So what has happened?

Can someone really come up with a clear explanation on what has gone wrong with the Football Association of Malawi’s deal with kit manufacturer Puma? Only a few years ago, we were told in very clear terms that the deal we had then with Adidas was a raw deal and, in keeping with what most  African football federations were doing, we would be switching on to Puma because the deal has more advantages.

Now the language is similar, save for the fact that this time we have not said where exactly we intend to go in the event that negotiations for a review of the deal does not yield the desired results. I have grown up believing that if one has to ditch partners in succession citing almost the very same reasons, chances  are that the problem may not be with the partners and it is time to do some thorough soul-searching.

Which perhaps has already started seeing as the FAM president Walter Nyamilandu is conceding that the association may have overestimated the market and what it can offer. If that is the case, then I fail to see where the problem with Puma is and how a switch to another kit manufacturer by itself changes the  association’s financial fortunes. A review of the terms with more realistic estimates seems most sensible to me.

At the end of the day, questions have to be asked about FAM’s capacity to engage in negotiations. How did we come up with our inflated estimates of the market for the Puma merchandise? Who did it and on what basis? Are they going to account for their mistake or they will be asked to come with another guess  which may also be off the mark? You see now where the problems begin? It is simply not rocket science.

This rather depressing news was preceded by more exciting news that Fifa would be helping the  local association by investing in a $100 000 marketing project which will involve the hiring of a head of marketing and the purchase of modern television broadcasting equipment which will be leased out to MBC for beaming of international and local matches. On the face of it, this is a very welcome development.

However, in Chichewa we have a saying that ukalumidwa nchakuda umaopa khala (when you have been stung by a black “thing” you even fear cold charcoal) and because of the earlier discussion, I would like to urge caution. Having television broadcasting equipment is one thing and making money out of it is yet another.

Any excitement over this development, therefore, must be tempered with a significant dose of realism.

I agree with Nyamilandu that the main source of revenue in modern day football is through TV and broadcasting rights, but just like in the Puma case, we need to be realistic on how much money the Malawi market can rake in. The same kit deals that have proved a flop here are doing well elsewhere and while clubs and national teams the world over make substantial money from other merchandise that has also not worked here.

Of course, lest I wear the label of a doom merchant, the positive side of this story is the hiring of a head of marketing. If the right person is brought in, he or she may just diagnose the problem that makes things that work elsewhere fail here. If that person goes further and finds answers to those problems, a new chapter may just have been opened in the commercialisation of our football. We have sung this song for far too long.