“Borrowing the Chicken for Its Eggs” – What Went Wrong Between Dutch Soccer Club ADO and Chinese Owner Wang
The relationship between Dutch soccer club ADO Den Haag and its Chinese owner Mr. Hui Wang has been a rocky one since the beginning. What once seemed to be the start of a successful takeover of the struggling Dutch club, has now finally reached an all-time low after the Dutch court ordered Wang to pay approximately 2.6$ million on Thursday. What went wrong in this Sino-Dutch ‘soccer war’?
The relationship between Dutch soccer club ADO Den Haag and its Chinese owner Mr. Hui Wang has been a rocky one since the beginning. What once seemed to be the start of a successful takeover of the struggling Dutch club, has now finally reached an all-time low after the Dutch court ordered Wang to pay approximately 2.6$ million on Thursday. What went wrong in this Sino-Dutch ‘soccer war’?
The past few years have not been easy for Dutch soccer club ADO. The struggling club, that is over 110 years old, announced a takeover by Chinese company United Vansen (合力万盛), owned by Hui Wang (王辉), in the summer of 2014. Although the club was initially hopeful about United Vansen’s promised investments in the club, it soon turned out that payments failed to appear.
At the start of 2015, the club finally did receive money from United Vansen – but the affair had received a lot of media attention and relations between ADO and the Chinese owner were already going sour, especially when payments were again delayed later in 2015.
Although Wang allegedly said the delayed payments were caused by “cultural misunderstandings”, the problems were still not solved in 2016. The Dutch court has now ruled on January 5th that Hui Wang has to pay ADO nearly 2.5 million euros ($2.6 million) as part of his 2015 takeover.
Wang was not present in court on Thursday, nor did he or his lawyers attend the hearing that took place a week earlier.
Although the ‘Sino-Dutch soccer war’ is making headlines in Dutch media and international newspapers, it is receiving little media attention in China. In the Netherlands, many people are puzzled about Wang’s moves and his motivations: what went wrong?
THE CHINESE SOCCER DREAM
“Of course we are borrowing the chicken for its eggs.”
China has great ambitions when it comes to soccer. The Chinese soccer dream is such a priority that the National Development and Reform Commission, Chinese Football Association, and the Sports Bureau and Ministry of Education have set out a visionary plan to produce one of the world’s strongest soccer teams by 2050.
China has the soccer ambition, the soccer fans, and the money – but still lags behind when it comes to successful clubs and players. To become a bigger player in the world of football, Chinese president Xi Jinping made soccer a national priority in 2015; not coincidentally the same year that Hui Wang officially took over ADO Den Haag.
In a 2016 interview with Chinese newspaper Da Gongbao, Hui Wang was clear that his priorities were on the development of Chinese soccer, and not necessarily on saving Dutch ADO: “Of course we are borrowing the chicken for its eggs,” he said: “We are borrowing the European soccer environment to cultivate some cream of the crop players.”
Learning from international clubs and players is seen as an important way for China to become a more relevant football nation. On social media platform Sina Weibo, Chinese sports journalist Shi Qingsheng posted a picture of Hui Wang (l) in Holland, stating: “By Hui Wang going to The Hague (..) we can better serve Chinese football and Chinese soccer fans. We all know that China’s soccer is still in the lower levels.”
On Weibo, some netizens are clear about the fact that Wang’s plans to take over ADO had to do with his ambitions to bring Chinese players to Europe. When that did not happen, the investments stayed away.
AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY
“In the Dutch media, this ‘China nightmare’ was blamed on Wang.”
Dutch club ADO had different dreams for the club’s future than Wang had. According to Voetbal International, one of Wang’s dreams was to bring a Chinese player to ADO and have him featured in a real-life soap on his Dutch soccer adventure.
But ADO was not willing to take the player in, since his level was far beneath that of the general soccer players at the club. It made Wang suffer a loss of face – he had to cancel all plans for the upcoming Chinese TV program.
One of Wang’s alleged bigger plans was to turn ADO into a breeding ground for Chinese players, after which they could be sold with profits. But these dreams were also thwarted by the Dutch council of ADO, that did not want to turn ADO into a Chinese “trading house.”
Another issue that caused friction was the quality of Dutch trainers sent to China. One of the many ways in which Wang hoped to use ADO for the advancement of China’s soccer dream was that ADO trainers would travel to China to train young Chinese players. But according to experts in 2015, the trainers that were sent there were practically ‘unemployed’ and relatively unknown – not what United Vansen had hoped for.
ADO trainers in China, via ADO Den Haag.
One of the ADO trainers who did travel to China, the 28-year-old Feenstra, said he “went through hell” there as he turned out to be on the wrong visa and was taken into custody. In the Dutch media, this “China nightmare” was blamed on Wang. Two other ADO trainers returned to the Netherlands within three weeks after their arrival because they found the working conditions in China too straining.
On Weibo, a statement from late 2015 denies “fake news” about Wang’s late payments to ADO.
All of these reports on late payments and “China nightmares” made headlines in the Dutch media. United Vansen shared its unhappiness about the status quo on its official Weibo page in late 2015, when they released an offical statement refuting any “fake news” about Hui Wang’s delayed payments to Dutch soccer club ADO.
TWO CHICKENS, NO EGGS
“Why do they turn me into their opponent after I have invested my money into them?”
ADO’s critical approach towards Wang, the fact that they shared their dirty laundry with the Dutch press, and their unwillingness to adhere to their owner’s wishes, eventually hurt their relations beyond repair.
“Why do they turn me into their opponent after I have invested my money into them?”, Wang told RTL News in 2016.
All in all, it seems like the roots of this Sino-Dutch ‘soccer war’ can be found in the fact that the two parties, both on the Dutch and the Chinese side, were more concerned about their own goals than about those of the other.
The Dutch ADO, for 98% owned by a Chinese party, was not willing to let Chinese influences into their club – in that way ADO was also “using the chicken for its eggs.” Wang was working on his Chinese soccer dream, and not on ADO’s future.
In the end nor ADO nor Wang found the golden eggs they were hoping for. United Vansen can still appeal the Dutch court’s verdict in the days to come. It is not yet clear if they will do so.
On Weibo, the few Chinese netizens who talk about the soccer conflict seem divided. Some scold ADO for their actions, while others blame Wang for “ruining” the Dutch club.
The Chinese newspaper who covered the issue only did so briefly. As big as the ADO-Wang affair might have become in the Netherlands, for many Chinese, it is simply nothing more than a business deal gone wrong.
Manya Koetse is the founder and editor-in-chief of whatsonweibo.com. She is a writer, public speaker, and researcher (Sinologist, MPhil) on social trends, digital developments, and new media in an ever-changing China, with a focus on Chinese society, pop culture, and gender issues. She shares her love for hotpot on hotpotambassador.com. Contact at manya@whatsonweibo.com, or follow on Twitter.
The Dutch general elections on Tuesday, November 2022, resulted in a victory for the right-wing Freedom Party (PVV). The party, established in 2006, is led by the 60-year-old Dutch politician Geert Wilders who is known for his outspoken populist rhetoric and anti-establishment sentiments.
On Chinese social media, the Dutch election outcome became a topic discussed by some well-known bloggers.
The PVV secured 37 of the 150 seats in the Second Chamber, making it the largest party by a significant margin, followed by the left-wing Groen Links-PvdA (25 seats), center-right liberal VVD (24), and the brand-new centrist party NSC (20). The remaining seats were distributed among eleven other parties, each claiming between 9 and 1 seat in the Second Chamber.
Wilders’ triumph garnered international attention. As reported in 2017, the PVV’s popularity had been steadily increasing for years, drawing particular notice in Chinese media and other international publications in the wake of Trump’s victory and Brexit.
Dutch politician Wilders, referred to as Wéi’ěrdésī (维尔德斯 or 威尔德斯) in Chinese, became a recurring subject in Chinese media, with his success viewed as a harbinger for other elections across Continental Europe.
Wilders and his PVV are known for their strong anti-Islam stance, Euroskepticism, aspirations to significantly limit immigration, and populist commitment to “put the Dutch first.”
On Weibo, the well-known Chinese political commentator Hu Xijin (@胡锡进) wrote a column about Wilders’ win on November 23. Here’s a translation of Hu’s post:
“It shocked Europe, it shocked the West! The Freedom Party led by Wilders, the ‘Dutch version of Trump,’ received the most votes on Wednesday. His slogans and labels are anti-immigrant, anti-Europe, anti-Islam. The leader of the French extreme right-wing political party Le Pen immediately extended his congratulations through social media.”
“The results of the Dutch elections again show that xenophobic and intolerant political retrogressions are like cancer cells spreading across Europe and the West. However, the far-right line will not become the overwhelming new political choice in the West, as many Western societies are painfully going from side to side. Wilders also proposes that the Netherlands should stop providing weapons to the Ukraine, which goes against the mainstream European line. This is something that should be quite popular among Chinese.”
“It’s not clear yet if Wilders will actually become the premier of the Netherlands. Although his party received the most votes he only took about 37 seats of the 150 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives and will need to form a coalition government. Because it’s an extreme rightwing party, whether or not he will be able to pull allies in is hard to say. If Wilders fails, the Netherlands will not rule out a minority government.”
“Regardless, the victory of the Freedom Party is a heavy blow to Europe. There are concerns that it will become a model, that it will boost the rise of other extreme right-wing parties on the stage. In short, the West is becoming more and more chaotic and is becoming more lost.”
On Weibo, Hu Xijin’s post about Wilders received hundreds of replies, but many netizens did not agree with his stance on the victory of the Dutch right-wing party.
“You don’t represent the Chinese people,” one commenter wrote: “You just represent yourself. Don’t overstep your boundaries.”
“You’re actually so leftist underneath,” another reply said.
“Why did we witness a UK ‘Trump,’ a Brazilian ‘Trump,’ an Argentinian ‘Trump,’ a Dutch ‘Trump’?”
Among the numerous comments below Hu’s post, quite a few expressed sympathy for the populist stance advocated by PVV and Wilders. One popular comment reads, “Anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-Islamic—sounds about right?” “Europe is waking up.”
Another person commented: “Over the past couple of years, the population of Muslim immigrants in Europe and the United States has been rapidly expanding, bringing about serious social problems when it comes to public security, employment, fertility rates, and religious beliefs etc., which has since long been a source of distress for the local population.”
Apart from Hu’s post, Chinese netizens elsewhere on Weibo have also placed Wilders’ victory in a broader geopolitical context. Blogger Xiaosunchu (@小笋初) writes, “Why did America have Trump? Why did we witness a UK ‘Trump,’ a Brazilian ‘Trump,’ an Argentinian ‘Trump,’ a Dutch ‘Trump,’ and so on – all these non-traditional, anti-establishment ‘crazy’ candidates?”
According to Xiaochunchu, the election of these kinds of political figures is a result of a so-called ‘democratic illusion’ (“民主幻觉”) in the West, in which voters are perpetually disappointed in politicians as they end up getting “a different broth but the same old medicine” (“换汤不换药”): the names may change, but the system does not, leading voters to blame themselves for picking the wrong candidates when, in reality, it’s actually deep-rooted political structures that prevent actual change from happening.
Regardless of whether others agree with Xiaochunchu’s idea that voters’ preference for unconventional political figures is linked to a ‘democratic illusion,’ many do acknowledge that ‘Trump-style’ politics represents a broader political trend that began with the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
Other bloggers called the election of different ‘Trumps’ a “new change in global democratic politics” and even labeled the current international political arena the “Trump era” (“特朗普时代”). “Who’s next?” one Weibo user wonders.
