In all that we do, we care about football,’ profess UEFA, and as governing body of football across Europe their constituency is a varied one. From the European Championships and the flagship Champions League to the grass roots of youth and women’s football – UEFA’s net is huge.

As part of their pledge to promote, protect and develop football at every level of the game, UEFA aim to harness the principles of unity and solidarity, and it is in respect of a new wave of transparency that emanates from the corridors of power in Nyon, Switzerland, that UEFA Director of Communications and Public Affairs, William Gaillard, speaks to Football Business magazine.

Professor Chris Brady is Dean of the Business School at Bournemouth University and author of the book ‘The 90-minute Manager’. One of the industry’s most forward-thinking people, his expertise lies in the relationships that exist between football management and business management, and how ultimately the game may have to reinvent itself around a commercial control mechanism if it is to realise its full potential.

John Williams is Director of the Centre for the Sociology of Sport at the University of Leicester, and has been working in research on English football fans and football fan culture for over 20 years. He is a prolific author on the sport and its sociological impact.

Matthew Holt was recipient of the FIFA Joao Havelange Research Scholarship for his piece ‘The Governance and Regulation of European Football by UEFA’, whilst at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is currently based in the National Sport Team at Sport England.

First then to Gaillard, and if his key role near the summit of UEFA seems like a tough job, he scarcely shows it, admitting to having been more troubled this year by the inconsistencies of his beloved Roma – not least their humiliating Champions League venture at Old Trafford back in April.

William Gaillard:Well, you have to look no further than the fact that Michel is a football man, having played the game at the top level and having also lifted the European Cup. Now he has risen to the summit on the administration side and I am sure he will do a great job for European football. Of course, we have many important issues facing the game at the current time, most notably problems to be addressed with racism, hooliganism and the overriding influence of a few very wealthy individuals and clubs in the game.

For that reason we have been working hard to address these subjects, and Michel has been outwardly strengthening links with all our national associations, EU institutions and politicians, in support of the ‘Independent European Sport Review’. The full understanding and interpretation of its findings will give us increased knowledge and clarity with which to tackle such issues, though we must not forget that overall the general health of the game and its popularity has never been higher.

Matthew Holt: As expected, the ‘Independent European Sports Review’ has provided a range of positive recommendations about how the game in Europe should be governed in the future. It would be good to see UEFA developing a greater regulatory role and I think the significance of the European game today requires this.

The recommendations of the review will, however, be challenged politically by the big clubs and national leagues, who view the guidelines as an attempt by UEFA to regain power at their expense. It will be interesting to see whether supporters of the review can generate sufficient momentum to deliver the recommendations.

There is also some clarity needed with regard to the authority of sports governing bodies in respect of European law. The institutions of the European Union need to recognise that sport is different, and without giving UEFA carte blanche to do as it pleases, it needs to at least provide the space in which the football body can operate effectively and without constant fear of legal challenge.

John Williams: In this day and age, it is increasingly difficult for a governing body to maintain responsibility across such a wide member base, but the concept remains realistic and very important, as the alternative is to leave the field open to finance & craven self interest.

I feel UEFA has a lot of public support in Europe for what it is trying to do, and I think most people now understand that the market does not necessarily have all the answers, and that managing international sporting competition for common interest requires the operation of other values too. To still exist as an entity, even in a borderless European market, means UEFA still serves a very useful function, overseeing the most successful club competition in the history of European sport – and one which has not been dominated by any one country or club.

They have also helped maintain the huge public interest in international football under the assault from the major clubs in Europe and their coaches, offering a redistributive philosophy and policy of sorts, even if it is limited in its effects. They have tried to limit the impact of larger clubs chasing very young prospects across national boundaries – these are pretty impressive achievements against considerable club power.
Chris Brady: UEFA remain onside in most areas, though I feel there is the increasing need to embrace the real events behind the relationship between football and business. Our governing bodies need to be more alive to it than ever before, and they need to understand the process that is coming about, because it is coming around quickly.

For example, having Americans invest in our game is not a threat, but the best thing that has ever happened to football. They might not know much about the sport, but because they understand the business elements, they are prompting a movement in the game that sees the removal of the sometimes dangerous groups of people in charge who take on football as a hobby. Instead, you have people like Stan Kroenke who has a huge number sport franchises, from basketball to MLS to NFL, and someone who understands the business of the industry no matter what shape the ball is.

So when he buys into this he buys into the business of football. He doesn’t have much knowledge of the sport and why should he need it? He has got managers and coaches to do that. What he understands is managing and marketing and the business discipline of sport which he applies. This game is getting more and more like that and we shouldn’t fear it.

