There's no debate: as a standalone tournament, the Women's World Cup is a rip-roaring, commercially viable success. The 2019 edition broke women's football viewing records around the world. This happened not only in Europe, where the time zones were friendly and new marks were set in France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom, but also in the United States and Brazil. In fact, according to FIFA, Brazil set a new global viewing record when 35 million watched the Selecao take on France in the Round of 16.

And it's not as if this audience was simply football junkies getting their fix at the end of the European season because there was nothing else on. They had plenty of other options, from the European Under 21 Championships to the Africa Cup of Nations, from the Copa America to the Gold Cup and Major League Soccer.

The tournament was rightly celebrated across mainstream media, but you can't help but wonder what happens next and whether the right questions are even being asked, not just of FIFA, but of stakeholders in the women's game -- players, fans, associations -- around the world. Because the risk for women's football is that it turns into most Olympic events: massive audiences and media attention every four years and then zero on the Richter scale until the next Olympiad. And like many Olympic events, not a true mass participation sport but a niche pursuit for the privileged elite.

There is a significant window of opportunity for women's football. It requires creative thinking. It requires belief. It requires a willingness to hold institutions, from FIFA to federations, to account. Above all, it requires a clear-eyed realization that the priority must be making the game accessible and sustainable to every woman and girl who wants to play it.

Q: OK, let's start at the top, with FIFA. Shouldn't we be holding them to account over Equal Pay and Equal Prize Money?

A: I can see why you would conflate the two issues, since much of the media has. But they're entirely separate.

Equal pay refers to what women's national teams earn relative to their men's teams. In some federations the women's team is not just more successful, but also generates comparable, if not greater, amounts of money than the men's team. It's not quite pay in the sense that these aren't salaried employees, but more like contractors. It's also complicated by the fact that for most of the bigger men's teams, the bulk of the players' earnings comes from their club sides and the national team stipends are basically pocket money, whereas for the women they're often the main (and sometimes only) source of income. So it seems justified and reasonable to treat them equally.

Norway were among the first federations to do it and in the U.S., the women's team took legal action last March.

Q: What about prize money? The men's prize money pool in 2018 was $400 million. The women's prize money in 2019 just $30m...

A: Like I said, that's a totally different issue. The men's World Cup also had 32 teams instead of 24 so on a per-team basis, on average, the men's prize money was 10 times as high. There's a reason for that. (I'll get to it in a minute.) But what many seem to fail to understand is that prize money doesn't go to the players. It goes to the federations that then decide how to allocate it.

Some of it goes on World Cup preparation and expenses -- in the case of less wealthy federations, FIFA covers the cost with an additional pot of $20m -- some of it goes to players and staff. In the case of men's teams there's another massive expense relative to the women too: insurance. FIFA pays the cost of insuring players at the World Cup itself, but not for qualifiers and friendlies. But obviously you need to play qualifiers and friendlies to get there.

In any case, there's nothing stopping successful women's teams like the United States from going to their federation and demanding equal pay, as they have done. It shouldn't be tied to prize money.

There's also another, more pertinent, reason why discussion about investing in the women's game shouldn't focus on prize money.

Q: What's that?

A: Increasing prize money would simply steer more cash to those who need it least. The countries who perform best at the Women's World Cups are all wealthy nations with the best-established women's football programs. All eight of the countries with the most registered women footballers reached the Round of 16 in France and seven of the eight made the quarterfinals. That shouldn't be surprising: when you have far more players to choose from and more money to train them you usually end up winning.

FIFA's mission is to promote and develop the game worldwide, not to run a commercial enterprise which rewards countries who already enjoy all sorts of advantages. Every dollar spent on prize money is a dollar not going into development, and FIFA's job is primarily development. Roughly a quarter of FIFA member nations (156 of 209) don't even field senior women's teams and it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a woman to play organized football at any level.

This gap is why there's such a disconnect in the conversation. The U.S. and Australia, two of the countries that have pushed hardest for increased prize money, are actually two of the ones who, frankly, need it least. The U.S. has more than 1.6 million registered women's footballers, which is roughly 40 percent of all registered women's players in the world. It has Title IX, which ensures opportunities for women to play at university level. These are luxuries most of the world's countries can only dream of.

Demanding more prize money from FIFA smacks of a "first world" attitude if it comes at the expense of development money, especially when they can (and should) get more pay from their own FA.

Q: What exactly do you mean by "development money?"

A: These are funds that FIFA sends to member associations to promote football development. It can mean everything from coaching education to building pitches and training centers to buying equipment to leasing minivans to drive kids to matches. Right now, in addition to the general funds that FIFA makes available to member nations, they also have half a billion dollars earmarked specifically for women's football programs.

As Infantino says, if you don't run a woman's program that meets certain requirements, you don't get the money.

Q: Can we trust FIFA to hand out this money, given their past history of corruption and malfeasance? A football pitch is a football pitch after all: how do we know it's going to be reserved for women's football? In fact, how do we know it's not going to be used for some local FA official to build himself a new swimming pool?

