Corinthians bid for Tevez a watershed moment for world football

The signal that a Brazilian football team could compete with European giants is reflective of a wider movement in world sport

On the 20^th July 2011 Brazilian football side Corinthians withdrew their bid of £40m for Manchester City and Argentina star Carlos Tevez, citing the imminent closure of the Brazilian transfer window.  But the fact that the transfer did not go through is immaterial. The statement it has sent out to the footballing world is enough. It could be looked back on as a defining moment in world football.

The Tevez transfer saga is not an ordinary one, and there are numerous factors that might suggest a unique case. On the Tevez side, frequent claims of homesickness are hard to ignore, as is his mercenary past (from his astonishing arrival at West Ham to his claims to dislike Manchester before turning up at Manchester City).

On the Brazilian side, Corinthians were attempting to bankroll the transfer by funds from a new Brazilian TV deal and Tevez is a former popular player for the club. This is before we even mention Kia Joorabchian, his agent and a man with historic business links to Corinthians through Media Sports Investments, who took over the club in 2004.

Tevez in action for Manchester City. Source: Alfonso Jimenez

However, the fact that Corinthians even appear able to compete is a gesture impossible to ignore.  It marks the first time a Brazilian team has bid a huge figure for a global superstar and come seriously close to landing him (and still may do in January).

There is already a noticeable movement in Brazil of former stars (Carlos Alberto, Mancini) returning home early after struggling to adapt in Europe, established players (Fred, Luis Fabiano) electing to come back in their prime or veterans (Deco, Ronaldo, Gilberto Silva, Belletti) choosing to see out careers in native lands rather than chasing riches in Europe’s lesser leagues, the Middle East or North America.

But the Tevez transfer bid raises many more questions about the future of world football. In 15 years time will we have a situation where the Brazilian top league (Brasileirão) is competing with the best European leagues? Will the Tevez saga be viewed as the watershed moment?

Increased Brazilian economic stability and strength and the infrastructure created by the 2014 FIFA World Cup will undoubtedly create conditions ripe for growth for the Brasileirão. When this is coupled with Brazilian clubs gradually becoming wise to their huge economic potential in negotiating larger TV deals, improving their structures and public relations, and attracting sponsors who will pay superstar wages, it will undoubtedly lead to Brazilian clubs retaining their best players for longer before they leave for Europe.

Estadio do Pacaembu. Will Tevez ultimately return? Source: Rodrigo Soldon

Although Brazil will undoubtedly remain the biggest exporter of players around the world, what is already happening is that the Brazilian league is becoming the hub for the best South American players and an established stepping-stone to Europe, overtaking the struggling Argentinean league in the process. Indeed some of the best Argentineans have found their way to Brazil in the last few years - Tevez himself of course, as well as Alejandro Martinuccio and Dario Conca (more to follow on that name).

Perhaps in an extended version of this, the Brasileirão improves to the extent that far less players need to go to Europe and some Europeans begin to be attracted to South America?

This argument is not just confined to Brazil, nor it is it limited to football.

Another country making similar leaps forward is Russia, to the extent that it could now claim to be Europe’s 6^th best league ahead of Netherlands, Portugal and Turkey. Russia is awash with money and making big signings (Bruno Alves arrived at Zenit St Petersburg for 22m Euros last summer), making the Russian league second only to the English Premier League in financial losses.

Zenit v Bayern Munich in 2008, the year they won the Europa League. Source: Probek

How long before a prized European asset is whisked away to Zenit or Rubin Kazan as a marquee signing? Zenit and CSKA Moscow have both won the Europa League in recent seasons. How long until a Russian side is challenging for the Champions League? And let us not forget the new player on the scene, Anzhi Makhachkala, one the clubs linked with bidding for Tevez last month and who have recently embarked on a dramatic spending spree, earning them the nickname 'The Manchester City of Russia'.

Which brings us to China. Dario Conca is perhaps not a name familiar to too many European football fans. The Argentine had three impressive seasons with Fluminese in Brazil before jetting off to Chinese Super League club Guangzhou Evergrande this summer to earn an annual salary of $10.4m. This puts him comfortably in the top ten best-paid footballers in world football. Conca is just one standout example of a wider trend.

