It's a strange argument unless you just defend everything Catapult. Regardless of how many actually watch a game or the size of their budgets compared to EU / US main sports, I would think Catapult would really want to have kept the FFA, US, Chinese & Brazilian FA's, the numerous national rugby federations & NZ rugby teams as paying clients - and I would think most shareholders would too - so why didn't they ?
In terms of pricing being a factor - From my experience, I believe it's complete folly to think these National Associations base the purchase of their future player data supplier on price - they go with the most suitable platform and service organisation capable of providing accurate, reliable, high- quality data across their many member teams, they negotiate, and where possible they usually stay with the incumbent. As I have said repeatedly, quality data will win, and as there are several more large tenders out there at the moment - we can only hope we win them.
Re your comment on NYCFC - In discussion with Statsports COO in Feb, and he was happy for them having a "partnership" [ aka sponsorship] of an under 14 / 15 side as it was good for the junior team. It seems a bit disingenuous for Catapult to make out that NYCFC are a client. Like most of the EPL sides, the Man City teams globally use Statsports for all senior, training & academy teams. Whilst on that subject - I look to give Catapult credit where credit's due but at the elite level I doubt that top French side PSG, an FFF member [Catapult client], who did extensive comparative testing, would have switched from Catapult to Statsports based solely on price - but perhaps Catapult's wins [UKRL or CAF] did - but what would I know!
As for the 80% wins - I kinda believe them also - kinda. As for your call " Socceroos are #42- they'd probably get beaten by a decent UK high school team" - maybe not now! GO Matilda's !!
CAT Price at posting:
80.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