A: No doubt stuff like that happened in the past, as Infantino himself readily admits.

Money just leaks out of the system. FIFA say they have tightened up requirements and oversight to ensure it won't happen. And, possibly because of this oversight (or maybe because they simply don't care), many FAs have left money on the table, But it requires more vigilance on a local level, that's for sure, and it requires education -- people in less developed footballing nations demanding the funds are spent -- as well as, perhaps, some solidarity from the bigger, wealthier countries.

Q: But aren't FIFA sitting on $2.75 billion in cash reserves (money sitting in the bank at the end of the last fiscal year). Surely they can do both: increase prize money and increase development funds?

A: Of course they can, and that's what FIFA President Gianni Infantino has pledged to do. He wants to double prize money to $60m (plus another $40m to help cover World Cup expenses for less wealthy nations) and also double development funds for the women's game from $500m to a billion over the next four-year cycle. It's just a little disappointing that so much of the talk has focused on prize money and not development.

In any case, hopefully this whole argument will be moot next time around...

Q: How's that?

A: What many don't seem to realize is that more that 95 percent of FIFA's income comes from a single tournament every four years: the Men's World Cup and, specifically, the sale of tickets, commercial and broadcast rights.

Effectively, the Men's World Cup subsidizes everything FIFA does, from development grants to organizing competitions like the Women's World Cup, youth tournaments, beach soccer and so on. Without the Men's World Cup, none of these things would exist because none of them can pay for themselves -- at least that was the case in the past.

Take the current cycle from 2015-2022: those rights were sold off between 2010-12 and FIFA would sell its international tournaments to broadcasters as a package deal by territory. You'd pay for the Men's World Cup, primarily, and they'd throw in competitions such as the Women's World Cup, the Under 20s, futsal and beach soccer for "free." Infantino vows to change that when the next set of rights -- for the 2027 World Cup -- comes on the global market and, on a regional basis, possibly earlier.

He pointed out that the Men's World Cup, with its global reach of around four billion, generates $6.5 billion in revenue. If the Women's World Cup in France reaches a quarter of that audience, it should generate a quarter of the Men's World Cup revenue, or around $1.6 billion. Instead, because the commercial and broadcast rights are bundled with the men's, it has generated close to zero: some ticket sales, minor local sponsorships and some merchandise and/or concessions.

When he took charge of FIFA in 2016, Infantino appointed a dedicated head of women's football, Sarai Bareman. Now the goal is to market the Women's World Cup as a separate competition. If you look at the numbers and audience, surely sponsors and broadcasters will come on board. That's a huge first step and when it happens, it will be easier to increase prize money as well. But the goal, as far as FIFA is concerned, has to be development, grassroots and access to the game.

Q: What about the top end, the women we saw at the World Cup in France?

A: Here again it's complicated and this is where the biggest decisions need to be taken, not so much by FIFA but by those who care about the women's game. Some see professional women's leagues as a key stepping stone to promote and grow the sport. I'm not so sure.

Q: How come?

A: There are basically two models for this. Neither has had much success thus far, though it's still early. In Europe, they've tried to piggyback off of men's clubs. On the surface, it makes sense since you already have a strong brand, ready-built facilities and a fanbase that loves the club. Commercially though, it has been tough.

Atletico Madrid drew more than 60,000 for the visit of Barcelona last season in Spain and 39,000 showed up to watch Juventus take on Fiorentina in Italy. In reality, those are one-off, heavily marketed games that saw many tickets given away free or at deep discounts. Atletico's average attendance is about 600 a game while Juve attract less than 500.

Even in England's Women's Super League, or WSL, the only fully professional league in Europe, attendance is less than a thousand people per game. The Times reported that the FA, which runs the WSL, "did not see the women's domestic game as a long-term project" and "were not the ones to take it forward."

In the United States and Australia, they've opted to create leagues and clubs from scratch with a franchise system. The first attempt at a fully professional league was the WUSA, launched in the wake of the 1999 Women's World Cup, which lasted three years before investors pulled the plug. (There's an excellent ESPN 30 for 30 about it.) Another league, the WPS, was started a few years after that and also went bust shortly thereafter.

Now there's the NWSL, in its seventh season. They've tried to avoid mistakes of the past by being more conservative in their spending (an approach also taken by the W-League in Australia) and their attendances, around 7,000 a game, are the highest in the world. (Those numbers are swelled a little by the staggering success of the Portland Thorns who average 20,000 a game, which is higher than 14 of the 24 MLS clubs.)

Q: OK, so the numbers aren't huge in most cases, but it's still sustainable professional football, right?

A: Well, yes and no. The three fully professional leagues have very tight salary caps. The average NWSL salary is $21,000 (with a minimum of $16,000) and in the W-League, it's $14,000 (with a minimum of $7,000). If that's your only income, it puts the player close to the poverty line. In the U.S. in particular, where many of these players are college-educated and have more lucrative career options, it can be a tough sell.

