Economic success
Is it conceivable that the characteristics which affect
the success or under-achievement of national economies could be reflected in
the performance their national football teams?
Could it be that the real reason that Germany won the
World Cup was that the philosophy that has thrust the country as the powerhouse
economy of Europe has been adapted to the benefit of its world-beating football
team?
The odds, before the first ball was even kicked, would have
scorned such a proposition. The fact is
that no European team has ever won the World Cup anywhere in the Americas.
European conquistadors
If any team were to achieve such an unlikely feat, then
the principal candidate would surely have to be Spain.
Spain, after all, qualified for these finals
as reigning champions of the world. Not
content with one title, they sandwiched the global accolade between victories in
the European championship on the two last occasions, a unique treble.
And as if to emphasise Spanish dominance, two
teams from Madrid had contested the recent final of Europe’s club teams, the
Champions League.
If there were to be a rival European invader who might
lift the global title, that could be the hosts’ own fatherland country,
Portugal. After all, their captain is
the multiple-award-winning star and 2014 world player of the year, Christiano
Ronaldo.
One of the many shocks of this year’s competition,
however, was that the two European countries with the closest cultural and
linguistic connections with South America were eliminated in the preliminary
round.
What made the Iberian nations’
failure incomprehensible was their record of proven success coupled with the galactic
renown of key players.
Before long, however, it became apparent that the
countries with the world’s cash-richest leagues would fare badly in this
competition.
England, Italy and Spain
were knocked out because of poor results in the first round of competition.
Consequent questions arise about the management
and business models of their domestic leagues, normally held up to be the best
in the world.
Business model in Europe
The norm is that success breeds success. Because of their star quality, these three
leagues attract huge revenues from television and other endorsements.
Their top clubs pay enormous transfer fees
and pay extraordinary wages to attract what are considered to be the best
footballers from all over the world.
These teams tend to be owned by large business interests, often from
abroad.
In England, prescient fans express disquiet about the
prospect of their beloved clubs being saddled with foreign corporate debt.
Many are unhappy about having to pay high
prices for supporters’ essentials like season tickets and club jerseys.
In the light of England’s early departure
from the tournament in Brazil, their long-suffering fans are feeling
increasingly indignant at what they refer to as “forty-eight years of hurt.”
Will these hapless football fans start to ask searching
questions such as: -
·
Has the extravagance of the salary structure
in the modestly entitled Premier League reduced the motivation of players to
perform for their country?
· Do huge pay cheques motivate these
international players perform better?
·
Is the influx of foreign stars reducing the
opportunities for up and coming local talent to emerge in the country’s
domestic league?
·
Whereas England at least qualified for the
finals in Brazil, could this crowding out in the Premier League also explain
the continued failure of players from Scotland, Wales and the two Irish teams to
compete on the biggest stage?
Prior
to the establishment of the Premier League, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish players
were more prominent in the top flight of English league football. Nowadays, it would be unusual for Northern
Ireland to field more than 3 Premier League players in an international match.
·
Is the cost of hosting a glamorous, entertaining
and world-leading domestic league worth it if it is proven to be to the
detriment of the national teams of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
and the Republic of Ireland?
·
Could this model of free market economics be
harming football in its birthplace?
The World Cup’s top three highest paid coaches – Fabio
Capello (Russia), Roy Hodgson (England) and Cesari Prandelli (Italy) –.all
failed to reach the knock-out stage.
In
contrast, the lowest paid Miguel Herrera took unfancied Mexico through to the knock-out stages[1].
The German approach
Compare and contrast all of these issues with the German
philosophy.
The economics and management
of football in Germany are implemented on a bottom-up approach, a community
ethos.
Clubs are controlled by
fans. Important decisions have to be
made by their members to be carried by a majority of at least 50% plus one of
supporters.
Rapacious greed seems to be eschewed. There is a commitment to having plentiful cheap
tickets. Club Presidents are accountable
to the members and can be voted out by them.
