(KRO) Panathinaikos has been the focal point of European basketball these days, due to the club’s controversial statements. What has been BCL’s approach towards PAO’s case?
I think our approach with Panathinaikos has not been different than our approach to many clubs that we speak to regularly. In my opinion, it’s not only about who participates in the Basketball Champions League. Of course, we have a pool of participants, and they are essential in our growth. But there are many stakeholders in European basketball. We’ve had discussions with Panathinaikos, as we have with many clubs around Europe since our inception. It’s logical. We are interested to hear what they have to say, and we hope they can hear what we have to say. As an inclusive competition, we always have these discussions. Panathinaikos is not an exception.
What we always hope to achieve is that the clubs will come to appreciate our model, our vision, and what we have to offer to them. It’s been a similar discussion with PAO. We also heard and were very happy to hear the comments of the owner about the impression BCL has made to him and how he sees the future of BCL. To me, it’s a vote of confidence. We’re very happy to hear that a club like Panathinaikos could potentially see themselves as participants. BCL’s obligation and duty is to listen to these discussions.
“The Inability to Plan for the Long-term”
I remember when I got into this business back in 2016, I was coming from a different industry. I was coming from a few kilometers down the road, the UEFA offices where I was responsible for UCL. When I met a lot of presidents, owners, and general managers, they all spoke of one thing: Their inability to plan for the long-term. I saw so many GMs tell me, ‘We don’t know anything past June. We don’t know our budget, our European participation, our roster; we don’t know anything.’ That, to me, is mind-boggling. This cannot allow development. You cannot wake up in June and start planning September, based on your specific playoff results in June. You cannot be so dependent on this. You cannot wait for the thumbs-up or thumbs-down from European competition in the middle of July.
We went back to the drawing board; we went back to our core principles. We said that even in August or September. If a club can know that a good position in the league guarantees a spot in a top-European competition, which is the Basketball Champions League the next season, it can control its destiny. It doesn’t need to wait until June to start planning.
When we speak to clubs like Panathinaikos, there are a lot of lessons to learn from them, too. They are such an experienced club. From our point of view, these discussions are always healthy and productive.
(KRO) You mentioned that you’re open to any kind of discussion with anybody, and this includes Panathinaikos, as I understand. Are you planning to get another A-licensed club, one of those 10 or 11 clubs join the competition in the future?
I will be honest with you, Kemal. Our mission and vision are not to ‘get’ clubs. We are not hunting. We’re not out there trying to fight a type of war. We very firmly believe in our project. We believe that what we are proposing to the basketball community across Europe is a model that allows them to grow. We are happy to sit down with any club that’s willing to entertain discussions, any club that sees benefits of our model. Over the last weeks, probably prompted by the recent COVID crisis, many clubs were willing to have these sorts of discussions. We mentioned some of the clubs early on in our interview. For us, what I always say [is that] with any club interested in joining BCL are we happy to enter discussions and find ways to include them in our family.
(KRO) And this question is the one I’ve been itching to ask someone in your position. As a European basketball fan, how likely does it have two big club competitions in the future? Is the market big enough to have two or three big competitions? Or is the market big enough for a club to spend 30 million each year?
I think that the European basketball market is highly distorted. As I said before, money that is spent is not generated in the basketball market. When the football club says, ‘OK, %10 of my overall budget can go to basketball.’, this is not money generated in basketball. When a government guides a specific sponsor to support the club, this is not money generated in basketball. When a crazy owner, out of pure emotion, is willing to spend a fortune to bring three top players to the club, that is driven by emotions, not the market.
I think we are facing a unique situation in basketball, where there is a race about who’s going to spend the most of other people’s money. It was very interesting to read some of the statements of the president of Fenerbahçe, who was talking about a significant reduction of the budget, as the club does not generate revenue. It cannot keep spending more than it generates. This is a common market practice that needs to enter the discussion.
“We don’t have all the answers”
Right now, we live in this fallacy where the money being spent never, ever returns to the game of basketball. There has to be a balance. It’s easier to grow the pool than to go back to all the players to say that everybody’s going to get a reduction. The market dictates certain aspects of the value of a player. It’s up to all the stakeholders to generate more revenue. I think this is one of the fundamental questions that need to be asked.
We believe we have certain valid points to make. We believe that this is a discussion that merits examination. We all need to come into an agreement on how this ecosystem can create more value. We have to acknowledge the role of domestic leagues and national teams. We have one goal, which is to increase the market value. It makes no sense to me, as a basketball fan or someone working within the basketball, that popularity and value of the sport do not match.
Once again, we don’t claim that we have all the answers, the absolute truth. But what we see is that a model that respects the pyramid of the sport.