December 17 – A report has been released that predicts that the proposal has been made prior to FIFA’s proposal for the FIFA’s highly proud Global Summit on the future of football, especially the biennial World Cup, which focuses on the international calendar. The European Federation will lose profits. 2.5 to 3 billion euros in 4 years.
The report by sports consultancy Oliver & Ohlbaum, commissioned by UEFA, is based on a consumer survey assessing biennial World Cup demand, discussions with broadcasters and sponsors on their willingness to change international calendars, and the impact of both. I am. Income, and ultimately the money that will be paid to the membership association.
“In the 2026-30 cycle, we have found that under the biennial WC, the impact is very negative in all scenarios, including the scenario where the biennial euro also occurs – UEFA revenue is 46. It will decrease from € 100 million to € 4.2 billion in two eligible block scenarios (-9%) (blocks are expanded international windows) and € 4 billion in one eligible block scenario (-13%). “The report states.
“The resulting UEFA distribution will be reduced from € 3.6 billion (-39%) in two eligible blocks to € 2 billion (-44%) in one eligible block. This is because the additional revenue will decrease and the cost will increase. Euro. “
It is important for UEFA members that the money they receive from European governing bodies is reduced by 54% in two qualifying block scenarios and 64% in one qualifying block.
However, the report states that financial distress will not end there, with national associations’ match-day direct income of one in two eligible blocks (-41%) ranging from € 500 million to € 300 million. Eligible blocks are expected to drop to € 200 million. Meanwhile, direct sponsorship revenues will decrease from € 2.6 billion to € 1.7 billion in two eligible blocks (-35%) and € 1.5 billion in one eligible block (-41%).
“Overall, UEFA NA will see a decline in revenue between € 2.5 billion and € 3 billion,” the report said.
And that’s not the only pain. “In the case of euros every four years (reschedule), the impact on both revenue and distribution is even greater (up to € 3.3 billion),” the report said.
For women’s games, the impact can be even more devastating. Women’s football ratings will drop significantly, especially if men’s tournaments are held in the same year. “If the women’s competition is not biennial (-57%), the revenue of the women’s euro will decrease from 102 million euros to 44 million euros to 78 euros. Even if it is held every other year, it will reach 1 million people. (Although the number of tournaments has doubled, -24%). “
Consumer surveys support the projected numbers, saying that watching big events, increasing the value of media and sponsorship, and most of the people attending the match don’t really want to increase the World Cup. It is the result of the consumer survey.
According to an O & O survey, 40% expect less viewing of knockouts and group matches, 30% expect less viewing of UEFA European Championships and national football, and 60% believe that WC’s fame will decline.
Thick 65% think there is too much international football.
Of course FIFA doesn’t think so. Five hours after UEFA released its O & O report, the World Governance Authority released its own findings and found 30,390 people who said football was their favorite sport. At the frequent Men’s FIFA World Cup, where 63.7% of fans want to see more, 23.3% probably respond, 11% disagree, and 2% have no opinion.
According to a FIFA survey, 52.4% of fans want to see the more frequent FIFA Women’s World Cup, 28.4% probably respond, 13.5% disagree, and 5.7% have no opinion. Also, the most suitable age group for hosting the FIFA World Cup for men and women more often is 25-34 years old, with players over 55 being the most opposed.
So who can believe it? And where is your motive?
After all, it’s all about money, not fans, as long as you only provide the numbers that are the route to money.
FIFA is the only winner of the proposal data ever seen. FIFA claims to mean more money for all national associations in the world, but the data seen so far does not reflect that.
Of course, that means more money for FIFA and, like Africa and its fantastic leadership, has the added benefit of territorial acquisition that it is likely to be able to dominate more coalitions.
UEFA, which said the report is “warning,” points out that it is not only a financially bad plan, but also of no benefit to players.
“The announced purpose of reducing the burden on the player’s calendar is at odds with the duplication of final tournaments ending each season in the World Cup or Confederation Championships. Tournaments of such intensity are the spirit of the players. It cannot be repeated each year without increasing physical and physical fatigue, “says UEFA.
UEFA also pointed out that increasing the number of World Cups does not increase opportunities for everyone and is likely to decrease them.
“By increasing the number of final tournaments and reducing qualifying, players with the busiest schedule will be able to play more and all other players will have fewer calendars. The same will happen to their national team. Teams that do not reach the final tournament with the proposed scheme will not only have fewer matches in total, but will also lose regular contact with the fan base due to long-term inactivity. ” I am saying.
Contact the writer of this story moc.l1639762182labto1639762182ofdlr1639762182owedi1639762182sni @ n1639762182osloh1639762182cin.l1639762182uap1639762182
– Soccer Sports
According to the report, the biennial WC will kill more than € 2.5 billion in European revenues. FIFA says it for fans
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2021/12/17/report-says-biennial-wc-kill-e2-5bn-european-revenue-fifa-says-fans/ According to the report, the biennial WC will kill more than € 2.5 billion in European revenues. FIFA says it for fans