Latest news with #AyoAkinwolere
New York Times
09-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Even in defeat, Lamine Yamal proved he has become Barcelona's main man
Barcelona's heartbreaking 4-3 loss against Inter Milan on Tuesday night, which sunk them to a 7-6 aggregate defeat, was a crushing way for their European campaign to end. Amid the chaos in Milan, 17-year-old Lamine Yamal put on another breathtaking performance, just as he did in the first leg, further solidifying his status as the most exciting prospect in world football. Advertisement On Wednesday's episode of The Athletic FC Podcast, Ayo Akinwolere was joined by The Athletic's Barcelona correspondent Pol Ballus and Italian football broadcaster Max Callegari to break down what makes Yamal such a special talent. Watch the episode below. A partial transcript has been edited for clarity and length. The full episode is available on YouTube below or on The Athletic FC Podcast feed via Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Ayo: Pol, let's give Lamine Yamal some light. This boy is unbelievable. There's a piece you and a whole heap of other journalists have got out now on The Athletic where you spoke to former managers, agents and coaches from around the global game on what they think this kid can offer. He already feels like one of the leaders in this team but something I got from that piece was that he doesn't just dribble for the sake of dribbling, there is already an end product. Pol: When things were tough against Inter, he was like, 'Pass me the ball, just pass the ball to me because I know what I have to do'. All the Barca players know that this is how they should approach the game. They know that the chosen one is him. That comes from Pedri, Pau Cubarsi, Gavi, Dani Olmo and everyone else, and these are all world-class players. But they know that there's no one in that team like Yamal. That's what speaks for itself, and that's what makes him different. The big stage is what suits him, this tie confirmed it. He likes to be in the spotlight with everyone looking at him, and with San Siro fans booing him. When he came onto the pitch just before the game, his name was chanted and all the fans in San Sirio were shouting, 'Boo!' But he just smiled and was like, 'Yes, get in! Bring it on'. At this point, it's impossible to say what he will become because football, as an industry, is so difficult to deal with. It's going to be down to him and how he handles it, but also how Barcelona handle his career. Advertisement He is surrounded by team-mates who understand him and a club willing to make him the star. His impact and progress has even taught the veteran players in the squad, such as Robert Lewandowski and Raphinha, and made them understand that the kid is the one. The players in the team know you don't have to cross the ball to Lewandowski, you have to pass the ball to Yamal now — that's the changing of the guard. Max: What was also very good to see at the end of the game was the admiration of the Inter players for Yamal. Marcus Thuram, Federico Dimarco and others went to console him, showing him how they admired his style of play and his incredible personality. Ayo: What was it like watching Yamal through an Italian lens, Max? Italy doesn't produce those kinds of players and Yamal at 17 is quite phenomenal. I'd hate to be Dimarco marking him because at half-time, Dimarco looked like he was out of steam. It must be magical to see, especially on a big stage like that. Max: It is magical. I couldn't imagine seeing a player like him just a few years after the era of Lionel Messi. I thought we'd need to wait much longer to see another player who could give us the feeling Yamal is giving us now. This is the magic of Yamal, of football. As Pol says, we don't know where he will arrive, it's up to him. But we know that he is better than Messi was at the same age and the same stage. You can listen to full episodes of The Athletic FC Podcast free on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and watch on YouTube.
New York Times
03-04-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Are Arsenal's contract renewals as important as new signings this summer?
