from the BBC
Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein has said that the G-14 grouping of football's wealthiest clubs is looking to build bridges with the game's authorities, such as Fifa.
Last month, Mr Dein took over the reins at the organisation, which represents 18 of Europe's major clubs. He has promised an end to the tension between the top clubs and football's world governing body, Fifa.
"G-14 is a friend of the game," he told delegates at the Soccerex football finance seminar in Dubai.
"It is not just for the good and great, the rich and famous. It is clubs that are similar in many respects because of their success, or the money they generate."
He pointed to the fact that G-14 was backing non-members Newcastle United and Charleroi, and other clubs, in their legal disputes with the FA and Fifa over compensation for players who return injured from international duty.
G-14 MEMBERS
AC Milan
Ajax
Borussia Dortmund
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Juventus
Liverpool
Manchester United
Olympique Lyonnais
Paris Saint-Germain
Porto
PSV Eindhoven
Real Madrid
Arsenal
Bayer Leverkusen
Olympique Marseille
Valencia
Mr Dein said that since the Champions League had moved to a group format in 1992/93, all bar one of the finalists had been G-14 members.
"G-14 is delivering the product," he said, adding that the success of its member clubs had a positive impact in driving up TV and merchandising revenues for all clubs.
On one of the thorniest issues in football today, namely who should insure club players on international duty and pay compensation if they are then injured, he said he believed a solution was in sight.
Mr Dein said cases such as that of Belgian club Charleroi, who have taken Fifa to the European Court of Justice over the issue, could be settled out of court.
"This is one of the oldest subjects (for clubs), it is being spoken about at all major meetings, about players being injured," he said. "There has to be compensation - it is not unreasonable."
Mr Dein said he agreed with Fifa president Sepp Blatter's view that it was an honour for club players to play for their country.
"But... the clubs that release players should get paid for releasing players," he said. "The good news is that the issue is on the agenda now."
G-14 represents Europe's wealthiest football clubs
Mr Dein said he believed a solution to move forward amicably with football's governing authorities was nearly in sight.
"I believe in the not-too-distant future that a formula can be drawn up, and these (court) cases can be put aside," he said.
The Arsenal vice-chairman, who also sits on Fifa's club forum, said he believed the way forward was for either Fifa or European confederation Uefa to buy insurance for players participating in major tournaments, such as the World Cup or European Championship.
As for friendly matches, national football associations could pick up the insurance tab, he suggested.
"Fifa said it would take a lot of organising, but they can sub-contract it out to one of the top insurance companies," Mr Dein said.
We live in a free-market economy, how can we stop someone investing in the game they love?
One issue over which G-14 is still at loggerheads with Fifa is the international fixture calendar.
"The August international friendly has to come off the calendar, and maybe the November fixture," Mr Dein said.
He also rejected a suggestion by Mr Blatter that six "home-grown" players should feature in every professional club's 11-man side.
"As an English club we want to have a base of English players if we can," he said, adding that Arsenal spent £3m to £4m a year nurturing local talent.
"But if it is not there, we have to buy-in talent from overseas."
Mr Dein warned that any attempt to impose player quotas would fly in the face of European employment legislation, and would end up in the courts.
Turning to the issue of player agents in the domestic game - a topic increasingly under the microscope in England - he said they had a "crucial role in guiding their players".
However, he added: "There has to be more control, because it has been a bit of the 'Wild West' over the past few years.
"The majority are good agents, but there are some who play fast and loose with the rules."
The English Premiership has seen an increasing number of overseas millionaire and billionaire owners, such as at Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, and more recently West Ham, leading some to worry about the motives of the buyers.
Earlier, Mr Blatter told the Soccerex gathering that he was not concerned about big investors in England, but added "we need to see where is the money coming from and where is it going".
Responding, Mr Dein said: "We live in a free-market economy. How can we stop someone investing in the game they love? Whatever we think, they are there, and we will see a lot more of them."
0
Comments
Agreed SS, foook orf and play with ya big money mates!!
So how then Mr Dein do you become a member of G-14 ?
Buy your way in???
Ajax
Borussia Dortmund
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Juventus
Liverpool
Manchester United
Olympique Lyonnais
Paris Saint-Germain
Porto
PSV Eindhoven
Real Madrid
Arsenal
Bayer Leverkusen
Olympique Marseille
Valencia
...........
Worth noting that Chelsea aren't a member...
The current CL format was set up to allow the more prestigious teams in Europe to make more money from TV revenue. The danger was that they'd resign en-masse from their respective national leagues and form their own league along with any willing other teams. If they did there'd be little that the national FA's or UEFA/FIFA could do to stop them. The CL format isn't about "free trade" but about protectionism and greed by the big clubs. Prior to the CL format only one team from any nation could enter the European Club (plus the winner) and as the European Cup was the most prestigious European if not World club championship, it would attract the highest TV and sponsorship revenues. Simply put having say Man U qualify prevented Arsenal/Liverpool etc qualifying and meant that they would miss out on the considerable extra sponsorship/TV revenues.
The football side of the competition is great, we now get to see the best clubs in Europe and the best players regularly playing each other, rather than once every so often and that has enhanced the value of the product on offer. On the negative side it's created an unfair market, despite Dein's comments, we all know that Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are favourites to finish in the top four and thus win the real prize - access to the £15-20M of extra revenue the next season. Maybe once in a while one of those four will screw up and allow in Everton/Spurs or Newcastle, but even when that happened Liverpool lobbied successfully to be let in, having been excluded for not finishing in the top four although they did win the CL that year. I think I'm right in saying that the year they won the CL they qualified with a points total closer to that of the last relegated place than the team who won the EPL that year.
Nope, it isn't about "free trade", or sport, just about raking more money in for the top clubs and their owners.
Its nice in theory, but it will never work. Sadly, i think what we have at the moment is the best compromise. Domestically, we need to retain the big clubs purely for tv money.
It will only last a few years however before the G-14 will try to think of ways to stretch revenue streams further.