La Liga Strike Threat: The Dispute With The GovernmentComplications are mounting, and debts are rising... The LFP finds itself unable to stick to a 1997 law—called the “Law of Football”—which obliges one match to be freely broadcasted live on terrestrial TV every week, as football is considered ‘of general interest’ to the public. The association is asking the government to let the game—usually shown on Saturday nights—to be budged to pay-per-view or satellite channels, as it believes that the system in England, Germany, Italy and France should be followed.
It is understood that clubs in Spain lose up to £200m per season on account of the current law in place; yet, this is a huge sum that could be of great help financially to the victims. A mighty change is thus requested by the LFP, but there are signs of reluctance from the government—who is not quite ready to chime in with the proposal received.
The LFP’s case has presumably been well presented before the government. The association’s president José Luis Astiazarán is persuaded that the Liga de Fútbol Profesional does not need to give out any further argument or evidence, as the next step has to be taken by those in control of the law.
He stressed: “The Government and Sports Council know perfectly well what our demands are. But there has been no significant progress...”
The distribution of gambling revenue is also another subject in the LFP’s protest file, and Astiazarán has warned that La Liga could sink in deeper peril if his group’s call was not heard. Although he assured followers of the Primera Division that the ongoing league season would finish anyway, he informed that a delay in the start of the 2011/12 season could occur.
Secretary of state for sport Jaime Lissavetzky however does not believe that the professional football league is cleverly walking on the right path. He reminded several days ago that a television media law had been successfully voted a year ago, and attested that this was the wrong moment to make a U-turn.
He called for “common sense” and professionalism on behalf of the LFP, and expressed his confidence over a positive sorting out of the shambles. “I think through dialogue, common sense, and by working together, it can be overcome,” he stated. “With maximum respect for the LFP and clubs, I am not going to say anything that may disrupt this process.”
Of course, not all clubs in La Liga have agreed to back the LFP upon their decision. Although the Spanish football federation (RFEF) is firmly behind the postponment plan, six clubs have openly articulated their objections: Sevilla, Villarreal, Athletic Bilbao, Real Zaragoza, Espanyol and Real Sociedad.
The objectors filed a legal challenge on Wednesday in a Madrid court in an attempt to stop the strike from taking place. The complainers bared their eagerness to go on with their games early in April, having asked the federation to give them the occasion and referees to proceed with their normal agendas.
Sevilla FC described the imminent strike on their official website as “disproportionate, inopportune, against the interest of clubs, against the competition and against supporters and the law.” The Andalusian club president Jose Maria del Nido explained the LFP made their demands at the wrong time, and criticised the fact that a strike would force devotees of La Liga to pay the price. He nevertheless revealed his accord over a change in the revenue system for clubs.
Whilst lower teams in the league are determined to make the right alterations to the system in order to enjoy a fair share of profits, giants FC Barcelona and Real Madrid currently appear to be excessively favoured. “It is shameful the Spanish league has the most unequal distribution of turnover in Europe,” del Nido blatantly said. “We are opposed to anything which means that Barcelona and Real Madrid will earn more to increase the gap between them and the rest.”
Villarreal president Fernando Roig showed support for the professional soccer league, but reproached the association for putting the Primera Division’s structure at risk: “It is not a good thing given what this country (Spain) is going through at the moment for management to go on strike,” Roig told Villarrealcf.es.
"I agree that the best way forward is through dialogue. I do not agree that the right path is a postponement.”
A suspension of the round of matches on April 2/3 would push La Liga’s final matchday to June 11/12—three weeks after the initially-scheduled end of the 2010/11 league season. This is something the Athletic Bilbao club is also against: “Our entity totally disagrees with the negotiation strategy and the forced measures taken,” their statement read.
While some football pundits think that a strike looks unlikely to happen following the high complexity of the issue involving the Spanish government, other football followers are patiently awaiting the postponement of Day 30 in La Liga.
President Astiazarán admitted that there were “very little chances” that the LFP’s strike action would be stopped, despite the association’s respect for the dissenting clubs. A Madrid court involved in the problem has requested further arguments from the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional and the G-6, before deciding on whether the planned strike should be cancelled or not.
The hearing is set to have effect on Tuesday, but thus far, there are high probabilities that the postponement will follow. If that ever happens, then it will come out as a huge disappointment for Lissavetzky, who earlier on emphasized: “When the players threatened a strike (some time ago), there was an extraordinary effort by everyone (to prevent it).”
At this point, there certainly has to be a loser. Either followers of La Liga will pay the price, or the LFP will have their appeal turned down. In the event of a differing and advantageous scenario, then a miracle will have to transpire.