This summer is set to be a baptism of fire for Arsenal's new sporting director Andrea Berta. With expiring contracts, key players soon up for renewal, bit-part contributors to be moved on and an array of transfer targets to convince that the red part of north London should be their new home, it could be a pivotal few months. Advertisement On the latest episode of The Athletic FC Podcast, Ayo Akinwolere was joined by David Ornstein and James McNicholas to discuss how Berta's experience at previous employers Atletico Madrid will help him at Arsenal, and why re-signing key players could be just as important as adding them via transfers. Watch the discussion below. A partial transcript has been edited for clarity and length. The full episode is available on YouTube below or in 'The Athletic FC Podcast' feed on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Ayo Akinwolere: James, looking at potential outgoings this summer, Jorginho and Thomas Partey, both their contracts are up. But looking further ahead, Bukayo Saka, William Saliba and Gabriel Martinelli also need to be tied up (their deals all have two years to run). We always think about incomings, but you also have to think about the long-term future of the club. I know Saliba has publicly stated he's happy at Arsenal, but things can change in the next two years, can't they? James McNicholas: Yeah, and there are arguably a few more names that should be on that list. Leandro Trossard has a contract situation coming up, and Arsenal need to decide on his future. With Ethan Nwaneri and Myles Lewis-Skelly, FA rules state that under-18s can only sign a maximum three-year contract, so they're both on relatively short-term deals. Those players have obviously since broken through into the first team, and Arsenal will be keen to tie them down longer term. Arsenal have started making headway on some of those deals, particularly with the younger players, like Nwaneri, but they're yet to do so with Saka, Saliba or Gabriel (the central defender's deal also runs out in 2027). These are big names and big pillars of the team. It's interesting because Edu received a lot of praise externally for the recruitment work that he did. And in his early years, he received criticism for Arsenal's inability to sell players. But he certainly improved in that respect, and Arsenal got better as a selling club. But one of the parts of his job he was really proud of, and he would tell you this himself, was the retention element. He was able, by and large, to keep the key players from this group together, and that's so important. Advertisement Arsenal are at this point in their journey where they feel they're on the cusp of real success. But if they're to achieve it, it's essential that these players they've spent years investing in, developing and building up, stay at the club. Arsenal are an attractive place to be right now. They've got a highly-rated manager, they're consistent in terms of their performance, and they feel close to winning one of the big ones. But there's still a way to go. And thinking about the Saliba and Saka situations, they signed not too long ago. But they signed four-year contracts and now here we are, two years later, renegotiating again. Arsenal knew that would happen, and their philosophy at the time was, 'If those players perform well, we'll be happy to sit down and renegotiate with them.' Whether they're still saying that now, I don't know. Because those negotiations dragged out a little bit. It got towards the final 12 months of those players' contracts, and Arsenal were in a vulnerable position. They will be looking at Liverpool right now, potentially losing Trent Alexander-Arnold and there still being some jeopardy over Virgil van Dijk and Mohamed Salah, and they will be desperate to avoid a situation like that. So that will be as big a part of Berta's job as anything else. Akinwolere: I'm just thinking about what made Berta stand out. Constantly being with a team in the Champions League and dealing with a manager like Diego Simeone, who's highly demanding, are surely some of the things that stood out for Arsenal, aren't they David? David Ornstein: Berta, as you point out, has worked with somebody of the ilk of Diego Simeone and contributed to the success and progress brought to Atletico Madrid. Managing Simeone's personality, combustibility and emotion, and dovetailing it probably wasn't always smooth, but that is the managerial mould that Arsenal have too in Mikel Arteta. Someone who's very powerful, influential, vocal and has done a fantastic job. He's somebody who can challenge Arteta, but can also communicate and collaborate with him. Arsenal felt Berta ticked that box. He also has a very strong network of relationships around Europe and the world with agents, club directors and sporting directors. He's worked outside of football too, that's where he actually began. He then came into football at a lower level, moved higher up in Italy and then transitioned over to Spain. Advertisement Most people that you speak to who are involved in deal-making in European football have dealt with Berta. He's said to be a very subtle, understated, discreet guy who doesn't make many public pronouncements. Which is quite interesting, because when Edu was at the Brazilian FA before he came to Arsenal, he would pick the squad, announce it, hold press conferences, do interviews and would interact with the media. But it works differently in the Premier League. Everything is a little bit more under the radar, and that is more Berta's way. I'm sure he'll work fastidiously and extremely hard to try and deliver what Arsenal want this summer, which is an immediate and crucial priority in the transfer market. Then he'll start to build the chemistry between himself, the manager, executives, players, and start work on the contract situations, which are massive. We don't know the full scope of his role yet. Is he going to try to bring up the level of the academy and the pathways? Is he going to extend his influence to the women's side? All these questions remain unanswered. But let's be absolutely clear, he is at the core of Arsenal's operations now. And to return to your original question, Arsenal wanted somebody of that global ilk and standing who had kudos, already established relationships and didn't need to build, and a bit of an aura that could carry the club and this project on their shoulders. They felt Berta was the closest fit, and that's why he's in position now. You can listen to full episodes of The Athletic FC Podcast for free on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and watch on YouTube.
