England, Brazil friendly for money, not football

Roar Guru

By Freud of Football, 10 Nov 2009 Freud of Football is a Roar Guru

Tagged:: football, French Football Association, nike, Robinho, Rooney, umbro, World Football

Related coverage

Football sold its soul a long time ago with hyper-commercialism beginning as early as the 1950s. But surely England’s upcoming friendly with Brazil is one step too far?

Fabio Capello has just selected a strong squad to travel to Doha.

But with both teams having already qualified for it, and not lacking for match practice with the European season (where all the players are based) in full swing, one wonders why this match is taking place.

Dollars. Lots and lots of it. And a big favour that needs repaying.

That is what football has been reduced to, money and favours.

The match was arranged to repay the £1.2 million debt the English FA incurred to have Brazil play in the inaugural friendly at Wembley, which was part of the “Brazil World Tour” organised by Kentaro.

What other reason could bring a European and South American team to the 30 degree heat of Doha in November? The sponsors of the CBF (Brazilian Football Federation) and the English FA, they are the other part in this equation.

Brazil is tied up to an extremely lucrative long term contract with Nike.

What began as a $100 million, 10 year contract has since skyrocketed, the last raise coming just last year when the FFF (French Football Association) encouraged a bidding war between Adidas, Puma and Nike, which resulted in Nike winning the right to kit the French national team for the ludicrous sum of €42.6 million (AUD $68.75 million) per year.

Ricardo Teixeira, head of the CBF, used as an excuse to jack up the going rate for Nike as the France deal was worth almost three times as much as what Brazil were receiving.

Nike also sponsors more than half of the Brazil team, including Robinho and Elano, as well as England’s star striker Rooney, and such exposure on the feet of the heroes of a generation is worth every cent to Nike.

England, too, has a pretty handy sponsor on board with Umbro, a Nike subsidiary. Their shirt deal, which runs until at least 2014, is reportedly worth more than £20 million (AUD $36.25 million) per year for the English FA.

So we have two FAs with contracts – eight-figure contracts – just to have a logo on a kit. Money for nothing? No, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Just look at the advertising campaigns of Nike. That is what the millions of these kit sponsors buy, access to international superstars and that is one of the main reasons a match like this takes place, pitting world superstars from different federations against one another normally only happens in a World Cup.

Once every four years is not enough for the fat-cats of the FAs.

That is why no international window goes unused and these friendly matches get put into an already bulging schedule. This will be England’s eleventh fixture of the season and their fifth friendly.

Capello might claim it is “important” to play a team like Brazil, and yes the preparation for WC2010 might be valuable, but he isn’t fooling anyone.

That he is now a mere media-puppet of the English FA is sad indeed.

No-one in power is thinking of the players here.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (37) | Page 1 of Comments

jollyroger said | November 10th 2009 @ 2:13am | Report comment

All that money and they play a couple of times a year, what a total waste.

Reply
- Constantine said | November 10th 2009 @ 2:55am | Report comment
  
  its a good investment considering the legions of fans the sides command and access to the most recognizeable sportsmen on the planet
  
  Reply
Constantine said | November 10th 2009 @ 2:54am | Report comment

you know it could be as a preparation test for the upcoming world cup between 2 power nations in testing conditions. this article is just stupid

Reply
- Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 4:24am | Report comment
  
  Yes, I guess it could be a “preparation test”, on neutral soil, 5000 kilometres away from home in a totally different climate in the middle of a season for a tournament that is the best part of a year away, where there is NO guarantee the sides will meet and both sides currently have some of their best players missing? But of course, that is exactly the sort of “preparation test” everyone has been calling out for, I’m sure that both sets of players can’t wait for a full-on encounter in 20-30 degree heat after coming from the very cool Europe.
  
  But you’re right, it was stupid to write about the issue. Sir Alex Ferguson only had a similar opinion on the game but I guess no-one cares what he says either.
  
