Is The World Cup For Sale?

BBC-podcast on suurin jälkeen. Lähitapiola henkivakuutuksen asia käsiedulla saat nyt 80-5 % alennuksen. Henkivakuutuksen myöntää lähitapiola keskinäinen henkivakuutusyhtiö. Asia käs etui ja sen määrvahvistetaan vuosittain. Lähitapiola samalla puolella. Tämä on tärkeä näitä ja on tärkeä. Tämä on tärkeä ja tärkeä ja seuraavaksi. Tämä on tärkeä ja seuraavaksi. Mutta se on tärkeä ja seuraavaksi. Simon Jack. Hello Adam. ja se on yksi kertokin, koska se on tullut tullut tehty. And Simon, in that presentation, do the consultants and the people involved in doing this deal and making this presentation? Do they explain how the World Cup and the FIFA events would change to make it go from one dollar per fan to something more like $50 per fan? Well, they say they were different. They would look at increasing the number of teams in the World Cup. We already had a big increase, so they might take it up to 64 and they might make some changes so you had faces of the World Club Championship. So there'd be more stuff going on, but there was a feeling that they, you know, remember the Hullabaloo about ticket prices and all that kind of stuff that went on in hospitality and there's all sorts of licensing partners and you've got your credit card partner and all this kind of stuff, all that's up. They think they can squeeze a bit more. But what they're looking for, the reason they wanted to be private investors, is they think we need some people who've got the commercial now to try and maximize value, who know this stuff better than we do. Now, in their defence, what they say is that we're not the only sport he does this. PJ golf does this. Very good example is Formula One and as a fear, I think a lot of people thought that Gianni and Fantino would become like the Bernie Eccleston of football with almost total control over the commercial rights. And I have to say that Infantino could not have possibly prepared the pitch worse for this idea. First of all, there was the peace prize, the Donald Trump. Then there was the overturning of the red card, a Donald Trump's request. For the American striker. And then the lead partner or the lead private investor, the quarterstone investor in this, is a company run by Donald Trump's son-in-law's brother. So you put all that together and Infantino's widespread unpopularity. And I think that they basically could not have sold this idea worse if they tried. And Jane, just as we were getting ready to record the subset of newscast, we check to see if there's a name for your son-in-law's brother in kind of genealogy. And it's like your co-son-in-law. Who knew? There we go. Yes. Anyway, so Jane, so that's the that's the numbers and that's the that's the business plan. Where have we got to with the politics then? So when I was doing newsnight last night, UEFA had said no way we're doing this. We will boycott future events if it goes ahead. UEFA is 55 members of FIFA and there's 211 and you would need half of the 211 for this to go ahead. What's the tally now? So Infantino needs a majority of 106 to get his proposal through. The Asian football confederation who earlier today said that they would join the other two confederations. They have they've got 47 members but 46 of them are FIFA members and then Conca Caff which is Central America, North America and Caribbean. They have 41 members but 35 of them have a vote their FIFA members. So that adds up to 136 associations of three confederations. Now this is just guesswork at the moment because you have to assume that they will all tow the line and vote the way that their confederation tells them to. So three confederations, UEFA, Conca Caff and the Asian Federation, they have all said we don't want these proposals but then there's each individual country within it that you would hope would tow the line and go along with what their confederation is asking and if that does happen then there will be 136 associations that could potentially vote against these plans in which case they wouldn't happen. Now if that's the case and the proposal is dead in the water, the question then remains what what is the future for Gianni and Fantino can we continue? Also it was just going to ask will there be a vote or will this be like Kear Starmer's welfare reforms and pull them to avoid the embarrassment of losing? No there is actually a deadline. So in Fantino's centre letter to all 211 member associations telling them that they had until the 19th September to agree to this deal or not and it's a straight majority as we mentioned whether it goes through or not so they can vote to say yes or no. So we will know by the 19th September whether it's going to happen or not. And also we just had the Prime Minister this afternoon, Wade in saying Gianni and Fantino is not the right person to lead FIFA so it's becoming you know it's getting as the highest echelons or whatever because you know football is the most popular game in the world FIFA just saying we could be making all money out of it. You Afer and others you know it's not like FIFA shorter money they made about well they probably have made 12 billion dollars so 10 billion pounds nine billion pounds in the last four years which is double the previous four years cycle. It was 15 billion dollars they made from the World Cup this morning. Okay that's an up to date number thank you. I would just say thank you about Andy Brown. Easier for him to complain about Gianni and Fantino and Co-Pasely insinuated he should be replaced then