Gianni Infantino, FIFA and FFE: The Inside Story with Martyn Ziegler

The journalist who broke the story joined The Fussball Channel.

The Times’ Chief Sports Reporter Martyn Ziegler joined Jan Åge Fjørtoft and Markus Fjørtoft to take us inside Gianni Infantino’s failed attempt to sell a stake in FIFA’s commercial and competition business, including the Men’s World Cup, to private investors.

We discuss how the story was uncovered, why the proposal unravelled, the unprecedented power struggle now taking place inside world football, whether Infantino can survive as FIFA president, and whether replacing him would actually change FIFA.

IN THIS EPISODE

• How Martyn Ziegler first discovered the secret FIFA proposal.

• What Gianni Infantino was trying to achieve with FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

• Why the proposal unravelled so quickly once it became public.

• The reported $40 million offer to FIFA member associations that supported the deal.

• Why Ziegler describes the current battle inside FIFA as an unprecedented “civil war”.

• The growing opposition to Infantino and whether he can survive as FIFA president.

• Who could potentially succeed Infantino.

• The bigger question: would replacing the president actually reform FIFA?

WATCH & LISTEN

YouTube:Watch the full episode on The Fussball Channel
Spotify:Listen to The Fussball Channel
Apple Podcasts:Listen on Apple Podcasts

• Full Transcript

  00:00 — Markus:
  Hi, and welcome to The Fussball Channel. I'm your host Markus Fjørtoft and, as always, joined by co-host Jan Åge Fjørtoft.

  As the drama continues to unfold following Gianni Infantino's failed attempt to sell a stake in FIFA's commercial business, we are joined by the person who first broke the story, Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter at The Times, who has been at the forefront of reporting ever since.

  Martyn, it's a great pleasure to have you on the show.

  00:31 — Martyn:
  Great to be with you both.

  00:34 — Markus:
  Before we get into the present state of things, I want to take us to the beginning, to that initial moment when you first heard about it. I would love to get a little insight into how that came about.

  00:47 — Martyn:
  Yeah, so I had a meeting with a trusted contact of mine. He said he wanted to talk about something, and then showed me a document which basically explained what was happening with this idea of selling off FIFA tournaments — in particular the Men's World Cup — to private investors, or a share, a stake, in this new company, this new enterprise.

  So that was the first I knew about it. I wasn't particularly surprised because we know back in 2018 Gianni Infantino tried to involve private investors — not for the World Cup, but with setting up a new Club World Cup. So, to me, it wasn't a huge surprise. But I thought, well, this is a big story if I can get it confirmed.

  01:52 — Markus:
  In terms of the overall strategic element as well, obviously it unravelled rather quickly. Is it a case of him underestimating the reaction? Is it a case of, as you and I have discussed, having the God syndrome where you feel like you are untouchable because of everything you've gone through?

  You've obviously been following him for a while in terms of how he operates and things. What do you think was going through his head?

  02:16 — Martyn:
  Yeah, clearly the idea had been in his mind for many months.

  Some other things that I've learned — people with knowledge of the discussions have said — is that they confirmed that Joshua Kushner was going to be the lead investor. That's quite significant because obviously Jared Kushner, his brother, the son-in-law of Donald Trump, became very close to Infantino back in 2018 when the USA was bidding for the World Cup. So they had maintained this relationship.

  That was pretty significant.

  And if you look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, at all these things that FIFA was doing, and Gianni Infantino in particular was doing, before the World Cup — removing two matches of the ban of Cristiano Ronaldo, announcing hydration breaks with every match, the Peace Prize with Donald Trump, really crazy ticket prices, and then perhaps even the Balogun decision to remove the suspension during the World Cup — to me, those always seemed like Infantino was putting out a message to potential investors, saying:

  "Look, we can control the tournament to make sure it's the biggest commercial success, and it's going to be even bigger if you come on board. We know we can make the decisions that can make it a success commercially."

  Even the halftime show, which is in clear breach of FIFA's own rules over the length of time that the halftime break was.

  The message is: rules don't count. We will do what is necessary for commercial success.

  So you mentioned the God syndrome, or the Icarus syndrome. I think that's right. He went higher and higher and higher, but this time he flew too close to the sun, and it all collapsed.

  04:15 — Jan:
  What's the biggest surprise in terms of the people in and around football?

  Football is — you could argue — the biggest entertainment business in the world. And somehow, sports in general, but football after Havelange and Blatter and Infantino...

  All these people in and around football, not saying anything, just sitting there. Different reasons for that.

