Goodbye to waste in soccer

first_imgA scenario that would affect agents, who charge a percentage of player transfers. José Antonio Martín ‘Petón’, CEO of the Bahía Internacional representation agency, although he is no longer at the forefront of this business, is on the path: “The coronavirus can air soccer. It is a good time to seek common sense and bring order. An elite group of 5-6 crazy teams against which nobody can compete was being created. You cannot deny them that they have a higher income, but you can force them to spend similarly to others. Still they would have a margin of superiority over the rest, but not so obscene. It is a matter of sensible majorities and they may be forced to do so. Barcelona has a severe liquidity risk and maybe they have to be the one to take the plunge“The circumstances point to an opportunity to bring sanity to this aspect. It has been very generous and detached. It will be a time of reflection and readjustment. The contracts are going to adapt to this scenario and new clauses will be included to put variables that if there is no activity, you do not charge, “adds Liébana.Manuel García Quilón, another of the great agents of Spanish soccer players, does not share limiting the market: “This crisis is going to reduce income and curb investment in players. But Limiting the market has no legal coverage. Within the legal parameters, each one can be managed as they see fit and they decide what they can invest. With less income, there will be fewer transfers” Jorge Ibarrola, a lawyer, maintains a position close to Quilón’s: “FIFA should be in charge of regulating these ceilings and it would be necessary to see if these measures are in accordance with the European regulations on economic freedom and movement of players. Furthermore, look at the side effects. A limitation could favor the greats. It would be easier for players to switch teams with cheaper transfers, and powerful clubs could secure salary caps for players, while smaller ones could not.“ Times of austerity come to football. The coronavirus has misplaced the budgets of the clubs, which have been cut off from the income tap (television rights, tickets, subscriptions, marketing …) and are trying to survive by reducing the spending on the wages of their players and workers. Experts consulted by AS assure that the impact of the pandemic could be a turning point for an economic model who has managed to make transfers for 222 million euros (Neymar’s to PSG) and salaries of up to 8.3 million a month (Messi, according to L’Equipe). Now, there are several voices that predict that the economic bubble of soccer is going to deflate and are committed to limiting transfers and player salaries.Gay of Liébana, professor of economics, is the first to analyze this bubble: “The whole world of football is scared and there may be a puncture. There will be prudence and sanity in the market because there is no money coming in. Perhaps nothing will ever be like before” Jaime Fortuño, professor at the EAE Business School, believes that it will be a drop in the market that can be recovered in the coming years: “It is going to deflate, but it will come back. It is not a problem of soccer as a business. The superficial properties will disappear only a year or two. Now it will be difficult to see big signings and the clubs are going to think about making big investments, although signing an Mbappé or Neymar offers you a great return. It will also affect those who want to sell players like Dembélé and Coutinho and do not end up doing it because it would be for less than 100 million. “Carles Murillo, President of the Spanish Society for Sport Economics, also bets on austerity in the next market and a reformulation of the system: “The bubble swells as demand increases and football has squeezed the goose that lays the golden eggs with so many games. In life these situations make you rethink things. More than one will think of putting things in a more economically reasonable environment. I do not see it feasible to pay a lot for players, except for the clubs that have people with many reserves behind them. There will be a devaluation of prices by players. This would be the time for you to temporarily an American-style transfer limitation is imposed. Limit wages and transfers. Although it would have to be in the short term as a shock measure. “last_img read more

Clinton details her ideas for medical coverage for all

first_img Like the plans put forth by her two main Democratic rivals, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the new Clinton plan would try to strengthen and build on the existing, employer-based system, through which most Americans under 65 already receive their coverage. Clinton would create new options for buying private or public insurance at affordable rates, require everyone to obtain insurance, and provide subsidies to small businesses and individuals who cannot afford it. The plan, with a estimated cost of $110 billion a year, would be financed largely by rolling back President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year and by projected savings in the health care system. The title of Clinton’s proposal sums up her carefully calibrated new approach: “The American Health Choices Plan.” It was clearly aimed at the middle-class Americans who feared that her last health plan would limit their choices, force them into health maintenance organizations and subject them to new government bureaucracies deciding what their benefits could be – fears stoked by a devastating campaign by the insurance industry. Clinton’s Republican rivals instantly denounced her new proposal as another exercise in “Hillarycare,” with Mitt Romney declaring that she “takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies” and “fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states.” Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts himself signed into law a measure requiring all residents of his state to sign up for health insurance, and other Republican candidates acknowledge problems in the health care system but would rely more than Clinton and the other Democrats on the market, the states and tax credits to resolve them. But a variety of health policy analysts said the change between Clinton 1 and Clinton 2 was striking. The first plan, for example, required people and employers to join new “regional alliances” to purchase their coverage. It tried to control total health spending through a complicated system of managed competition and created a National Health Board with sweeping authority to regulate that system. The new plan, said Stuart Altman, a health economist at Brandeis and a policy adviser since the Nixon administration, “is much less radical: it’s not fair at all to say it’s a redo of the old plan.” Even so, Clinton took pains to warn her audience in Des Moines that attacks were coming. “Don’t let them fool us again,” she said of her Republican opponents. “This is not government-run: There will be no new bureaucracy, you can keep the doctors you know and trust, you keep the insurance you have, if you like that. But this plan expands personal choice and keeps costs down.” Clinton suggested the differences were not just in policy; she and her aides emphasized that this was a broad outline, that it would change in the political process, and that she was keenly aware of the need to build consensus.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! DES MOINES, Iowa – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled a plan on Monday to guarantee health insurance to all Americans, but in a way carefully designed to avoid nearly every major political flaw in her failed proposal of 1993-94. In the new plan, Clinton promised to cover everyone without big new bureaucracies, without a complicated reorganization of one-seventh of the U.S. economy and without affecting Americans who are insured and happy with their coverage – all features that helped doom the Clinton administration’s plan 14 years ago. In what her advisers hoped would be the final stage of a long political rehabilitation on the issue, Clinton told her audience here that she had been scarred by the old battle but had gained some valuable lessons. “I learned that people who are satisfied with their current coverage want assurances that they can keep it,” Clinton said. “Part of our health care system is the best in the world, and we should build on it; part of the system is broken, and we should fix it.” last_img read more