Last weekend, we experienced a sporting first: The Premier League had its inaugural ‘winter break’.  The interlude gives each club a minimum of 13-days’ rest between top-flight matches – allowing players a dose of increasingly rare R&R. It is also structured in a way that ensures just as many games will be televised over the fortnight as there would be on a normal week. From a commercial and content perspective at least, normal service resumes, and so everyone wins, right?

Not quite – the extended break has led the Premier League’s calendar to clash with the UK’s Football Association (FA) and, more specifically, a round of replays for its ever-questioned, but highly revered, FA Cup. The calendar clash resulted in Liverpool’s effervescent manager Jurgen Klopp, who had been led to believe he and his players would get a full fortnight off, to send a youth team with an average age of just 19 to play against lower-league Shrewsbury last Wednesday – and not even attend the match himself.

Klopp’s absence prompted plenty of headlines, most of them negative. But beyond the immediate resentment shown by the media, his decision has catalysed much wider public debate on, and scrutiny of, what has been a longstanding issue of contention in modern football: player protection (of which many clubs, national teams and – least surprisingly of all – managers and current players are major advocates) versus the quenchless appetite of fans, broadcasters and international governing bodies alike, for a relentless supply of elite football.

We all know football pays. And to gain the rights to reap some of the sport’s financial rewards, broadcasters part with vast sums of money. They will, therefore, do their utmost to ensure there are as many games played at exposure-topping times as possible – and rationally so. This demand, the broadcasters argue, is all driven by the fans. And in wanting to broadcast so many games, not least over the hallowed (dreaded) period over Christmas and the New Year, they are – or so they would have you believe – providing a public service.

However, this year’s ‘festive season’ in particular exemplified why a break has been long demanded by managers and players; each team played four games in just 12 days. While it is indisputably brilliant for vested interests in the media and fans alike, such a busy schedule resulted in no fewer than 74 injuries.

If the Premier League & FA had heeded Klopp, Pep Guardiola (Manchester City’s manager) and Jose Mourinho’s (Tottenham Hotspur’s head coach) almost weekly appeals, and ring-fenced a winter break that I was sacrosanct in its care for the players, the majority of these injuries would have been prevented. But would bottom lines therefore be dented?

As is so often the case, there is a serious commercial argument to be made for a supposedly purposeful move, as well as an ethical one – even with fallow weeks! In the modern-day, fans’ loyalties increasingly lie with players, rather than clubs. Consequently, should a star player leave to another team or, more pertinent here, pick up a long-term injury, clubs could lose out on a season-defining amount or revenue, creating a compelling financial as well as ethical case for a break.

Factoring this rising influence of player power on the game, the fact that the most impassioned protests for the time off came from managers of the so-called ‘big six’, of which Klopp is one, is therefore no surprise. After all, it is they who have of a large number of players who have garnered a ‘cult’ following from fans. They also play the most games: they tend to go the furthest in knockout tournaments and have the major commitment of European football to contend with. Last season, Liverpool played an astonishing 53 competitive matches. Contrast that with bottom of the league Huddersfield, who played a relatively meagre 40 – and the root of complaints from Klopp et al. becomes plain for all to see.

However, if one scratches below Klopp’s no-shows or Guardiola and Mourinho’s press conference complaints, could it be that, conversely, elite clubs are the beneficiaries of the modern, jampacked game? And that those losing out are, in fact, the country’s lesser clubs?

Whereas Liverpool’s Premier League matches were televised 29 times in 2018/19 (earning them £33.5m), just eight of Huddersfield’s games graced our screens (perhaps mercifully so given some of the football they played!) – remunerating them with a ‘meagre’ £12.3m. Then factor in Liverpool’s Champions League win, and all the royalties it will have brought, and the elite clubs’ busy schedules start to look like more of a blessing than a curse. High-achieving clubs with Champions League football are given the financial means to develop and rotate their squads sufficiently, which makes phenomenon like Liverpool’s current unbeaten run, one of the longest in English footballing history, possible. Instead, it is the smaller clubs with oft-depleted squads and fewer resources, constantly playing catch up.

Even though Klopp’s decision to watch Liverpool’s teenagers beat Shrewsbury from the comfort of his own home was, by all intents and purposes, a political stunt, behind it lay a serious statement about the changes he wants to see made to professional football. Counterintuitively, he – and his ‘superclub’ contemporaries – should be careful what they wish for given how the status quo treats them. Instead, it is the Premier League and broadcasters’ whose previous reluctance to embrace the break, may transpire to be misplaced. In resting and protecting the increasingly important players – the League’s ‘means of production’, – fans will see them more consistently, be happier with the product they’re consuming and, consequently, keep the commercial beast that is football, churning along nicely.