  But when you go after your stories, how surprising is it that strong people don't have the — pardon my French — balls to talk or speak up?

  And Lise Klaveness is maybe a bad example of my metaphor there! But Lise Klaveness is one of ours who absolutely started with the Peace Prize and everything.

  How surprised are you when you see people who have big titles, big wages, don't say anything?

  05:18 — Martyn:
  Well, I think it's because it's a process. These things happen bit by bit.

  So the Peace Prize and things like that — yes, we had Lise Klaveness talking about it, but other national associations were reluctant to be drawn into that. And even among confederation leaders, people were maybe talking privately, criticising it, but no one was prepared to come out. Very few people were prepared to come out in football about the Peace Prize.

  I think with the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, Infantino knew that this was going to be so controversial, especially for UEFA and other confederations, that he actually didn't tell most of the people.

  In fact, none of the FIFA Council knew about it. These are meant to be the board of directors, and he didn't tell them.

  Even quite senior people, official paid executives in the organisation, didn't know about it. The FIFA vice-presidents didn't know about it.

  Quite a small group of people had worked on this in secret. And the reason for that is, I think, he knew it was going to be massively controversial for some confederations.

  But his idea was: he had been thwarted in 2018, mainly by UEFA, and he thought, "Well, this time I'm going to go directly to the 211 member associations, and I'm going to give them a financial offer they can't refuse."

  Which is $40 million over the next four years if you accept the deal, or $10 million if you don't.

  And he thought, well, that's going to guarantee him the outcome that he wanted.

  Unfortunately, he misjudged that very badly.

  07:23 — Markus:
  A friend of the podcast, The Athletic's Seb Stafford-Bloor, compared it to a fearful royal court, where you were either sent with your pockets filled with gold or sent to the gallows.

  But in light of that, we then had UEFA, AFC and Concacaf together with a joint announcement — a named announcement with actual named backers, as opposed to the FIFA statement.

  How significant is that? And also in the context of the remaining member associations, in terms of perhaps the fear that Infantino wields, or the convincing measures of the $40 million or thereabouts?

  08:01 — Martyn:
  Yeah, I think it's really significant that you had the leaders of UEFA, Concacaf and, significantly, the Asian Football Confederation united and signing letters in their names, like they did recently, talking about deception and questioning Infantino's leadership.

  So I think that's — I don't think we've ever seen anything like this.

  I've been covering FIFA since I covered the Sepp Blatter election in 1998. So I've been covering FIFA since then, and there were big ruptures between Europe and the Blatter FIFA in the early part of this century.

  There's nothing like the civil war we see today.

  It's unprecedented. It's remarkable. And I'm very interested to see how it ends.

  08:53 — Jan:
  I'm just thinking of that, Martyn, because I speak to different people, and what I've been told — and you've probably been told the same — is that you can see that the strategy now is to push him out instead of vote him out.

  Because it's one nation, one vote, and somehow you get a feeling that the federations or the confederations won't be able 100% to vote in blocs.

  Do you share that the main strategy now is to get him out instead of waiting until the voting process?

  09:35 — Martyn:
  That is definitely the strategy at the minute.

  They believe that, with not just the scheme itself but how he went about the scheme, he's proved himself sort of unfit to be the president, and he needs to leave.

  I think if it comes to — I mean, I think if there was a vote today, then Infantino would probably lose, and he would be out if he was up against a single candidate.

  But I guess Infantino is thinking: hang on, maybe I can turn things around. Persuade other national associations, get in touch with other national associations, persuade them to swap sides.

  Perhaps you can make some offers.

  10:28 — Markus:
  Infantino came in obviously promising reform after Blatter.

  Ten years on, he seems as if he's more independent of FIFA rather than an extension of it.

  I suppose the question then leads me into: what if Infantino goes, and what will FIFA look like then?

  I ask because of the structure of FIFA. You've followed them for so long, and obviously it's not the first time they've been mired in scandal.

  Why wouldn't it happen again with somebody else? Can we guarantee that? Is there a way to change that, given the circumstances?

  11:04 — Martyn:
  Well, I have seen this idea that you have a sort of rotation basis.

  So you rotate between the confederation presidents every World Cup cycle, every four years, so that you don't have somebody coming in and staying for 15 years — or it could be, for Infantino, if he gets re-elected, 15 years.

  So you have somebody who is their confederation president and also the FIFA president at the same time, and that moves round and moves round.

  You don't have people trying to basically use FIFA competitions to secure their own position.