William Gaillard: The important thing is for football clubs to avoid the boom and bust scenarios that we have seen over the years. Respective governing bodies have their own methods of protecting against this, though the ideal ownership scheme in our eyes would be along the lines of the ‘socios’ system in Spain, whereby not only do the club’s fans have a share in the club, but also have a say in who runs it by voting for and electing the President. We obviously have to use the experiences of our member clubs to try to go out and advise others on what might work as a format elsewhere.

Of course, the Champions League remains the jewel in our club crown. The new brand for the cycle up until 2009 falls under the banner ‘The Ultimate Stage’, and has already proved highly successful with the implementation both onair and off-air, namely with our sponsor partners activating their campaigns, using the toolkits provided centrally by UEFA.

Combine that with the licensing program – an ongoing initiative that has attracted a number of key partners now working specifically with the UEFA Champions League brand, and once more the commerciality of the competition is there for all to see, with the 2007/08 season grossing an estimated 750million Euros.

With money being passed back to football, we are constantly striving to improve these revenues, though obviously at their current level they make the game as prosperous as it has ever been and that must be applauded.

The possible restriction of qualifying Champions League places to three has been discussed and has warranted significant press attention. Of course, it is an interesting proposal, but one that will be judged at a later date, when discussions begin with all of European football’s stakeholders, including national associations, leagues, and clubs.
Matthew Holt: UEFA has been enormously successful in developing club competition in Europe. There was initially a lot of public scepticism about the expansion of the Champions League to include clubs that were not their national champions, but the competition has been an enormous success, both financially and also in sporting terms. It is enormously competitive, the standard of play is the highest of any football being played anywhere in the world, and it is a real showpiece event. Its true talent is in its maintaining of an excellent balance between offering representation to teams across Europe, whilst also ensuring the best teams continue to participate.
John Williams: It seems to me that control by UEFA over the Champions League clubs needs to be tied a little more strongly to its defining role in international football. Michel Platini seems to be trying to play some clever cards here in the form of Champions League play-offs between the 4th-place teams in the major leagues, so there are ultimately more places for champion clubs from smaller nations. This is a shrewd tactic, but the brand value of the Champions League, and the very thing that makes it so attractive to television and sponsors, is its role in bringing together the world’s greatest teams and clubs in intense competition.

The entry of weaker clubs – and thus of more one-sided contests and a lower quality football – risks diluting the brand. I think the reality is that, like all of the older modernist federated bodies in global sport, UEFA is having to come to terms with a new world order. Globalisation has erased some of the power and the importance of the nation state, and the increasingly powerful domestic commercially run bodies (such as the Premier League) are no longer so easily contained by their national boundaries. Indeed the new power brokers in global football are the new football ‘city states’ of Europe, the dominant Champions League clubs from Madrid, Milan, Manchester etc.

These clubs and leagues recruit internationally today and the scope of their markets and influence spreads way beyond Europe. They work mainly on the basis of borderless free market principles whereas UEFA has to manage the game within one continent, trying to protect its smaller members while also attempting to demonstrate its continuing relevance to the ambitious elite. Admittedly, this is no easy task and the tensions are obvious.

I think UEFA has been trying to adapt, by being strategic, and a big part of that is keeping the G14 on board and reasonably under control. Some may see this as appeasement, but I think UEFA has struck a reasonable balance. Platini and the proposed new rules regarding foreign players in Champions League squads may signal a rather more proactive approach from the governing body in future: a fightback that is likely to be supported by many national governments in Europe, given the recent European review.
Chris Brady: I think it’s inevitable that UEFA will find themselves forced to embrace the principles being put forward by the G14 and commerciality in football, in general. Do you have to be respectful of nostalgia and business? Is there a duty of sentiment? No.

There is nothing that will stop people going to football – it’s addictive. It’s just a question of liberating thinking and allowing people will come up with new ideas, and those ideas will generally come from the most important and the most powerful clubs. There will be a backlash between protecting the game and embracing new ideas, but it’s inconceivable and terribly naive to think that UEFA hold all of the cards in this sort of negotiation.

William Gaillard: As I have said before, there is no real need for such a group. Of course we welcome the input of the leading forces in the game, but as a collective entity this is a negative force, and as such UEFA does not recognise it.

We have excellent relationships with all clubs, but that is not the case with the G14. What they are generally proposing would signal an end of the European model of football, banishing promotion and relegation to bring about an American-style closed league. This cannot be good for business across the board, and is certainly not what we would term ‘progress’. Chris Brady: We need to address the issues in new ways that reflect the everchanging business and commercial landscape that football finds itself in. If the G14 wanted to go off and produce a European Super League by themselves, the only thing the respective Football Associations could do would be to ban the players from playing for their countries. Would the players care that much? What might count is if the fans care enough to object, on the basis that their national team will suffer. Regardless, UEFA have to be careful because these conversations within clubs are ongoing, and light plans are constantly being sketched, even to the extent of clubs being identified as expansion clubs for the second phase of Super League recruitment process.