In England's WSL, the average is around $34,000 but many teams are losing money: both Manchester City and Chelsea, for example, lost more than a million dollars last season on their women's teams. Elsewhere in Europe you have a mix of professional teams paying high wages and being bankrolled by benefactors and amateur sides, with players taking second jobs.

So I guess it depends on your definition of sustainability. For now, it's sustainable under the European model if someone subsidizes it. And it's sustainable under the U.S./Australian model if you pay players a pittance.

Q: So are you saying that we should just abandon women's professional club football?

A: Not at all, silly, but we need to remember that the men's game has a hundred-year head start and didn't turn fully professional in most cases until 50 years ago. In other words, it grew organically, which is why it's so important to grow the base, develop the game and get people playing, perhaps more so than seeking out investors to bankroll professional clubs.

The reality is that investors, whether they're NWSL owners or big European clubs bankrolling their women's teams, want to see a return on their investment at some point. And if it doesn't materialize soon enough, they often walk away, as they did with WUSA and WPS. Reaching profitability from scratch takes time.

Q. So what should they do?

A: First of all, realize that the landscape across the globe is different and what's good for women's football in the U.S. may not work in China or Brazil or Germany.

Second, don't automatically mimic the professional men's game and its structures, whether it's the European set-up or the U.S. version with franchises and no promotion/relegation. Those models developed over time for different reasons, neither is perfect and, most importantly, they may not fit the needs of the women's game.

In Europe, where a number of countries have a couple of professional teams and the rest are amateur, that might mean creating cross-border leagues to raise the standard and generate commercial critical mass. In the U.S., where distances are vast and travel costs massive, that might mean regionalizing play.

More broadly, rather than insisting on the word "professional" (i.e. paid) maybe the emphasis ought to be on "full-time", meaning ensuring women have a guaranteed certain number of hours to train per week, along with mechanisms that allow them to take time off. That would expand the base and help the club game grow organically.

Most of all, maybe they could learn from other sports, like cricket and rugby.

Q: Oh? Why those sports?

A: Because cricket and rugby, despite having been around for a very long time, face some of the same challenges -- and have some of the same strengths -- of the women's game. They're not mass participation sports the way men's football is and, like women's football, they have to compete for attention. But they do have a thriving international game that commands huge audiences -- think the Six Nations in rugby or the Ashes/Twenty20 in cricket -- and the Women's World Cup showed that women's football can attract comparable audiences. So maybe the objective should be to monetize international women's football since the interest is already there.

Infantino wants to create a Global Nations' League, along the lines of the very successful UEFA Nations' League. That could well move the needle, and you already kinda see it in the U.S. with the women's team "Victory Tour." Indeed, this is one of the starkest differences between men's and women's football and, perhaps, one that the women's game ought to embrace: stars are identified more with their national teams than with their clubs.

Megan Rapinoe was all over the mainstream media after the World Cup, yet very few casual fans could name the club for which she plays (the Seattle Reign). It's evidence of the different balance of power that exists in women's football. You couldn't imagine, say, Manchester United releasing Paul Pogba two months before the World Cup and then letting him go on a France national team victory tour for a month afterwards the way many U.S. women did.

Q: OK, but they can't just make a living playing for the national team, they need club football, no?

A: Sure. But maybe the answer is, if the international game is lucrative enough, putting a pool of players (say the top 50 or top 100) on central, or "national team," contracts with the federation. (This is how it works in cricket.) That would give you a talent base from which to choose from and relieve the pressure on leagues like the NWSL and others to pay the players.

And maybe, at the high end, you can create seasonal tournaments for the world's top players.

Infantino talked about a Club World Cup: it was one of his five proposals on the eve of the Women's World Cup final this summer. You take the world's top 24 club sides, put them in one place for a month and host a tournament. With fewer travel costs, centralized promotion and more stars, maybe it can work. Or -- and I admit this is out of left field -- you have mini-tournaments where the stars are drafted in, like the Indian Premier League does for cricket, to play in short, offseason competitions outside of their result club careers.

The point is there are creative solutions. Men's elite football, with its polarization, imbalance of power and Euro-centrism, doesn't need to be the model for the global women's game.

These are all conversations that need to be happening. FIFA can help -- and after decades of hindering, they're finally on board -- so too can sponsors and investors. (But, remember, their help comes with strings attached.) What the women's game needs most is people who care about it sitting down and figuring things out. And that needs to happen before the window of opportunity generated by France 2019 closes.

Selection streak continues for a nervous Neita as she clinches 100m spot in GB team for IAAF World Championships in Doha

For the first time in her senior career, Daryll Neita faced a nervous wait to find out if she’d gained another British vest.

An impressive streak had seen the 23-year-old achieve an automatic individual major championships place in every GB team since she graduated from the junior ranks in 2015. Even in that year she made it to the IAAF World Championships in Beijing as a teenager in the sprint relay squad.