  Because I think we've often seen that, even back to the Blatter days, the whole thing about FIFA development money and promises to the member associations is, you know, every time you promise something to the member associations, what you're saying is: "Please vote for me in the next election," effectively.

  A lot of people think that's a dangerous system because it encourages the wrong decisions.

  You're not necessarily protecting football. You're trying to protect your position.

  12:29 — Jan:
  Yeah, and talking about that, Martyn — Markus and our family, we spent a weekend in Florence, in Firenze, and we were learning about Lorenzo de' Medici.

  And if we take it back to our ancestors, the Vikings, it was the same thing. You just bribe the weak ones, and you bribe and get your votes.

  And now you have a system at FIFA that is up to 30 people sitting in the FIFA Council, vice-presidents or presidents of different football associations, with $300,000 a year.

  How much will they help you to change the system? And how much will a new man or woman be able to change that part of the system?

  13:13 — Martyn:
  Yeah, I think that's a good point.

  And one thing Infantino has done is increase the number of committees and committee places hugely. There's more than, I think, quadruple the number that he's had.

  And the heads of these committees also get paid money.

  So it's all very tied up in all these things that I think are issues that a new FIFA could look to tackle.

  And it'd be great if there was some sort of reform process brought in now.

  But, you know, not everybody is interested in reform.

  Even those who want Infantino out may not be that interested in reform.

  13:54 — Jan:
  As we're coming towards the end, Martyn, you are a very respected journalist — one of the best, if not the best, in this business — and you like to get your stories confirmed.

  But I still need to put my tabloid hat on a bit at the end, and I would like you to see into the future, because things are changing by the day.

  Just before I came on, I saw reports saying that the AFC will probably say globally they won't take part in that, and they will be more official in those terms.

  How do you see it now going forward? Rabat is the 18th of March, the final. There needs to be a decision before that.

  Do you think, with your knowledge of Infantino, that he will think he can survive until then?

  And my second question is also a strategic question. If you put forward a European candidate again, would it be easier to take one from Concacaf, as has been spoken about? Would that be an easier sell for the other confederations?

  I want you to go out of script now, on oath of your professional-quality journalism!

  15:06 — Martyn:
  Sure.

  Well, I think Infantino will — whether he thinks he can get it, I think he hopes he can. I don't necessarily think he thinks he can.

  But for him, maybe there's no alternative.

  If he resigns, what is he? There's no private jets. There's no mixing with world leaders. There's no going to the Davos summit. There's no shaking hands with celebrities. There's no smiling, playing football with FIFA legends.

  That's all gone.

  He becomes a nobody, and for him that's probably intolerable. He can't possibly imagine that. That's not part of his plan.

  So I think he will stay on as long as possible, even if he gets defeated in March. He will take that chance. That's my guess.

  And in terms of a European, I don't think there can be another European. We've had two Europeans now.

  I think it makes more sense to have somebody either from Concacaf — Victor Montagliani — or somebody from the Asian Football Confederation.

  There's been talk about Nasser Al-Khelaifi, as president of Paris Saint-Germain. I think he'd be a strong candidate, but obviously Qatar has been backing Infantino until now. And would the Emir of Qatar let him do that? That's an interesting look.

  Prince Ali of Jordan stood against him before. He's been very critical of Gianni Infantino, but he didn't get many votes in 2016, so that's another issue.

  And then Sheikh Salman, the Asian Football Confederation president from Bahrain — he was narrowly beaten by Infantino in 2016. He could stand again, perhaps, but I'm not sure people would see him as a reformist candidate.

  17:04 — Markus:
  Last question for me before we conclude.

  It's just a broader question in terms of how extensively and for how long you've covered football governance, and we've obviously undergone tremendous change.

  Does it make you cynical about the business of football? Does it make you pessimistic about the direction we're going?

  Obviously, there's that sentiment among fans in terms of increased ticket prices, accessibility and what have you.

  But when you cover this, what reflections come into your mind when you look at the future of the game itself?

  17:37 — Martyn:
  Yeah. I was getting increasingly cynical in the last year going up to the World Cup, because I thought it was squeezing fans for every penny that they had.

  And it was unnecessary. FIFA was making such big revenues anyway.

  Why do you have to make money out of everything?

  Because it just seemed extortionate, and some of the decisions that were made around the World Cup, which we've talked about.

  So that made me feel cynical.

  I now have a bit more hope for the future that things can be turned around, and some of the excesses that we've seen recently can be put into the past.

