Grant Wahl, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated and SI.com, has put his name in the hat for the position of President of FIFA. The elections will be held on June 1. Wahl is campaigning behind the promise of sweeping reforms to the FIFA Executive Committee; using the momentum of recent allegations of corruption by The Sunday Times in the UK to drive support for his election. Even though it is a somewhat unexpected announcement, it is very possible he could successfully restore credibility to an organization that desperately to perform damage control on its tarnished image.
The only other opposition current lame duck president Sepp Blatter faces is the president of Asia's Football Federation, Mohamed Bin Hammam of Qatar. I think the Cleveland Cavaliers will win the NBA Championship before Mr. Hammam makes any substantial progress reforming the system.
Wahl's proposed changes include implementing instant replay for calls on the goal line, restructuring the system for referee selections so it is based on merit, and eliminating "stupid yellow cards" for celebrations such as removing your jersey.
His most substantial reform proposals include a term limit for the president (there have been 2 in 37 years), the appointment of women to prominent roles on the committee (All 27 are men at the moment), and revealing past financial records and confidential documents. He plans on "going Wikileaks on FIFA".
The biggest hurdle will be for Mr. Wahl to have a country nominate him as a candidate, a requirement to be on the ballot. No one else is taking action and challenging Sepp Blatter and FIFA as a governing body. Grant Wahl has covered 5 World Cups, and is aware of the glaring black eye that FIFA has as a professional organization. I believe FIFA needs Grant Wahl to make the changes no one else is willing to make.
Here are the links to an article announcing his candidacy and a campaign video:
Official Announcement:
http://bit.ly/hVmEw4
Campaign Video:
http://bit.ly/dJomg5
If you want to offer your support and help make Grant Wahl's candidacy gain a following on Twitter and Facebook, and make his nomination official, here are those links:
Grant Wahl's Twitter:
http://twitter.com/GrantWahl
Petition on Twitter for his candidacy:
http://bit.ly/eAf1ME
Facebook Page:
http://on.fb.me/hZYvds
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
With a Lockout Looming: Will There be a NFL Football Season in 2011?
March 3rd, 2011 is "D-Day", so to speak, for the NFL Players Association and the owners to hammer out an acceptable Collective Bargaining Agreement. That is not to say all hope is lost if both sides haven't reached an agreement by then, but it would be an uphill battle to make the 2011 NFL season a reality at that point.
There are 3 major issues that the players and owners disagree on after their most recent discussions Wednesday, February 9, 2011.
1. The owners are asking for changes to be made to the current revenue sharing agreement. Initially reports were that the owners were demanding a $2.4 billion credit be taken from the pool of total revenue each year for costs related to stadium renovation and other business operating costs.
Currently, the credit stands at $1 billion before the revenue is split 60% to the players and 40% to the owners.
The players didn't go for that. They have had the same deal in place since 2006, the owners opted out of that deal, and because the owners aren't releasing all of the financial documents for each franchise, the NFLPA isn't buying the business cost explanation the owners are selling. The owners say they have provided the necessary information to make an informed decision, and that the other paperwork and financial data is irrelevant to the decision at hand.
Wednesday things took a turn for the worst between the sides. The owners walked away from the bargaining table, and canceled a meeting set for today, as well as an owners meeting set for next Tuesday. The major issue? The players proposed a 50/50 split with no credit or requirement for full disclosure of financial records, and the owners aren't budging on their demands for a credit.
The owners proposed $2.4 billion credit would essentially leave the split between owners and players at close to 60/40 of total revenue. A huge shift in compensation for the players.
If I'm the NFLPA, I stick to my guns at this point. If the owners won't provide them all financial documents for each team to be reviewed, it is irresponsible to accept a nearly 20% decrease in revenue. This clearly doesn't bode well for an agreement by the March 3rd deadline.