Securing British 100m silver in 2016, 2017 and 2018 qualified her for the Rio Olympics, London World Championships and Berlin European Championships. Now she’s looking to build on all that after her bronze medal at this year’s British Championships and 11.19 season’s best saw her picked for the third 100m place on the 72-strong team heading for the IAAF World Championships in Doha later this month.

“I’m feeling absolutely amazing today,” she told AW. “I had the dreaded wait of not knowing if I was going to be picked. Just to get that spot again and have another chance to prove what I can do, go out there and kill it, I’m really excited.

“Most years I have come top two – in 2016, 2017 and 2018 I came top two at trials so that’s the automatic. This year I came third and I really didn’t know if I was going to get it.

“I had a week of waiting and honestly, it was the hardest thing! My heart was beating so fast.”

While some junior athletes can struggle with the step up to senior level, Neita says she benefitted greatly from attending the World Championships in China four years ago. Although she did not race, the experience of being on the team was invaluable and set her up for more.

“I was lucky enough to get invited to Beijing 2015 as part of the relay team,” says Neita, who that summer had finished fourth at the European Under-20 Championships in Sweden. “I didn’t have a clue what I was doing there! But what I did know is that prepared me for the next year and I knew that I wanted to make the individual in 2016.

“I’d come from the European Championships as a junior, on to Beijing, stayed in a hotel with (Usain) Bolt, Dafne (Schippers), Elaine (Thompson) – I was like ‘okay, now I know what it’s about!’ That prepared me going into 2016.”

This summer has also been a learning curve, but in another way, the Jonas Dodoo-coached sprinter adds.

“My season so far, I feel like it has been a different learning experience for me,” she says. “It has been more ‘how can I mentally lock into what I am doing?’ and if things don’t seem like they are going the right way, how do I still stay focused?

“I feel like around the Anniversary Games I had a bit of a turning point. I did a lot of work with my psychologist and since that point, I’m feeling like myself again and I’m on that run. I think I’m going to see really good progression from that.

“Although I know I am physically in better shape and I am ready to drop some really good times – it’s just mentally getting that in check. Not giving up, not doubting yourself, staying positive. That has been a really big learning thing for me this year.”

No British woman has ever reached a 100m final at a world championships, though Neita came close when finishing fourth in her semi-final in London two years ago – the best ever result by a GB female.

“What I am hoping for in Doha is to shock myself with anything,” she smiles. “Make that final and anything can happen from there.”

KNOXVILLE, Iowa — The 16th annual Lucas Oil Late Model Knoxville Nationals will be run Sept. 12-14 at Knoxville Raceway.

It is the only annual late model event at the Sprint Car Capital of the World, with the sport’s best racers uniting under the Lucas Oil Late Model Dirt Series banner for three nights of racing on the historic black-dirt, half-mile oval at the Marion County Fairgrounds.

Twelve different drivers have won the prestigious event with inaugural 2004 event winner Brian Birkhofer, Scott Bloomquist and Mike Marlar each having won the race twice.

Other drivers to win the Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals are Brian Shirley, Brady Smith, Tim McCreadie, Don O’Neal, Steve Francis, Darrell Lanigan, Jared Landers and Jimmy Owens, who won the race in 2018.

Four of late model racing’s biggest current stars — Bobby Pierce, Brandon Sheppard, Josh Richards and Jonathan Davenport – have yet to conquer Knoxville Raceway.

For a greater historical perspective of the Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals we take you inside the numbers.

153 — Laps led by Scott Bloomquist during the Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals, more than any other driver.

15th — Starting position of 2004 winner Brian Birkhofer, the deepest in the field any driver has come to win.

10 — Most top-10 finishes in the Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals … Scott Bloomquist.

15 — Jimmy Mars is the only driver to start all 15 Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals A mains.

98 — Car count for the inaugural event in 2004. Fifty-eight cars were on hand in 2008.

7 — Laps led by Tony Stewart in the Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals.

Winners List

2004 – Brian Birkhofer
2005 – Scott Bloomquist
2006 – Brian Shirley
2007 – Brady Smith
2008 – Tim McCreadie
2009 – Scott Bloomquist
2010 – Billy Moyer
2011 – Don O’Neal
2012 – Steve Francis
2013 – Darrell Lanigan
2014 – Brian Birkhofer
2015 – Jared Landers
2016 – Mike Marlar
2017 – Mike Marlar
2018 – Jimmy Owens

It’s the last fling before spring! Experience the world’s best late model racing at Knoxville Raceway’s Lucas Oil Late Model Nationals! Thursday, Sept. 12th through Saturday, Sept. 14th.

BARRE, Vt. – Thunder Road Int’l Speedbowl and American-Canadian Tour officials have announced that the 41st Coca-Cola Labor Day Classic has been rescheduled for Sept. 14 at 5 p.m.

The event had been postponed this past Sunday following an on-track accident that occurred during qualifying.

As part of the rescheduling, Thunder Road’s Barre Granite Association Championship Night has been moved to Sunday, Sept. 22 at 1:30 p.m. All Thunder Road track champions will be crowned at that event as previously planned.

