EPL

Haaland admits World Cup regret, tips Brazil and England

By Sports Desk November 15, 2022

Erling Haaland wishes he was able to play in the World Cup in Qatar, and has named Brazil and England among the teams he thinks could win it.

Haaland will not be present as Norway failed to qualify, finishing third in their group behind the Netherlands and Turkey, so the Manchester City striker will have some time off before domestic football in England resumes in late December.

The 22-year-old has scored 23 goals in 18 games in all competitions for City since joining from Borussia Dortmund earlier in the year, and says he will not overdo his training during the enforced break.

"I wished I played in the World Cup of course, but that's the reality now [that] I don't do [that], but I will relax my body and my mind a lot and then I will train," Haaland told Sky Sports.

"What I will train on? Nothing special I think, it's been going quite well my first months at City, so I don't need to do so many changes to be honest.

"It's about preparing myself for the next half of the season and be ready when the next game kicks in after the break."

When asked who he believes will win the World Cup, Haaland said: "I think the favourites should be Brazil, Argentina, France, and maybe England. I cannot only say one because there are so many good teams."

Haaland was only able to play in six of Norway's World Cup qualifiers, but he scored five goals before adding another six in six games in the Nations League, and the striker wants his country to qualify for future major tournaments.

"The biggest thing we can do is to get to either a World Cup or a Euros," he said. "That of course is my goal with the national team to do. We know it's difficult, but hopefully in the future one day I'll be able to play there."

Related items

  • Premier League’s auditor awarded key contract related to independent regulator Premier League’s auditor awarded key contract related to independent regulator

    The Premier League’s auditor Deloitte has been awarded a key contract in helping to set up football’s independent regulator, the PA news agency understands.

    Sources have expressed concern over a potential conflict of interest for financial services firm Deloitte, which signed off the Premier League’s most recent set of annual accounts.

    The EFL and campaign groups want the regulator to be able to review whether any new deal agreed between the Premier League and the EFL on how television cash is split meets the regulator’s stated aim of ensuring the sport’s financial sustainability.

    The involvement of Deloitte has raised some eyebrows, at a time when the regulator’s precise remit is still unclear as the wait goes on for the publication of the Football Governance Bill.

    EFL clubs left a meeting with Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer last week concerned that the regulator would not be given powers to correct any  settlement which is agreed, something which football reform group Fair Game has said would be “unacceptable”.

    Government sources say the Deloitte contract will involve the firm providing support around the design and implementation of the regulator’s operating model, and insist the firm will not be providing advice on, or developing, regulator policy.

    Deloitte will look at how the regulator is structured, staffed, and its systems and infrastructure requirements, the Government source said.

    They said any potential conflicts of interest would be managed in the usual way, and were considered as part of the procurement process.

    The Government and Deloitte declined to comment.

    EFL chairman Rick Parry told MPs last month that his organisation was prepared to do a deal with the Premier League but stressed that the “right solution” on financial distribution and cost controls would only be reached through independent analysis by the regulator, as part of a planned ‘state of the game’ review once it is up and running.

    The EFL has declined to comment following last week’s meeting as it continues dialogue with the Government, but Fair Game – which has 13 EFL clubs within its membership – insists the regulator must have the power to intervene.

    “The number one stated aim of the regulator is to secure the financial sustainability of the football pyramid,” Fair Game’s director of advocacy Mike Baker said in a statement issued on Friday.

    “So it is not about having any regulator, it’s about having the right regulator. The status quo is not acceptable.

    “The proposed backstop powers (of the regulator) currently can only be triggered by the Premier League and the EFL authorities, and if a deal is signed now for six years the regulator will have no powers to correct it.

    “That is unacceptable. If the regulator is to achieve its core objectives then it must oversee football’s finances and reward well-run clubs. Anything else and we will have a regulator that lacks the teeth to fix football’s ills.”

    The deal under discussion between the Premier League and the EFL is believed to be worth an additional £900million over six years to the EFL’s clubs, but the EFL has strong misgivings over the cost control measures attached to it.

