Home > Israeli Football Teams, Ligat Ha'al > Seven Suggestions For The IFA

Seven Suggestions For The IFA

In recent light of negative events in Israeli soccer, including allegations of fixing games, blackmail, and delinquent owners; We here at Israel football have decided to come up with seven suggestions for the improvement of Israeli football as a whole.

One.  Anytime a club is up for a sale, the prospective owner(s) need to be properly vetted by the IFA. Any individuals, groups or entities with shady underworld links, police investigations in the past, questionable business practices,  domestic and foreign criminal convictions or indictments  should be ruled out from having any involvement  in Israeli football. If  an owner has no previous past dealings that would involve him in such situations, but then runs into misconduct while owning a club, the IFA would have the right to seize the club from the owner or force the owner to sell the club. Current examples of  those who would be affected include Prosper Azgi, Arkady Gaydamak, and Tomer Sinai among others.

Two. Currently the IFA requires clubs in Ligat Ha’al to have a minimum budget that is funded by the club. However this needs to change to requiring the owners to fund the minimum, and if not the club needs be put in administration or sold as stated in the previous article.

Three. No loans can be taken out against a club, nor can any club borrow money. One thing that most clubs in Israel have avoided is large debts. However as budgets grow, the temptation to borrow will only increase.

Four. Require all clubs to invest one fifth of their budget into the youth department of the club. This is a win-win situation as players developed from the youth setup cost considerably less than bringing an outside player for a transfer fee. Also the national team and league will benefit as the quality of the players and league should improve. The best example is Germany which has overtaken Italy as the third best league in UEFA after a decade of requiring clubs to invest in youth football.

Five. Stop playing games on Saturdays . Nearly 1/5th of Israel’s Jewish population observes  the Jewish Sabbath and that number is growing. This group numbers over a million people. Many of them are soccer fans but have to follow Jewish laws of observance.  By making the game more inclusive, Israeli football clubs can increase their fanbase, revenue, and potential pool of players.

Six. Term limits of four years need to be put in place for leadership positions in the IFA. The current head of the IFA  Avi Luzon has put in some good ideas and some bad ones. Under his leadership Israel won the UEFA U-21 championships for 2013, however we also have seen many allegations of corruption and nepotism under his reign, as well as the collapse of Beitar Jerusalem, of one the big four clubs in Israel. He has been there too long and has way too much power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Seven. A restructuring of the league to include 16 teams, no playoff format, and the relegation of three teams to the second division and the promotion of three teams.  Currently the IFA just voted to shrink the league to 14 teams as well as to keep the playoff format. However If Ligat Ha’al has 16 teams this gives an opportunity to more players to prove themselves in Israel’s highest division. More competition is better, not less.

  1. Adam
    July 11, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Very interesting article. I sincerely hope that point one is observed. Apart from observing the Sabbath which is not a necessity to me, I think these are all great initiatives but after living in Israel for nearly 4 years I know how little legislation means and how enforcing it matters even less….just look at our roads and the calamity there. I hope that these laws are kept.

    • snowbozo21
      July 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm

      Yes, often there are laws, but if no one wants to enforce them, then nothing happens.

  2. Benny
    July 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    I like: 1,5,6
    don’t like: 2,3,4,7

    You have to be careful about over regulation. When you you have too many rules it might lead to the exact opposite result you want. I agree with incentives to improve the quality of the players and the league, but I don’t agree with with making rules requiring clubs to do things or be punished.

    A club is independent and should be allowed to make its own decisions regarding budget allocation. And it would be a big mistake to make owners fund a minimum. That would scare away more owners then anything because why would an owner fund a minimum from his own money when his club has the revenue to cover the expenses.

    • snowbozo21
      July 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm

      Well they should at least be required to cover the difference if the club can’t meet the requirements through revenue sources from the club. It’s good to generate discussion on the topic.

      • Benny
        July 11, 2011 at 3:44 pm

        I don’t have a problem with an owner having to fill the gap. If a club spends NIS 30m and their revenue is only NIS 25m, then the owner should pay to close the deficit.

        The problem comes when you make owners pay money upfront as a guarantee, which I think the IFA already does.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: