[Football] The PL - what’s the point?

[drew]

Interesting question. Shortest answer is perhaps that it is easier to relate to footballers. We've all played football. But to be filthy rich(er) like any PL owner, you've had to **** people over for eternity and not too many people tried doing that.

Not a good answer. Perhaps we've all dabbled with a bit of singing in the car or a bit of Karaoke but we don't all earn the same as the likes of the Rolling Stones, Coldplay or U2 for example.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Compared to other recent transfers this seems well cheap. £51 million for like- the top in form striker of the last 2 seasons. Bargain.

Neymar was £200 mill and he is absolute pony.

Sancho hasn't exactly set the Premier League on fire either.

 

[Hamilton]

It’s not really a competition if nobody else can win it. It’s always been the case that there are big clubs and small clubs, but the disparity in resources and cash is now so wide that the best we can hope for is to dish out a bloody nose every now and then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugo Rune]

£104m in salary over the 5 years.

If he has an EPL scoring record like Shearer’s by 2027, there won’t be many people who think he is not worth it.

I wonder if the directors of bet 365 (who will be paid more) deserve their money more?

 

[Hamilton]

Focussed and derermined maybe - but without going into morality and ethics there must be many people over the years who wish the hadn't done business with TB. All those millions he has accumulated were once owned by somebody else, who has now lost them!

Yep. Betting syndicates have lost their cash to him via his rather clever Star Lizard algorithms. I don’t think Tony has done much other than be shrewd and clever.

Footballers on the other hand do something that we would all love to do for a fraction of their wages. That is why I guess we balk at their pay more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beach Hut]

Interesting question. Shortest answer is perhaps that it is easier to relate to footballers. We've all played football. But to be filthy rich(er) like any PL owner, you've had to **** people over for eternity and not too many people tried doing that.

Not sure how you do it but you actually manage to become an even bigger **** with each post

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Yet Pep still moans about the state of his squad.

 

[BadFish]

Footballers seem to get singled out for this more than anyone else. Hollywood actors get paid crazy sums but it doesn’t seem to get the same attention. All the owners of Premier League clubs (including Tony Bloom) have earned more than footballers ever will. Why is the focus on footballers?

. . .because football fans can't afford to go to watch their teams and because football clubs are going out of business.

 

[BadFish]

Yep. Betting syndicates have lost their cash to him via his rather clever Star Lizard algorithms. I don’t think Tony has done much other than be shrewd and clever.

Footballers on the other hand do something that we would all love to do for a fraction of their wages. That is why I guess we balk at their pay more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They would all do it for a fraction of what they get as well. Although to be fair so would musicians, actors, CEOs . . . the lot of them really.

Perhaps some consideration of how we choose to distribute wealth is in order?

 

[Southern Scouse]

Compared to other recent transfers this seems well cheap. £51 million for like- the top in form striker of the last 2 seasons. Bargain.

Neymar was £200 mill and he is absolute pony.

I thought it was nearer £300m with all fees included. His dad got a chunk of about £75m?
Great player buy bloody hell….

 

[BNthree]

It’s like a colleague of mine that hates Premier League football is always saying: it’s not a sporting competition but a spending competition. If a big team loses an important match he’ll be banging on about it’s because they didn’t spend enough.

(He’s not as much of a twunt as I’m making him sound!)

 

[Bold Seagull]

It’s not really a competition if nobody else can win it. It’s always been the case that there are big clubs and small clubs, but the disparity in resources and cash is now so wide that the best we can hope for is to dish out a bloody nose every now and then.

Interestingly, of the 29 years of the PL we have the following winners:

Arsenal
Blackburn
Chelsea
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City

The 29 previous seasons of Div 1 champions:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Derby
Everton
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City
Nottingham Forest

I've highlighted the teams that don't appear in the other list.

Everton or Leeds pre-Premier League are pretty much the equivalent of Chelsea. Leicester and Blackburn 1 off winners similar to Derby(x2) and Forest.

In terms of competitiveness, in my youth Liverpool either won it, or just missed out to someone. From the year of my birth '74, they won 10 of the 18 available titles, finishing runners-up 6 times. For 20 years it felt like single team dominance and only occasional slips by them such as Arsenal winning it on the final game 1989 allowed someone else in.

MU then mirrored that dominance in the first 20 years of the PL, winning 13, runners-up 5 times. Almost like for like in a way.

In the last 10 years we have actually had 5 different winners - which even if you trace back into the football league is unusual, I think you have to go back to 1970 where we had 5 different winners in 5 consecutive seasons before it settled down into Liverpool's dominance.

Money has always talked in football, just the scale of it now is much greater than back in the day.

 

[drew]

. . .because football fans can't afford to go to watch their teams and because football clubs are going out of business.

Yet premier league grounds are pretty much sold out every week!!!

 

[drew]

Interestingly, of the 29 years of the PL we have the following winners:

Arsenal
Blackburn
Chelsea
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City

The 29 previous seasons of Div 1 champions:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Derby
Everton
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City
Nottingham Forest

I've highlighted the teams that don't appear in the other list.

Everton or Leeds pre-Premier League are pretty much the equivalent of Chelsea. Leicester and Blackburn 1 off winners similar to Derby(x2) and Forest.

In terms of competitiveness, in my youth Liverpool either won it, or just missed out to someone. From the year of my birth '74, they won 10 of the 18 available titles, finishing runners-up 6 times. For 20 years it felt like single team dominance and only occasional slips by them such as Arsenal winning it on the final game 1989 allowed someone else in.