However, the post-race pit party that was scheduled for Championship Night will remain on Sept. 14 as part of the Labor Day Classic schedule. Thunder Road will now officially celebrate its 60th season of racing following its oldest event – one that began in the track’s inaugural season of 1960.

Much of the Coca-Cola Labor Day Classic remains to be completed. Several qualifying races are still on tap of the ACT Late Model Tour and Lenny’s Shoe & Apparel Flying Tigers. They’ll be followed by the Labor Day Classic 200, the 50-lap Flying Tiger feature, and the 50-lap Burnett Scrap Metals Road Warrior Challenge.

All general admission tickets and pit bracelets from Sept. 1 will be honored at the make-up date. Those who are unable to return on Sept. 14 can mail their tickets or bracelets to the Thunder Road/ACT offices for a full refund. These must be postmarked prior to Sept. 14.

Eight member associations will continue their bid to host the expanded Women's World Cup in 2023, FIFA confirmed on Tuesday.

FIFA agreed to increase the number of participating teams for the 2023 event from 24 to 32 following this year's edition in France, and it subsequently reopened the bidding process.

- ESPN fantasy: Sign up now!

Bidding member associations include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and South Korea, who are interested in a joint bid together with North Korea.

Belgium, who registered their interest last month, as well as Bolivia were not on the latest list.

"FIFA has dispatched updated bidding and hosting documents to all eight member associations, which will have until Dec. 13 to submit their bid book, the signed hosting agreement and all other hosting and bidding documents," FIFA said in a statement.

"Up until the deadline for bid submissions, any member association wishing to join an existing bid will be permitted to do so provided it also submits a bidding registration to FIFA."

The tournament's expansion was pledged by FIFA president Gianni Infantino at the end of this year's World Cup, which was won for a record-extending fourth time by the United States.

Interest in the women's game has arguably never been higher, with broadcast records broken all over the world in the June-July showpiece.

Almost 59 million people watched France beat potential 2023 hosts Brazil in the round of 16, becoming the most viewed women's football match of all time.

FIFA will conduct official inspections for relevant member associations in January and February 2020, and the hosts are expected to be named in May.

It was a modern transfer saga, the unprecedented football tale that will be remembered for a very long time, the telenovela that made headlines all around the world for nearly three months.

Everything was in place for the biggest move of the summer. Two years after going from Spain to France for €222 million, Neymar, 27, would this time go back the other way. He, his father and their trusted ally, super-agent/intermediary Pini Zahavi, were convinced it would happen sooner rather than later, too.

Yet despite being desperate to leave, the Brazilian superstar is still a PSG player. Both clubs involved were frustrated, fans are unhappy and the player is stuck.

How did we get here? Where did this move break down?

With additional reporting from Jonathan Johnson, Eduardo Fernandez-Abascal, Moises Llorens, Dermot Corrigan, Sam Marsden and Rodrigo Faez

Jump to: Neymar wants to leave | PSG send a message | Barca, Real pursue | Were Real serious? | Barca talks collapse | End of the saga | Will Neymar move in 2020?

Neymar decides he wants to leave Paris

At first, it looked simple: The Brazil star wanted to leave Paris Saint-Germain to return to Barcelona and PSG were opened to selling him at the right price -- their price -- to Barcelona. Barcelona wanted him back, too: in particular, his presence was desired by Lionel Messi and Luis Suarez, perhaps hoping to reunite the world-class attack that yielded back-to-back La Liga titles, three Copa del Reys and the Champions League in 2014-15.

There was no need for a public fight between player and club and there would be none of that drama, either. He enjoyed a good preseason with PSG, looking every bit involved and committed to the cause, smiling at times and bringing his brand of fun to the squad. He didn't play a single minute because PSG didn't want to take any risks that could have hindered his potential move.

- Report: Barca, PSG end Neymar negotiations
- What held up Neymar deal?
- Marcotti: Only divine intervention would see Neymar to Barca now

The drama began in Paris midway through the 2018-19 season, another tough campaign for Neymar. He suffered another major injury, following his broken metatarsal a year prior, and made just 17 Ligue 1 appearances. In January, he could only watch from the box seats at the Parc des Princes as PSG were humiliatingly knocked out of the Champions League by Manchester United, who won 3-1 to overturn PSG's 2-0 first-leg win and advance on away goals.

When Neymar finally returned, he was fit enough to start the French Cup final at the end of April, against Rennes, in which PSG raced out to a 2-0 lead inside 21 minutes -- Neymar scored the second -- but fell apart and went on to lose on penalties. After the game, Neymar slapped a spectator in the face and also publicly criticised his teammates for their inexperience. Neymar was issued a three-match suspension for his postmatch punch.

By all accounts, this seemed to be the beginning of the end of his PSG adventures. Despite having three years left on his contract, the Brazilian had made his mind up. He wanted to leave.

PSG send a message and Barca hear it: Neymar is available

At the end of May, the No.10 skipped Ligue 1's end-of-season awards ceremony to party with Rihanna, prompting teammate Kylian Mbappe to demand more responsibility within the PSG squad.