  18:25 — Jan:
  Well, they say, Martyn, hope is not a strategy, but it's something we can cling onto because we're getting more and more cynical, don't we?

  But we love our game, and we want our game to be as clean as possible.

  Thank you very much for being a part of this. We appreciate you. You were our main guest we were dreaming of when you did that because we're big fans of yours, and also the podcast you're taking part in.

  So, Markus, if you don't have something sensible — which you always have at the end — then you can wrap it up.

  18:57 — Markus:
  No, I think it's also just to say thank you, Martyn, for taking the time. Really appreciate it, and I know our audience will as well.

  19:04 — Martyn:
  Great. Great to be with you guys.

Could a €1 Billion Loan Change German Football Forever? | Seb Stafford-Bloor

What does the Bundesliga need to do to compete financially without sacrificing what makes German football unique?

The Athletic’s German football correspondent Seb Stafford-Bloor joins Markus Fjørtoft to discuss reports of a potential €1 billion financing plan for the Bundesliga — and the much bigger question facing German football: how can the league grow commercially while protecting its supporter culture, 50+1, affordable tickets and identity?

We also discuss the growing financial gulf between the Bundesliga and Premier League, the league’s increasingly creative international broadcast strategy and what German football can realistically do to compete.

IN THIS EPISODE

• What we know about discussions around potential €1 billion financing for the Bundesliga.

• How this differs from the previous private-equity deals that triggered widespread supporter protests.

• Why German football still believes it needs greater investment.

• The difficult balance between commercial growth, 50+1 and protecting supporter influence.

• Why the Bundesliga cannot — and should not — simply try to become the Premier League.

• The growing financial gap between English and German football.

• How the Bundesliga is experimenting with new international broadcast and distribution strategies.

• Why accessibility and discoverability could be crucial to growing the Bundesliga internationally.

WATCH & LISTEN

YouTube: Watch the full episode on The Fussball Channel
Spotify: Listen to The Fussball Channel
Apple Podcasts: Listen on Apple Podcasts

• Full Transcript

  00:03 — Markus:
  Hi, welcome to The Fussball Channel. I am your host, Markus Fjørtoft. I'm delighted to welcome German football correspondent for The Athletic, Seb Stafford-Bloor — but more importantly, friend of the podcast. Great to have you back, Seb.

  First of all, how's the summer been? The World Cup, now a new season about to commence. How have things been?

  00:25 — Seb:
  It's good. I'm glad to have been upgraded to friend of the podcast rather than just acquaintance! It's not a title we give out lightly.

  I'm doing good. I've just about switched between World Cup mode to domestic football mode, club football mode, and I'm not quite ready for it to begin because we've still got — what, the Super Cup isn't until the 22nd of August.

  We've got just under three and a half weeks, which feels like a nice amount of time. I wouldn't want to be two weeks away from the season starting right away.

  But I'm excited. It's shaping up to be interesting.

  Also, yesterday, Konstantinos Karetsas signing for Borussia Dortmund, which is really exciting. I really, really like him as a player. So it's great that Dortmund is making that kind of transfer as well.

  01:13 — Markus:
  Yeah, that warrants maybe just a good enough excuse to get you back another time in terms of the type of transfers that we're seeing in the Bundesliga as well.

  And we will touch upon that towards the very end of this episode as well, with a certain Yandé Amanda and where we're at at the moment.

  But more importantly, Seb, the reason I wanted to bring you on is because of an article you wrote yesterday about the Bundesliga and a potential investment from Apollo Sports Capital — a €1 billion loan, repayable over 20 years at a rate of over 5%, guaranteed against the league's future domestic broadcast revenue.

  What I find very interesting about that, Seb, and why I wanted to discuss this with you, is we've seen these types of proposals pop up in the past and they were met with widespread protests.

  In the first instance it didn't go through. In the second instance it did go through, and then the fans came out.

  Could you just provide the context as to where this used to be in terms of the previous proposal and how potentially this differs — or not?

  02:26 — Seb:
  Let's go back to Investor Deal One, as we'll call it, Markus, which was back in 2023.

  That original proposal was for 12.5% of what was then the DFL — which is now being rebranded as Bundesliga Media — their television rights for the next 20 years.

  So they were going to sell that off to private-equity firms in return for €2 billion of investment, but then that temporary loss of equity for 20 years — 12.5%.

  So that got rejected, as you mentioned. That did not meet the threshold of a two-thirds majority when it went to a vote of the 36 member teams.

  Then a year later, back it comes in changed form.