MU then mirrored that dominance in the first 20 years of the PL, winning 13, runners-up 5 times. Almost like for like in a way.

In the last 10 years we have actually had 5 different winners - which even if you trace back into the football league is unusual, I think you have to go back to 1970 where we had 5 different winners in 5 consecutive seasons before it settled down into Liverpool's dominance.

Money has always talked in football, just the scale of it now is much greater than back in the day.

Agree. Also, compare the premier league to other European leagues. Bayern dominate Germany, Spain has been a two horse race for decades with the very odd exception and in France PSG have no real challengers.

Will Liverpool or City be as good when their respective managers leave?

 

[BadFish]

Yet premier league grounds are pretty much sold out every week!!!

True, but personally I think it is a shame that many clubs' traditional supporter bases have been priced out of going.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, It is clear that many club chairmen certainly don't.

 

[Simster]

People grumbling about players earnings should remember two things:

1) Footballers are not alone in earning obscene wealth that bears no resemblance to their contribution to society. They are simply being paid what the market will bear.
2) That is how market forces work and if you don't like it, you can do something about it. Vote for a party that taxes high earners or the communists or something.

 

[BadFish]

People grumbling about players earnings should remember two things:

1) Footballers are not alone in earning obscene wealth that bears no resemblance to their contribution to society. They are simply being paid what the market will bear.
2) That is how market forces work and if you don't like it, you can do something about it. Vote for a party that taxes high earners or the communists or something.

I think that there is many indicators that suggest that the market cannot bear them.

Or at least the market below the artificially inflated level at the top. The problem is that those in the market underneath feel the need to chase and chase (for example, fans calling for their clubs to spend money they haven't got on a new striker), putting clubs at risk.

There was a post on here a week or so ago with a load of Pheonix clubs listed, I found the number rather concerning.

So much money in English football, yet so many clubs running at a loss and/or going under.


Note: it is also worth remembering another thing, players could and would play for far less and still be extremely well paid.

 

[Simster]

I think that there is many indicators that suggest that the market cannot bear them.

Or at least the market below the artificially inflated level at the top. The problem is that those in the market underneath feel the need to chase and chase (for example, fans calling for their clubs to spend money they haven't got on a new striker), putting clubs at risk.

There was a post on here a week or so ago with a load of Pheonix clubs listed, I found the number rather concerning.

So much money in English football, yet so many clubs running at a loss and/or going under.


Note: it is also worth remembering another thing, players could and would play for far less and still be extremely well paid.

But the market has paid footballers handsomely for decades now. Obviously when the oil states and oligarchs get bored there will need to be some sort of realignment at the top end, but ultimately there will still be phenomenal salaries all the while there is a premium to be paid on live TV events.

Clubs have always run at a loss for tax reasons, and clubs have always gone under too. Are there more going under than ever before? Not sure to be honest, and that threat is why a fit and proper owners test ought to be implemented.

Regardless, my main point is that if you don't like the fact that the market can overpay some people given what they do then vote for a fairer system of taxation.

 

[BBassic]

Footballers seem to get singled out for this more than anyone else. Hollywood actors get paid crazy sums but it doesn’t seem to get the same attention. All the owners of Premier League clubs (including Tony Bloom) have earned more than footballers ever will. Why is the focus on footballers?

It's not so much an issue with the footballers themselves, at least for me. I've got nothing against Haaland, he's clearly a talented player and if £400k p/w is the going rate then that's nothing to do with him. My issue is that £400k p/w is the going rate and only a few clubs in the world will ever be able to pay those sorts of sums. It just widens the gap.

The comparison with Hollywood is interesting. It's a different beast. In Hollywood you can have massive success on a small budget. The Blair Witch Project cost ~$200k to make and it raked in ~$250m in the box office. Not only that but it had a cultural impact; for better or worse it shaped the horror genre for years.

I don't know if the same can be said for football. There aren't many stories of little teams defying the odds. Wigan with their recent(ish) FA Cup win maybe? And the only cultural impact transfers and wages like this have is to widen the divide between, let's face it, the Top 2 and everyone else.

I guess that's football. Or Hollywood. I guess it's just the way of the world. Money talks.

 

[Simster]

It's not so much an issue with the footballers themselves, at least for me. I've got nothing against Haaland, he's clearly a talented player and if £400k p/w is the going rate then that's nothing to do with him. My issue is that £400k p/w is the going rate and only a few clubs in the world will ever be able to pay those sorts of sums. It just widens the gap.

The comparison with Hollywood is interesting. It's a different beast. In Hollywood you can have massive success on a small budget. The Blair Witch Project cost ~$200k to make and it raked in ~$250m in the box office. Not only that but it had a cultural impact; for better or worse it shaped the horror genre for years.

I don't know if the same can be said for football. There aren't many stories of little teams defying the odds. Wigan with their recent(ish) FA Cup win maybe? And the only cultural impact transfers and wages like this have is to widen the divide between, let's face it, the Top 2 and everyone else.

I guess that's football. Or Hollywood. I guess it's just the way of the world. Money talks.

You can have massive success on a small budget in football too. Our wage bill is 15th out of 20, Brentford's is 20th - it wouldn't take a huge leap of faith to see either club win a trophy in the next 2 or 3 years, just as Wigan and Leicester have done.