At this point, the biggest star in Paris became the Frenchman, not the Brazilian, and Neymar could probably feel the shift. He started letting people know in private that he wasn't happy in Paris and that he wanted to go back to Barcelona. However, one big change at the club would unwittingly shape the whole summer saga: Leonardo returned as sporting director on June 14, six years after leaving the club. Instead of Antero Henrique, a figurehead regarded as ineffective and incapable of the role, PSG regained a leader, a tough negotiator and a strong character. The message from Leonardo was simple: Neymar could leave, but only on PSG's terms.

Two days after Leonardo's comeback, Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the PSG chairman and CEO, gives an explosive interview to France Football where, for the first time, he opened the door to Neymar's departure.

It was an unprecedented move by PSG's owners, the Qatar royal family, to allow such a senior figure in Al-Khelaifi to speak on the record. Behind the scenes, they'd grown frustrated by Neymar's conduct, his injuries and of the fact that he'd failed to take PSG to the next level. (The 2018-19 season, with just the Ligue 1 title won, was their worst since taking over the club in 2011.)

- Grading every major transfer this summer
- Transfer window's biggest winners and losers?

Long before any official negotiations, Barcelona had been working to exert influence on the Brazilian and apply pressure for an eventual move. On June 18, for the first time, sources at the club confess that a deal for Neymar would be considered and is possible.

Before that, Neymar's return was not anywhere in Barcelona's offseason plans. Their summer strategy was simple: secure Antoine Griezmann and Frenkie De Jong, add a left back (Junior Firpo) and offload some fringe first-team squad members. But the players were in contact all summer long. Neymar wanted to come back and Lionel Messi and Luis Suarez want him back. Messi, Suarez -- the pair were on holiday together in Ibiza -- and Neymar were exchanging messages in the hopes of finally being reunited.

At the club, there were still conflicting feelings about it. Some Barca directors don't want him back after his acrimonious exit two summers ago while others know that two years before the next round of presidential elections -- Barca "members" vote every six years on who will run the club -- it would be a great coup for Bartomeu to bring Neymar back. It would also have made Messi very happy as he began initial talks for a new deal at the club, so the Catalans start working on the structure of a deal. How can they afford him after confirming Griezmann's move? They are confident they can still do Neymar.

In Paris, Neymar was late coming back from Brazil after the injury he suffered that led him to miss the Copa America. Despite a scheduled July 8 return date, he appeared on July 15 but his father claimed the club was aware of the delay.

By this point, tensions were running quite high, with PSG actively preparing for life without their superstar. Leonardo began looking at players to replace him, making tentative plans as to how he could use the money from Neymar's exit to strengthen the squad. He held meetings with Thomas Tuchel. The German manager loves the Brazilian and wanted to keep him, but he also understood the positions of the club and Neymar himself.

At the executive level, Leonardo, wanting to avoid a long saga, took charge of all negotiations. He spoke to Neymar's father, who told him that his son wanted to go. On July 9, Leonardo finally confirmed what everyone had known for weeks: Neymar wanted to leave and could leave if the right offer came in.

Barcelona continue their Neymar chase, Real Madrid enter the race

Leonardo put pressure on Barcelona, Neymar's former club. "If they want him, they can come now," he said in private and on July 15, Neymar and Leonardo met for the first time. It was a short meeting and both sides confirmed where they stood: one wanted to leave, the other was happy to let him go. There was no love there.

So Leonardo and Neymar waited before having further talks; they also waited for Barcelona to make official contact. At that time, it was one of the few credible options for a transfer given the money involved and, most importantly, it was where the player wanted to go.

Barcelona president Josep Bartomeu insisted again on July 20 that Neymar was not available but behind the scenes, he continued to talk to PSG. He was seen as the main person at the club pushing for a deal. The next step was to get Barca players involved.

At the beginning of August, Gerard Piqué talked about the discussion between Neymar and his former teammates. Barca midfielder Carles Alena revealed that the whole dressing room wanted the Brazilian back. It's a familiar charm offensive: from here, the two Spanish daily newspapers, Mundo Deportivo and Marca, filled their front pages with Neymar stories, running polls showing how many fans want him back and reporting on Messi's desire for an official reunion.

The Brazilian traveled to China with the squad for their summer tour but didn't play a single minute of preseason action, although he did participate in off-field activies like PSG's kit promotion. In the luxurious Raffles hotel in Shenzhen, Neymar had long chats with some of his teammates, who tried to convince him to stay. In return, he expressed how confident he was that he had played his last game for PSG and that soon, upon returning to France, things would finally evolve. And they do.

On August 11, Leonardo confirmed that talks with Barcelona were now more advanced. His stance was no different: Bring me what I want and Neymar is yours.

What PSG wanted was simple: to recoup as much as the €222m they paid for the player two years ago. A sale price of 200m would have been optimal, but the club left room for negotiation. However, Leonardo and the club had doubts over Barcelona's ability to pay that kind of money. They had heavily spent already on De Jong and Griezmann in 2019, leaving them with little leverage other than offering players in the deal too. Leonardo was prepared for that.