Brazil, Russia and China, the new powerhouses of world football and possibly beyond? Brazil and Russia have booming and increasingly stable economies, rich sporting history (particularly in football) and they both will host World Cups (2014, 2018) and Olympics (Rio, Sochi) by the end of the decade. With these tournaments comes wholesale investment in sports clubs, infrastructure, TV deals and in the industry as a whole. China has already demonstrated they are ready to compete with the West in the sporting sphere.

Although the Carlos Tevez deal has many different contributing factors, it hints at the coming of this new world footballing order, the huge potential for the Brazilian league and the emergence of Brazil as a major player on to the world sporting scene. Russia and China are on the same path and there are sure to be other developing nations who follow their lead.

With thanks to Sean Williams, roving reporter in Brazil, for his insights

To see The Economist’s take on things read http://www.economist.com/node/18989277

AV and the Great Olympic Ticket Debate

The endless debate and general negativity surrounding the Olympic ticketing process for London 2012 has also been marked by a curious lack of credible alternatives being put forward.

At the outset I must reveal that I was fortunate enough to receive Olympic tickets for Hockey, Handball, Football and Beach Volleyball (14 tickets in all) from the opening ballot. Very lucky yes, but I would also claim I played the system fairly well with my initial choices.

It is also worth pointing the overall success of the initial sale, with 23 sports sold out a year in advance. To quote the former IOC Director Michael Payne, “In the 115-year history of the Games, there has not been such a successful Olympic ticket programme” with a “democratic ticket distribution process…that will become a model for future Games.”

Compare this to the swathes of empty seats in Athens 20004, the Beijing 2008 ticket queues and questionable distribution process, or even Sydney 2000, which sold 92% of tickets.

Worse still, we might even look at the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup (the ICC are currently investigating how thousands of World Cup tickets allegedly ended up on the black market or in the hands of VIPs, police or politicians) or the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which just months before the tournament had only sold 2.1m of 2.9m tickets, and 60,000 of 308,000 hospitality packages.

2011 ICC Cricket World Cup fans

Nevertheless, amidst the furore and attempts by LOCOG to ensure as many people get a chance in the second and third round of London 2012 ticket sales, it is worth asking; could there have been a better way? 

The answer may lie with 2011’s second most divisive process, the Alternative Vote (AV), the proposed change to the UK voting system that was so comprehensively crushed earlier this year. Or at least a version of it - I can hear electoral experts finding many flaws in my definition.

AV involves choosing your candidates in order of preference. AV when applied to the Olympic ticketing process could have seen the public choose their events by priority order.

 AV champion. Source: Liberal Democrats

An explanation: Apply for your Olympics tickets in rank order. The ballots for everyone’s first choice are held. Anyone who is unsuccessful is moved down into their second choice tickets ballot. And so on to third, fourth, fifth choice…

For example, you may have chosen four tickets to the 100m Final Athletics session as your first choice (along with 1m other people). If unsuccessful in this ballot (likely), you would drop down to the ballot for your second choice, four tickets to the Beach Volleyball. If you were unlucky enough to miss out on this (also very popular) sport, your third choice of the Basketball may have come up trumps. Otherwise, worst-case scenario, your fourth and fifth choices of Handball and Football are for you.

The main advantage of this system is that, rather than a random, scattergun approach, more people would actually have ended up with the tickets they really wanted. I am sure there are Swimming or Equestrian enthusiasts exasperated with a system that may have provided them with Gymnastics, Archery or Volleyball tickets, when in fact just one session at the Aquatic Centre or Greenwich Park would have sufficed.

Under the AV system, a good proportion of people would have got his or her first or second choice tickets (excepting those seeking ridiculously oversubscribed top level Athletics, Cycling and Swimming sessions).

 Will you be there? Source: Gerry Balding

Clearly plenty of people may still have missed out on their top choices, but by working down through their preferences would have ended up with at least some tickets. And clearly if the demand is not strong in certain sports, you could end up with plenty of tickets as you would be placed in every ballot you applied for until all the tickets are sold.

The chief problem with the process was the message of ‘Plan Your Games’ that the public was given by LOCOG, who probably never quite envisaged the surge of demand that took place. By encouraging people to aim high, to give them nothing in return was bound to cause some ill feeling.

If proof is required for the ability of my system to have worked, it was the numbers being provided by LOCOG that sparked off my thinking.

Around 6m tickets were available, 1.8m people applied. My mathematics suggests that to be 3-4 tickets per person. And often to that person’s first or second choice sport. Not too many would have complained.

Class is permanent. Form is fickle. A cricketing tale.