New York Times
27-03-2025
- Business
- New York Times
‘We are living through an experiment, but multi-club ownership is here to stay'
Matt Slater joined Ayo Akinwolere on The Athletic FC Podcast's series on multi-club ownership this week to give his expert views on a hugely important, and divisive, part of the modern game. In the third and final episode, which was released on Wednesday, Matt answered questions concerning the topic from our listeners and readers, going into detail on the positives and negatives of multi-club networks, the financial situations at these groups and the implications for the clubs purchased as part of these schemes. This is a partial transcript that has been edited for clarity and length. The full episode can be listened to by clicking on the link below. And to listen to the previous two episodes, please click here. Adam M: Leicester fan here. I can't see any positives from our multi-club model. Our youth players go to Belgian club Leuven and never get played (Leuven don't appreciate being Leicester's feeder side and rightly so). Equally, Leuven have some talented players who are coveted by Premier League teams yet Leicester haven't leveraged the relationship to sign them. So what's the point? Advertisement Matt Slater: A few years ago lots of clubs were buying a Belgian team, or a Dutch team or a French second-division team and saying they have ticked the multi-club box. If you look for hotbeds of football talent some of the places that come up, along with Brazil, are London, Paris and Brussels. So to be in these places sort of made sense. But when I look at that Leicester relationship, you are right. What have Leicester got out of it? I can see very little evidence of a coherent strategy or of any real attempt to maximise their footprint in the Belgian league. There have been players that have gone there on loan, one was Kamal Sowah and I remember people had high hopes but it didn't come to anything. He's now playing in the Netherlands (at NAC Breda) and has got just one international cap (for Ghana). He went to Club Brugge but didn't score any (league) goals for them. So that wasn't good enough. Now, look, that happens, recruitment is hard. But still, it's almost like: 'Is that it?' Nathaniel F: When you factor in the initial purchase costs and the ongoing yearly profits or losses, do multi-club networks actually make money? Even if they don't turn a profit in the short term, would their potential sale value end up being higher than those costs? Matt Slater: The short answer is no. I think UEFA estimate that something like 350 clubs in Europe are part of networks. There may be one that I can't think of that is turning an annual profit, but I'd be surprised. That shouldn't shock people, though. Running football clubs is hard. Very few of them are profitable. A good example here would be City Football Group. They've got 13 clubs and have been spending a fortune on them, but the total combined losses of the group is now basically £1billion ($1.28bn). And that doesn't include the costs of acquiring some of these franchises. Multi-club ownership has become the big idea in European football over the last five to 10 years, but it still feels unproven. I don't think anyone has really proven it can work. The one exception, and there are caveats, is Red Bull. They could probably say it's worked for them, but remember they are selling us drinks too. So part of their expense on the football teams is from their marketing budget. Nathaniel F: City Football Group is led by some of the brightest minds in both football and business, so why is it that most of their teams aren't as successful as Manchester City? You would think that teams in places like South America, New York or their various clubs in Asia would be winning more often. Advertisement Matt Slater: It's about perception. Manchester City have been amazing for 10 years. Have the other clubs been as successful as them? No, but they have still been quite successful. The year 2021 in particular was amazing. NYCFC won the MLS Cup, Mumbai City won two trophies and Montevideo got promoted that year. It hasn't been as good for the other teams since, that's true. But look at some of the investments they've made — Troyes and Lommel, for example. They were clearly bought as feeder teams. That is where they expect teenagers to get playing time in a European league and they will then see if they are good enough. They probably aren't trying to win everywhere, because they haven't chosen clubs with the capability of winning as easily as Manchester City. The underlying inference is that the group is channelled to make Manchester City good. If you have a good enough player in the group, they will get funnelled to Manchester and the centre of the first team. David S: The very concept of multi-club ownership is an abomination and the antithesis of what football should be about. We all reluctantly accept that the days of being owned by your local millionaire are done, but legislation should restrict owners or shareholders to a stake in a single football club. Multi-club ownership throws up potential for conflicts of interest and the prospect of sheer neglect towards the smaller clubs in a portfolio. Matt Slater: It's an unproven thesis. It feels like we are living through an experiment. How many times have I said running football clubs is hard? They are loss-making, so if you own several then you are making it even harder. That's a concern for me. So, 777 Partners is probably the poster boy for when it goes wrong — an American investment firm based in Miami that started accumulating football clubs for a bizarre reason. They were arrogant and they thought they could do it better. But the main guy there was called Josh Wander and he gave a notorious interview to the Financial Times where he talked about football fans being eager to be monetised. Advertisement And this network of clubs was a kind of great big shopping window for sponsors and