Ewan McIntosh

I write about designing clear strategy with community. Founder @NoTosh. Co-founder #TeachMeet. Now over here:

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

TeachMeet turns 20 on 20 September 🎂

To celebrate, there’s a new home for the movement: https://t.co/ARe98EjcZ3

Find out how to run your own TeachMeet, with guides, resources, graphics and the original principles.

Now go organise one. 🚀

#TeachMeet #TeachMeet20

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

Check out the latest article in my newsletter: Why don’t more Boards visit school like this? https://t.co/1y6hfSOy9M

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

TeachMeet turns 20 on 20 September 🎂

To celebrate, there’s a new home for the movement: https://t.co/ARe98EjcZ3

Find out how to run your own TeachMeet, with guides, resources, graphics and the original principles.

Now go organise one. 🚀

#TeachMeet #TeachMeet20

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

The latest Provocation newsletter: Listen at scale. Lead from the signal. https://t.co/x8y5R27Gke

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

The ROI of a Tablecloth - why the small details become strategic questions https://t.co/rfq1pJ5TkB

[NFBUK @NFBUK]

.@cityoflondon these floating are not safe or accessible for blind people…

[Jeremy Clarkson @JeremyClarkson]

Until last week, men over 50 were entitled to a free PSA prostate cancer check. But the government has now decided to withdraw that right. I cannot for the life of me work out what their reasoning might be.

[Turd Ferguson @Ferg_Turduson]

@rod_mallo This is why

[Rod @rod_mallo]

boarding was solved mathematically in 2008. no airline has used it once.

why?

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

@British_Airways finally got back to me. Bear with me. You’ll be astounded.
Booked on 15.20 to JFK. Customer services thought it might have engine issues. So they also booked me on 16.35. Without telling me.
The 15.20 took off on time, me on board, ignorant of the 16.35 back up.
But they did not remove me from the 16.35. On which I became a ‘no show’, they claim. Triggering problems with my return flight (without me knowing).
A number of problems with this as a credible explanation:
The record of my online executive account shows me on the 15.20 AND the 16.35. Should that not have triggered a security alert? Who is this mysterious person on two planes at once?
Bizarrely it describes the 16.35 as a ‘return’ flight i.e I left on the 15.20 to NYC and returned to London on a flight an hour later. Surely another security trigger.
Unless they think I’m Dr Who and can breach the space-time continuum.
Far from being a ‘no show’, the system has me on both flights to NYC. But they still cancelled my return. They say. Except that they didn’t.
When I tried to check in online on the day of my return to London it didn’t say my reservation had been cancelled — it said my flight had already LEFT!
I assumed senility was really clicking in and that I’d booked to return a day earlier than I intended. But I hadn’t.
On retrieving my e-ticket it clearly showed me returning on the intended night/flight. Now I felt BA was gaslighting me.
I tried to check in online again. The system was adamant: ‘you cannot check in because this flight has already departed.’
Of course, it hadn’t.
Eventually, after a long, long phone call and much being ‘on hold’ I managed to get reinstated on my original flight. Phew. Of course if I’d just turned up at JFK on the night to check in I would have been stranded. It was the last flight out.
At no stage did BA ever contact me to say I no longer had a return flight, to check if I wanted to rebook, to inquire why a ‘lifetime gold card member’ had been a no-show, informing me of how to apply for a refund (since their explanation involves me using neither leg of an expensive first-class ticket).
I had a fun time with the lovely lady from BA who called, picking holes in the official ‘explanation’ she’d been asked to deliver. ‘I’ve never laughed so much on a customer call,’ she said. Me neither.
Tho there must surely be some security worries about a BA system which shows a passenger as on board, a no show and still hovering somewhere over the Atlantic — all at the same time. Couldn’t some bad actors exploit BA’s Heath-Robinson computer system? Must speak to my pals in MI5/6.
Anyway, we finished with her saying ‘Don’t worry Mr Neil, we’re really going to look after you next time you fly BA.’
‘Please don’t,’ I replied, both of us chuckling as we hung up.

[Ajoje⚽⚖️ @israel_ajoje]

This one is really dicey.

