Jorge Barraza: Soccer: civil or anonymous companies? | Columnists | sports

February 20, 2021 – 7:30 p.m.

–

The unequal Champions League match on Tuesday between FC Barcelona and Paris Saint Germain faced two diametrically opposed poles, in every sense. A disorganized and bad team the first, against the powerful finalist of the last Champions League, the second. The impious 4-1 that the eleven of the Eiffel Tower gave him reflects two realities very far from each other. “The worst thing for Barça is that they must go to Paris for revenge, they could come back with six or seven goals,” Catalan journalists commented, not without realism.

They are total antipodes: economically destroyed Barcelona, ​​headless, imploded by its leaders, badly administered and sunk in sports; PSG is optimally present, with a powerful team, ample financial support and firm management through its sports director, the Brazilian Leonardo. He has two of the best footballers in the world (Neymar and Mbappé) and he is eagerly seeking to renew them for several years to remain strong, also surrounding them with a highly qualified squad; He has even just hired one of the best coaches in the world, such as Mauricio Pochettino. They are sun and shade.

However, Barcelona, ​​its people, pride themselves on being a civil society and accuse the Parisian of a “club state” since the French entity belongs to the Qatar Investment Authority, the sovereign investment fund of the oil country. Indeed, 100% of PSG’s share control belongs to the state of Qatar. The question would be quite simple: what is better for football, and especially for the fans, solid private institutions with brilliant teams or inefficient and papery expressions, but proud to be civil societies…? Fans should have no doubts: everyone likes to win. However, hundreds of thousands of Barcelona supporters fear that, due to the indebtedness of more than 1,200 million euros with banks and investment groups (debt that grows every day), the club must become a sports limited company -SAD in Spain-. One might ask them: what could be worse than the current disaster…?

Where is the problem?

Precisely, on Tuesday two club models faced each other: social and business. In countries like Argentina, proposing the privatization of a club is almost risking your life. They could lynch you. Now, after the humiliating 1-4, will the Barça fans have gone out into the Catalan streets to shout “Long live, long live, we are a social club” …? And those of PSG, would they be sad …? “Yes, we won 4 to 1 and gave them a great dance, but we are from an investment fund …” Juventus, Liverpool, Milan, Manchester United have won countless titles, shared joy among their fans, are extremely popular and have been private companies for more than a century. Where is the problem…?

If Barcelona had been their personal property, would the FC Barcelona executives have spent nearly 900 million euros (between signings, commissions and contracts) on Coutinho, Griezmann and Dembelé…? Of course not, nobody was ignorant of the nonsense. They did it because the money was not theirs and because no one controls them, the vote gives them total decision-making power over resources that belong to thousands. On the other hand, those who invest their own capital, take care of it. Would Barcelona disappear if it were a public limited company …? Absolutely. It would be a thousand times better handled.

Whoever acquires the share package of these phenomenal sports brands is clear that they must preserve their tradition, greatness and desire for success.

Jorge Barraza

“The club belongs to the members…!” The fans shout euphoric. But does anyone ask you who should be hired as a coach, what players should be signed …? When a club transfers a footballer in 222 million, as happened with Neymar, the money is distributed between the partners…? No. Are you asked what destination to give that sum …? Neither. So what are the partners bragging about…? They are not consulted at all, they do not count.

On the other hand, in Italy, England, since the beginning of this sport, clubs are the patrimony of individuals or companies. Did Inter, Roma, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham disappear for this reason …? Do not. Whoever acquires the share package of these phenomenal sports brands is clear that they must preserve the tradition, greatness and desire for success of these.

What were Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG, Leipzig before tycoons or investment funds took control …? In 98 years of life, Chelsea conquered a single league, in 1955; since the advent of Russian Roman Abramovich in 2003, he has garnered 18 crowns, including 5 leagues and a Champions League. PSG had won two French championships until 2011, when the Qatari fund entered. In nine years it has added 26 successes: 7 leagues, 5 French Cups, 6 League Cup and 8 national Super Cups. And it has been a finalist in Europe. Both PSG, Chelsea and City were transformed into big clubs, with worldwide resonance.

A third model is that of Bayern, which is mixed. There is the Bayern Munich club and the Bayern Munich joint-stock company. The first is part of the second and owns 75% of the shares. The commercial society manages everything inherent to income from sponsorships, box office, awards, museum, marketing, and pays the footballers, technicians, makes the transfers. Of what it collects, a percentage goes to the Bayern sports club, which also collects the monthly fee for the 250,000 members. If Bayern Munich SA were to fail, the former would no longer receive commercial benefits, but the civil club would remain intact, it is not committed.