England must stick with their under-performing Test stars Broad, KP and Strauss

Friday 20^th August 2010. England v Pakistan. The third day of the Third test at The Oval. Alastair Cook is on 23 and playing for his England Test place. Wahab Riaz runs in and finds the edge as Cook plays a terribly unconvincing shot. 

Alastair Cook is caught at 2^nd slip and trudges off the field following another failure.

Successive scores of 8, 12, 17, 4, 6 and 23 finally convince the England selectors to make a change with only one more Test before the Ashes squad selection. Cook is dropped and not included in the squad to Australia. In his absence Jonathan Trott moves up to open, with Eoin Morgan brought into the side. In the event, England lose the First Test of the Ashes in Brisbane, falling 221 runs behind after the first innings and despite a valiant effort, are eventually beaten by 6 wickets. Australia ultimately retains The Ashes with a 3-1 victory.

Except this is not how events transpired. Cook’s loose cut outside his off-stump to Riaz dissected the slip cordon at easily catchable height with 2^nd and 3^rd slip leaving it for one another. I recall this moment very clearly as commentator Ramiz Raja wryly observed, "Shouting 'yours' is really not much use in the slips”. But more importantly, there was a real sense that something important might just have happened.

Arguably this was the most important ball in world cricket in 2010. Cook went on to score 110.

Image: cormac70

The rest is history. Cook went to Australia and produced one of the finest series displays of batting in history. He scored 235 not out in the First Test and dominated the Australian bowling attack from the outset, doing more than anyone else to secure a famous Ashes victory with an astonishing 766 runs and a world record time batting in a five Test series, 2,171 minutes (36 hours).

This immediately raises plenty of questions on form, class, belief in ability and confidence, and their relative importance in all team sport, not just cricket. If ‘form’ can be re-discovered as a result of a moment of lucky escape, should we not place more faith in long-term class? If confidence can be restored on the basis of one display, should we not place more faith in constant selection and loyalty?

Indeed, what is form? There is an argument to suggest, “form does not exist”. A player is either good or bad, form is fickle and one moment can change an entire notion of a player being in form. Perhaps this is too far, though I would advocate that maintaining confidence and technique are more important factors to focus on rather than any idea of ‘form’, especially for a player with the undoubted ability to have already reached the top level.

Cook is now relentlessly setting about breaking English cricket records. 67^th consecutive Test, a record. Youngest Englishman to 5,000 runs. Four centuries away from England’s record centurion-makers.

 Resurrection. Image: stuandgravy

The esteem with which our new ODI captain is held in by the England fans, media and selectors is a far cry from 12 months ago. Before his career-saving Pakistan century, the Daily Telegraph was running polls entitled “Can England afford to pick Alastair Cook for the Ashes tour?” The Evening Standard asserted that “If Alastair Cook fails one more time, then selectors must drop him” and message boards were awash with fans calling for Cook’s head.

Surely the example of Cook’s resurrection is a lesson to be learnt. Yet a similar level of clamour for dropping an England player has recently surfaced with Kevin Pietersen and the spotlight is currently fixed firmly on Stuart Broad and even more worryingly on Andrew Strauss. All are under pressure to justify their places in the England Test side.

Yes, these players have been slightly out of form, but not to the extent Cook was in 2010, and certainly not enough to warrant being discarded. Key to the success of this England team has been the consistency of selection and fostering of a strong team ethic.

Lessons should not only be learnt from the Cook case but also from comparison with our vanquished Australian opponents.

Australia chopped and changed through 17 players during The Ashes, particularly unsettling their bowling attack. Doherty, Beer, Smith, Harris, Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus – only Siddle was an ever-present and it showed. England on the other hand, made only one non-enforced change, when Bresnan came in for Finn prior to the 4^th Test.

 Australia in trouble. Image: piesgardiner

It has always struck me as a universal truth that the best teams in sport, and particularly cricket, are those who keep faith with their chosen men and build a winning side with a strong team mentality. 

Continuity, a winning mentality and a strong unit breeds success. The Australian cricket team of the 1990s and early 2000s was characterised by an almost unshakeable faith that an under-pressure player would come good. Players should only be dropped when performances and technique are dire or a young pretender is making strides impossible to ignore. Too often media and fans leap on to the next out-of-form target for criticism overly hastily.

Class is permanent and worth persevering with, as Alastair Cook demonstrated. The England cricketers deserve support for the entire summer series with India and the chance to finish off a spectacular 12 months.