As soon as the deadline passes, the owners are estimated to lose $120 million in revenue due to expiring sponsorship contracts. If this drags out to September, and impacts the 2011 season, the number may climb to $1 billion.
2. The second issue at hand is the owners' proposal to expand the season to 18 games. Truthfully, I would love to see this happen; if I didn't have a conscience, or justified concern for the players safety. The effects that football has on the players involved, especially long term, are serious and need to be taken into consideration. See Chris Henry or William "The Refrigerator" Perry. They are undeniable, and if you want to be shallow and consider it solely from a business standpoint; they are costly for the teams as well. Apparently not costly enough to offset the revenue generated by two additional regular season games.
And still NFLPA DeMaurice Smith hasn't said this would be a dealbreaker. It would just likely require more compensation and less time participating in "mandatory workouts" during the off season.
Sounds reasonable enough from the outside looking in.
3. The third major issue holding up an agreement, but by far the least troublesome, is the implementation of an adjusted rookie wage scale. Both sides agree a new compensation structure needs to be in place for rookies, but there is no agreement to this point on how that should be set up. The NFLPA has conceded a cap on incentives that would reduce the amount rookies are paid with the savings being passed to veterans. The owners have crafted a counter proposal that would require first round picks to sign 5 year contracts at a reduced salary (QBs in the first round have to sign 6 year deals), and picks from rounds 2-7 have to sign 4 year contracts at reduced pay. Ultimately, this is the issue both sides are closest on, and at the same time it can't be resolved completely until a revenue sharing agreement is reached.
It does seem to be the so-called 11th hour for Cinderella. I'm not holding my breath for a 2011 season. It is tough to see a valid reason for the owners' demanding a significantly larger piece of the pie. In the end, it is their responsibility to prove the need for the additional $1.4 billion credit for business operations by providing their individual team's financial information.
If progress isn't made soon, the damage done to the relationship between the fans and the league will likely be long term and severe.
- NLW
There are 3 major issues that the players and owners disagree on after their most recent discussions Wednesday, February 9, 2011.
1. The owners are asking for changes to be made to the current revenue sharing agreement. Initially reports were that the owners were demanding a $2.4 billion credit be taken from the pool of total revenue each year for costs related to stadium renovation and other business operating costs.
Currently, the credit stands at $1 billion before the revenue is split 60% to the players and 40% to the owners.
The players didn't go for that. They have had the same deal in place since 2006, the owners opted out of that deal, and because the owners aren't releasing all of the financial documents for each franchise, the NFLPA isn't buying the business cost explanation the owners are selling. The owners say they have provided the necessary information to make an informed decision, and that the other paperwork and financial data is irrelevant to the decision at hand.
Wednesday things took a turn for the worst between the sides. The owners walked away from the bargaining table, and canceled a meeting set for today, as well as an owners meeting set for next Tuesday. The major issue? The players proposed a 50/50 split with no credit or requirement for full disclosure of financial records, and the owners aren't budging on their demands for a credit.
The owners proposed $2.4 billion credit would essentially leave the split between owners and players at close to 60/40 of total revenue. A huge shift in compensation for the players.
If I'm the NFLPA, I stick to my guns at this point. If the owners won't provide them all financial documents for each team to be reviewed, it is irresponsible to accept a nearly 20% decrease in revenue. This clearly doesn't bode well for an agreement by the March 3rd deadline.
As soon as the deadline passes, the owners are estimated to lose $120 million in revenue due to expiring sponsorship contracts. If this drags out to September, and impacts the 2011 season, the number may climb to $1 billion.
2. The second issue at hand is the owners' proposal to expand the season to 18 games. Truthfully, I would love to see this happen; if I didn't have a conscience, or justified concern for the players safety. The effects that football has on the players involved, especially long term, are serious and need to be taken into consideration. See Chris Henry or William "The Refrigerator" Perry. They are undeniable, and if you want to be shallow and consider it solely from a business standpoint; they are costly for the teams as well. Apparently not costly enough to offset the revenue generated by two additional regular season games.