FIFA is registered as a non-profit association under Swiss law. Its 211 member associations own it. It pays no corporate tax in Switzerland. And right now, while the ink is barely dry on the 2026 World Cup final, it is in advanced discussions to sell a minority stake in its commercial operations to private investors, with JP Morgan acting as financial adviser and Thrive Capital, whose chief executive is Josh Kushner, expected to lead the investor group.

UEFA is responding. And I see reason with them. Their statement called it a crossing of a line and said the soul and governance of football are not assets to trade.

Let me explain what is actually happening here and why both positions are legally and commercially coherent at the same time.

The legal vehicle at the centre of this is called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. It is a FIFA-owned company that would consolidate all of FIFA's commercial rights, broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing, and the operational delivery of FIFA tournaments, into a single entity.

Based on how things are proposed, FIFA would retain majority control and exclusive authority over governance, competitions, the match calendar, and all regulatory and sporting decisions.

Private investors would then hold a minority, non-controlling stake in the subsidiary, not in FIFA itself. FIFA says the proposal could deliver more than $10 billion in football development funding over the next four years.

Now here is the legal position.

Under Swiss association law, FIFA has broad autonomy over how it manages and commercialises its assets, provided it pursues its statutory purpose of promoting football and follows its internal decision-making rules.

Creating a commercial subsidiary and selling minority stakes in it to private investors is not categorically prohibited under any applicable law. FIFA already commercialises its rights aggressively through sponsorships, media deals, and licensing arrangements worth billions of dollars per cycle.

Placing some of that commercial activity into a valued vehicle and inviting outside capital is structurally an extension of what FIFA already does, not a departure from it. The proposal requires approval from the FIFA Council and the 211 member associations. That approval process is where the real legal constraints sit, not in Swiss corporate law.

What UEFA is objecting to is not the legality of the structure. They are objecting to the incentive architecture it creates once private capital is inside the tent. And again, that objection deserves to be taken seriously.

Even with formal majority control retained, private investors seeking returns will create ongoing pressure. They will request more matches, an expanded calendar. They will make decisions that prioritise revenue over player welfare or competitive balance.

Of course that pressure will not arrive through a boardroom vote. It arrives gradually, through the logic of what a return on investment requires. FIFA can retain exclusive authority over sporting decisions and still find that sporting decisions are shaped by the financial expectations of its commercial partners. Those are not mutually exclusive outcomes.

The legal permissibility of this structure is high if internal approvals are obtained. The binding constraints are member consent, political capital, and the risk that private capital incentives gradually reshape priorities even under retained formal control.

Football has watched that process play out at club level for thirty years. The question being asked right now, with genuine urgency, is whether the same dynamic should be allowed inside the institution that governs the game itself.

My name is Ajoje. I am a FIFA Licensed Agent and International Sports Lawyer. I write on the Law and Business of Football, a lot. Repost and Follow if you want to read more posts like this.

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

Really interesting! And raising the bar against mediocre “AI this and AI that” from pivoting education providers.

[Drew Bent @drew_bent]

Today we're launching Claude for Teachers -- premium @claudeai and Cowork, free for every US teacher.

Teachers have been experimenting with AI for a while. But they told us they wanted something curriculum-aligned, evidence-based, and able to work in the background while they focus on their students.

Four things that I think make this special:

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

@callumbeattieuk Allez les Bleus! 🇫🇷

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

@beabad00bee we’ll see you in Glasgow! November sees an eclectic concert mix in my Ticketmaster account! 😂

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

What are you letting disappear in plain sight? https://t.co/dB5LQcMRm2 via @LinkedIn

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

Are you making the most of your soft power? https://t.co/AVEExWIVEE

[Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland]

How the hell did pic 1 turn into pic 2?

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

I'm more than happy to do my tax digitally @HMRCgovuk @HMRCcustomers but you have to have a site that actually allows us to log in when the VAT bill is due. Can you take the penalty point off? #hmrc #vat

[Ewan McIntosh @ewanmcintosh]

Being Average is Incredibly Dangerous - @raye gives us a model of how to execute a vision https://t.co/gqC6LWz61l

[Michael Rosen 💙💙🎓🎓 NICE 爷爷 @MichaelRosenYes]

@michaelgove I love it when you wax lyrical about the arts, especially as the curriculum that you put into place has squeezed the arts to a bare minimum in state schools in England.