  So the new proposal was: we're going to sell 8% of the same rights over the same period, but only receive €1 billion in return.

  And that was voted through.

  But then, of course, tennis balls, chocolate, sweets — everything onto the pitch — and eventually it was abandoned. I forget exactly when they announced the abandonment, but I think it was probably around February 2024.

  And when that happened, Hans-Joachim Watzke, obviously then the CEO of Borussia Dortmund and speaking on behalf of the DFL board, said — I'm paraphrasing — "We've still got a problem. We clearly can't continue down this road with this specific proposal, but we need to do something."

  Where we are now, per my reporting — and I'm going to stick to my reporting, even though there are other versions out there — I don't think this is quite a proposal yet.

  Back in June in New York, around the time of the Germany-Ecuador game, there was a discussion between members of Apollo Sports Capital, of course, and various leading figures of Bundesliga clubs.

  The framework of what we're talking about — this billion-euro loan over a 20-year period, with the attached interest rate — was discussed.

  Whether that's been formalised or not, I don't know. It may have been, but I haven't reported that it has been.

  So that's where we are at the moment.

  The big difference, of course, is there is no exchange of equity.

  What the investment firm gets out of this is, of course, the repayment, but then the interest rate — which over a 20-year period will be almost as much as the loan itself — which will be repayable by the clubs as a collective.

  So that's where we are now.

  The original investment deals were presented as a means of injecting capital into infrastructure improvements and allowing the clubs to better market themselves globally.

  That would include helping to subsidise tours because, as you know, beyond Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, some of those clubs can be a little bit reluctant to go overseas because they have to compete with, for instance, the big Premier League teams, some of the Italian sides, Barcelona, Real Madrid, of course.

  Even though they get money from the DFL for doing so, they think it's not wholly worthwhile.

  Now, what this loan would be used for, I don't know. I don't think we're that far down the track. I think everything is too theoretical. It's still a concept rather than a real thing.

  What is interesting, though, is I spoke to someone yesterday who said, "Hey, look, if Germany is serious about hosting the 2038 World Cup, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that something like that is used to renovate a few of the stadiums."

  Some of these stadiums were built for 2006, of course, and so they're almost 20 years old now.

  There are a couple of stadiums that are approaching a point in their history where they need it.

  So, I don't know. It's a strange one.

  06:41 — Markus:
  Because I'm just looking back at that deal, Seb, that got passed when ultimately Watzke then had to go back on his guarantee, and you alluded to it earlier as well in terms of where the money was going towards.

  Let's play a little devil's advocate, because the people who listen will understand how important and how unique the integrity of the Bundesliga is — from supporter culture, ticket prices and everything that it represents.

  And then, of course, this is part of a larger conversation around where the Bundesliga sits within the greater football landscape.

  Before, we talked about the top five leagues. You could argue now it's the Premier League and the rest.

  Obviously the Bundesliga are entertaining these types of deals because they are forced to reckon with the reality that they are increasingly falling behind.

  So, can you preserve what the Bundesliga is while also evolving financially?

  I know these are the things that Watzke and the big decision-makers in the Bundesliga must grapple with, but it is a pretty tough task for them to figure out.

  There's no doubt that they look at the financials and say, "We need to do something."

  And looking at that deal that was proposed, if you're going towards marketing costs, stadium refurbishment, etc., is it that bad of a deal really?

  There's a lot loaded into that question, but how do you see that?

  08:18 — Seb:
  So, an answer that is not necessarily in order, Markus.

  Markus:
  That's completely fine.

  Seb:
  I'm in my 40s. My memory isn't good enough!

  Okay, so my perspective on this is: you're quite right. This is a hugely sensitive area in German football.

  And I think a fair way of characterising this situation is that the value of the Bundesliga, in terms of what it represents to its supporters and its regions, has to be preserved.

  That is its unique selling point, along with its ticket prices, its atmospheres, its stadiums, etc.

  And the key to that is, of course, 50+1.

  Everyone here knows what that is. Anybody who spends time on the channel understands that, so we won't go over that.

  But what I would say is, when you have 50+1 in place, there is no room for a benefactor.

  There's no quantum leap to be made financially that would allow Mainz to become a championship contender year in, year out because they've been bought by some terribly wealthy billionaire.

  So how do you manage to maintain those advantages whilst also not falling further behind leagues which have a more lax approach to financial management, where a lot of different horses have already bolted in terms of state ownership and private investment firms — and, in the broad sense, external investment to the point of majority control?

  What do you do about that situation?