And still NFLPA DeMaurice Smith hasn't said this would be a dealbreaker. It would just likely require more compensation and less time participating in "mandatory workouts" during the off season.
Sounds reasonable enough from the outside looking in.
3. The third major issue holding up an agreement, but by far the least troublesome, is the implementation of an adjusted rookie wage scale. Both sides agree a new compensation structure needs to be in place for rookies, but there is no agreement to this point on how that should be set up. The NFLPA has conceded a cap on incentives that would reduce the amount rookies are paid with the savings being passed to veterans. The owners have crafted a counter proposal that would require first round picks to sign 5 year contracts at a reduced salary (QBs in the first round have to sign 6 year deals), and picks from rounds 2-7 have to sign 4 year contracts at reduced pay. Ultimately, this is the issue both sides are closest on, and at the same time it can't be resolved completely until a revenue sharing agreement is reached.
It does seem to be the so-called 11th hour for Cinderella. I'm not holding my breath for a 2011 season. It is tough to see a valid reason for the owners' demanding a significantly larger piece of the pie. In the end, it is their responsibility to prove the need for the additional $1.4 billion credit for business operations by providing their individual team's financial information.
If progress isn't made soon, the damage done to the relationship between the fans and the league will likely be long term and severe.
- NLW
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Critique of the World Cup Host Selection for 2018 and 2022 World Cups
In the final article of my 3 part series looking at FIFA and the World Cup Host Selection Process, I will analyze FIFA's choice to have Russia and Qatar host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. Specifically, I will look at the individual merits for the perceived front runners for hosting the tournament for each year, as well as give my thoughts on why Russia and Qatar ended up getting the nod over the other candidates.
2018 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Belgium/Netherlands
England
Portugal/Spain
Russia*
Out of the 4 bids for the 2018 World Cup, it was widely considered to be between England and Russia for the right to host the football championships.
Belgium/Netherlands were unlikely from the start. Between the joint bid, the fact they hosted the Euro 2000 tournament, and FIFA expressing concerns about the necessary government cooperation to host a successful tournament; it seemed a longshot from the start.
England went into voting as one of the favorites to host the 2018 World Cup. It is the birthplace of modern football. The bid was led by famous public ambassadors such as Prime Minister David Cameron, Prince William, and, of course, David Beckham. Much of the infrastructure necessary to host the World Cup is already in place, and the country hadn't hosted the event since 1966
Portugal/Spain was hurt by accusations of an alliance with Qatar in a deal to trade votes for the Middle Eastern country's support. Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko openly criticized the agreement in an apparent act of gamesmanship. Cristiano Ronaldo ended up not attending the announcement. Not to mention the region isn't exactly thriving financially with concerns about the countries' rapidly expanding national debt. Ultimately, they were unlikely to win from the start, and didn't appear to attempt to dispel this foregone conclusion through additional lobbying.
Russia was a favorite under the premise that FIFA is actively trying to spread the game to all corners of the world. It also benefited from its successful bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, demonstrating confidence in the country's ability to host major international sporting events. Money isn't a problem for major bureaucrats who are willing to pony up the funds, an estimated $3.82 billion, which is the largest amongst the 4 candidate bids. The decision by Vladimir Putin to not attend the ceremony in Zurich, which he indirectly credited to "the unscrupulous actions of the British media", concerns about racism and corruption in Russia, and the lowest projected ticket allotment were the only considerable obstacles to a successful bid.
2022 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Australia
Japan/South Korea
Qatar*
United States
Australia was considered the dark horse pick for the 2022 World Cup. The country hosted a successful Summer Olympics in 2000, and the majority of the stadiums that would be used for matches are already built within the major cities. The major argument against their bid was the time zone difference effecting television viewership in the United States and Europe. I disagree with this assertion simply because ratings weren't severely impacted during the 2002 World Cup in Japan/South Korea which shares a very similar time zone; although I personally would watch fewer games for this reason.
