Super Mario - Super Influence?

[Florida Blue]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/mario-balotelli-named-one-time-magazine-100-most-192625266--sow.html

Mario Balotelli named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world
By Brooks Peck | Dirty Tackle – 2 hours 0 minutes ago


Mario Balotelli has been named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world for 2013. The list has previous included the likes of Lionel Messi and Didier Drogba, but [highlight]22-year-old Balotelli is the only footballer to be named this year and one of four athletes along with LeBron James, Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn and tennis player Li Na.[/highlight]

Chelsea legend and Watford manager Gianfranco Zola, who coached Balotelli for a bit of his time with Italy's U-21 team, wrote the blurb that accompanied Mario's inclusion in the "icons" section of the list. Zola says:

From afar, people may think he’s a madman, but he isn’t. Mario is a lovely guy, very humble and very funny. I can assure people he has always been a pleasure to deal with. He has returned to Italy from England as the main man with lots of attention. Now he has to ensure he keeps control and keeps focus. Mario loves the pressure, but to succeed, it is about finding balance.

The combination of Balotelli's developing brilliance on the pitch mixed with his innate ability to produce captivatingly odd moments (be it with a bib or fireworks in his bathroom) and the many strange myths dreamed up by the press have definitely made him one of the world's most scrutinized footballers. He's also been forced into the center of the fight for racial equality and subjected to vile abuse within the game since he was teenager. But to call him one of the most influential people in the world seems a bit speculative. Though there probably hasn't been a run on camouflage Bentleys since Balotelli started driving his, he does have a firm hold on the footballing world's attention. And as Zola alludes, it will be Balotelli's focus and control that determines what he does with it.

One person who isn't surprised about Balotelli's inclusion in the list is his eccentric agent, Mino Raiola. From Football Italia:

“I am not remotely surprised,” Mino Raiola told Sky Sport Italia. “Time saw something in him that many are unable to see.

“He can influence men, women, children. Mario can influence Italy in various different ways, starting from the issue of racism that can be fought.

“He is a perfectly normal young man, but it’s clear there have been important responsibilities on his shoulders since he was 16 years old.”

Balotelli will attend a presentation ceremony in New York on April 22. He previously appeared in Time Magazine for a cover story last year.

Balotelli on the cover of the November 12, 2012 issue of Time.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

“He is a perfectly normal young man, but it’s clear there have been important responsibilities on his shoulders since he was 16 years old.”


Classic line which makes me wonder about the rest of the blurb :)

[Swales4ever]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

[Dronny]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

Do we not have first dibs on Mario should AC wish to sell? He's still only 22 or so and another 10 years is a long time these days for a player to remain at the same club

[BlueinBosnia]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

Financially, it would have meant very little: we may have sold a few more kits, but the majority would have been snide knock-offs sold in Tunisia, Thailand, etc. to holidaymakers and fairweather fans, with little money actually going into the club's coffers. Likewise, personal endorsement money goes to the player, not the club. What he was a good asset for is brand profile-raising. I think he performed his duty in this regard, and we no longer need him for such a role. Also, he's playing in the Italian league, not elsewhere in the Prem or in Spain, so he's gone to a league with considerably less international interest and exposure (especially amongst younger fans, to whom a 'character' like Mario would appeal), so no other club is directly benefiting from our loss.

We could sign up Ronald McDonald or Barney the Dinosaur to maximise on their marketability, but is it really worth one of 23 squad places? As Mario was under 23 still, he was a luxury we could afford, as he was eligible for the UEFA B list, but he will no longer be so pretty soon.

[Slim]

Gianfranco Zola

From afar, people may think he’s a madman, but he isn’t. Mario is a lovely guy, very humble and very funny.

Now he has to ensure he keeps control and keeps focus.

Well done there Zola....

If the implication is he isn't a madman and is infact very humble and funny and a lovely guy, then why does he need to "ensure he keeps control."

Oh right, because he's a fucking madman.

[Swales4ever]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

Financially, it would have meant very little: we may have sold a few more kits, but the majority would have been snide knock-offs sold in Tunisia, Thailand, etc. to holidaymakers and fairweather fans, with little money actually going into the club's coffers. Likewise, personal endorsement money goes to the player, not the club. What he was a good asset for is brand profile-raising. I think he performed his duty in this regard, and we no longer need him for such a role. Also, he's playing in the Italian league, not elsewhere in the Prem or in Spain, so he's gone to a league with considerably less international interest and exposure (especially amongst younger fans, to whom a 'character' like Mario would appeal), so no other club is directly benefiting from our loss.

