Perhaps JPMorgan Chase is too rich and powerful to be cared for. They definitely surprised him. It can be assumed that CEOs in Europe failed to warn presidents in New York that the multi-million dollar plan to change the face of European football, in favor of the owners of about a dozen super-rich clubs, risks starting a storm. Policy.
As a financial sponsor for European Premier LeagueThe US bank can now take some comfort in the fact that the idea quickly collapsed under the weight of the protests. Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and French President Emmanuel Macron often disagreed on something, but the views of Downing Street and the Elysee were similar.
Here was a group of globalizationists on Wall Street seeking to reorganize the most popular game in Europe without regard to the opinions or concerns of coaches, players and fans. JPMorgan Chase can at least prepare now to limit reputation damage.
But You have to wonder what the bank was thinking when it agreed to sign the new competition for 3,250 million euros.Each member promised to pay an initial payment of between 200 and 300 million euros. Twelve clubs have already been registered.
Apparently, no one at JPMorgan Chase has read the letter to shareholders that its Chairman and CEO Jimmy Dimon wrote in the bank’s most recent annual report. Released just this month, it demonstrated Dimon’s well-publicized effort to position the bank as a pioneer in the happy new world of socially responsible and sustainable capitalism.
He focused particularly on how the bank’s values align with those of the “communities” in which it operates around the world: “As you know, we have long championed the fundamental role of banking in society: its potential to unite people, to allow companies and individuals to fulfill their dreams.”
They say this to players and fans at such holy institutions Manchester United and LiverpoolAnd the societies in which these great teams originated. The plan to replace the current Champions League with a “close” competition between the richest clubs in Europe promised to break the game’s traditions, destroy its competitive spirit and mock the towns and cities where the teams had taken root.
Forget “societies”. This was an arrangement that perfectly illustrated everything that was wrong with the globalization of “anything goes”. The new league is designed with one purpose: to extract a greater portion of the royalties’ revenue for wealthy owners. Ensure that their returns are stable by eliminating the risk of a club being excluded from the competition.
The flip side was that it would have eliminated the game’s competitive momentum. This is what makes football exciting: Open tournaments that reward success on the field with a chance to climb to the top, and along the way, defeat the powerful when their performances decline. In the new scheme of things, local fans – once again those “communities” – will be relegated to second only to profitable digital subscribers thousands of miles away. Fans could have been called “abandoned.”
The pandemic, which has ravaged the finances of many sports, played its part. And four of the 12 clubs joined by American owners may have assumed that a closed system that appears to work for baseball and soccer could be moved to the other side of the Atlantic. But this is one of the concepts of globalization. You should be able to sell the same everywhere.
I still hear from people baffled by the rise of populism. Really there is no mystery. The rebellions against the elites are based on the perception – often fair – that the system was rigged. The benefits of globalization and technological progress have been seized by the wealthy, while those at the bottom of the ladder have been forced to confront economic insecurity. Unbridled capitalism trampled on traditions and contemplated the interests of local communities.
Premier League football club owners have suggested applying this formula to European football. In the description of Alexander Ceferin, president of the European Sports Federation, the plan was to create “a closed shop run by a few greedy people”. Almost everyone who has a role or fleeting interest in the so-called beautiful game agrees with it. Damon now wishes to wonder how JP Morgan Chase found himself on the wrong side of this argument.