to say I don't know complain about Donald Trump and call for him to be replaced because the stakes are very different there. So Simon where do you think this is going then? So listening to what Jane was saying. Yeah my instinct is I think that FIFA made a miscalculation here they actually thought that they could reach beyond the umbrella organization at the UEFA and Conquer Caffes and appeal directly to the smaller nations and it does look at the moment like those smaller nations are falling into line behind their umbrella organizations. This smacks to me very much of you may remember a few years ago there was an attempt to create a European super league and funny enough the bankers who were involved in that JP Morgan are also involved in this project they've got a big sports business. Would I can take you back to that because that was when I was the chief political correspondent doing Henry's job doing the news in the morning and normally most mornings I would have to call Downing Street at about quarter past six to get the latest lines from them about what the government thought about issue X or issue Y or issue Z. That morning the second I woke up I think Downing Street called me tell me how vehemently they were opposing the super league plans which tells you about the political salience of messing with football. There's also this kind of competitive stuff here you know UEFA they're saying they're selling football now FIFA would say we were only going to sell a minority state we're just going to bring in cleverer money people trying to extract a bit more money which we would put in by the way into more resources more money for local federations more coaches all this kind of good stuff but you know I can imagine that UEFA sort of saying listen if anyone's going to gouge more money out of football it'll be us thanks very much not you guys so they don't like being sort of usurped onto their territory. And Jane Simon knows I always like to end on a philosophical note just to set our friends of the podcast a big brain teaser before they go here's the one for you why is it okay for big private investors to own football clubs in the UK but not for there to be some investment in events for FIFA like the World Cup. Because a lot of fans would argue that football doesn't belong to anybody that it belongs to everybody and to sell it off in the manner that Gianni in Fantino is proposing is to dismantle the very soul of something that people feel so passionately about that it's not just a hobby it's a way of life and to to tinker with that is very dangerous as we saw as you mentioned with the proposal for the European Super League in 2021 that lasted for 48 hours before the outrage of the fans dismantled it very quickly and actually it's very interesting that you brought that up because Gianni in Fantino has to restand for his position next March at the moment he's unopposed but the name that is coming up again and again is a man called Nasar al-Khalafi he is president of Paris Saint-Germain but at the time of the Super League collapsing the European Super League collapsing he took over as chairman of the European Clubs Association and basically smoothed everything over he's very well respected he's a guitarry and he's a very powerful man in football so he is one of the logical supposed successors to Gianni in Fantino so watch the space so interesting just one observation I'd make about this is it's reinforced to me if it is maybe obvious to others but reinforced to me the fact that US appetite for our national game you know they want in all in in fact I think something like 13 of the 20 Premier League Clubs are majority owned by Americans so you know I blame Ted Lassau for this so Ted Apple TV show about and welcome to Rexham where of course Ryan Reynolds basically two TV shows that gave Americans a greater appetite for football great appetite they saw as a really you know I weather a quaint or an attractive or financially attractive cultural property and they wanted in and so the American ownership of you know of of UK football and football generally has never been higher isn't it interesting and this is my last philosophical point let's see where this goes that often we're told oh Europeans look at the UK and say oh you've got such an Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism where everything's up for sale and then us Brits go no no we're a mixture of European and American we're just got our own British kind of recipe of the different elements and then you look at what happens when Americans get involved in something like football as they would call soccer and you realize actually American capitalism is different from British capitalism which may indeed be different from what they have on the continent yeah maybe yeah maybe there we go ringing endorsement my theory Simon thank you very much thank you Adam and Jane good to catch up with you too and you Adam see you Jane bye no as promised there have been big developments in Gaza namely that Hamas appear to have signed up to a deal that involves them handing over their weapons. which would be effectively the end of their armed struggle against Israel. And it also sounds like Israel might potentially have agreed to withdraw from Gaza as well. So if all that happens, that would be a huge moment for the Middle East. And the person who's been monitoring these developments for a long time, and especially today is the BBC's International Editor, Jeremy Bowen, who's on the line. Hi, Jeremy. - Hey, how are you, Adam? - Good, thank you. Good to catch up. So in terms of the timeline, the very long, slightly torturous timeline about Gaza, I mean, put these events today into context. - Well, this did not happen overnight. There has been a process building. In terms of, well, first of all, if you think back to October of last year, that's when they had the ceasefire. That's when there were a couple of different Donald Trump and his people driven agreements, one of which he hailed as the greatest thing to have happened in the Middle East in 3000 years. And essentially, there were various points about the way that Gaza would be dealt within the future in those deals. And over a protracted period of negotiations, which involved, there's a UN envoy, as well as that the Turks have been very active. The Egyptians have been particularly active because the talks have been held in Cairo, not least, a lot of them. So Hamas have also, our information is, have moved towards being more open to accept things. And that is because there's been precious little or no reconstruction. People are in a terrible state there. They're also somewhat lost control, I think, such as they had of law and order, because there are these Israeli-sponsored militias who roam around at times. So essentially, they didn't have that many choices and they decided in the end to sign up to this deal, which actually, for them, has a number of positives. First of all, it might allow some reconstruction to happen. Second, this is assuming it goes ahead, of course, and that is a massive effort, which we'll talk about, obviously. There's also the fact that what is the other? What is it that we think Hamas have signed up to? Well, there have been two contentious points that they've signed up to everything else in terms of things like a new form of governance in the territory, a new kind of technocratic Palestinian administration. The idea that there would be some other measures taken, which would enable, I mean, to be honest, none of it, if you go back through the original documents, there's no detail there. So there's a lot that needs to be worked out, but there were two outstanding points, one of which was on disarmament. And that is the most important thing, because that's what stopped any kind of diplomatic progress. And the other one was essentially about things to do with governance, the people who in various roles that they employ at the moment. I'm talking about several servants as well, you know, to keep ministries going, such as there are these days. I mean, the thing is that the 30% or so that they control is barely governed in the way that, you know, you can no longer say that this is a mini-state-led, as you might have been able to before. You certainly can't now. Most people are intense, couldn't say. And dependent on aid. So those were the two outstanding points. And the most significant single point is that for the first time, Hamas has agreed to disarm, and that is new. And Jeremy, I'm sure you've seen lots of examples around the world of groups saying they will hand over their weapons. How do we think this might work in this case? Well, of course, these things are all different. And in some cases, groups get absorbed into the armed forces of a state. Well, that's, there is no functioning Palestinian state. Many countries recognize the existence of one, but there's no functioning state. So it's not that. One very good example was in Northern Ireland, after the Gufreida Agreement, when there were protracted negotiations, two, and I think the phrase was to put the IRO weapons beyond use. And that required a huge amount of very, very detailed stuff. And the thing about the the agreement that Donald Trump surprised, surprised, as an asked is there's very little detail about how it's actually going to work. Because it's not just about weapons. It's about the tunnel network revealing where the tunnels are, where the entrances are, making it all public. All that sort of thing. But in Northern Ireland, it was crucial to the completion of that whole piece process. It was a vital stage in it. And equally, this is a vital stage. It's, you know, it's invidious to compare the two. I'm always very reluctant to compare the situation in the troubles in Northern Ireland with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are so many things that are different. But on this, I mean, what we can learn from it is these processes require detailed diplomacy and staff work. And they, because let's assume there's no trust between parties who mean trying to kill each other, there also has to be, it has to be very, very fireable. So we don't know that detail, the Chair. And also, it usually needs a trusted third party in Israel tends to never trust any third parties. No. And the third party, the Israelis sometimes have trusted as the Americans. Apart from the fact that having a rift with them at the moment, the Palestinians don't trust them. So other countries are going to be very much involved. Countries which have been really involved in this process from the very outset of these ceasefire talks have been particularly Turkey, Egypt and Qatar. And they have, all three countries have pretty good relations with Donald Trump. They have been, Palestinians have been persuaded to trust them to disagree. The Israelis don't trust them. But the thing is, at the moment, Mr Netanyahu, the Prime Minister's under double pressure, one set of pressures comes from the fact he faces an election in October, a