  Reply
vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:34am | Report comment

Freud..the same refrain “nobody is thinking of the players” also in your comment on Kersi’s article. The same sentiments apply here…the players get paid large amounts and they have to bow to the demands of sponsors. The pound of flesh as Shylock was wont to say. On reflection I am not sure who the Shylock is here..the players or the administrators?

It is certainly not a stupid article. With money comes responsibility and both administrators and players across many disciplines are becoming too greedy..how much is enough?

Reply
- Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
  
  Vinay, good to see you branching out.
  
  You and I come from different schools of thought. Don’t get me wrong, I know how well the players are paid but without them you don’t have a game, it’s my chicken and the egg scenario all over again and in this case, I think the players should be looked after or at least be thought of ahead of millions of dollars as without them, there are no millions of dollars to be had.
  
  If administrators want to think in financial terms – Well they risk their most valuable commodities for little reward (it’s a friendly game after all) and so even from a business standpoint this game makes little sense other than the fact the FA must repay the favour.
  
  Football FA’s should stop binding themselves into these ridiculous endorsement contracts, sure the money is great but there have been many rumours in the past that team selection has been influenced by the sports brands keen to have a presence on the big stage and I for one wouldn’t be surprised if many were true.
  
  Just think, Real Madrid is the flagship of Adidas and for all the money they throw at the club, their best player still runs around in Nike shoes. At some point this stuff is just ridiculous and I can bet if Adidas had the chance they’d buy Ronaldo out of his contract in an instant, for silly money, that’s the way sports has gone, it’s a business before a game.
  
  Reply
  - vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
    
    Freud,I dont know about the different schools of thought..we both agree players should be well paid..where we disagree is how mich is enough. I have seen elite cricketers play when they were paid nothing and seen them when they are paid plenty. Take the comparison of Gayle and Ponting. Ponting was prepared to forgo IPL. So to Clarke,Haddin and Johnson. And you must remember that Gayle had only recently won a million playing the Stanford Game. The Sri lankan Players i can understand as they dont get paid a lot and their Board is virtually broke.
    
    The average per capita income in the West indies(Barbados,Jamaica,Antigua,T&T et al) ranges from 6k to 20K per annum. Some of the West indies Cricketers are paid $500000 and this is tax free..you would have to say a privileged lot. The bench strength of nations like NZ,WI and SL is not great..but Australia,England and SA have any number of young players waiting for a chance. Were it not for the injuries players like Bollinger,Henrique,McKay would not have got a look in. The players may be valuable commodities but like commodities they are replaceable.
    
    The main drawback of too much football or cricket is the game quality gets devalued..either because marquee players are injured or too tired. You do get a stomach ache if you are too greedy.
    
    Reply
    - True Tah said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
      
      Vinay
      
      I dont believe that Gayle was paid that $1m from Allen Stanford.
      
      Reply
      - vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
        
        True Tah..as far as I know Gayle and all his team recieved the money…some of them reinvested it with Stanford immediately but Gayle did not . The ECB recieved 3 million and shared 2 mill among the counties. In August this year the counties were thinking of giving the money to charity.
        
        Reply
Gibbo said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment

i know i’m simplifying the debate here, but… how dare they give the fans what they want to see??

i’m struggling to pick a victim here… its not the players who are taking bucket loads of cash to play a few more games and do a few promotional activities… its not the sponsors who are obvsiouly motivated by (and one can only assume, making a) profit… its not the FA’s who are raking in the cash…

Reply
pernunz said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment

Well, it is an international break. They either play a friendly or they don’t play at all. Everyone wants to see a game, and it will be gerat to see Brazil thump England.

As for having it in Doha, it may be because of the money, but why is that such a problem? It will give the game an audience that it would not have previously had. More fans will be gained from having the friendly in Doha than would have been lost by not having it in England/Brazil.

Reply
Viscount Crouchback said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment

Nonsensical article. England will benefit immensely from playing a technically proficient team like Brazil in hot climes. I’m sure Freud is aware that most of England’s difficulties in the last few major tournaments have come against precisely such opponents in precisely such conditions.