Germany’s domestic league, the Bundesliga, appears to be
less awash with foreign investment.
Bayern
Munich is the country’s richest and most successful club. Wolfsburg and Bayer Leverkeusen are
exceptional being owned by Volkswagen and the chemicals corporation Bayer (both
German companies). But no club is
foreign-owned[2].
The Bundesliga attracts foreign talent, but not on a
scale with that of Spain Italy or England.
German players, for the most part, play in Germany.
In 2012, 60% of the Bundesliga’s players were
German; in the Premier League the equivalent figure for English players was 39%. Season tickets in Germany are affordable and
families are essential to their support.
All in all, the German business model appears to regulate
the forces of the free market.
And it
does so in a way which results in less grasping greed, coupled with a recipe for
international success.
What happened at Cardiff City in the season just past
could not happen in Germany. Promoted to
the top flight after a 50 year absence and backed by new Malaysian financial
muscle, initial joy and optimism eroded.
The new owners irritated fans by sacking the club’s popular manager and
even changed the club’s colours from blue to red.
The end of season result - relegation from
the Premier League.
Host nation humbled
The major shock of the 2014 World Cup was the failure of
the host nation Brazil to enthral us as they have done in the past.
A series of uninspiring performances
culminated in the embarrassing and record-breaking 7-1 defeat in the semi-final
by Germany, followed by the 3-1 defeat in the losers’ play-off match to the
Netherlands.
What makes the Brazilian downfall sadder is the
realisation that the sporting cliché about form being temporary and class being
permanent might not even apply.
Brazil of old never used to play the style of football
witnessed in this tournament.
It was
never their style to play petulantly, falling over with grossly exaggerated
effect when tackled, feigning and exaggerating injury.
Football authorities have an offence termed “bringing
the game into disrepute.” Maybe they could do more to control fakery.
The paying public are alienated by this type
of behaviour, as exemplified by the Italy Uruguay match. It is the antithesis of sport and
sportsmanship.
Brazil’s top players are purchased by the European leagues’
richest clubs.
Perhaps that is where
they have learned bad habits.
Perhaps
that is also where standardised coaching methods have helped them to unlearn
and abandon their natural footballing skills.
Speaking after their elimination the great Brazilian wizard Jairzinho, a
member of the 1970 winning team, blamed the country’s decline on the exodus
abroad.
There were ominous signals of national unease in the
run-up to the finals. Demonstrators
protested loudly and clearly about the scale of expenditure being made,
estimated to have been £6.5 billion.
A
month before the tournament began a newspaper headline[3] – Let them eat football -
summed up the country’s debate about poverty at the expense of football.
 |
| Paulo Ito's mural of a hungry child being served a football (reproduced from G2 Guardian 10 06 2014) |
Economists refer to Brazil as one of the developing
world’s emerging growth nations, the so-called BRIC countries - Brazil Russia
India and China – as potential rivals to the G7.
Writing about the acronym he coined in 2001,
its author reports that plans have been announced[4] to establish a new BRIC
development bank.
He adds, significantly, that all four
economies are now much bigger than he forecast thirteen years ago.
Action points
It seems ironic to witness Brazil’s continuing rise as an
economic power coinciding with its decline as a footballing power.
In which case, could there actually be merit in politely
suggesting that Brazil (and perhaps others) might consider Germany’s community-based
business model – if only to keep its public on-side?
Is the
free market serving “the beautiful game” satisfactorily? What do you think?
©Michael
McSorley 2014
[1]
Observer David Hills 13 July 2014 “The Final Verdict”
[2]
Observer David Conn 2 December 2012 “German model bangs the drum for club
country and the people’s game”
[3]
Guardian 10 June 2014 Jonathan Jones “Win Lose or Draw”
[4]
Daily Telegraph Jim O’Neill 26 July 2014 “The Brics have a $100b bank. Can the
West start taking them seriously now?”