The business model is sound and that is why these plans are progressively moving towards reality, with a set-up that complements the club giants of Europe with a national feeder league back home. In other words instead of using Royal Antwerp as their farm club, Manchester United might choose Crewe Alexandra.

The process can ensure a better end product for everyone because there will be a regular and formal flow of money, with clubs operating a number of sides competing in formal reserve leagues at various levels down the ladder. Players would have the freedom to drop down or step up leagues within their sides in much the same way as local district football outfits are structured, so that a club might have 100 players at different levels, instead of thirty.

There will be rules about how they move around, but the set-up would ensure that the money filters down, and that clubs are definitely protecting and safeguarding the interests of others at the foot of the structure who are, at the moment, being seen to struggle. It’s radical and I’m not saying it is going to happen, but it is the most logical business opportunity.

Did the FA miss a trick 15 years ago when the FA broke away? Probably. They should have created the process themselves in the same way as an NFL commissioner, so instead of agreeing to just sanction the project, they would have elected and employed a commissioner who would have been responsible for earning the member clubs money. One way of earning money is making sure the game is run well.

This is UEFA’s opportunity and well as their threat, because I don’t feel there is a separation between governance and legislation. I feel that good governance and good regulation actually allows good business. After all, that is why we regulate the City in finance and have a Financial Services Authority so that we can all make more money.

Along with ground-sharing, salarycapping and artificial pitches, G14 and Super League plans in general may seem radical, but any fan putting his or her football head to one side will see that more and more investors with less and less attachment to the traditions of the game will find themselves asking how workable these changes are.

UEFA has to either incorporate such initiatives, or accept that the conversations will happen anyway, because if the clubs decide to go out on our own, they know they can earn twice as much than if they stay with UEFA. If they worked together and asked how they could move it along with UEFA overseeing matters of a Super League with collective bargaining rights then there’s a good chance, but one suspects they will be very entrenched.

For as long as there is a middle-man, be that UEFA or anyone else, the businesses and clubs will know that money is going elsewhere when it might otherwise be going straight into their own pockets.
Matthew Holt: I still believe that so long as UEFA delivers the Champions League as professionally and effectively as it has done to date, providing high levels of revenue to the biggest clubs in the context of a high-quality event, the organisation is likely to be well placed, despite the mutterings of the G14. I think UEFA needs to move from being predominantly an organiser of competitions to taking a more hands-on regulatory role and it is attempting to achieve this. In the highly political world of European football, however, there will be other organisations that attempt to resist this in pursuit of their own objectives.
It is clear that the growing importance of the European game – at the expense of football taking place in other continents, and also at the expense of national competitions within Europe – requires a greater level of regulation at European level. The top clubs in Europe are in increasing competition with each other and that necessitates more consistent regulation across the continent with regard to agents, transfer regulations, the composition of teams and so on. There is a growing desire within UEFA to develop this role, but it will be a challenge considering the diversity of the game across Europe.
John Williams: ‘Place’ still means something both for clubs and especially for international team football, and UEFA ought to say much more about its success at bringing together people from across the globe and across Europe in friendly sporting competition.

There is emotion in any commercial negotiation. UEFA’s key leverage here, of course, is still its federated members’ control of international football. Despite arguments to the contrary, all players still want to play for their countries and there is very little evidence that the major events – World Cup, Euros etc – are losing their essential attractiveness. Not only is this an argument for holding back the G14, but furthermore as football becomes ever more commercialised and the rich become more powerful, it is entirely possible that international football may actually grow in both value and cultural importance to fans and players.

William Gaillard: The support of grassroots football is paramount to the work that we do because it forms the foundations of the game. We are supporting all sorts of grassroots activities through our youth tournaments, the development of the indoor game, ‘Futsal’, not to mention womens’ football.

In addition we are of course using the popularity of the UEFA Champions League to spread the word of football to youngsters through promotions like the ‘Young Champions’ that takes place around the UEFA Champions League Final every year.

Of course, the grassroots of football is also where we can have most effect and most impact with the education of the game, and where we can press home the importance of mutual respect, conduct and the right way to play the game. Racism and hooliganism that affect the social and business reputation of the
William Gaillard: The support of grassroots football is paramount to the work that we do because it forms the foundations of the game. We are supporting all sorts of grassroots activities through our youth tournaments, the development of the indoor game, ‘Futsal’, not to mention womens’ football. In addition we are of course using the popularity of the UEFA Champions League to spread the word of football to youngsters through promotions like the ‘Young Champions’ that takes place around the UEFA Champions League Final every year. Of course, the grassroots of football is also where we can have most effect and most impact with the education of the game, and where we can press home the importance of mutual respect, conduct and the right way to play the game.

Racism and hooliganism that affect the social and business reputation of the