So, the argument is “privatise the sport in poorer nations because that will lead to better governance, more investment and therefore, development?”
I can't believe we need to dispel this, but here goes nothing.
1. If privatising the sport led to more development, surely the pathway followed by the more developed nations to reach the point they are at now would demonstrate that.
Question: did the more developed nations privatise their way to broad-based development?
2. I am a believer in private capital BUT not in national assets or sporting codes where equal access should be the primary driver.
Private capital will price access so that those who can afford to pay to play do play. But that will exclude the majority of the world.
Question: If the federations in poorer countries are poorly run, mismanaged or corrupt, then why not fire those in charge?
Privatising corruption will only reward those who already embezzle from the sport.
3. Private capital invests for financial return FIRST, and then social equity later. If at all.
Sport, soccer in particular, is a game for all. It's amongst the few games where even the poorest person can join a club and try to work their way up the ladder on talent and guts.
So how will the poor and downtrodden access the game when the investment thesis is driven around capital and not development?
Consider that Pele came from a poor background. Privatise soccer and you reduce the odds for many potential Pelés out there.
4. If private ownership is so developmental in nature, then when will F1 have the first race in poorer cities or poorer countries?
Probably never!
5. FIFA can ringfence the funds it wants to invest by strengthening the governing bodies of football, removing career bureaucrats (many of whom have never played the game they are overseeing) and removing those known to be corrupt.
Quasi-privatisation, the likes about which we are reading in these articles, is not a fix to poor governance.
Fix the corruption problem by actually dealing with the corrupt.
FIFA wants to put more development money into marginalised nations, particularly in Africa, by selling a minority stake in its commercial entity to investors. Based on the initial valuations, each member country could receive an additional US$20 million immediately for development.
It is easy to see why Europe might say no. US$20 million is small change for the major footballing nations. But for us in Africa, US$20 million per country could make a huge difference, particularly in grassroots development and football infrastructure.
If Europe does not want this proposal, the obvious question is: what are they offering as an alternative?
PS. Why is the media against this wise proposal? And what alternative are they offering?
Lionel Messi’s father Jorge has passed away at 68 years old.
Thoughts are with the whole Messi family, Lionel, those close to him in a very difficult time.
Rest in peace, Jorge. 🕊️
When you read these self help books please try by all means to be as practical as possible!
Especially those in Zimbabwe,there are investment options that exist in those books and paGround they don’t exist!
For example,they talk more about investing in shares and markets arguing that in 10 years the market will give you returns,here in 10 years the company might have delisted or currency changed wiping out those share investments!
They talk about taking advantages of mortgages but you live in a cash economy,
They talk about 401 k yet in Zimbabwe there is no such things,
So ask yourself what is the new 401 K in Zimbabwe ?is it land ?is it a farm ?is it a small business ?
Out there they say a car is not an asset yet in Zimbabwe a car is a very liquid asset and sometimes even opens doors for you!
At one point someone said we have read enough books it’s high time we start thinking and implementation!