Japan/South Korea hosted the event in 2002. For this reason I don't think either country had a chance to host the World Cup in 2022. It was simply too soon, and I believe the next host from Asia will be China or India due to their growth potential.
Qatar was considered a legitimate candidate to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022 pretty much from the outset. Not only does the country have an outrageous amount of money to invest in the tournament; it would promote FIFA's self-proclaimed "vision" of bringing football to all corners of the earth (see Russia above), and the first in the Middle-East. At the same time, there are clearly many drawbacks to hosting the event in Qatar. First, the average temperature in the summer is around 106 degrees Fahrenheit in June/July, and can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed remedy to this issue, air conditioned stadiums, certainly wouldn't be good for the environment, another aspect FIFA claims to take into consideration when looking at bid proposals. The fact that the country is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut isn't appealing either, and the city where the final is proposed to be played doesn't currently exist. I could list more concerns, but I digress...
The United States had a simple case to make to host the World Cup in 2022. All of the stadiums that would be used are in place with nothing more than minor renovations necessary. The official bid cited 18 venues in 18 cities, and that is high-balling the actual number that would be used. The estimated number of tickets that would be put on sale for the World Cup in the United States was 4,957,000. That number was 42% more than Qatar is predicted to provide, and over a million more than any of the countries bidding for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup estimated selling. The argument against having it in the United States is the potential for terrorist attacks or violence, and then the rest of the world hating America/Americans. I make the latter argument, tongue-in-cheek. These two points are quickly offset by the fact that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton was one of our ambassadors.
Host of 2018 World Cup: Russia
FIFA Executive Committee were caught on camera agreeing to sell their World Cup votes, one in exchange for £500,000, the equivalent of about $800,000, and the other for payment "to finance a sports academy". The officials involved were the Nigerian executive committee member and the president of the Oceania Football Confederation respectively, and the report was openly condemned by a lobbyist for Russia's bid, as well as the president of the Asian Football Confederation (Qatar). Then on November 29th, the Panorama current news program on BBC ran a segment alleging 3 senior FIFA officials, all with votes in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Host Selection, accepted bribes from a sports marketing firm in the 1990's in exchange for World Cup rights.
This was the nail in England's proverbial coffin.
Putin not showing up to accept the decision on Russia's behalf was more likely a tactical move, a public demonstration of Russia's growing international influence and arrogance, than him conceding defeat in their bid proposal.
Host of 2022 World Cup: Qatar
Admittedly, I am slightly biased in regards to this decision. At the same time, I can't find one good reason for why Qatar was chosen to host the World Cup in 2022. Advocating the spread of football to all corners of the earth doesn't hold weight in this instance because Australia/Oceania has never hosted a World Cup either. Maybe in the case of the 2018 decision advocating the promotion of the game is an acceptable explanation, but not when there are 2 other viable candidates, the U.S.A and Australia, who have established infrastructure in place and a track record of success hosting international sports competitions.
The fact that Qatar's football team, currently ranked 90th in the world, will automatically qualify for the 2022 World Cup is unfortunate. They have never qualified for the tournament in its existence, and it will likely be an embarrassing showing for their team. I realize Qatar/Middle Eastern culture is different than in the United States, but if the U.S. men's national team got destroyed on its own turf it would likely erase any interest and forward progress previously made in legitimizing football in the country. Since this is a likely scenario for Qatar, I would argue that this is not the best way to spread the game to that region.
In my opinion, Qatar was chosen because of the estimated $65 billion dollars they plan on investing over the next 11 years on building the stadiums, hotels, and the city where the World Cup Final will be hosted. This will be good for the Middle Eastern economies in the near future, and will certainly continue to provide jobs in the region up to the 2022 tournament. Yet, I don't see any sustainable positive economic effects from the event after its conclusion. Apparently the organizers don't either since they are planning on dismantling many of the stadiums that will be used and shipping off seats and other parts to less fortunate countries for use there. While this is a nice gesture, this is tough to justify, especially in light of the recent world economic environment.