We could sign up Ronald McDonald or Barney the Dinosaur to maximise on their marketability, but is it really worth one of 23 squad places? As Mario was under 23 still, he was a luxury we could afford, as he was eligible for the UEFA B list, but he will no longer be so pretty soon.

Let me disagree quite strongly Mate.

It's not only matter of number of kits sold - on which I can't fail to agree - it's mainly about having the Club constantly attracted to the mind of worldwide new fans (real gloryhunters) by a Global Icon of the Youth.

I am not necessarily saying that it's something than we must love to be, and I am certainly not a great Mario fan, as you know my heroes are work ethic professionals like Vinnie, Bazza, Jimmy jaws and the likes, but that's the way the modern industry of global football goes and - right or wrong - I think that mario, within a Top Club, might become a commercial tool bigger than Conaldo, irrespectively of the actual achievements on the pitch, which are still far away to be expected as good as the Tronaldo's.

I concede that it's a matter of opinion, tho

[BlueinBosnia]

Let me disagree quite strongly Mate.

It's not only matter of number of kits sold - on which I can't fail to agree - it's mainly about having the Club constantly attracted to the mind of worldwide new fans (real gloryhunters) by a Global Icon of the Youth.

I am not necessarily saying that it's something than we must love to be, and I am certainly not a great Mario fan, as you know my heroes are work ethic professionals like Vinnie, Bazza, Jimmy jaws and the likes, but that's the way the modern industry of global football goes and - right or wrong - I think that mario, within a Top Club, might become a commercial tool bigger than Conaldo, irrespectively of the actual achievements on the pitch, which are still far away to be expected as good as the Tronaldo's.

I concede that it's a matter of opinion, tho

But how many of these glory hunters actually put finances into the club? I'd say that 95%+ will never spend a single penny on Official City merchandise, making their support a minor issue with regard to finances, except possibly those garnered from pre-season tours, for which we normally receive an appearance fee that would dwarf a share of gate revenue.

Although I agree on his potential marketability, I don't think it is worth an aged-23-or-over place in the squad in lieu of a more capable footballer. The financial rewards for the club are simply not there.

[Florida Blue]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

Financially, it would have meant very little: we may have sold a few more kits, but the majority would have been snide knock-offs sold in Tunisia, Thailand, etc. to holidaymakers and fairweather fans, with little money actually going into the club's coffers. Likewise, personal endorsement money goes to the player, not the club. What he was a good asset for is brand profile-raising. I think he performed his duty in this regard, and we no longer need him for such a role. Also, he's playing in the Italian league, not elsewhere in the Prem or in Spain, so he's gone to a league with considerably less international interest and exposure (especially amongst younger fans, to whom a 'character' like Mario would appeal), so no other club is directly benefiting from our loss.

We could sign up Ronald McDonald or Barney the Dinosaur to maximise on their marketability, but is it really worth one of 23 squad places? As Mario was under 23 still, he was a luxury we could afford, as he was eligible for the UEFA B list, but he will no longer be so pretty soon.

Let me disagree quite strongly Mate.

It's not only matter of number of kits sold - on which I can't fail to agree - it's mainly about having the Club constantly attracted to the mind of worldwide new fans (real gloryhunters) by a Global Icon of the Youth.

I am not necessarily saying that it's something than we must love to be, and I am certainly not a great Mario fan, as you know my heroes are work ethic professionals like Vinnie, Bazza, Jimmy jaws and the likes, but that's the way the modern industry of global football goes and - right or wrong - I think that mario, within a Top Club, might become a commercial tool bigger than Conaldo, irrespectively of the actual achievements on the pitch, which are still far away to be expected as good as the Tronaldo's.

I concede that it's a matter of opinion, tho

Well said. Even bad publicity is good publicity. As long as he doesn't go off and join Jim Morrison, Jimi, Janis and Winehouse in the club of 27, his impact on sport could be immense, especially with racism in his home country. All you have to do is go back the USA in the 1950s and look at the impact Jackie Robinson had on racism in America (as an aside if the movie 42 is ever shown in the UK it is a must see, whether you enjoy baseball or not). This alone has marketability. If he becomes a hero in Italy it would only have helped City.

