User talk:Danielsltt

SEF

No, Swedish Professional Football Leagues (SEF) is not administering Allsvenskan or Superettan, see page 8 of Tävlingsbestämmelser 2022, "Förbundsserierna Allsvenskan, Superettan, Ettan samt div. 2 och 3 herrar samt OBOS Damallsvenskan – div. 1, damer, kval till dessa tävlingar, undantaget div. 1, damer, anordnas och administreras av SvFF." SEF is, just as it says in what you quoted, and interest organisation and not the entity actually organising the competition. This in contrast to e.g. the Scottish Professional Football League which is a system of leagues where matches are played under the jurisdiction of that league and not the Scottish FA. As SEF neither is professional league, a system of professional leagues or the organiser of one or more professional leagues, it doesn't fit in the category more than any other organisation related to Allsvenskan or Superettan. – Elisson • T • C • 14:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with administration and everything to do with governance. Allsvenksan and Superettan are not trademarks of SvFF but SEF, and this is important as it governs the financial rights to the organizations of the league(s). Furthermore, SvFF holds no authority to administer the top two leagues without the consent of the 32 member clubs, as they hold the rights to their own memberships, participation and subsequent trademarks.

Just because they haven't decided (themselves, which they easily could) to actually administer the league (in effect they do) themselves doesn't change the fact that they are the leagues, and this is exactly how the SPFL works as well. The Scottish FA is still admitting referees to games, they're still qualifying club teams to UEFA competitions, they are in practice doing almost exactly that which the SvFF are doing in Sweden, the differences are superficial and bureaucratical.

Furthermore, even if one were to disagree on this, the SEF only exists because there are professional sports leagues in association football in Sweden. It is entirely independent of SvFF so it can't be put in an Allsvenskan category. It is not subordinate to any of the leagues of Allsvenskan or Superettan as it practically owns these two leagues in a financial sense which is very (!) relevant. Thus, it can't belong anywhere else than under the category which you claim it should not be part of. Danielsltt (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The referees literally have the SEF trademarks Allsvenskan and Superettan on their crests during games .. "interest organisation" is nothing but bureaucratic jargon Danielsltt (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it be ok for you to stop blanking ongoing discussions? You are of course free to do what you want with your talk page, but for threads like these where discussion is somewhat expected it would benefit us all if you did not blank the page as you answer when you may expect a reply.

You originally stated that "SEF is responsible for self-administering AS and SE through its 32 member clubs". This is patently not true (per my previous source). SvFF also governs the leagues, and the regulations are established by SvFF (same source as above). SvFF owns the media rights as well, but has delegated those rights to SEF (ref). SEF and the 32 clubs do not manage the leagues, and e.g. competition format changes are decided through SvFF, like when Allsvenskan was expanded from 14 to 16 teams (ref). What the referees wear says nothing about governance. All players have Unibet trademark logos on their shirts, do you claim that Unibet governs Allsvenskan now? What you claim is bureaucratic jargon is irrelevant, SEF themselves say they are an "interest organisation" and says nothing about administering or governing the leagues (ref). You've stated that "something doesn't have to be something in order to be-long to a certain category", but now you argue that SEF can not belong in the Allsvenskan category, taking the opposite stance?

Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about, and your arguments are non-existent. – Elisson • T • C • 16:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Cute. I have no idea what I talk about but it's useful for everyone to know.

Of course it's you who have no idea what you're talking about because you lack the fundamental understanding of governance in organizational boards. SvFF is an "ideell organisation" (non-profit) whose rights of governance is solely limited to its members. That includes the Allsvenskan and Superettan clubs. There is no article in the SvFF that grants their council, their executives or anyone within or acting within that organization to decide on behalf of its members what to do with their league systems (unlike for example the FA that has a wholly different system, which in part has to do with ownership - ie no 51% rule)

That means that all decisions made regarding the professional leagues in Sweden has to take into account the opinions of those member clubs - that is why SEF is created. SEF governs the interests of the clubs currently constituting the top 32 teams in the country, and thus it is in reality and not in a flawed perception of it based on reading parts of documents also where the rights to the league (properties) are also located.