It’s also worth pointing out that England are only playing one friendly during this international window whereas many other nations are playing two matches. To pay any credence to Sir Alex Ferguson’s laughably self-interested views is simply naive.

Reply
- Greg Russell said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
  
  If I could “cheer” a comment, I would do so for VC’s above. Still, I’d like to give FoF some credit for bringing up this topic.
  
  As a general comment, I suspect there isn’t a half-way house on the path to mammon. Most people are bit like FoF in wanting to have a bob each way, i.e., they don’t mind money in sport as long as they feel there is also “meaning”, but as soon as they feel a contest is “meaningless”, money becomes an evil. But really, is “meaning” a yes/no commodity? I’m sure the English players will cherish any win over Brazil as being “meaningful”, even if it’s a friendly in the desert played for money. Also, once one admits that money can play a part, then the only real barometer of “meaning” is whether a contest attracts bums on seats and eyes on TV screens. FoF may regard England-Brazil in the desert as tawdry – and he may be right – but if there’s a stadium full of people to watch it, and lots of viewers in front of TVs, then that’s saying something. The biggest football crowd ever in New Zealand was a few years ago when 30,000 people turned up to see LA Galaxy (i.e., David Beckham) play an exhibition match against the Wellington Phoenix. How crass was that? But the fact is that it made 30,000 paying customers happy, so who am I to argue. (Fortunately that attendance record will get broken this weekend, when NZ host Bahrain to decide one of the last places at the 2010 WC.)
  
  Reply
- Rob said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
  
  You do realise it will be winter in RSA come June/July…my saffa mate tells me it gets pretty cold that time of year
  
  Reply
SImone` said | November 10th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment

“Capello might claim it is “important” to play a team like Brazil, and yes the preparation for WC2010 might be valuable, but he isn’t fooling anyone.”

Your right, perhaps they should prepare for the WC by hosting San Marino at Wembley… I’m sure the location is perhaps chosen for the money, but the fact they are playing Brazil will help both teams in thier preperation. Capello didn’t choose where to play, but who would say no to a game against Brazil so close to a World Cup. Poor article, i’m sure the players will also choose a hit out against Brazil, in Doha, as opposed to mediocre opposition in Europe.

“But you’re right, it was stupid to write about the issue. Sir Alex Ferguson only had a similar opinion on the game but I guess no-one cares what he says either.”

Feguson is going senile. Complains about everything and anything these days, and clearly doesn’t have the national teams interest at heart, (he’s not even English), only cares about poor ol Man united.

Reply
- AndyRoo said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
  
  Didn’t Man U go on a similar trip last year (or the year before) and played a game in the middle of their season with something like only a 4 day turn around.
  
  Reply
  - Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
    
    Yeah, it was a total disgrace. They made millions by playing some marquee testimonial game for some totally unknown player.
    
    Reply
dasilva said | November 10th 2009 @ 4:58pm | Report comment

I think there’s one other factor. IT could be a World Cup bid. Playing a friendly on foreign soil as a favour trying to pick up asian vote for the next world cup bid. After all how often would the people in Doha get to see two world class international teams. England will make sure they remember it when the votes are being done.

We know that England had a friendly against Saudi Arabia as a favor to pick up votes for the 2006 world cup (it didn’t work out as they were eliminated in the first round).

Reply
- vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
  
  Good points,dasilva..and there is credence to your comments
  
  Reply
  - Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
    
    No guys, for starters Qatar is bidding for the WC themselves, I hardly think they are going to go out of their way to support someone elses bid not to mention that Australia and Japan are also bidding from Asia.
    
    The AFC federations will be expected to stick together (as will the countries of all the other federations).
    
    Reply
    - vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
      
      Freud without knowing the intricacies of Football politics the point Dasilva makes is about favours and calling them in. Thats part and parcel of big business and politics.
      
      Reply
      - Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
        
        Vinay, the bids for the next two WCs are currently being plotted.
        
        Qatar (hosts of this friendly) have put their hand up as have England.
        
        What political ideal would convince the Qatari’s to vote for England? It goes not only against their own bid but the greater plan of their federation, that makes no sense.
        
        Dasilva has made a moot point.
        
        Reply
        
        vinay verma said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
        
        I’ll let you work this out with dasilva as I am immersed in the cricket at the moment. I should know my limitations.
        
        Rob said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
        
        Voting takes place in rounds with candidates elimnated progressively….so its just as important not to make enemies of your competitors because allegiances can transfer once bids start getting knocked out. Any first round votes for Qatar would be up for grabs if they were eliminated.
        
        danny said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
        
        there are two world cups being voted for. qatar are only bidding for 2022. nothing stopping their representative (bin hamman) from voting for england in the 2018 bid. especially if either a) the asian bids have already been eliminated, or b) they work out some reciprocal deal where qatar/asia votes for england in 2018, and england likewise votes asia for 2022. it’s not an entirely unrealistic scenario.
        
        dasilva said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
        
        As other people have pointed out. There is a bid for two world cup for 2018 and 2022.
        
        Also there’s no reason why you can’t support your own bid for one world cup and England for the other world cup
        
        Secondly. There’s also preference deals.
        
        Just like in Australian politics where preference play a large role in who wins the seat, preference play a large role in who win the bid
        Example
        For the 2006 world cup
        The Oceania representative Charles Dempsey first choice preference was England for pretty obvious reasons (as England is an english speaking country and culturally similar to Australia and large ex-pat Australian community there). However the 2nd preference has infamously determine who won the bid. He was told by oceania to vote for south africa but pressure, threats, bribes by other nations made him have “intolerable pressure” that made him abstain his vote giving Germany the world cup.
        
        England winning the 2nd preference when all the asian nations are eliminated will be essential in winning the world cup bid.
True Tah said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment

This whole venture seems to be like the games between the Wallabies and All Blacks in Hong Kong and Tokyo these past two years…both are money making ventures.

Reply
Freud of Football said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment

I’d like to reiterate a few points here.

Firstly, this game has nothing to do with the WC. Look at the squad Capello has taken, strong yes but it certainly doesn’t resemble his final squad and the strength is as not to embarass themselves, not to mention the gaurantees Kentaro would have required as part of their contractual obligations (I imagine they would be VERY unhappy that Beckham won’t be playing).

To suggest that this game is a good warm-up is nonsense. Here are some the players missing, those with an asterisk would be expected to make the final squad if fit:

GK: James*, Robinson, Carson
Def: A. Cole*, R. Ferdinand*, King, Jagielka, M. Richards*
Mid: Beckham*, Gerrard*, Lennon, Walcott, Downing, Hargreaves*
Att: Heskey*, C. Cole, Agbonlahor

No fewer than 8 players, who, if fit are pretty much certainties to make the final 23 not to mention a few borderliners like Lennon and Walcott.

England has no idea where or who they will be playing and they have an experienced squad, sure they might gain something from a friendly with Brazil, that is possible, but why not have it in England if they have to play it? Or even continental Europe? Why in Doha, in 30 degree heat in the middle of the European season.

This game is a favour to Kentaro, how much of this company is owned by the Qatari’s? It might be swiss-based but I could imagine they have some poil-rich investors. The Qatari’s have their finger in a lot of pies including Barclay’s and the london stock exchange.

Now look at Liverpool’s squad, a few months into the season and they could already use a break but G Johnson will be lining up, he was their best player last night so does anyone truly think Rafa wants him playing in this game?

Or what about Rooney? United can ill-afford to lose him. Same with Bent at Sunderland.

This is an unnecessary game with a higher risk of injury than normal (due to the travel and sudden climate change). FIFA might be required to compensate any injuries to players on international duty but they can’t compensate a Rooney or Terry missing the WC by picking up a serious injury in a nothing game. Is that what it takes for people to realise the magnitude of this greed?

Reply
- SImone` said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
  
  Maybe we should just get rid of international football all together. I’m sure the clubs would love that…
  
  Reply