Throughout history, generations of youth have catalyzed change. From the teenagers and young men who joined in the Boston Tea Party to students who led anti-war protests and civil rights marches in the ‘60s, young people have leveraged their values and idealism for good — in hopes of creating a brighter future. The big difference today is that, for my generation, the stakes are higher.

Climate change can’t be reversed, and we’re already seeing its devastating impacts. This has created a stronger sense of urgency for us than for any previous generation. And, as we hope for a lasting future and fear unstoppable damage, we believe that each of us has work to do.

As we have seen from Greta Thunberg, Time’s 2019 Person of the Year, the voice of a single person can trigger a movement. From high school walkouts to Fire Drill Fridays, young climate activists around the world are sending a strong message, asking politicians to influence change. But they aren’t our only target — our attention is shifting, and corporations are the new mark.

In general, we prefer to engage with companies with whom we morally align — a trend expected to increase over the next decade, and not just with my generation. FleishmanHillard’s 2018 Navigating Zero Gravity study found that two-thirds of U.S. consumers say they’ve often or sometimes stopped using certain products or services because the company’s response to an issue doesn’t support their personal views. A majority of millennials, the youngest of the audience polled in this study, thought that companies should speak out on climate change.

And consider that those statistics were published while the Sunrise Movement was still in its infancy and before Greta Thunberg became an international icon. Today, the stakes for businesses are even higher.

With millennials and members of Generation Z currently controlling 37% of the voting population and a majority of spending each year, these figures are beyond important for all to consider.

More and more, my generation will use our values to guide where we spend money — and our time. As mentioned in a recent Forbes article, “If employees are with a company that deviates from their values, they either stand up for what they believe in or vote with their feet — by walking out the door in protest.”

Based on those same values, we are increasingly mindful of our paper and plastic waste, the impact of our consumption habits and the amount of unnecessary car emissions we contribute. But, as we enter a new decade after experiencing the hottest one on record, I’m committed to turning up the heat on my approach to climate change.

I feel fortunate to start my career at a company whose values match my passion for sustainability, and where I have the opportunity to engage with clients on issues related to sustainability and climate change, as well as simply how to engage with the youth of the world. That’s already enabling me to make an even greater impact than I could as an individual.

As youth climate activists — and young people in general — continue to expand their mindset from a policy-change perspective to a focus on corporate responsibility, it will be increasingly important for the global business community to follow suit. I’m excited to play even a small role in helping to make that happen.

Times are changing, the planet is warming, and it’s time for companies to be on the right side of history or face the consequences of alienating their current and future customers and employees.

The annual World Economic Forum meeting, convened in Davos, Switzerland, provides more than 3,000 delegates – including titans of industry, NGOs and world leaders – a unique opportunity to discuss and find solutions to some of the most pressing, global socioeconomic and geopolitical issues of our time.

The “Authenticity in Action” report shows that three out of four consumers globally expect CEOs in particular to take a stand on issues that have an impact on the company’s customers (74%), products and services (72%) and employees (71%).

For 2020, the week-long Forum will focus on seven primary themes that impact society across business, government and culture.

• Healthy Futures
• How to Save the Planet
• Tech for Good
• Society & Future of Work
• Beyond Geopolitics
• Fairer Economics
• Better Business

When President Trump announced that he would attend the Forum in 2018, many attendees began developing intricate contingency plans to account for added security and potential political fallout. However, given the already heightened security and plethora of world leaders in attendance, Trump’s visit was significantly less disruptive than anticipated. Of consequence, the President held a dinner with 15 global CEOs, and addressed the full hall with a speech that touted the U.S. as “open for business.”

Flanked by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer in his trip to the mountain this year, President Trump focused heavily on trade during his remarks.

Coming off the successful passage of the USMCA and the “Phase 1” trade deal with China, markets closely watched President Trump’s address – and Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng’ s three hours later – for developments in trade relationships, as well as the President’s evolving approach to Europe. President Trump doubled down on his rhetoric Tuesday at a press conference, noting that he is serious about imposing tariffs on European automobiles if he can’t strike a trade agreement with the European Union.

With such a heavy focus on trade, and an “America First” agenda, the Administration held a number of high-level meetings with other world leaders. For companies and NGOs attending WEF, and meeting with government officials (from any country), here are a few questions to consider:

• Can your organization justify the significant investment to stakeholders, and explain how attendance furthers your larger organizational objectives?
• What is the likelihood that what you discuss in private meetings is reported in the media, and would you like the narrative it creates?
• For any reports that you are launching at WEF, how can you give them news legs off the mountain?

In today’s politically tumultuous climate, a high-profile meeting with senior administration officials carries innate risks, however, also offers unique opportunities. It’s important for communications professionals to be able to provide a simple, concise answer tying these meetings back to organizational objectives, long-term vision and core values.