I live just off of Nifong Boulevard in Columbia, Missouri. So does Stan Kroenke. His house is massive. I too, live in a house. He bought a hockey team. I like hockey. He owns the St. Louis Rams. I used to live in St. Louis county. I’ve been to Highbury. He just bought Arsenal.
Just bought Arsenal, you say?!
Okay, so he did not buy the whole Arsenal Football Club, just 9.9% of it (article). Nevertheless, Kroenke Sports Enterprise’s (KSE) very recent pecuniary venture into the world of English football is only the latest in a series of sell outs by English clubs to foreign big-wigs. I should say at this point that this phenomenon (is it a recent one??) is not at all limited to buyers from the USA.
That having been said, English fans are worried sick no matter where the money’s coming from! It’s not uncommon to read on club message boards all over the premiership comments like, “How is our club gonna compete if we don’t get bought out? …if we don’t build a 60,000 seat stadium? …if we don’t get that new kit sponsor?” Indeed, as I write this the message board at VillaTalk.com has a thread called ‘Yank Invasion Continues’ with hours of reading on this topic. People are afraid for their clubs, their hometown clubs which they grew up supporting and which they hope to share with their childeren.
Ever since the Glazer boys hoisted Manchester United onto their financial back and simultaneously plunged the club into the icy waters of debt it seems we here across the pond have been hearing news of club after club linking up with buyers from the United States and elsewhere. We’ve had Ambramovich take Chelsea, Glazer buying Manchester United, Lerner buying Aston Villa, swoop attempts made for Liverpool by Arab giants. Where will it all end??
These fears are very real, and very valid. Need I say anything about the influence of big foreign money with regards to Chelsea FC? The simple fact is, all things considered, money can buy victories. All the right factors have to be in place, but in this day and age, with the big take over comes the 5 year plan for European football. Money has a direct correlation to trophies.
So seeing as how Stan and I are best of buds (cf. Paragraph 1), there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be fully supportive of his trans-atlantic investment, right? After all, American buyers have to potential to raise the profile of the game here in the States, which I support.
Well, like all things in life, it’s not that easy, and never that black and white. (Sorry, Mr. President). For instance, I’m VERY excited that Randy Lerner has injected some hope (and yes, cash) into the claret and blue cause at Villa Park. HOWEVER, big-time cash injections and high-profile takeovers have a detrimental effect on the game: they, if unchecked, can completely obliterate the democratic and competetive spirit of that game which so many people around the globe cherish.
Free seats at the Emerates, Stan?
The 1st leg of the Champions League Quarter-finals had a couple surprises, but in this experts opinion (and we all know I’m clueless), Liverpool is still looking like the favorite to win it all. Liverpool hammered PSV, at PSV, and barring a monumental collapse, Liverpool and skipper Stevie Gerrard are on their way to the semi-finals. And as much as it pains this ManU supprter to say it, Liverpool looks like a team on a mission.
AC Milan and Bayern played a memorable match at Milan, but Bayern stole a tie with Daniel Van Buyten scoring both goals, including a last gasp finish in the 93rd minute.
My favorite result was Valencia tying Chelsea 1-1 at Stamford Bridge. I’m sure Jose “Mr. Know it all” Mourinho is saying he has Valencia right where he wants them - man I can’t stand that guy.
And I am sure all the Manchester United bashers are loving the fact that the Red Devils lost 2-1 at Roma. But it isn’t nearly as bad as it looks. United played with 10 men for over an hour, Scholes was an idiot, and they still got the all important away goal. A 1-0 victory at Old Trafford will send the American owned United through to the semis.
I think our semi-finals will have Liverpool, Bayern, Valencia & Manchester United all headed to the Final Four.
At what point do we say a sponsor has too much influence? Adidas is one of five FIFA partners. The other partners include Emirates, Sony, Coca-Cola, and Hyundai. Of these partners only Adidas specializes in soccer products. FIFA partners are given premium advertising packages during the FIFA World Cup. Adidas, however, may have a package that trumps the rest.
As you might know, Adidas has been the ball supplier for the FIFA World Cup since 1970. Adidas has also outfitted the host nation since 1994, and will again in 2010. In 1994, the US (Adidas) beat out Brazil (Nike) and Morocco (Nike) for the chance to host the World Cup. In 1998 France (Adidas) overcame Morocco (Nike), and Switzerland (Nike) to hold the world’s greatest sporting event. In 2002 Japan (Adidas) and Korea (Adidas) were voted as co-hosts over Mexico (Nike). 2006 included five candidates: Brazil (Nike), England (Umbro), Germany (Adidas), Morocco (Nike), and Russia (Nike). Germany, as the only team sponsored by Adidas, won its first bid since 1974.
To sum it up; since 1994 teams sponsored by Nike have placed 10 official bids to host the FIFA World Cup, without success. Umbro-sponsored teams have submitted one bid, without success. Puma-sponsored teams submitted one bid, without success. Adidas-sponsored teams have placed six bids to host the FIFA World Cup, and succeeded in all six attempts. Put into numbers, 100% of the World Cup’s since 1994 have been hosted by teams wearing Adidas. Nike sponsored teams make up 59% of the bids, Adidas 35%, with Puma and Umbro making up 6% each.
How can you justify this? I understand that there are funding and infrastructure issues that knock teams out of the running, but are we to believe that every team that is sponsored by Nike, Umbro and Puma have continually been less capable of hosting such an event? The bidding war for the 2014 World Cup may prove just how influential Adidas can be. FIFA has designated South America as the continent to host with Brazil (Nike) the front-runner and only country with an official bid submitted. FIFA, however, has already warned the South American nation that it must meet infrastructure requirements. Argentina (Adidas), which has currently given Brazil its full support, is also in contention. If Brazil is overlooked for any reason and Argentina receives the bid, we must ask ourselves how much power Adidas has over FIFA. If Adidas is capable of influencing the site of the World Cup, what else might they be able to do?