Following the Money

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

LONDON – The European season is under way again, the ball is rolling in the big four leagues of Spain, England, Germany, and Italy, and all is right with the soccer world.


Then again, maybe not. There have been some, shall we say, irregularities. The Italians have led the way in producing these blips. Last May, as the 2004-05 Italian season ended, there were great celebrations among the fans in Empoli, Torino, and Genoa. Their clubs were the top three finishers in Serie B, and had thus assured themselves of promotion to the lucrative top division, Serie A.


But when Serie A played its first games over the past weekend, only Empoli took part. Torino remained in Serie B because the Italian soccer authorities had found that its finances and its book keeping left much to be desired. But for Genoa, the situation was much, much worse. Instead of a happy elevation to Serie A, Genoa found itself shoved down the ladder to the third division, Serie C.


The fall came as the result of investigations by the Italian finance police. Genoa’s never-to-happen promotion to Serie A had been achieved on the final day of last season, with a victory over Venezia. Later that week, police stopped and searched the car of the Venezia general manager, Giuseppe Pagliari. They found a bag stuffed with cash – some 250,000 euros of it. The GM had just left the Milan offices of Enrico Preziosi, the owner of Genoa soccer club.


The police claimed the money was Venezia’s reward for losing the vital game to Genoa, and they produced taped telephone calls to back up their charges. So far, eight people from the two clubs – including some players – have been charged with “sport fraud.” Preziosi has been banned from all sports activity for five years, and has quit as Genoa president.


With Genoa and Torino both denied promotion to Serie A, the way seemed clear for the clubs next in line – Serie B’s fourth- and fifth-place finishers, Perugia and Treviso – to move into Serie A. Treviso, yes. But Perugia turned out to be another club in severe financial disarray; so bad was its situation, that it was also demoted to Serie C. Which meant that little Ascoli, the sixth-place finisher, suddenly and miraculously found itself playing in Serie A.


But it is not only the Italian financial investigators who are being kept busy. There is a pervasive sense of unease in European soccer these days about the financing of clubs. A major worry is the amount of “new money” entering the sport. Where is it coming from?


Last week, UEFA, the body that governs European soccer, went public with its concern and for the first time admitted that soccer may be being used to launder money from criminal activity. “It is alarming,” said UEFA president Lennart Johansson. “We should do something about it.” On the same day that Johansson gave his warning, sinister news arrived from Bulgaria, where Georgi Iliev, the 39-year-old businessman who owned top club Lokomotiv Plovdiv, was shot dead in a night club.


A soccer-related murder? Or is it money-related? Or is that the same thing? What UEFA has done is to refer the overall problem to the European Union, which has a task force that handles money-laundering matters.


An example of sudden wealth for a soccer club came last November when one of the most famous Brazilian clubs, Corinthians, announced that it was being backed by an English company, MSI. Little was known about MSI, but within days of the news, Corinthians had bought the young Argentine star Carlos Tevez from Boca Juniors for $20 million.


Of course, the biggest spender on the soccer scene is the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea. Johanssen was quick to make it clear that Abramovich is not under suspicion of money-laundering – but he does pose a problem in another area. UEFA has a rule forbidding anyone to own more than one club in the same competition. While Abramovich owns only Chelsea, his oil company Sibneft is a major sponsor of another team, CSKA Moscow.


Last season, Chelsea and CSKA Moscow both played in the Champions League. At the time, UEFA had no regulations covering such a potential conflict-of-interest situation, but it admits that this is now something that it will have to investigate.


Whatever UEFA decides, Abramovich will continue to be the focus for those worried about the effects of money on the sport. He stands accused of having bought the English premier league title last year for Chelsea.


But clubs have always spent heavily on buying top players – and Abramovich’s “crime” seems to consist of nothing more than being richer than all the other owners, and thereby unbalancing the premier league. When Chelsea beat Arsenal 1-0 in the second game of this season, it used three substitutes – players who had collectively cost Chelsea $135 million, an extraordinary amount of money for players coming off the bench. There is unanimous consent among the pundits here that Chelsea will repeat as champions. Only Manchester United and Arsenal are given any chance of challenging them.


I can see no reason to disagree with those predictions. The Chelsea coach, Jose Mourinho, justifiably miffed at the suggestion that it was mere money and not his coaching that won last year’s title, has tried to convince everyone that buying players for Chelsea is a massively difficult operation. His pleas have fallen on stony ground.


The feeling is that whoever Chelsea wants, Chelsea will get. Case in point: Michael Essien, a Ghana-born midfielder with the French club Lyon, whose president said he would not let Essien go. But Chelsea’s relentless pursuit – and a fee of $45 million – eventually settled matters, and Essien is now a Chelsea player.


What strikes me as more worrying about Chelsea is that despite all the spending – and the winning – the team produces a form of soccer that is perversely commonplace. Arsenal’s coach, Arsene Wenger, has criticized Chelsea’s use of the primitive – but very English – long pass downfield. Mourinho has replied that, yes, Chelsea can do that, but it is just an example of how adaptable his team’s tactics can be.


So far this season, this tactic has looked like the team’s preferred modus operandi. Arsenal has played the more skillful, the more intelligent, the more attractive soccer. But when the two teams met, it was 1-0 to Chelsea. The lone goal in a disappointing game was scored when Chelsea’s Didier Drogba failed to control the ball, and saw it bounce off his shin and roll softly into the Arsenal net.


Money? Tactics? Skill? A soccer game – maybe even an entire season – is just as likely to be decided by a lucky bounce.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use