  And also, do you settle for your holistic advantages — your atmosphere, your culture — at the expense of not being able to attract the best players?

  I'm not trying to say that Freiburg should be able to sign the world's best players. That's not what I'm getting at.

  I think the more troubling thing that I see is players from Eintracht Frankfurt, Bayer Leverkusen, Borussia Dortmund flowing to mid-to-lower-table Premier League sides.

  That really gets me down because you think: I can completely understand when players go to Manchester City or Arsenal or whoever else. That makes sense.

  But can you allow clubs to find a better footing, to the point that they're able to protect themselves, or they're able to pitch a sporting project to players which allows them to stay longer?

  I think that's the balance.

  Now, 50+1 prevents that from happening at a club level, so it has to happen at a league level.

  And then the next question is complicated: what are you willing to give up?

  Because you have to give up something.

  Investor Deal One and Two failed because ultimately supporters were worried about what would happen to their influence on the game if you invited an external investor in and gave them equity.

  And I can completely understand that.

  If you're a German football fan, regardless of region or state, your nightmare is the Premier League, right?

  So anytime you see money coming in — an investor who isn't German, who doesn't have a reputation within this specific market — you're going to have concerns.

  You're going to worry: am I going to maintain my influence over ticket prices? And what do they want in return?

  They're playing a strategic marketing role in the league's future, so what does that actually mean?

  The two deals were different, but they were rejected for broadly the same reason. Well, one was rejected; the other one was eventually rejected through action despite the vote.

  So that's a consideration.

  How do you create a deal that appeases supporters and doesn't terrify them?

  Because you have to respect the history of German football and where German football has come from.

  We are only technically 63 years into the professional era. Yes, I know professionalism with a small "p" existed before the start of the Bundesliga, but really that's the line in the sand.

  And the other thing is, of course, even if you're not giving up equity — so you're taking, for instance, a loan like this one or something similar — what are you saddling clubs with?

  Because big loans come with interest rates and big debt repayments, potentially, and those have to be paid.

  So what are clubs gaining? What are clubs able to do?

  Is what they are gaining worth whatever it is they have to give up, or whatever it is they end up having to pay?

  There's a reason this answer is so rambly, Markus!

  13:10 — Markus:
  That's equal to my question!

  13:15 — Seb:
  Yeah, but it's actually a problem.

  Because if you sit with any senior figure in the Bundesliga, whoever it may be, in any boardroom, and you ask them this question, they will not have a proper answer.

  They will have a theory: this could work. We don't know.

  But it's a compromise, right?

  Because it has to be a balance between business ambition and respecting the supporters.

  And 50+1 enshrines the supporters as a stakeholder, so they make decisions, essentially. It's not just about noise.

  It's not a pro-league situation where you can go: "Well, we're going to do this. You don't like it, go somewhere else."

  It doesn't work like that.

  So it's very, very difficult.

  13:57 — Markus:
  How dire is the state in which they diagnose the problem?

  When they look to the Premier League and they see different players leaving, how critical a phase do you think they see themselves in right now?

  14:17 — Seb:
  Do you mean in terms of where they are financially in relation to the Premier League?

  14:22 — Markus:
  Yes, in terms of how much they see the threat.

  Because what I find interesting is these leagues are trying to adjust as best possible.

  One route being La Liga trying the route of moving domestic games abroad, similar to what Serie A has explored. Obviously that will never happen in the Bundesliga.

  The challenge for the Bundesliga is that their points of differentiation aren't commercial in the traditional sense, right?

  14:47 — Seb:
  You can't say, "Hey, the atmosphere, the Westfalenstadion is brilliant." Well, you can't pack it up and take it to California and show people.

  They have to come to Germany.

  So I think the easiest way of answering this is: it's not five major leagues anymore, is it?

  It's one Super League — it's the Premier League — and it's all these other leagues playing whatever cards they have at their disposal.

  You mentioned what La Liga and Serie A are willing to do. Those games didn't go ahead in the end, but there was an openness at league level to doing them.

  We've seen the French league. We've seen Ligue 1 conclude what proved to be an appalling broadcasting deal a few years ago — the Mediapro cycle, which didn't work, which turned out to not really be what anyone thought it was.

  Some of those mistakes are about the people involved, but some of them are desperation.

  Because what do you do when you've got a runaway train — a league which has all the stars, has all the star coaches, has all the broadcasting appeal?

  While the Bundesliga has an extremely strong domestic broadcasting contract, the difference is in the Premier League's international broadcasting contracts, which are larger than their domestic broadcasting contract.