In the end, I hope that Qatar is able to host a successful World Cup in 2022, but they clearly have their work cut out for them over the next 11 years. Ultimately, I think that the United States or Australia would have been much better choices, but the key to that statement is "I think" and in reality, "money talks".
-NLW
Afterthoughts:
My next article will take a closer look at the potential for a lockout in the NFL next season, and the economics behind the current deadlock between players and owners.
I also hope to be able to post with a little more frequency for the foreseeable future. I have been in the midst of juggling a few projects professionally over the past month, and I recently freed up a little extra time by postponing my involvement in one of them. I look forward to getting back to writing on issues that interest me, and providing a look into the reach of money within athletics at all levels.
2018 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Belgium/Netherlands
England
Portugal/Spain
Russia*
Out of the 4 bids for the 2018 World Cup, it was widely considered to be between England and Russia for the right to host the football championships.
Belgium/Netherlands were unlikely from the start. Between the joint bid, the fact they hosted the Euro 2000 tournament, and FIFA expressing concerns about the necessary government cooperation to host a successful tournament; it seemed a longshot from the start.
England went into voting as one of the favorites to host the 2018 World Cup. It is the birthplace of modern football. The bid was led by famous public ambassadors such as Prime Minister David Cameron, Prince William, and, of course, David Beckham. Much of the infrastructure necessary to host the World Cup is already in place, and the country hadn't hosted the event since 1966
Portugal/Spain was hurt by accusations of an alliance with Qatar in a deal to trade votes for the Middle Eastern country's support. Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko openly criticized the agreement in an apparent act of gamesmanship. Cristiano Ronaldo ended up not attending the announcement. Not to mention the region isn't exactly thriving financially with concerns about the countries' rapidly expanding national debt. Ultimately, they were unlikely to win from the start, and didn't appear to attempt to dispel this foregone conclusion through additional lobbying.
Russia was a favorite under the premise that FIFA is actively trying to spread the game to all corners of the world. It also benefited from its successful bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, demonstrating confidence in the country's ability to host major international sporting events. Money isn't a problem for major bureaucrats who are willing to pony up the funds, an estimated $3.82 billion, which is the largest amongst the 4 candidate bids. The decision by Vladimir Putin to not attend the ceremony in Zurich, which he indirectly credited to "the unscrupulous actions of the British media", concerns about racism and corruption in Russia, and the lowest projected ticket allotment were the only considerable obstacles to a successful bid.
2022 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Australia
Japan/South Korea
Qatar*
United States
Australia was considered the dark horse pick for the 2022 World Cup. The country hosted a successful Summer Olympics in 2000, and the majority of the stadiums that would be used for matches are already built within the major cities. The major argument against their bid was the time zone difference effecting television viewership in the United States and Europe. I disagree with this assertion simply because ratings weren't severely impacted during the 2002 World Cup in Japan/South Korea which shares a very similar time zone; although I personally would watch fewer games for this reason.
Japan/South Korea hosted the event in 2002. For this reason I don't think either country had a chance to host the World Cup in 2022. It was simply too soon, and I believe the next host from Asia will be China or India due to their growth potential.
Qatar was considered a legitimate candidate to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022 pretty much from the outset. Not only does the country have an outrageous amount of money to invest in the tournament; it would promote FIFA's self-proclaimed "vision" of bringing football to all corners of the earth (see Russia above), and the first in the Middle-East. At the same time, there are clearly many drawbacks to hosting the event in Qatar. First, the average temperature in the summer is around 106 degrees Fahrenheit in June/July, and can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed remedy to this issue, air conditioned stadiums, certainly wouldn't be good for the environment, another aspect FIFA claims to take into consideration when looking at bid proposals. The fact that the country is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut isn't appealing either, and the city where the final is proposed to be played doesn't currently exist. I could list more concerns, but I digress...