Cantona, for example, was a totally nut job, Mario is in that same class. I guarantee you any scum fan will say the good outweighed the bad. Also keep in mind Mario came to us at age 20 having never playing in England, Cantona was 25/26 and had spent a season at Leeds before he went prime time. Mario has time to mature. I still think we will regret this for both footballing and financial reasons.

You rarely, if ever, heard any of his teammates overtly or unnamed, say much bad about him while playing alongside of him.

[BlueinBosnia]

Well said. Even bad publicity is good publicity. As long as he doesn't go off and join Jim Morrison, Jimi, Janis and Winehouse in the club of 27, his impact on sport could be immense, especially with racism in his home country. All you have to do is go back the USA in the 1950s and look at the impact Jackie Robinson had on racism in America (as an aside if the movie 42 is ever shown in the UK it is a must see, whether you enjoy baseball or not). This alone has marketability. If he becomes a hero in Italy it would only have helped City.

Cantona, for example, was a totally nut job, Mario is in that same class. I guarantee you any scum fan will say the good outweighed the bad. Also keep in mind Mario came to us at age 20 having never playing in England, Cantona was 25/26 and had spent a season at Leeds before he went prime time. Mario has time to mature. I still think we will regret this for both footballing and financial reasons.

You rarely, if ever, heard any of his teammates overtly or unnamed, say much bad about him while playing alongside of him.

1. Why would him becoming a hero in Italy help us? They have a strong (as in well-domestically-supported) league, so it's not like it would breed a generation of Italian City fans.

2. Fans may prefer Cantona, but ask any Rag director who the biggest cash cow was; him or Park Ji-Sung. If we want to use up a senior squad place for FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE marketability, we should think wisely. I trust we have the backroom staff to make such a decision, which I believe is part of the reason Mario was let go before he took up a squad place that could be occupied by a more effective player.

[freshie]

Well said. Even bad publicity is good publicity. As long as he doesn't go off and join Jim Morrison, Jimi, Janis and Winehouse in the club of 27, his impact on sport could be immense, especially with racism in his home country. All you have to do is go back the USA in the 1950s and look at the impact Jackie Robinson had on racism in America (as an aside if the movie 42 is ever shown in the UK it is a must see, whether you enjoy baseball or not). This alone has marketability. If he becomes a hero in Italy it would only have helped City.

Cantona, for example, was a totally nut job, Mario is in that same class. I guarantee you any scum fan will say the good outweighed the bad. Also keep in mind Mario came to us at age 20 having never playing in England, Cantona was 25/26 and had spent a season at Leeds before he went prime time. Mario has time to mature. I still think we will regret this for both footballing and financial reasons.

You rarely, if ever, heard any of his teammates overtly or unnamed, say much bad about him while playing alongside of him.

You rarely hear any professional footballers say anything bad about any of their teammates so your last point doesn't strengthen your argument

[Florida Blue]

Well said. Even bad publicity is good publicity. As long as he doesn't go off and join Jim Morrison, Jimi, Janis and Winehouse in the club of 27, his impact on sport could be immense, especially with racism in his home country. All you have to do is go back the USA in the 1950s and look at the impact Jackie Robinson had on racism in America (as an aside if the movie 42 is ever shown in the UK it is a must see, whether you enjoy baseball or not). This alone has marketability. If he becomes a hero in Italy it would only have helped City.

Cantona, for example, was a totally nut job, Mario is in that same class. I guarantee you any scum fan will say the good outweighed the bad. Also keep in mind Mario came to us at age 20 having never playing in England, Cantona was 25/26 and had spent a season at Leeds before he went prime time. Mario has time to mature. I still think we will regret this for both footballing and financial reasons.

You rarely, if ever, heard any of his teammates overtly or unnamed, say much bad about him while playing alongside of him.

[highlight]1. Why would him becoming a hero in Italy help us? They have a strong (as in well-domestically-supported) league, so it's not like it would breed a generation of Italian City fans.[/highlight]

2. Fans may prefer Cantona, but ask any Rag director who the biggest cash cow was; him or Park Ji-Sung. If we want to use up a senior squad place for FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE marketability, we should think wisely. I trust we have the backroom staff to make such a decision, which I believe is part of the reason Mario was let go before he took up a squad place that could be occupied by a more effective player.

