Investor dispute in winter sports: who is deceiving whom?

One of the greatest achievements from Johan Eliasch’s term at the helm of the World Ski and Snowboard Federation Fis is likely to be the attempts to retrospectively capture the president’s controversial statements. A classic: when Eliasch defended the World Cup trips to North America with the thesis that a race in the private jet paradise of Aspen was basically more climate-friendly than an event in Schladming, where 30,000 spectators would cause larger ecological footprints. (Eliasch later claimed that he had been misunderstood). In any case, it’s no wonder that the 62-year-old doesn’t want to take any blame for the fuss that has been swirling around his association for days.

Last Saturday the SZ and the Swiss View reported on an offer from the investor CVC to the Fis: 400 million euros for all commercial rights to all winter sports under the Fis flag, plus the prospect of further distributions. The Fis initially moderated this coolly: the offer was too vague to be taken into account. We are also already in constructive negotiations to at least market the media rights centrally. In any case, you are “well capitalized” and don’t need any “further financial resources.” This resulted in a sharp letter of protest from 59 officials and large parts of the Alpine athlete elite. They essentially asked Eliasch to at least take a closer look at CVC’s offer.

The Fis now responded with an equally sharp statement: The protest letter suggests that they “rejected an irresistible offer from CVC for the media rights to ski and snowboard events without properly considering this, because they are already working on centralizing international broadcast and media rights with the Infront agency.” This impression is “wrong”. CVC’s offer is “unrelated” to the centralization of media and broadcast rights. Instead, she proposes investing in a joint venture in which “all commercial rights associated with the Fis and its national associations are bundled”. Eliasch even claimed on the ORF station that many athletes were deceived with incorrect information and therefore signed the protest letter.

As always with Eliasch, it’s worth taking a closer look – and it raises the question of who is really misleading whom here. The CVC offer actually shows that a joint venture would bundle all commercial rights of FIs and national associations. But there would be also media rights affected. CVC mentions this in point three of its offer, referring to “the monetization of media rights”, which would lead to distributions to all actors. It even gives the Fis the choice of relying on external agencies for certain rights transactions (like Infront for the media). Ultimately, the Infront deal and the CVC offer are different approaches: While Infront and Fis proceeds alone promise with media rightsCVC wants to generate more through an overall package, including Media rights – a speculative but potentially more lucrative bet.

Why didn’t Fis initially go into this in more detail? The world association then reiterated that the offer was missing “essential details” on strategic points or governance issues. This is not unusual for a first investor offer. In its offer, CVC also shows a schedule according to which “business plans and investment structure” could be finalized in working groups in January 2025. An increase in prize money, which the Fis misses, also appears on page one of the offer: “We expect that athletes will benefit from (…) increased prize money through the investment.” It is also exciting that the Fis claims that they have the CVC -Offer not rejected at all. You are “well capitalized” and don’t need any additional money at the moment.

A majority of the athletes who criticized Eliasch in the first protest letter followed up with a second letter on Monday

Other industries can learn something from such semantic finger exercises. When an employer rejects an applicant, it’s not a rejection – it’s just him currently no need?

In any case, things are unlikely to become acute with CVC and the FIS. The Fis announced that Eliasch met with CVC representatives on Monday. They admitted that they had “neither checked the Fis strategic plan nor the financial structure”. However, according to the Fis, they feel committed to all initiatives that are aligned with the vision and long-term growth of winter sports. Loosely translated: When CVC completes its tasks, you can start a conversation. CVC declined to comment when contacted.

Incidentally, the majority of those athletes who criticized Eliasch in the first protest letter – apparently including Mikaela Shiffrin and Marco Odermatt – followed up with a second letter on Wednesday (which is available to the SZ): They had also exchanged ideas with CVC – and found that a The deal still requires a lot of work, they say. However, it is clear that “CVC is driven by a sincere commitment to the growth and development of our sport”. Eliasch and the Fis should continue discussions with CVC and put the deal with Infront on hold.

Does it sound like someone feels deceived?

The German Ski Association has fundamentally agreed to central marketing with Fis and Infront – this could come into force soon

At the moment it doesn’t look as if the FIs and the national associations are listening to the athletes. Some associations have already approved the Infront construct, including the German Ski Association (DSV). In order for it to become effective, the Fis must meet conditions, such as returning ownership of media rights to the national associations (which was changed in April amid great debate). At least nine out of ten associations that organize FIS World Cups must also be on board by mid-December – excluding Austria, which has withdrawn from the plans. According to SZ information, this quorum could soon be reached.

DSV board member Stefan Schwarzbach would welcome that. It has always been emphasized that they will not turn away from central marketing with the Fis, he says: “If you look at it objectively, you have to say: almost all of the demands we made have now been met.” He is not against an investor. But he sees the many imponderables that still accompany the CVC offer. Schwarzbach believes that the suggestion that Eliasch recently made is more coherent: first introduce centralization with Infront, then check from next summer whether additional money should flow into the new structure. It is questionable whether CVC will still be interested if the media rights are tied to Infront for years.

Ultimately, Schwarzbach admits, a familiar question hangs over everything: “Can you enter into such a partnership with President Johan Eliasch? Because that presupposes that the promises will be kept more reliably in the future than was previously the case.” This is also why “we have recently worked very intensively on all the details”.

At least the athletes involved should now have understood how justified the skepticism is.