good reason for demanding compensation from FIFA or from the relevant national FA.

MThomas

first of all, i dont give a damn about the norwegian national team.
actually,the norwegian national team led to more injury time for ole gunnar..
do you have a clue about how much money there`s involved in the premier league ?
one player could be the difference between a 1st and 3rd position,wich is a huge amount of money,cl qualification and more of the cl income.
so why on earth shouldnt there be compensations from the national team that called up a huge star for a useless friendly,in wich he gets injured and sidelined for 2months?
especially considering how much difference such a player could mean.
imagine if we had lost ruud the last time we won the premier league, we wouldnt have won it then. there has to be some sort of changes, call up fringe players for useless friendlies, call up the big guns when it gets close to qualification matches.
why should the club pay £70 000 a week to a player that got injured while playing a friendly vs a piss poor national team they didnt need him for.
we cant cut wages in half when a player gets injured, no one would sign a contract then,the only ones to go at is the ones responsible.

they cant simply refuse to go when they get called up,then they would have to choose between national footie or not.
remember what happened to viduka when he tried to pull a fake injury when leeds needed him at most (season they got relegated),he recieved a 2match ban.
either they are in, or not.

what the solution may be, who knows, but paying a chunk of their wages should be one thing. it could be cut down to a friendly basis, so that the rule only comes into play when its a friendly or qualification match where the outcome doesnt count due to the national team having already secured first or second place in the group.

wich would lead to -
-national teams being way more careful about calling up top star players for absolutely useless friendlies,the ones where the pitch looks terrible and the opposition prefers to kick players instead of the football.
-national team listening more to the clubs med.staff about injuries, some national teams (like norway) simply dont give a damn.

clubs pay out an insane amount of money to play football,not to get injured by their national team.

RedCanuck

I take note that you have abandoned reason. You were the one that raised the veracity of fifa's accounting, I merely responded in the context of the support you referenced by pointing out the top-heavy cost structure of fifa. I would disagree that fifa's financial performance would be found 'extremely good for a non-profit organisation' by anyone let alone a financial analyst. You claimed fifa is lily-white HD, I did not.
A players' value is determined in a free-market system so the amounts paid are entirely justified. fifa and/or uefa use the players, I think we will find that the courts believe that they then have a responsiblity to absorb some of the costs if that player is injured in an event where they receive the benefit of the players efforts.

The financial dispersments from competitions like the CL are not in question in the suit. In that case the clubs have entered negotiations with Uefa and arrived at an apparently acceptable structure. The players also play for their clubs in this instance so I don't know what point you are trying to make.
The G-14 are simply trying to cut out the middle-man in the case you cite. Rather than having the monies 'trickle-down' (with each organization taking its cut at each stage), G-14 simply want fifa/Uefa to pay for injured players before the 'trickling' happens.
I'll disagree with you on the liability aspect here HD. I think the courts will find that someone (other than the clubs) will have to pay in these cases. How much, and how complete the coverage of players expenses we will have to see.
To be honest I don't think its as broad a case as you imply and the decision will be narrowly constrained by the court. The most important result of the case will be that fifa won't be running around imposing costs on clubs without negotiating with them, nor will they be able to ignore G-14 and the interests of the clubs (and fans) they represent.
The result of a decision in favour of G-14 is yet to be determined. I don't think the clubs will be unreasonable in negotiations with the FA's, but it will be good to see a situation where fifa can't simply impose its wants on the clubs.
If it's a symbiotic relationship then it's highly asymetrical in favour of international football. Again, I don't think the clubs would be unreasonable HD. Particularly if they gain benefit from the relationship as you suggest.

The Hairdryer

Where did I claim they were a white-lily? All I said that FIFA are accountable and audited for all of their finances which is undisputable FACT. You were the one who posted their revenue and expenditures and made the accusation that they take just as much out of the game as the put in which is rubbish. Their expenditures in effect go back into the game anyway, it takes money and manpower to organise and administer the worlds most popular sport to administer all of their competitions. 24% of their total revenue IS a “very good” figure whether you choose to believe it or not.