Correct they do have a great league there, but if the most popular player in Italy is playing for Man City, it will lead to more exposure and I suspect more shirt purchases.

[Swales4ever]

Let me disagree quite strongly Mate.

It's not only matter of number of kits sold - on which I can't fail to agree - it's mainly about having the Club constantly attracted to the mind of worldwide new fans (real gloryhunters) by a Global Icon of the Youth.

I am not necessarily saying that it's something than we must love to be, and I am certainly not a great Mario fan, as you know my heroes are work ethic professionals like Vinnie, Bazza, Jimmy jaws and the likes, but that's the way the modern industry of global football goes and - right or wrong - I think that mario, within a Top Club, might become a commercial tool bigger than Conaldo, irrespectively of the actual achievements on the pitch, which are still far away to be expected as good as the Tronaldo's.

I concede that it's a matter of opinion, tho

But how many of these glory hunters actually put finances into the club? I'd say that 95%+ will never spend a single penny on Official City merchandise, making their support a minor issue with regard to finances, except possibly those garnered from pre-season tours, for which we normally receive an appearance fee that would dwarf a share of gate revenue.

Although I agree on his potential marketability, I don't think it is worth an aged-23-or-over place in the squad in lieu of a more capable footballer. The financial rewards for the club are simply not there.

I fail to entirely make my point, Andrew.
Top Clubs finance is much more influenced by the overall impact on the media than by direct sales of merchandising or matchdays incomes, nowadays.
City, like others Global Giants, sell City Tv and braodcasting rights all over the world, not only domestically through the PL deal.
Here comes the point stressed by FB: publicity, good or bad, it's what matters most. To have a mad icon like Mario, means improving the appetite of the world media to buy City, and their interest on paying higher fees on such a purchase.
For instance, the broadcasting of City on the Italian market has increased geometrically since City hired Mancini, well before that City was re-established on top of the English Game.
I have little doubt on that having a Mario, a Spice Boy, a Portuguese Trans in the squad increase the fees that Far Eastern or US bradcasters are prepared to pay.

[maxxi]

I am sure that Wooders considers it as not a contribution of any interest, but I seem to remember that someone told that the above was amongst the reasons to be carefully considered before getting rid of Mario.

I can barely imagine what an asset Balotelli will be, in a couple of more years - for a Club very much interested on the constant rise of the marketing revenue.

Do we not have first dibs on Mario should AC wish to sell? He's still only 22 or so and another 10 years is a long time these days for a player to remain at the same club

Correct, the club secured a first refusal buy-back option as part of the £20 sell agreement!

[BlueinBosnia]

I fail to entirely make my point, Andrew.
Top Clubs finance is much more influenced by the overall impact on the media than by direct sales of merchandising or matchdays incomes, nowadays.
City, like others Global Giants, sell City Tv and braodcasting rights all over the world, not only domestically through the PL deal.
Here comes the point stressed by FB: publicity, good or bad, it's what matters most. To have a mad icon like Mario, means improving the appetite of the world media to buy City, and their interest on paying higher fees on such a purchase.
For instance, the broadcasting of City on the Italian market has increased geometrically since City hired Mancini, well before that City was re-established on top of the English Game.
I have little doubt on that having a Mario, a Spice Boy, a Portuguese Trans in the squad increase the fees that Far Eastern or US bradcasters are prepared to pay.

MUTV makes the Rags under a million of profit per year (although a turnover of 9 million), despite being established 15 years ago, and being broadcast on 11 different networks to 54 countries (http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/sports- ... XOraMqmhk0).

Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are not negotiated by the individual club, but by the league itself. If you look at broadcasting revenue, we are £16m behind them for 2011-12; this largely stems from the 9 million MUTV turnover, marketability of domestic cup games, and a small portion from pre-season friendlies, which are the only games to which they have a right to negotiate independently of the Premiership, FA or UEFA.