credit card and insurance firms to sign up fans. It all fell apart and they have been accused of fraud. They owned Standard Liege and Hertha Berlin. They also nearly bought Everton. We are not talking about brands of clothing or coffee, this is sport. We want our owner to really care about our club, so I totally understand where the question is coming from. But the reason multi-club ownership is happening is because the industry isn't quite working. Think about Trent Alexander-Arnold (at Liverpool). This is a classic case of a highly-paid, precious asset that may go for nothing due to the (club's) own failures. If you could somehow keep that within a group, you can sort of mitigate some of that risk. So I understand. Yet when people ask me if I would want it for my club, I usually say no. However, it wasn't that long ago that my club very nearly shut. So if the choice is between nothing and carrying on, well then it's like: 'Yeah, okay.' I'm afraid I am sitting on a fence here, because I can see where the multi-clubbers are coming from. I look at the industry and see failing businesses, distressed assets and jobs at risk. So I'm thinking: 'Well, I'm not surprised that people are thinking 'let's consolidate and try and be sustainable'.' Ayo Akinwolere: Fans are powerless to a certain degree about the people that take over their club. For instance, if you've got a club that was close to administration not too long ago then many fans are thinking: 'OK, yes please.' But very few have looked down the line to see whether or not this is a legitimate group or whether they have the right ethos for the club. Matt Slater: This is so big. As fans, you can get organised and you can make it uncomfortable (to try and get) someone to leave. What you can't really do is do the vetting and do the choosing (of prospective owners). It's really still (down to) that owner to sort of choose their successor. This is the situation at Reading, Swindon and Morecambe. It's really hard and you feel powerless. Michael H: Previously when this topic has been spoken about on The Athletic FC Podcast, it has been negative and multi-club ownerships have been viewed as an existential threat to football. Has that view changed? Is there an acceptance that they are here to stay? Matt Slater: Yes. It's here and it's not going away. The game has got to, I think, have a clearer idea around separation and how we police this, because it does seem a bit ad hoc at the moment. Advertisement Is anyone really making money yet? Not yet. Is anyone getting sustainable? Yes, I think some are probably close to sustainability. Are any starting to really kind of hit their goals? Black Knight appeared to be getting close to hitting their goals and there are a few others out there that would probably say their goals are about one or two of their teams being really successful. You can listen to other episodes of The Athletic FC Podcast, which covers the biggest issues and talking points in the game, here.
New York Times
19-02-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Squad Cost Ratio & Anchoring – The Premier League's new financial rules explained
Acronyms such as FFP (Financial Fair Play) and PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules) have become part of the footballing furniture in recent years, but now a new set of terms is looming on the horizon. The PSR era is expected to close at the end of next season, which will see the introduction of 'Squad Cost Ratio', or 'SCR', and 'Anchoring' in its place. Advertisement On the latest episode of The Athletic FC Podcast, Ayo Akinwolere was joined by The Athletic's Matt Slater and Jacob Whitehead to explain what both new terms mean and how they aim to govern financial regulation in the Premier League. A partial transcript has been edited for clarity and length. The full episode is available on YouTube below or in 'The Athletic FC Podcast' feed on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Ayo: Premier League clubs met in London last Thursday and agreed that they're not ready for the new Squad Cost Ratio rules to come in. So that means PSR remains for now. Firstly, Matt, let's just debunk what this Squad Cost Ratio is. And secondly, tell us why clubs came to such a conclusion. Matt: Yeah, the much loved PSR survives. Let's start with Squad Cost then. We've been talking about it and people would have heard about it over the last year or so, perhaps even longer if they've been following UEFA. So UEFA started this a few years ago and it's up and running. The way the Squad Cost rule works is it's basically a soft (salary) cap. It's an attempt to connect the spending that any club makes to the products on the pitch. So your first team squad, your players, your coaches and any money you spend on assembling that group. What counts is wages — players and first-team staff — and the amortised transfer spend. We've talked about amortisation, that's just how you account for transfer spend. You basically spread your transfer fee over the length of the player's contract. It's an annual cost; very simply, a £100million transfer over five years is £20million per year. So it's wages, amortised cost of transfers and any fees you spend on agents. That's your Squad Cost. Then, the Ratio bit is your turnover and UEFA have introduced it in stages. In year one, it was 90 per cent, in year two, it was 80 per cent, and this season, we're at 70 per cent, and that's where they want to get to. If you think about it, it's a nice, healthy and sustainable number. It's a very old-fashioned idea that about 70 per cent of a business' costs should go on wages and the cost of doing business. So that's where UEFA are at. The Premier League, as they did a decade ago with Financial Fair Play, want to make it a little bit more liberal than that. They want to give clubs that don't play in UEFA competitions and don't have that additional revenue that has created gaps and chasms all across Europe leeway to go up to 