“Let’s wait and see,” other people write, “It might not be easy for him to form a cabinet.”
While the Dutch formation has begun, the world will be watching to see which parties will govern together and whether Wilders might become the next Dutch Prime Minister, and the so-called ‘next Trump.’
Get the story behind the hashtag. Subscribe to What’s on Weibo here to receive our newsletter and get access to our latest articles:
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.
The introduction of a Douyin novel feature, that would enable content creators to impose a fee for accessing their short video content, has sparked discussions across Chinese social media. Although the feature would benefit creators, many Douyin users are skeptical.
News that Chinese social media app Douyin is rolling out a new feature which allows creators to introduce a paywall for their short video content has triggered online discussions in China this week.
The feature, which made headlines on November 16, is presently in the testing phase. A number of influential content creators are now allowed to ‘paywall’ part of their video content.
Douyin is the hugely popular app by Chinese tech giant Bytedance. TikTok is the international version of the Chinese successful short video app, and although they’re often presented as being the same product, Douyin and Tiktok are actually two separate entities.
In addition to variations in content management and general usage, Douyin differs from TikTok in terms of features. Douyin previously experimented with functionalities such as charging users for accessing mini-dramas on the platform or the ability to tip content creators.
The pay-to-view feature on Douyin would require users to pay a certain fee in Douyin coins (抖币) in order to view paywalled content. One Douyin coin is equivalent to 0.1 yuan ($0,014). The platform itself takes 30% of the income as a service charge.
According to China Securities Times or STCN (证券时报网), Douyin insiders said that any short video content meeting Douyin’s requirements could be set as “pay-per-view.”
Creators, who can set their own paywall prices, should reportedly meet three criteria to qualify for the pay-to-view feature: their account cannot have any violation records for a period of 90 days, they should have at least 100,000 followers, and they have to have completed the real-name authentication process.
On Douyin and Weibo, Chinese netizens express various views on the feature. Many people do not think it would be a good idea to charge money for short videos. One video blogger (@小片片说大片) pointed out the existing challenge of persuading netizens to pay for longer videos, let alone expecting them to pay for shorter ones.
“The moment I’d need to pay money for it, I’ll delete the app,” some commenters write.
This statement appears to capture the prevailing sentiment among most internet users regarding a subscription-based Douyin environment. According to a survey conducted by the media platform Pear Video, more than 93% of respondents expressed they would not be willing to pay for short videos.
An online poll by Pear Video showed that the majority of respondents would not be willing to pay for short videos on Douyin.
“This could be a breaking point for Douyin,” one person predicts: “Other platforms could replace it.” There are more people who think it would be the end of Douyin and that other (free) short video platforms might take its place.
Some commenters, however, had their own reasons for supporting a pay-per-view function on the platform, suggesting it would help them solve their Douyin addiction. One commenter remarked, “Fantastic, this might finally help me break free from watching short videos!” Another individual responded, “Perhaps this could serve as a remedy for my procrastination.”
As discussions about the new feature trended, Douyin’s customer service responded, stating that it would eventually be up to content creators whether or not they want to activate the paid feature for their videos, and that it would be up to users whether or not they would be interested in such content – otherwise they can just swipe away.
Another social media user wrote: “There’s only one kind of video I’m willing to pay for, and it’s not on Douyin.”
Get the story behind the hashtag. Subscribe to What’s on Weibo here to receive our newsletter and get access to our latest articles:
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.
Stay updated on what’s trending in China & get the story behind the hashtag
Sign up here to become a premium member of What’s on Weibo today and gain access to all of our latest and premium content, as well as receive our exclusive Weibo Watch newsletter. If you prefer to only receive our free newsletter with an overview of the latest articles, you can subscribe for free here.