  So it's somewhere between: we've got to do whatever we can to be competitive, but there's also this recognition that we're not really in competition at all.

  I know that's a direct contradiction, but based on the conversations I've had with people who sit in DFL boardrooms, that seems to be the takeaway.

  It's a problem without an answer.

  16:39 — Markus:
  And in terms of wrapping it up here, this represents a larger shift towards the Bundesliga exploring avenues by which they can commercialise the league, in spite of — or because of — the league itself and what it represents.

  We've seen creative and innovative broadcast deals as well.

  Just an overall verdict on how the Bundesliga, Bundesliga International, etc., are finding ways around this, because it seems like they at least have somewhat of a first-mover advantage, or are being creative in their solutions.

  17:34 — Seb:
  Yeah, I think they've actually done really well.

  I think the Bundesliga deserves a bit more credit for how bold they've been with some of these strategies.

  In the UK, the one you mentioned, they take their Friday night package and show games live on That's Football, which is the channel by Mark Goldbridge, The Overlap, and on the BBC.

  So you have three different types of audience who are able to watch the same game in whatever way they want.

  That was stratified in a way which really suggested a pretty profound understanding of the modern media environment.

  And also didn't just prioritise: "Let's just get the €20 million in and we've done the job."

  Because there's diminishing returns there, right?

  If you don't make a bold step at this point, that €20 million is going to be €15 million in three years, and it's going to be €10 million years after.

  You have to actually take the risks.

  [18:39–19:12 — Brief off-air discussion/check of U.S. broadcaster details]

  19:14 — Seb:
  So you mentioned the U.S. broadcasting contract as well.

  This is the game now, right?

  Because the broadcasting market, the rights market, is no longer driven by big streamers who just want to add subscribers. That era is over.

  So what you have to do, if you want people to fall in love with your product, is make sure that you are easy to find — discoverable.

  You have to be watchable in whatever way people want to consume sport now, whether that's on traditional television, tablet, desktop, laptop, whatever.

  You have to be easy to find and, preferably, not behind a paywall.

  Because if you don't have the star power of a Premier League, where your product is just what it is and you don't really have to sell it because it's too obvious, then you need to come up with these creative solutions.

  And I think they've done a really good job.

  It's just the way you have to think about it.

  It's no longer: you show up to a broadcasting house, ask for a big amount of money and sign a broadcasting contract.

  It doesn't work like that.

  It's got to be a very difficult job to do, but I think they're doing a pretty admirable job with it.

  21:14 — Markus:
  Yeah, their brand work and their community integration as well in key regions — looking into Brazil and South America and whatnot — is very interesting to see.

  And to your point, they deserve a lot of credit for that strategy.

  Seb, I could have spoken to you about a range of things, but we'll conclude it with something more surface-level, I suppose — a little bit of fandom within it.

  We have Yandé Amanda now, at the time we're speaking, being on his way to Real Madrid.

  He's at the RB Leipzig training facility, done his tests and whatnot, but it looks likely that he will go for a massive sum.

  RB Leipzig, from what I understand — Seb, correct me if I'm wrong — are looking for €130 million. Real Madrid have offered €100 million plus €20 million in bonuses, so to speak.

  Talk about, on one end, the significance of the story and the transfer itself, and also the practical details with the transfer.

  22:16 — Seb:
  So the player first, because I think — what a triumph.

  Back at the end of 2024, he moves from a U.S. academy in Florida to Leganés in Spain on a free transfer.

  He actually starts off with their second team, so he was playing lower-league football.

  By the end of the year, or the beginning of 2025, I think he moved up, so he was playing at a La Liga level, but made fewer than 20 appearances.

  And he basically pinged on Leipzig's radar, amongst many other clubs.

  But I remember speaking to Marcel Schäfer, sporting director at RB Leipzig, and he said the recommendation from our data department was so strong: "Just sign him now."

  Knowing that if they left it any longer, then all these other clubs that are interested now, or have been interested in the last six months, would financially blow Leipzig out of the water.

  They made the decision just to activate his release clause.

  And so a player who, in I think October 2024, moved on a free transfer, was suddenly worth €20 million six or seven months later.

  And you fast-forward to the present day and you add an extra €100 million, at least, to his transfer value.

  And what I would say, Markus — and you'll know this — is people will have a go at that fee.

  They'll say Yandé Amanda has had a single season at Bundesliga level. Also, his numbers, while very, very healthy, are not overwhelming.

  And so they say this is too much.

