In Argentina, the Private Sector May Save Soccer
Javier Milei’s plan to let nonprofit teams convert to for-profit entities may inject capital into a struggling soccer league.

Unsurprisingly, as the reigning World Cup champions, soccer is deeply embedded in Argentina's national identity. Players on the national team are praised as heroes by everyone, from die-hard fans to casual observers. Their trophies bring joy and a sense of triumph to a country that has seen much division and gloom in recent decades.
Sadly, recent victories could be the last blaze of a dying fire. Soccer (or as we call it, fútbol) in Argentina is in decline, exploited by nefarious interests—but President Javier Milei has a plan.
Until recently, domestic soccer clubs in Argentina had to be operated as nonprofits. An executive branch decree changed that, allowing clubs to become publicly traded companies. The change may spur lifesaving investment into Argentine soccer.
For fans of Argentina's national team and domestic league, this is good news.
Consider how many players are leaving Argentina to play elsewhere. In 2022, 5,000 Argentines were playing abroad, most of whom were promising players under the age of 20. Even among the 26 players on the World Cup-winning roster, only one came from a club in the Argentine league. The Argentine Football Association (AFA) is worried that players who start their careers overseas will choose not to represent their national team in international competitions. Even Lionel Messi, a dual national, was tempted to play for the Spanish national team before choosing to play for Argentina. AFA lives in constant fear of having a future world champion slip through their fingers.
What's causing this exodus of talent? While part of it is Argentina's general economic malaise, some, including Spanish La Liga President Javier Tebas, point a finger at AFA's narrow-minded refusal to allow private investment in the national soccer market. Tebas has said the Argentine team won the 2022 World Cup "despite AFA" because their players "were forged in European clubs."
Milei's reforms mean international companies could buy and sell teams, or invest in Argentina's striving clubs. An injection of foreign capital would be a boon not just to the clubs who'd be able to improve their capabilities and keep talented players at home, but also to the Argentine economy overall, as clubs expand and create more jobs with their newfound capital.
AFA leaders and some major teams denounced the reforms as a "privatization of football"—and if you know how the clubs currently work, it's easy to understand their resistance.
In Argentina, soccer clubs are more than just sports teams. A club is like a church, a provider of all manner of cultural and educational services, a place for communities to share, for families to enroll their children and invest in their future—every young player's dream is to go pro and pay back his parents' sacrifice. While the clubs are already private nonprofits—an organizational model they're very defensive about—in reality, they are run by politicians, celebrities, and businessmen who use them to promote their public image. They keep governance opaque, convoluted, and unaccountable, cementing their power by making deals with barra bravas, powerful hooligan organizations that handle their illegal activities and intimidate opponents into silence—both within the clubs and in electoral politics.
Revenue from the domestic soccer league, such as TV rights money, is dispensed in a pyramid scheme with AFA President Claudio Tapia at the top, doling out favors to keep the clubs economically dependent. About 97 percent of clubs have, at some point, been on the brink of bankruptcy. This causes a vicious cycle: Teams in the league can't afford to keep promising players, who leave for foreign teams with deeper pockets, so the teams perform worse and earn less revenue.
In the late 1990s, Racing Club, one of the historic "Big Five" clubs, went bankrupt and was nearly liquidated. AFA authorized a special rescue plan that allowed insolvent clubs to contract private firms as management in exchange for financial salvage, copying previous experiences of successful entrepreneurial partnerships. Despite the plan's limited scope and the familiar cry of "veiled privatization," it performed so well that several clubs started contracting out their assets and are now faring consistently better than the rest. Meanwhile, fans remain involved by exercising oversight over contractors.
In a microcosm of national politics, mafiosos and oligarchs use populist rhetoric to entrench themselves in power, and then call the private sector to bail them out when reality catches up. In soccer, it's catching up again. Investment is still limited, the player pool is shrinking, clubs are chronically indebted and their services are becoming impoverished and exclusionary. Meanwhile, they're still run by a powerful few but lack transparency or efficiency. A country that's practically synonymous with fútbol should be attracting money and talent from all over the world, not scaring it away. A few conglomerates have expressed interest in Milei's reform, but he'll have to get past attempts at judicial obstruction and silencing of internal dissent by the AFA establishment.
Argentina is the birthplace of many stars in soccer history, but its clubs are suffering from economic stagnation. The private sector can help Argentines reclaim their clubs as social spaces and as points of national pride. Milei's reforms are an opportunity for soccer to become part of the nation's economic recovery. The profit motive, social ethics, and political will of those who love the sport can lead to even more glory.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is there anything government can't fuck up?
(Rhetorical question)
Yes. Medicare is by far the most efficient health insurer in the US. Government owned electric utilities usually provide electricity at lower costs. There would be almost no public transportation, and no railroads or highways or canals or ports or pipelines or electricity transmission lines without the government. And without government law enforcement we would be like Somalia.
CHARLIE HALL!
There would be almost no public transportation, and no railroads or highways or canals or ports or pipelines or electricity transmission lines without the government.