The United States had a simple case to make to host the World Cup in 2022. All of the stadiums that would be used are in place with nothing more than minor renovations necessary. The official bid cited 18 venues in 18 cities, and that is high-balling the actual number that would be used. The estimated number of tickets that would be put on sale for the World Cup in the United States was 4,957,000. That number was 42% more than Qatar is predicted to provide, and over a million more than any of the countries bidding for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup estimated selling. The argument against having it in the United States is the potential for terrorist attacks or violence, and then the rest of the world hating America/Americans. I make the latter argument, tongue-in-cheek. These two points are quickly offset by the fact that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton was one of our ambassadors.
Host of 2018 World Cup: Russia
FIFA Executive Committee were caught on camera agreeing to sell their World Cup votes, one in exchange for £500,000, the equivalent of about $800,000, and the other for payment "to finance a sports academy". The officials involved were the Nigerian executive committee member and the president of the Oceania Football Confederation respectively, and the report was openly condemned by a lobbyist for Russia's bid, as well as the president of the Asian Football Confederation (Qatar). Then on November 29th, the Panorama current news program on BBC ran a segment alleging 3 senior FIFA officials, all with votes in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Host Selection, accepted bribes from a sports marketing firm in the 1990's in exchange for World Cup rights.
This was the nail in England's proverbial coffin.
Putin not showing up to accept the decision on Russia's behalf was more likely a tactical move, a public demonstration of Russia's growing international influence and arrogance, than him conceding defeat in their bid proposal.
Host of 2022 World Cup: Qatar
Admittedly, I am slightly biased in regards to this decision. At the same time, I can't find one good reason for why Qatar was chosen to host the World Cup in 2022. Advocating the spread of football to all corners of the earth doesn't hold weight in this instance because Australia/Oceania has never hosted a World Cup either. Maybe in the case of the 2018 decision advocating the promotion of the game is an acceptable explanation, but not when there are 2 other viable candidates, the U.S.A and Australia, who have established infrastructure in place and a track record of success hosting international sports competitions.
The fact that Qatar's football team, currently ranked 90th in the world, will automatically qualify for the 2022 World Cup is unfortunate. They have never qualified for the tournament in its existence, and it will likely be an embarrassing showing for their team. I realize Qatar/Middle Eastern culture is different than in the United States, but if the U.S. men's national team got destroyed on its own turf it would likely erase any interest and forward progress previously made in legitimizing football in the country. Since this is a likely scenario for Qatar, I would argue that this is not the best way to spread the game to that region.
In my opinion, Qatar was chosen because of the estimated $65 billion dollars they plan on investing over the next 11 years on building the stadiums, hotels, and the city where the World Cup Final will be hosted. This will be good for the Middle Eastern economies in the near future, and will certainly continue to provide jobs in the region up to the 2022 tournament. Yet, I don't see any sustainable positive economic effects from the event after its conclusion. Apparently the organizers don't either since they are planning on dismantling many of the stadiums that will be used and shipping off seats and other parts to less fortunate countries for use there. While this is a nice gesture, this is tough to justify, especially in light of the recent world economic environment.
In the end, I hope that Qatar is able to host a successful World Cup in 2022, but they clearly have their work cut out for them over the next 11 years. Ultimately, I think that the United States or Australia would have been much better choices, but the key to that statement is "I think" and in reality, "money talks".
-NLW
Afterthoughts:
My next article will take a closer look at the potential for a lockout in the NFL next season, and the economics behind the current deadlock between players and owners.
I also hope to be able to post with a little more frequency for the foreseeable future. I have been in the midst of juggling a few projects professionally over the past month, and I recently freed up a little extra time by postponing my involvement in one of them. I look forward to getting back to writing on issues that interest me, and providing a look into the reach of money within athletics at all levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)