  What I would say in response to that is, yes, a €100 million-plus transfer is always, always, always going to involve risk.

  It's always going to put pressure, and you could probably argue no player is ever worth it.

  But if you look at the development in Yandé Amanda's game from August 2025 to June 2026, you look at how he responded to the better coaching, the better facilities, the better standard of teammate, the higher level of competition that he faced when he got to Germany, and how he adapted to all the other challenges — language, culture, all these things — it's enormously impressive.

  And so, if you're Real Madrid or any other elite Champions League-contending club, you would reason, quite understandably: if we put him in our environment, with our coaches and our world-class players — not developing world-class players, our actual stars of the game, Kylian Mbappé, Jude Bellingham, etc. — then why would you not see a healthy return?

  Why would that player not continue to grow towards the light?

  And I kind of agree with that.

  You never know. A transfer is always a coin toss, but that's the talent side of it.

  The deal structure, I suppose, depending on which transfer reporter you trust and read, there's been an awful lot of drama this week.

  What we've reported — and I'm not commenting on anybody else's reporting, I'll only talk about ours — is Real Madrid made a first bid for him, which you mentioned was around €100 million all-in about 10, 11, 12 days ago.

  That was rejected.

  There was a second bid made over this weekend just passed, which included a guaranteed fee of €100 million and then had what we believe to be around €20 million worth of performance bonuses attached to it.

  That has not been accepted or rejected as of now.

  We're Tuesday at six o'clock German time, and everybody expects a deal to happen.

  I would be absolutely staggered if one doesn't.

  It's just not quite there.

  And as of now, Yandé Amanda trained with Leipzig yesterday, did his preseason conditioning tests, and he was training again today.

  I spoke to the club and there's nothing new yet.

  Doesn't mean there won't be. I think absolutely the transfer happens.

  26:14 — Seb:
  It's just, I suppose, you wait until there is an agreement.

  That's the way we report things: wait until there is a green light on both sides, and that hasn't arrived yet.

  And we're still to learn what the final figure is and what the structure of those payments would be, even if we do expect it to happen.

  26:46 — Markus:
  And dear listener, if you're hearing this, you're seeing Seb very diplomatically navigate in the context of a certain beef that has ensued on X, which I think he dealt with in a very good way!

  And with that, I thank you a lot, Seb, for being on.

  It's always such a pleasure, and we will be back very soon with you. I hope we can talk through transfers and how we look forward to this Bundesliga season, only a month away.

  But again, Seb, thank you so much.

  27:16 — Seb:
  Thanks, Markus. Cheers.

Turn Intention Into Action

Confidence doesn’t always arrive with a bold entrance. Sometimes, it builds quietly, step by step, as we show up for ourselves day after day. It grows when we choose to try, even when we’re unsure of the outcome. Every time you take action despite self-doubt, you reinforce the belief that you’re capable. Confidence isn’t about having all the answers — it’s about trusting that you can figure it out along the way.

The key to making things happen isn’t waiting for the perfect moment; it’s starting with what you have, where you are. Big goals can feel overwhelming when viewed all at once, but momentum builds through small, consistent action. Whether you’re working toward a personal milestone or a professional dream, progress comes from showing up — not perfectly, but persistently. Action creates clarity, and over time, those steps forward add up to something real.

You don’t need to be fearless to reach your goals, you just need to be willing. Willing to try, willing to learn, and willing to believe that you’re capable of more than you know. The road may not always be smooth, but growth rarely is. What matters most is that you keep going, keep learning, and keep believing in the version of yourself you’re becoming.

Make Room for Growth

Confidence doesn’t always arrive with a bold entrance. Sometimes, it builds quietly, step by step, as we show up for ourselves day after day. It grows when we choose to try, even when we’re unsure of the outcome. Every time you take action despite self-doubt, you reinforce the belief that you’re capable. Confidence isn’t about having all the answers — it’s about trusting that you can figure it out along the way.

The key to making things happen isn’t waiting for the perfect moment; it’s starting with what you have, where you are. Big goals can feel overwhelming when viewed all at once, but momentum builds through small, consistent action. Whether you’re working toward a personal milestone or a professional dream, progress comes from showing up — not perfectly, but persistently. Action creates clarity, and over time, those steps forward add up to something real.

You don’t need to be fearless to reach your goals, you just need to be willing. Willing to try, willing to learn, and willing to believe that you’re capable of more than you know. The road may not always be smooth, but growth rarely is. What matters most is that you keep going, keep learning, and keep believing in the version of yourself you’re becoming.