general election. And in that election, if his opponents who are all who the main ones are pretty right-wing, if they were to say, well, you just crumbled to the mass, you've just given into them, you've given them a sweetheart deal, that's not going to win him votes. But equally, Donald Trump, at least his Republican party, faces elections in November, the midterms in America, and he's at the moment engaged in this, well, the makings of a forever war that he's worried never get the America involved in again with Iran. And he needs some wins. So he wants this thing to work. So he's putting pressure on Netanyahu. So he's gone one side, he's got his base who'd be very unhappy about this and his political opponents. On the other hand, there's Donald Trump saying, right then, come on, do this. You have to do it. I have leverage over you. We keep you going. We are now your only friend left in the world. Not quite true, but that's what several American officials have been saying. And so, yeah, so I think that what Netanyahu will do is probably play for time between now and the election. He's pretty good at that. And also the Israelis are, are they not obligated under this deal to withdraw entirely from Gaza or even withdraw partially? Well, that is a central bargain in this. And if it was simply a deal to Hamas gives up their weapons, that Israelis would be very suspicious because they don't trust a mass because of the killings on 7th of October and other things. But they'd say, all right, let's see how it goes. But it's a quid pro quo. It's a tip for tat. So the deal that bargain at the centre of all of this is that Hamas gives up its weapons and Israel pulls out. And that was in the original deal. It's what are the Trump deal? The Israelis are saying, well, we might think about it if we are convinced you've given up all your weapons. And Hamas essentially at the moment saying, well, if you don't start withdrawing, we're not giving up any weapons. And Jeremy, we started this conversation by talking about kind of the torturous process that got us here in the two steps forward, one step back, sometimes three steps back, the lack of detail, but also still some progress at the same time. I mean, can we say that that Donald Trump's quite strange idea or innovative idea or novel idea of the board of peace might have worked here? I think it's a bit too early to say that. The idea of a board of peace overseeing everything was roundly condemned as a neo-colonialist idea. How come is it that a bunch of mostly white Americans and Europeans are going to tell these people how to live their lives? That was the central message that people were coming out with. I think this means, however, that the Americans do have leverage and when they get involved, things can happen. And that has always been the case because they're very powerful and influential country, not least with the Israelis if they care to use the leverage. So Donald Trump, I mean, he always claims credit for anything that works well and he tends to blame everybody. what else if it doesn't work out. But certainly on this occasion, if this goes through and there are many reasons why I might not, if it goes through, then yes, I think he would be quite justified in patting himself on his back for his contribution. Jeremy, thank you so much for bringing us up to date. I can now repay the favor with some news from Westminster that has broken in the last 30 seconds while we were talking. Do you want to hear it? Go on. I mean, not got much choice really. But thank you for playing along. John Healey, the chancellor has confirmed his first budget will be on Wednesday, the 28th of October. He's posted a video message on social media. And he says, this will be a budget that moves money and power. Westminster and into every postcode around Britain, it will be built on fiscal discipline. It will meet our fiscal rules. It will give businesses and families some of the stability they need to plan for the future. Now let's get on with the job. We give the Israeli elections as well. So Mr Netanyahu won't be looking too closely at what Mr Healey's saying. Maybe not. We will do our best on newscast to look at both. But Jeremy, thank you very much. Yes. Thanks Adam. And according to my running spreadsheets, because I'm trying to run 500 kilometers in Andy Burnham's first 100 days, alongside all the challenges you're trying to achieve, shows that that will be Andy Burnham's 101st day. So John Healey's challenge in Andy Burnham's first 100 days is to come out with a budget that means they can meet the ambitions of the government while not breaking the government's fiscal rules that they inherited. Interesting. That happens every year overnight. Let us see it again soon! Welcome to the show's shopping show, "Com si Vustoll". We're going to do all in a one hour and so you're now going to hear Craig from Glossop and the brook next to his house. Dan, who is next to a lake, Harvey and Kirin, who are on a farm that farms both pigs and asparagus. And Steven, who sent us two, the first is a beach in the Falkland Islands and the second is some geespings disturbed as he walked past them in the dark. These are your newscast rural sounds to sound you into the weekend. [Music] You've come to the end of newscast. Some people and you know who I mean might say you ooze stamina. Can I encourage you to subscribe on BBC Sounds and you can get in touch with us anytime. email us at [email protected]. You can watch us on O-Double30123948O.