FIFA and UEFA don’t use the players. They provide and administer competition for Club and National teams to play in. In the case of the injured Belgian player I can’t see how FIFA are responsible when their Country chose to play in a friendly with Burkina Faso.

The bottom line is that whether it be FIFA or local FA there will be less money going back into grass roots football which is the heart of the game.

We’ll see how far it goes, Personally I think it’s the start of something bad. An exclusive group of Elite Clubs dictating policy is not good in my opinion. These clubs have a voice, one vote at the local FA like any other Club. It’s a fair democratic system that has served the game well over for over 100 years. It’s not the most popular sport in the world for no reason, G14 are trying to break the status quo.
I may not agree with everything Mr Blatter says, but I think hit the nail on the head when he said.

"Football is founded on a pyramid, If the edifice is in danger of collapse, we won't be able to achieve our aims. There will be two laws: one for the rich and one for the poor."

RedCanuck

I'm glad you agree that fifa are not lily-white in the accounting department. I posted the revenue and expenditures of fifa AFTER taking your advice and looked at fifa's audited numbers. The simple fact that the results were audited means little other than the expenses and revenues did actually occur. Where, and how much, fifa put them is not rigidly controlled by an audit. Whether the 24% (as you measure it - I say its 50%) is 'very good' is very much open to debate.
One of fifa's decrees is the mandatory release of players to the national teams. Fifa/uefa also control and receive the revenues from these events, so a suit would have to be filed against them.
You say 'grass-roots football' as though the clubs don't put anything into it, which is not true. The development of players has been, and should always be, the job of the clubs. If developing women's football in Afghanistan is not a waste of time and money then I don't what is.
G-14 are not looking to dictate anything, they have merely responded to the dictates of fifa. As long as fifa refuses to acknowledge the sizable role that club football plays in growing and maintaining the game, these conflicts will arise. Fifa have imposed new and more demanding conditions on the clubs over the past 100 years, G-14 are saying 'enough is enough' and are objecting to the way fifa/uefa have continued to take advantage of those clubs.
Slack Bladder is a big fat gas bag. Having said that there must be one set of rules for everyone that is developed through consultation and agreement rather than dictated according to the whims of Bladder.

Ronaldo07

Fuck me sideways !!!!!!!!!!!!!! jay-zus

The Hairdryer

You argument relating to this is becoming incredibly tedious. It says in plain English what their financial and other expenses come to. It’s not hard to calculate that this comes to 24% of their revenue. This is fact and it’s not open for debate.

Secondly, if you had bothered to look at page 54 onwards of the Financial Report you were looking at would have found itemised expenditures. You asked what the Event Related cost were well look at page 75 onwards. You can quite clearly see that this money is going back into World Cup and other Tournament organised by FIFA.

You also claim that it was not rigidly controlled Audit which is utter nonsense. Go to page 99 and you will find a letter from the auditors. This clearly states it was a full audit in which part of their scope was to determine whether the accounting principles were above board and to see if it was free from material misstatement.

You also continue to live in a fantasyland where it doesn’t cost anything to run an organisation like FIFA and organise their multitude or events, please go get a reality check. This point isn’t even worth arguing any more, because you’ve lost all grip of common sense and have resorted to straw clutching.

The revenues go back to the national bodies. You keep failing to miss the concept that either way it will be the local FA that will be left out of pocket.

You need to think outside the shores of the UK Canuck. In many countries around the world players are developed at School, State and National levels. To say it should be up to the Clubs is ridiculous.


Why should the wishes of 18 Clubs take precedence over the thousands of other Clubs throughout Europe? They have a vote at their local FA like anyone else. It’s a fair democratic system. Fair enough if it was group made up of all European Clubs, but the fact is it’s an elitist organisation who are solely interested in how much they can grab from the game, It’s a private rich boys Club.