Real Madrid also entered the race. It was a blessing for PSG, who'd hoped for a bidding war between the two Spanish giants.

Were Real Madrid honestly interested in Neymar?

Real were never far off the conversation but never got too close, either. Madrid president Florentino Perez was briefly enamoured by the incredible coup it would have been to snatch Neymar away from Barcelona. After all, it was a long-held dream for Perez. When he was 14, Neymar trained at the Bernabeu and Real believed he was theirs before Barcelona got a deal done quicker back in 2013. Their interest appearsed to be one of revenge, a desire to not only add a significant Galactico to their squad but to get one back on the old enemy.

On July 12, stories emerged about the conversations between Madrid directors and Neymar's camp. Perez knew he has historically enjoyed a great relationship with PSG and Al Khelaifi, and that they would rather sell to him than to Barcelona.

Yet it took until Aug. 6 for Real to seriously enter the race. They believed that a deal for Paul Pogba would be very hard to secure with Manchester United and therefore, Neymar is the second Galactico option. As more time passed, they felt more confident they could put a good offer together, either a cash-and-player deal or a straight cash deal. They also had the money despite heavily investing in the summer.

And so, they began a public courtship through their all-star squad. On Aug. 13, it was revealed that some of their players have been calling Neymar to convince him to join them at the Bernabeu. Real got serious about Neymar and they believed they were in the best position for a deal, but Real never made a formal offer. PSG would have been keen on getting Vinicius Jr as part of the deal but that brought an immediate rejection from Perez.

Why didn't Real make a proper offer? Did they think that it would hinder their chances of getting Mbappé next summer? Or did they just want to trouble their longtime rivals?

Bizarrely, the two clubs were in constant contact over the final 10 days of the transfer window, eventually engineering a deal sending Keylor Navas to the Parc des Princes with Alphonse Areola moving in the other direction. But nothing on Neymar. It was almost as strange as Barcelona's stance on the deal from start to finish.

Barcelona, PSG can't make the deal work

On August 11, PSG beat Nimes at the Parc des Princes in the first Ligue 1 game of the 2019-20 season. Neymar was absent from the squad but the most important thing wasn't the victory or the performance: it was the hatred shown by the PSG ultras towards Neymar. They insulted him and waved banners expressing their ill will. They hadn't forgiven his incredible claim a few weeks earlier that his best footballing memory was the "Remontada" (comeback) with Barcelona against against PSG in the Champions League.

Things were bad between Neymar and the Parc des Princes faithful but also between Neymar and Leonardo. The two men, and the player's dad and entourage, stopped seeing eye to eye. The sporting director is charming but can also be tough and short if he chooses, refusing to be bullied or outsmarted. PSG rejected the first offer from Barcelona, received on Aug. 13 after a first sit-down meeting between the two clubs, which included a swap with Philippe Coutinho and Ivan Rakitic. After three hours of negotiations, PSG were not happy with what the Catalans were offering.

Talks continued but without a breakthrough, which frustrated Leonardo and Neymar, and with only two weeks left in the transfer window, negotiations became even more tense.

PSG were confident by that point that Barcelona couldn't afford Neymar at the price they demanded. They believed they were in a strong position and to make their position even stronger, Leonardo began rebuilding his relationship with the Neymar clan. The Brazilian playmaker started looking happy again in Paris. He still wanted to leave but softened his stance to the point that staying would not be an issue. Furthermore, PSG expressed that they'd welcome him back.

On Aug. 20, Barcelona proposed a loan deal with an obligation to buy next summer. PSG don't bother responding, feeling that Barcelona's wheel-and-deal approach was embarrassing for a club of their size and influence.

- Hunter: Atletico, not Barca or Real, are La Liga favourites
- Horncastle: Juve-Napoli thriller hints at wild Serie A title race
- Ogden: United could get worse before they get better

Barca tried different approaches. They considered including Ousmane Dembélé in the deal. Tuchel was keen on working with Dembele again, given their time together at Borussia Dortmund, but the World Cup winner with France didn't want to move.

Cash was also still a problem, as Barça didn't have enough of it. On Aug. 27, there was a second meeting in Paris, this time at PSG's HQ in the posh suburbs on the east side of the French capital. Different options were discussed, with a €170m fee loosely agreed upon -- Rakitic and Dembele's names were also on the table -- but no consensus over how and when the payment would be made or how much each installment would be.

While Barcelona were more optimistic, the French champions were still very sceptical. Dembélé was still uninterested in leaving the Camp Nou and privately, PSG were almost convinced that the deal would not happen. There was one more meeting planned, on Aug. 29 in Monaco prior to the Champions League draw. Both club presidents, PSG's Al-Khelaifi and Barcelona's Bartomeu, were in attendance but crucially, Leonardo remained in Paris with the team. Nothing meaningful could happen in his absence and his decision to remain away showed that PSG never believed there would be a breakthrough in Monaco.