[maxxi]

I fail to entirely make my point, Andrew.
Top Clubs finance is much more influenced by the overall impact on the media than by direct sales of merchandising or matchdays incomes, nowadays.
City, like others Global Giants, sell City Tv and braodcasting rights all over the world, not only domestically through the PL deal.
Here comes the point stressed by FB: publicity, good or bad, it's what matters most. To have a mad icon like Mario, means improving the appetite of the world media to buy City, and their interest on paying higher fees on such a purchase.
For instance, the broadcasting of City on the Italian market has increased geometrically since City hired Mancini, well before that City was re-established on top of the English Game.
I have little doubt on that having a Mario, a Spice Boy, a Portuguese Trans in the squad increase the fees that Far Eastern or US bradcasters are prepared to pay.

MUTV makes the Rags under a million of profit per year (although a turnover of 9 million), despite being established 15 years ago, and being broadcast on 11 different networks to 54 countries (http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/sports- ... XOraMqmhk0).

Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are not negotiated by the individual club, but by the league itself. If you look at broadcasting revenue, we are £16m behind them for 2011-12; this largely stems from the 9 million MUTV turnover, marketability of domestic cup games, and a small portion from pre-season friendlies, which are the only games to which they have a right to negotiate independently of the Premiership, FA or UEFA.

Beside being the best 22 year old world beater striker, that's the value of Mario and I hope we sign him in the future..

[Swales4ever]

I fail to entirely make my point, Andrew.
Top Clubs finance is much more influenced by the overall impact on the media than by direct sales of merchandising or matchdays incomes, nowadays.
City, like others Global Giants, sell City Tv and braodcasting rights all over the world, [highlight]not only domestically through the PL deal.[/highlight]
Here comes the point stressed by FB: publicity, good or bad, it's what matters most. To have a mad icon like Mario, means improving the appetite of the world media to buy City, and their interest on paying higher fees on such a purchase.
For instance, the broadcasting of City on the Italian market has increased geometrically since City hired Mancini, well before that City was re-established on top of the English Game.
I have little doubt on that having a Mario, a Spice Boy, a Portuguese Trans in the squad increase the fees that Far Eastern or US bradcasters are prepared to pay.

MUTV makes the Rags under a million of profit per year (although a turnover of 9 million), despite being established 15 years ago, and being broadcast on 11 different networks to 54 countries (http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/sports- ... XOraMqmhk0).

Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are not negotiated by the individual club, but by the league itself. If you look at broadcasting revenue, we are £16m behind them for 2011-12; this largely stems from the 9 million MUTV turnover, marketability of domestic cup games, and a small portion from pre-season friendlies, which are the only games to which they have a right to negotiate independently of the Premiership, FA or UEFA.

[BlueinBosnia]

Beside being the best 22 year old world beater striker, that's the value of Mario and I hope we sign him in the future..

So he was one of the biggest shirt selling names at our club in one article. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Next, he was the ninth-most-Googled athlete in the world. Four of those above him I am pretty much unaware of, and if anyone else checks through the list, they will see that quite a few are due to one-off events or off-field activities (http://www.indiatimes.com/others/google ... list_start). Even Tom Daley trumps Mario in Google searches. He didn't even make it into the top 30 athlete searches on Wikipedia (http://www.rsvlts.com/2012/12/31/most-s ... thletes/#1), although David Beckham did.

Third, he topped shirt names for our club. Again, this is a useless statistic, as it doesn't tell us a) What percentage of shirts bought have names printed on their backs, b) how many of these shirts would have other names printed on them if Mario were not playing for us, and c) How many of these shirts were bought exclusively due to the fact that Mario played for us.

[BlueinBosnia]

City, like others Global Giants, sell City Tv and braodcasting rights all over the world, [highlight]not only domestically through the PL deal.[/highlight]

MUTV makes the Rags under a million of profit per year (although a turnover of 9 million), despite being established 15 years ago, and being broadcast on 11 different networks to 54 countries (http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/sports- ... XOraMqmhk0).

Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are not negotiated by the individual club, but by the league itself. If you look at broadcasting revenue, we are £16m behind them for 2011-12; this largely stems from the 9 million MUTV turnover, marketability of domestic cup games, and a small portion from pre-season friendlies, which are the only games to which they have a right to negotiate independently of the Premiership, FA or UEFA.

Sorry, can you name any of these TV rights that City negotiate independently of the PL, FA or UEFA? Besides pre-season friendlies, and a potentially miniscule-turnover TV station (which I already mentioned above), I can't think of any...