Huh? Blatter can’t dictate any of his whims. Quite simply he responsible for implementing the decisions passed by the Congress and the Executive Committee through the general secretariat. He does not and can not dictate his own policy.

RedCanuck

It's quite easy to debate it, if you stop to think about it. Reported expenses for fifa's operating costs were essentially the same for their much-vaunted development programs. Also, the results offered were for one (1) year in what for fifa is a four (4) year cycle - world cup to world cup. I will be interested to see if the revenue and expenses remain in the same ratio over the four year period.
Thanks for the info, I will take a closer look at the details once I have the time to read it.


Thanks for the info, I will take a closer look at the details once I have the time to read it. There is no point in us parsing terms on this matter, what you or I may believe to be 'rigidly controlled' or a 'material misstatement' may be two different things.
No one, at least not me, has claimed it costs nothing to run an organization. The question is how much. My grip on reality is quite firm, thanks. You seem like a decent fellow, so why resort to name-calling?
You are right, I do fail to miss the concept. What you seem oblivious to is that fifa receive the revenues and dole them out as they deem fit.

Where does fifa fit into this football Nirvana?
Perhaps you could provide some more details on the types of football programs you are describing and, of course, how fifa have funded them.
Clearly we look at the world through very different eyes. The clubs are responsible to themselves and their fans. They must look after their interests because there is no one else to do it. In the particular case that started this thread the G-14 are seeking a ruling from the courts. That ruling will have to be abided by everyone, including the G-14.
What is the problem with the court determining what is within the law?
How naive is that? Blatter has and continues to use block-vote tactics to dangle favours to buy the votes he needs. There was an earlier post that referenced a number of instances where Blatter had leveraged favours.
You really need to look no further than Blatter's reaction to the Charleroi suit.
From The Times

The Hairdryer

Footballing Nirvana indeed

In Australia for example elite players are put into state Academies at a young age, they then compete in a national tournament at the ages of 15 and 16 were they are selected for the U/17's Australian team and high-performance programs at the Institute of Sport. The National FA (I don't know what it's called as it changes names every other week) provides subsidies for airfares, accommodation and other costs incurred by these Competitions and programs. I know the system quite well this as I coached one of the teams from Queensland a few years back.

While there is a more money in the sport in Australia now a few years ago they couldn't even get a major sponsor for their league or national team and the money received from FIFA from both TV rights for it's tournaments such as the Confeds Cup and their annual grant would have filtered down to these programs. When Australia failed for the Confeds Cup in 2003 it almost sent the organisation broke.

Money from the National FA is also get's divide between the State Associations which help pay for the upkeep of grounds, equipment referee and coaching training. While the National FA do have other souces of income, if they were to have hefty compenstation bill, or less money coming back from FIFA from a European Club paying the wages of someone like Harry Kewell then any money trickling down would be less.



In France elite players are put into the Clairefontaine Academy. This academy has been accredited with France's success at international level over the last 10 years and is run by the local FA. If they started getting hefty compensations bills from European Clubs, or less money from FIFA there will no doubt be budget cuts across the board, which will inevitably have and effect on the Academy.

Many countries in Asia, most notably China, also run National Academies for it's Under 17's and Under 20's. As to do countries in Africa. As I've said before it's a good bet that money from FIFA makes up a good portion of their annual budget. You don't have to be a genius to work out that it will have an effect on Football if this money is reduced or they are paying for some super-star's wages whilst he's injured.

The Hairdryer

If all the Clubs agreed and felt they were being treated wrongly they could put whoever they wanted into the FA. If all the Clubs did it across Europe then they could put whoever they wanted into UEFA who could lobby FIFA.

They are using their financial muscle to seek a ruling that most Clubs and National FA's don't agree with. That's the problem.

They are taking a short cut on democratic process for their own selfish means. Sepp Blatter has every right speak out against it.