    While clubs in the Championship are expected to be capped at spending around 70 per cent of revenue on squad costs, in line with UEFA’s new financial sustainability regulations, those relegated to the second tier are set to be capped at 85 per cent while they are in receipt of parachute payments.

    That would mean those clubs being able to spend a greater percentage of a larger amount than non-parachute rivals. Parry believes that puts non-parachute clubs in the “horrendous” position of having to choose between being competitive and sustainable and will widen the cliff edge between the top two divisions.

    Top-flight clubs are still to agree on how any extra funding for the EFL is paid for, and on a new financial system for the Premier League to ultimately replace its profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

    Premier League clubs are due to gather for further shareholder meetings on February 29 and March 11, with the latter understood to be the more likely to prove decisive in moving this issue forward.

    PA understands a number of EFL clubs, even those who had been inclined to agree to the deal, are now feeling more hostile towards the process following the meeting with Frazer which some described as “a car crash”.

    Accrington chairman Andy Holt took to social media to voice his concerns about it and felt Frazer was applying pressure to agree to the deal, even though the ball remains in the Premier League’s court at this stage.

    Government sources have said Frazer’s position was misinterpreted and that she was advising clubs to do a deal, as has always been the Government’s position, not necessarily to accept the deal that was on the table.

    A publication date for the Football Governance Bill, which has the creation of the regulator at its heart, is still understood to be some weeks away after there had been indications it could be published on Monday next week.

  • Pep Guardiola: Sir Jim Ratcliffe speaks ‘the truth’ in bid to topple Man City Pep Guardiola: Sir Jim Ratcliffe speaks ‘the truth’ in bid to topple Man City

    Pep Guardiola has bluntly responded to Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s aim to knock Manchester City “off their perch” by pointing out he speaks “the truth”.

    Ratcliffe completed his purchase of a 27.7 per cent in Manchester United this week and immediately set out his ambitions to restore the club to the top of the English and European game.

    He did this by reprising the language of Sir Alex Ferguson, who similarly pledged to rein in Liverpool in his early days as manager at Old Trafford.

    United have won just one trophy compared to City’s 14 in the past six seasons and Guardiola feels Ratcliffe’s acceptance of the Blues’ current pre-eminent status is the Red Devils’ first step towards a fightback.

    The City manager said: “It’s the truth! As (soon) as the teams admit it, they will be closer to us.

    “If they want to deny it for things that are not the reality then it’s their problem. It’s not our problem.

    “When I’ve been below teams I’ve always admired them and thought about what we need to do to be close, to challenge them.

    “If they want to be judged on things they are comfortable with for one day they will not arrive where we are now.

    “When we were below and United were winning, we were watching them, admiring them. We wanted to learn from them.

    “The period of Sir Alex Ferguson – the generation with Roy Keane, David Beckham, Gary Neville – and all those big, big players, Rio Ferdinand – I’m pretty sure City admired and thought ‘we want to be there’. Now we are there.

    “That’s why, for these type of comments, that I have the feeling that they will be back.”

    While Guardiola now expects United to improve under the guidance of Ratcliffe, who has taken control of footballing operations at Old Trafford, he insisted it was not something that concerned him.

    The Spaniard said: “It’s not about (being) worried. I’m pretty sure with Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the other people that United are going to take a step forwards.

    “I feel that they know exactly what they have to do, appoint the people they need to appoint with their experience in the business world to make projects better.

    “But that is normal. It’s not just United. All the teams want it. We want to be there and as long as I’m here, we will try to be there again.

    “What I want is Man City, my team, being there. The rest, I don’t care.”

    Second-placed City travel to Bournemouth in the Premier League on Saturday with a chance to cut the gap to leaders Liverpool to one point in what is their game in hand.

    Playmaker Kevin De Bruyne was not risked in the midweek win over Brentford due to what Guardiola described as “niggles”.

    He would not confirm if he would return this weekend but said he was “pretty sure he will travel”.