Otherwise, where is the property located? Where is the governance located? Which outside force(s) other than the clubs and members themselves can have any authority whatsoever on what the top clubs decide to do with the leagues? (There's no clear and formal statutes regulating the possibility of changes to the league system at the top level, which is common practice in this country)

In practice that means that the only thing stopping the 32 top clubs from for example splitting apart from SvFF and forming their own league (not a suggestion) is the fact that these two organizations (one consisting also of all other association football practicioners in the country) come to a mutually binding or otherwise proactive agreement. That's what they have done and they have decided to grant SEF some rights to influence and let SvFF handle others but in practice it makes little difference, as they are components of the same thing. The only difference is that SEF represents a branch of the SvFF membership and not the whole thing (cake).

Why is this relevant to talk about? Because the number one money-making entity in Swedish football is SEF, and their commercial rights (or some of their commercial rights, most aren't) may be allocated to SvFF but they aren't brought in by the SvFF, they are brought in by the practice of commerce done by the SEF, which is not governed (or at least to a very minimal extent) by any SvFF regulator. That means that if the members of the SEF are unhappy with how their money is allocated, they can (very) easily use legal options to (try to) enhance their rights (at the cost of for example others further down the system - this is exactly what was debated in the last TV- deal extension where clubs further down the system complained about the prospect of getting less money in the future - are you going to argue that that was the result of the will of SvFF and not SEF? Of course it was the SEF all the way, the big clubs want their cash!

So, the consequence of analysing the actual power-dynamics of Swedish football instead of getting hung up on paragraphs is that SEF is being used as an interest organization to protect the rights of the thirty-two organizations whose commercial activity at any point in time makes up the top two professional leagues in Sweden. The definition of professional elite sports is basically commercial entertainment + sports, at least in terms of revenue streams.

Why is this relevant? It is because it literally grants SvFF no right (in a financial, legal, commercial sense - ask a court) to govern the top two leagues in Sweden without the explicit will and consensus of the 32 member organizations of the top two leagues. There is no clause or any sort of instrument or system of statutes given to the organization of SvFF to under any circumstances grant itself mandate to act against the will of SEF, as it is managing property and revenue streams that in practice belong to the organizations of SEF. This means that SvFF are next to powerless in terms of its relations to the will of the SEF, and here's where the hypocrisy of the narrative about football in Sweden being 51%-all-democratic completely turns on its head as it de facto creates a stronger mandate for the professional football clubs to increase their influence by means of increasing their revenues. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, just that it is true, and it is exactly what is happening now.

For that reason, failure to recognize that SEF de facto is the top two football leagues in the Swedish Football System - in terms of actual financial activity at least - threatens to further grant these clubs the right to ignore the principle of democracy in the Swedish Football system and act irresponsibly and according to their needs and only their needs, as there is no clause or system set in place to stop this.

That is worth recognising. Not least for the professional clubs themselves. Danielsltt (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to understand the actual legal status of some entity or entities you have to be able to look not just at what is there, but what isn't there. What isn't there is any mandate for SvFF to act "above" its members - what also isn't there is any clear and concise regulator for how the (currently completely unhierarchical) relations between SvFF and SEF are to be governed (decisions taken completely informally) - what's also lacking is any sort of system for how negotiations between financial rights of the clubs vs the Football Association are to be distributed down across the system (of football divisions). The result is that the SvFF is not governing the Swedish Professional (Men's) Football Leagues, but administering it - in coordinate and agreement with the SEF. That could (hypothetically) change. Danielsltt (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition: Any lawyer with half a degree (who hasn't been bought off) could look at this and easily confirm what I'm saying. The SvFF is (technically, "officially") administering the top football leagues in the country so as to (and arguably only to) preserve the associative democracy as regulated by the 51% rule that states that members are to have ultimate power and control in and over these (kinds) of decisions.

That does not stop the reality of the situation from becoming potentially extortionate as certain members financial powers rise to the point where they are considerably wealthier (SEF) than the rest of the members of the entire (umbrella) organization (SvFF), and thus impromptu exercising powers that may be potentially disruptive to the state of the democracy of the game, at a national level. Danielsltt (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of text about what you believe to be true but no sourcing at all to back it up. Because most statements you make are false, so sources can't be found. Stop fooling yourself. – Elisson • T • C • 18:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)