MThomas

and if all the clubs in the premiership wanted (actually,we dont need 2 or 3 votes),we could have chelsea thrown out.
no matter how correct that would be, it wont happen.
clubs all over the world wont agree upon being treated wrongly,the top clubs would,because its the top clubs who suffer from this.

The Hairdryer

Not really, all the Premiership Clubs these days are littered with Internationals. Even in the first div many of them have one or two players who represent a country somewhere. In fact it's the smaller Club who would be more affected by players injured on International Duty as they don't have as much depth in their squad.

MThomas

you said clubs all over the world,not premiership clubs..
anyway,they arent exactly littered with internationals either,they have internationals thats either placed on the bench for the entire match,or plays like 30mins (thats most of them, you do have teams with scottish\welsh\irish\etc internationals that get to play almost every match,but that doesnt go for the majority of the clubs).top clubs have players that play almost every single match,the risk of getting injured is way higher.


anyway,the point is,g-14 has located something they consider a problem.
with wages up to £130 000 a week,they have to protect their investments.
their demands may be a bit drastic, so i guess they are looking for something in-between.

if i ran a football club i would be slightly pissed off if the club`s star player got injured in a friendly,out for 3months and getting payed £90k per week. this could be in a important stage in the season and it could mean not winning the title,thus losing an insane amount of money on that as well.
a solution has to come forward, either all players that want to join in on internationals have to agree upon contracts that state they will only get 1\4th of their initial salary if they get injured during a useless international friendly (might be all internationals),or fifa has to come up with a solution that satisfies clubs with players involved in internationals. the way i see it,national teams has a habit of reaping what other clubs saw, clubs spend an insane amount of money on their players,the national team gets to use them for free. clubs are getting the raw deal, not the national teams.

RedCanuck

Great, so a nation can have an 'elite' program that takes the best players and receives all the attention but leaves barren the grass roots programs that produce quality footballers in depth.
Part of the hold that fifa has on groups like Austrailia's football program is the lack of self-financing. Bureaucracies are established that need financing to survive, then fifa can leverage that need to squeeze votes. A better model would be to establish football from the ground up where a nation is not beggered without support from fifa (as is the case in Europe and South America).
Only 25% of the money gets paid out in that fashion after fifa take their cut so it would be more cost-effective for fifa to pay the cost to the clubs directly. How it would affect the money distributed is irrelevant since if the liability is found to be fifa's then they will have to pay or negotiate some other mechanism with the clubs.
I think it has more to do with having great athletes than Clariefontaine however trying to prove either argument is impossible. The 'elite' players that go to the acadamy are already good football players. By stripping the nation's clubs of their best players would then reduce the levels of skills and competition at those clubs, which works negatively on the players remaining.
It would appear that these countries are spending the money received on high-profile, high-performance inititives rather than the grass-roots programs that would greater serve the interests of football and the health of their citizens. While sport has long been used to raise a nation's international profile, there is little incentive for me, as a Manchester United fan, to subsidize this behaviour.

RedCanuck

The G-14 are not using financial muscle at all. They are using the law.
Slack Bladder seems to have a problem with that.

very Ruud

Fifa tries to build bridges over drugs policy
By Ashling O’Connor
Times September 13th 2005


FIFA continued on its collision course with the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) yesterday over the statutory punishment for first-time serious drugs offenders as world football’s governing body maintained that it is fully compliant with the worldwide code.
Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president, will seek to explain to Dick Pound, the Wada chairman, by phone today that football has fallen into line with other sports and “can do no more” to demonstrate its commitment to the fight against doping.

Fifa has modified its statutes regarding doping by dropping an assertion that any footballer caught taking performance-enhancing drugs would be banned for a minimum of six months.

The punishment will now range from a warning to a life ban, in accordance with the Wada code. It has also given Wada recourse to the Court for Arbitration in Sport if the agency is unhappy with the outcome of a case after all Fifa’s internal processes have been exhausted.

However, the amendments may not be enough. The Wada code stipulates that all offending athletes must be subject to an automatic two-year suspension, but Fifa has refused to accept this blanket ban. It prefers to act on a case-by-case basis and believes the sanction to be unreliable under Swiss law, which governs the organisation.

By the end of Fifa’s annual congress here, it appeared that stance had not changed, despite Blatter signing a declaration of intent in May last year to implement all parts of the code. “Every individual has the right to be judged according to the gravity of the offence,” Blatter said. “I will ask the Wada chairman to bury the hatchet. He needs a strong partner such as Fifa. He should accept the proposal.”

Fifa faces the hypothetical threat of a ban from the Olympic Games if it does not fully endorse Wada’s code. Pound has also suggested that the World Cup next year could be in doubt.

very Ruud

Fifa sets up corruption task force

West Ham takeover talk sparks Fifa into action

Matt Scott
Tuesday September 13, 2005
The Guardian


Fifa yesterday voted to set up a task force designed to investigate corruption, betting and multiple ownership of football clubs. Fears over multiple ownership were stoked in last season's Champions League group stages when Roman Abramovich's Chelsea drew CSKA Moscow, the Russian club sponsored by his oil company Sibneft. Abramovich's spokespeople have consistently denied that he has any influence over the Uefa Cup holders CSKA and a brief Uefa investigation threw up no direct links.

However, with the Media Sports Investment consortium, which already owns the Brazilian side Corinthians, contemplating a takeover of West Ham, Fifa has moved to create a body with genuine investigative powers. Fifa's president Sepp Blatter was a prime mover in the establishment of the body but conceded that criticism of his organisation's response to a range of issues that threaten the game was fair. "We need to counter these risks. We need to be aware of these dangers. Where there is smoke there is fire and we need to put out the fires," he said. "We have been accused of things and books will be published about football being destructive and evil. We need to be more careful and pay more attention."
The 198-to-one vote that sanctioned the move represents overwhelming support for a body that will report directly to Fifa's executive committee. Blatter is also seeking to curb the gravitation of wealth and influence to the select group of clubs represented by the G14 organisation.

"There is a movement in club football which I don't necessarily consider a prime example of solidarity because it leads us to conclude the rich are getting richer," he said. "The gap is getting wider and wider." East Timor and Comoros were accepted as full members of Fifa yesterday.

MThomas

norwegian club vålerenga has sent a letter to the norwegian footie assosiation, they want them to pay steffen iversens salaries while he`s out with injury,due to him getting this injury in a national team match.

The Hairdryer

Are you trying to invent new arguments for the sake of arguing. Leave barren Grass-root football? WTF are you on about?

Perhaps you can tell what genius initiatives Countries could come up with out having to resort to receiving funds from FIFA?

Maybe you could write a letter to the poor countries in Africa telling them they should stop using FIFA’s money and start using their own money on Football instead of less important things like health, education and infrastructure.

How do they leverage votes? Every country gets the same amount of money back. The head of Oceania isn’t even from Australia. In fact Australia have just as much say in the affairs of FIFA as Vanuatu or Fiji.



Fuck me, you really do have a problem with grasping basic business principles?

FIFA don’t take a cut. It takes time, money and manpower to run an instituation like FIFA. Out of the profit they make they redistribute 75% of it and the rest is rolled over.

Think about it this way. These players are selected at 13-14 years of age to go to that academy. They get best of tutorage available then go back to the Clubs and they benefit from it. The Clubs then sell these players for a mint to big European Clubs. BTW, it’s no coincidence that France went through its best period in International Football when the graduates started breaking into the International scene. The French Football Academy has received international acclaim. Theirry Henry says himself that he wouldn’t be half the player he is today without it.

Oh yes what despicable behaviour. Giving money back poor countries so in can increase the profile of the sport. The world of football is bigger than one Club.