People at the club had wondered all summer if Barcelona truly wanted their former player back and there were still plenty of question marks over how Barcelona could afford their former star. On July 14, at Griezmann's unveiling, Bartomeu explained that a €35m loan was needed to pay the full €120m release clause in his contract. They barely could afford the former Atletico star. How could they bring back Neymar considering what PSG were asking?

"We are talking about one of the biggest players in the world," a source said. "If you want him and you have the money, you pay and you recruit him. If you can't afford him, you say it and you are out.

"You don't waste people's time."

The end of the Neymar saga

Cris Cyborg has signed with Bellator MMA after a messy three-year run with the UFC.

One of the best women's fighters in the history of the sport is now under a multi-year, multi-bout contract with Bellator, promotion president Scott Coker announced Tuesday on Twitter. Coker wrote that it was the biggest contract ever given to a women's MMA fighter.

Cyborg, whose real name is Cris Justino, accompanied Bellator's announcement with a video message to her fans on Facebook.

"My goal is to become the only female fighter to hold four different major titles in the same division," said Cyborg, who has already held the women's featherweight title in the UFC, Strikeforce and Invicta FC.

The final fight on Cyborg's UFC contract came against Felicia Spencer at UFC 240 in July, a bout Cyborg won via unanimous decision. The fighter and UFC president Dana White have had a long history of butting heads and White said in the aftermath of that bout the UFC was out of the Cyborg business. The UFC waived its 90-day exclusive negotiating window with the Brazilian knockout artist, making her a free agent.

Cyborg, who is No. 3 pound-for-pound among women in ESPN's MMA rankings, won the UFC women's featherweight title by beating Tonya Evinger by third-round TKO at UFC 214 in July 2017. She dropped the belt to Amanda Nunes, also the UFC's women's bantamweight champ, at UFC 232 last December via first-round knockout. That defeat was Cyborg's first in 13 years, since her pro MMA debut in 2005.

From 2005 up until 2018, Cyborg was the most dominating and fearsome force in the history of women's mixed martial arts. Justino, now 34 years old, went undefeated and won 17 of 20 victories by finish. Cyborg has beaten the likes of Holly Holm, Marloes Coenen and Gina Carano. Historically, she has also been one of the best-known women's MMA fighters in the world, drawing solid numbers on television and pay-per-view.

"I have worked with countless athletes over my 30-plus years of promoting combat sports, but there is no one quite like Cyborg," said Coker, who promoted Justino with Strikeforce. "Her ability to excite the crowd from the moment she makes her walk to the cage is special, and having had the pleasure of promoting several of her fights in the past, I am looking forward to the opportunity of promoting her once again. Cyborg is the most dominant female fighter in the history of the sport and she will be a perfect fit here at Bellator, where champion Julia Budd and the other women that make up best female featherweight division in the world have eagerly awaited her arrival."

Cyborg was brought into the UFC in 2016 at a catchweight of 140 pounds. She had competed previously at 145 pounds, a more natural weight. The idea at the time was to set up a fight between Cyborg and Ronda Rousey, but it never materialized. Cyborg was too big to get down to Rousey's 135-pound weight class and Rousey departed the UFC later in 2016.

Cyborg and the UFC had an embattled relationship even before Cyborg was under contract. In 2014, White infamously made fun of Cyborg for her appearance at an MMA awards show, saying she looked like male fighter Wanderlei Silva in a dress. Cyborg took it like White was saying she looked like a man; White has said that he was making a comment on Cyborg's past history with performance-enhancing drugs. Cyborg tested positive for a steroid and was stripped of her Strikeforce title in 2011.

After Nunes beat Cyborg last December, White repeatedly said Cyborg did not want a rematch, which Cyborg vehemently denied. Meanwhile, Cyborg felt like the UFC never truly built out a women's featherweight division in which she could compete, which was a valid criticism.

On Ariel Helwani's MMA Show in July, Cyborg said she wanted a public apology from White as a condition of her re-signing with the UFC.

"Of course, he has to apologize," Justino said. "I think he has family, he has kids. ... I don't know if he has a heart, but I think one thing he's doing is not just touching me, because he doesn't like me. He's touching the people around me, he's touching my family. It's not right."

The rocky relationship came to an end in earnest after UFC 240 when Cyborg's team posted a doctored video online that inaccurately quoted him in subtitles while talking to Cyborg backstage in Edmonton, Alberta. Cyborg apologized on social media, but White said in an interview on the UFC's YouTube channel that the promotion was done with Cyborg.

"I'm going to release her from her contract and I will not match any offers [she receives]," White said. "She is free and clear to go to Bellator or any of these other promotions and fight these easy fights she wants. Done. Done deal. I will literally, today, have my lawyer draft a letter to [Justino's team saying] that she is free and clear."

In the Bellator release announcing her signing, it makes note of the promotion's healthy women's featherweight division, including Budd, who has won 11 straight.