Huh, you apparently have no knowledge of the history of rail and subways in the 19th century. There's an interesting history about how the first rail lines under the East River came to be. Entirely privately built. Entirely. In secret, in fact, without government approval, because there was no such thing as a "permit to build a rail line under the river".
The problem is that after you get private sector sports you will almost certainly get massive corporate welfare. What big city in the US has NOT contributed huge amounts of public funds to a sports arena to be used primarily by a sports team owned by rich people? Reverse Robin Hood.
Argentina is experiencing hyperinflation and Milei should be worrying about that.
The problem is that after you get private sector sports you will almost certainly get massive corporate welfare.
It sounds as though they already have massive corporate welfare. But when it comes to football, Argentina can fuck itself. They have a tradition of thuggery and cheating.
Don't cry for me.
You do realize that in many of those situations voters approved of the “massive corporate welfare”, don’t you? You can’t be this stupid.
It’s far from the worst use of tax money, if you really think about it.
Hopefully, the private sector will save soccer all over the world because nothing puts me to sleep faster than watching a soccer match.
They'll take whatever ratings they get.
This doesn’t make one bit of sense and smells corrupt (like MLB). Football is a global sport and Argentina is a midsize economy (#24 by GDP comparable to Ireland or Sweden) and a long way from anywhere except Brazil. The best players are not going to take hometown discounts to play in Argentina. If an Argentina team is going to be profitable, it is not going to be via cost-cutting. So it has to be from revenues. Which means either media rights (which is a league/schedule/governing body function not a team function) or stadium ‘deals’. Stadium deals means extorting municipalities for land deals or subsidies or tax games or other stuff that has nothing to do with the sport itself. That is where for-profit teams v non-profit teams make a huge difference. Non-profit River Plate can survive in a 1938 stadium with periodic renovations. A for-profit River Plate will require billions in municipal subsidies for new stadiums and crony land deals every decade or so.
If the main point of your article is to ‘save Argentina soccer’, then I really don’t get it. Argentina is the current World Cup champion so they are hardly drowning. If the governing body (Argentina Football Association) is not doing a good job of getting media rights for the top division, then split them successfully like the PGA/USGA. Has nothing to do with whether the teams are profit or non-profit.
If the governing body is doing a poor job of developing the next and next-next-Messi, then youth leagues are exactly the wrong place for-profit teams will improve anything. The perfect example is MLB baseball. They have so obliterated youth and amateur baseball over the decades, that the number of playing opportunities (minor league and amateur teams) has dropped by 80% and very few American kids who are athletic dream of playing baseball.
You know Argentina soccer better than I but if its Argentina I’m gonna suspect the problem is corrupted institutions – like the governing body. The two best governing bodies for soccer are England and Germany.
The Football Association (England) is owned by teams – and allows teams to be for-profit. The overwhelming number of teams are not profitable and never will be (since the FA doesn’t allow extortion of municipalities for stadium/land deals and it requires what MLB doesn’t which is promotion/relegation). For billionaires that seems to be OK because they just want a trophy asset that collects trophies and profits from asset inflation or tax losses.
The German Football Association has 6 million owners – fans, players, teams, clubs, municipalities, etc. Teams can have a for-profit ownership but not a controlling interest. So its more like a local company that buys a stake in order to advertise for employees or somesuch – not billionaires. With 175,000 teams organized into 25,000 clubs, they are hardly dying for lack of investment.
Very few Argentinians on national team play in Argentina or Germany – but do play in England. Both the England and Germany national team play for English or German teams – but that is because those are big economies.
Looking at the German and English premier division teams:
The average Bundesliga team (remember in German terms more like a Green Bay Packers coop not a for-profit) earned $47 mm in profit on an income of $1.7 billion
The average English team lost $200 million on an income of $2.4 billion
IOW – Looks to me like the for-profit English are more valuable for their tax losses/shelters for wealthy individual owners than for their ability to earn an income.
MLB does have promotion and relegation — but it's of individual players, not whole clubs.
But that means it doesn’t work.
With MLB, a team that sucks enough to be relegated, keeps all the media contract revenues, trades away high contract players, signs minimum pay players, and makes a freaking fortune for a couple of years spent 'rebuilding' – for sucking. A player who gets sent down loses pay – and is not able to even find another baseball employer in the US unless the team has done that three times. Each MLB team controls six or so teams – basically all the minors. So most minors players earn less than minimum wage.
With relegation, a team that sucks enough to be relegated first loses the media contract revenues that apply to their former league. So they have to trade their high contract players or they lose a ton of money. They then have to hire players who are more at that new league level – or go into the hole and hope for a quick promotion next year. A much better incentive structure so teams don’t tank and kill the sport/competition itself. Players themselves will often get traded from one team to another – esp in that promo/relegation shuffle. But they are contracted very early on in their career so their pay tends to track with their aging/development curve – not some team jerking them around.
Argentina's also one of the few countries in the Americas with a great deal of spectator interest in Rugby Union football.
Argentina owes Karma for 1986.
And Rattin - appropriate name for an "animal" - in 1966 and Simeone in 1998