I think it's all over... it is now (the time to divest)...

The TV wasn't hogged at 8pm last night so I think it's safe to return to the sofa... yes, we came, we didn't score many goals and the England team shuffled off the plane with only a cleaning lady to wave them home... or something like that. I'm not the world's biggest football fan by any means but I would have put the England flag up if we'd got to the next round!

So hope's over for another 4 years and the England team are off to Ibeefa and other sunny climes - probably via yacht because the average Premier League player's weekly pay packet is evidently £250k (BBC, 2013) although football blogger Sameer Arshad researched national match fees and found they were "not much" according to Rio Ferdinand and often donated to charity. However, if England had won the FIFA World Cup 2014, the players would have pocketed £650,000 each as a bonus.

If we were doing a cost benefit analysis on England winning the World Cup, the return on investment would be huge - financial benefits, sponsorship and merchandising, increased match ticket sales, and lots of lovely positive PR and a jolly good 'corporate' reputation: Rule Britannia. But how can we justify this team performance? Here are some very rudimentary statistics from a non-football expert:

Over 3 England games, the average ball possession rate was 53% vs Costa Rica, 48% vs Italy and 62% vs Uruguay making the England team's overall performance 54% effective.

England played 3 games and scored 2 goals, an average of 0.67 goals per match.

Based on England's FA structure fee formula (2012) as quoted by Sameer Arshad (above), England players would have received £1,000 each for a draw (Costa Rica), and £750 for a defeat (Italy and Uruguay). So each player would have earnt £2,500 for a fortnight's play totalling £57,500 for the team of 23 players. Not to forget their home pay for their club sides of £11.5m (23 players working for a fortnight with an average salary of £250k).

At the 2012 fee structure rate, each goal cost us £28,750 in player wages.

The simplified version of this cost benefit analysis of course misses out many income streams and other associated wages / costs and despite my lack of interest in football, even I can see the importance of having a national side and participating in the biggest tournament in the world - particularly when we do well (the London Olympics is a case in point). But there is a case for putting a marketing spin on our World Cup performance, in portfolio analysis, we examine the success of our products and divest the ones that are not performing or giving us a good return on investment. Some we put out to pasture if they're past their best. If we turn the argument into one about people management, sales people earn a basic rate and receive bonuses for achieving performance goals which motivates them to aspire to greater and continued success. If they stop selling, they stop earning commission.

At the beginning of June, I decided we must blog about the World Cup and now I've reached that goal post, it's all over... I don't get the point of football but its management intrigues me. Is it enough to give your fans the dream that one day you'll win (again) or do you need to provide tangible returns? Was football better when players didn't earn as much and were just hungry for the game? Do we need to get our players to work harder for their money? Or is it just a backdrop for sponsorship, merchandising and getting David Beckham into tight white pants... now there's a thought...