    Guardiola said: “He’s good. He’s not injured. He’s better but I don’t know if he’s 100 per cent. I think we took a good decision not to take a risk.”

  • Campaigners highlight the need for football to have ‘the right regulator’ Campaigners highlight the need for football to have ‘the right regulator’

    Campaigners say it will be “unacceptable” if football’s independent regulator does not have the power to revisit any deal struck between the Premier League and the EFL.

    The EFL’s chairman Rick Parry told MPs last month that his organisation was prepared to do a deal with the Premier League but stressed that the “right solution” on financial distribution and cost controls would only be reached through independent analysis by the regulator once it was up and running.

    However, EFL clubs are understood to have been told by Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer last week that the regulator will not have a mandate to review any deal that has been signed off, only ‘backstop powers’ to arbitrate if no deal is agreed.

    The EFL is still in talks with the Government and declined to comment, but the Fair Game group, which has 13 EFL groups within its membership, insisted the regulator must have the power to intervene.

    “The number one stated aim of the regulator is to secure the financial sustainability of the football pyramid,” Fair Game’s director of advocacy Mike Baker said in a statement issued on Friday.

    “So it is not about having any regulator, it’s about having the right regulator. The status quo is not acceptable. You only have to look at Everton, Nottingham Forest, Reading and Sheffield Wednesday and right now the very futures of Rochdale and Torquay United hang in the balance.

    “The football authorities have failed to deliver a fairer financial flow for all of football. The EFL funds are split 80 per cent to the Championship, 12 per cent to League One and just eight per cent to League Two.

    “And for every £1,000 the game receives in broadcast revenue, £882 goes to the Premier League, £6.62 to League One and just 15p to the National League South.

    “Yet, the proposed backstop powers currently can only be triggered by the Premier League and the EFL authorities, and if a deal is signed now for six years the regulator will have no powers to correct it.

    “That is unacceptable. If the regulator is to achieve its core objectives then it must oversee football’s finances and reward well-run clubs. Anything else and we will have a regulator that lacks the teeth to fix football’s ills.”

    The deal under discussion is believed to be worth an additional £900million over six years to EFL clubs, but the EFL has strong misgivings over the cost control measures attached to it.

    While clubs in the Championship are expected to be capped at spending no more than 70 per cent of revenue on squad costs, in line with UEFA’s new financial sustainability regulations, those coming down to the second tier will be capped at 85 per cent while they are in receipt of parachute payments.

    That would mean those clubs being able to spend a greater percentage of a larger amount than non-parachute rivals. Parry believes that puts non-parachute clubs in the “horrendous” position of having to choose between being competitive and sustainable.

    Top-flight clubs are still to agree on how any extra funding for the EFL is paid for, and on a new financial system for the Premier League to ultimately replace its profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

    Premier League clubs are due to gather for shareholder meetings on February 29 and March 11, with the latter understood to be the more likely to prove decisive in moving this issue forward.

    PA understands a number of EFL clubs, even those who had been inclined to agree to the deal, are feeling more hostile towards the process following the meeting with Frazer which some described as “a car crash”.

    Sources said clubs felt Frazer was applying pressure to agree to the deal, even though the ball remains in the Premier League’s court at this stage.

    Accrington owner Andy Holt wrote on X, formerly Twitter, last week: “It feels like a neutered regulator to suit the @premierleague backed by DCMS, which removes the reason for the regulator in the first place.

    “DCMS were telling us we need to accept a deal that we haven’t even seen or we might never get one, and crucially if that deal is accepted, the regulator will not be able to relook at it, EVEN IF it doesn’t resolve the structural problems of the pyramid. It feel like grubby deals of old.”

    Government sources have said Frazer’s position was misinterpreted and that she was advising clubs to do a deal, as has always been the Government’s position, not necessarily to accept the deal that was on the table.

    A publication date for the Football Governance Bill, which has the creation of the regulator at its heart, is still understood to be some weeks away after there had been indications it could be published on Monday next week.

© 2023 SportsMaxTV All Rights Reserved.