85%. And nearly everyone, because UEFA have gone their first, thinks, 'Well we should all be aligned just as we were all aligned when UEFA started this journey a decade ago with Financial Fair Play'. So there's that. Advertisement Our teams that play in Europe are already under this UEFA system. There's also the fact that people are fed up with PSR, which was just the Premier League's version of Financial Fair Play. They're fed up with the loss threshold (where clubs cannot post losses of more than £105million over a three-year period). We've spent the last year or 18 months seeing Premier League clubs actually breach this rule, so they want to try something else. Most people believe that Squad Cost is a bit looser and the direction of travel was, 'We're going to do it next season'. However, this is no longer the case. The reasons, which I'm sure we're going to spend a lot more time talking about, in no particular order are the fact the Professional Football Association (PFA) don't like bits of it. The Premier League has been tied up in legal lawfare with Manchester City and other bits of its Financial Fair Play regime (PSR) are under attack. So there are lots of reasons why they're just not ready. But anyway, Squad Cost is happening in Europe and the Premier League says there's unanimous support for it, and I think that's probably true among the clubs. I suspect we'll get there, but it's just going to be another 18 months or so away. Ayo: Let's get into what other rules we could see in the post-PSR world. One of them is 'Anchoring', which might be a new word to the listeners. This essentially limits the club's spending on player costs to five times the amount that the team who finishes bottom of the league receives in prize money and TV revenue. Not complicated at all. Matt, give us a brief explainer and also who's in opposition to it as well? Matt: It's an attempt to sort of tweak and tinker around the edge. We have a situation where the big clubs can be big and then we're going to do Squad Cost. But then what is a possible consequence of Squad Cost? Well, it's a really obvious one. If you're tying how much you can spend on your first team to revenue, it massively helps the big clubs. They're already big, they've all got big stadiums and they play in Europe, so they have access to UEFA money. That's extra home games and that's more international sponsors. So they have all these advantages and it just makes them big. The Deloitte Money League list, which was only published last month, hasn't really changed. You can just see the gaps and there are tiers within that. What do we do about this competitive balance issue? Anchoring is an attempt to address that. It's very subtle and it probably isn't going to change that much. But it is, by implication, a hard (salary) cap. Anchoring is something that would run in tandem with Squad Cost and it would say that 'You can only spend a maximum of five times the hard cap regardless of how much money you're earning and regardless of where your Ratio is'. There is a hard ceiling and it's five times the amount that the worst team gets in central income from the Premier League. If we look at the table, everyone knows it goes one to 20 and they share the Premier League media rights and the central sponsorship money. The top team gets 1.8 times the amount as the bottom team. Let's just say because it's easy maths, the bottom team gets £100million and the top teams get about £180million. That's made up of the prize money, which is£3 million to £4million per place. You get facility fees, which is every time you're on TV, and every club is on TV for a minimum amount of time. But of course, the big clubs are on more often because they are the big clubs and they're usually going for the title. So that's where you get the 1.8 to 1 — this is the problem. Now, it's got even more complicated because you could say, 'Well hold on a minute. I get you don't like this, but what's the problem with Squad Cost?'. Because the PFA have threatened the Premier League saying, 'Don't do any of these things. We're still consulting and we're still talking about it. Isn't Squad Cost OK? They're already doing it with UEFA'. So what the PFA are saying is the Premier League aren't really being straight with all of us because they know the only way they are going to get Squad Cost through with those mid-tier, middle-class clubs, is if Anchoring comes in as well because Anchoring is the break. Anchoring is the competitive measure and the competitive balance measure. If you're West Ham, Everton, Brighton or Brentford, for example, you want both. Otherwise, your Man Citys, your Chelseas, your Liverpools and Man Uniteds eventually are unrestrained. We need something alongside Squad Cost. So the two are together, that's the issue. Advertisement Ayo: It feels like a democratisation of sorts in terms of allowing fair competition Jacob. But given the high TV revenues nowadays, do you think it's likely that Anchoring will severely hamper the financial power of the big clubs to stop them from accelerating? Jacob: Last season, no team would have actually broken it, but Man City and Chelsea were very close. I would say it would be unlikely that it absolutely or massively restrains them from what they're doing now. But it stops them from going into that next stratospheric level. It helps you avoid a situation like you have in Scotland or Spain, where you see much more of a duopoly effectively. It's much more likely to have some element of competitive balance, even if that competitive balance is between six or seven clubs rather than the whole league. Ayo: So in theory, the shape of the 'Big Six' could look very different in four or five years? Jacob: In theory, yes, but everything has to go very right for the chasing pack. They need to maximise everything still. You can listen to full episodes of The Athletic FC Podcast for free on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and watch on YouTube.
