[Football] The PL - what’s the point?

[Seagull]

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?

Imagine all players getting a Citizens Income (say £40k p.a.), tickets £2 on the gate with the rest of the TV money put into social projects in the community and universal CI for all.

 

[BadFish]

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.

Good post.

It is indeed the way of the world, however, I can't help but think that there is a better way that would produce healthier clubs, and a better, more interesting and more competitive competition. FWIW, I think that they do it quite well over here in Australia with Aussie Rules (14 winners in the premier League years - out of 18 clubs). It's not perfect but it is more competitive.

What concerns me is that there seems to be a fair number of posters who feel like this shouldn't even be discussed (or grumbled about).

To be fair though, things are very unlikely to change with the power residing with the big clubs with the most money. Best not to think too much about it and just enjoy the football.

 

[BadFish]

Imagine all players getting a Citizens Income (say £40k p.a.), tickets £2 on the gate with the rest of the TV money put into social projects in the community and universal CI for all.

Quite right Comrade - I blame Jimmy Hill for the whole sorry affair.

 

[GT49er]

You make it sound like he's spent his time going around mugging people! He's run a business that others have done business with and he's made money.

No, you're interpreting it that way - it's a long way from what I said. Money is finite - when it goes somewhere it has to nave come form somewhere else; sorry, that's just an incontravertable fact. If a deal is made - and legal and legitimate deal at that - and someone makes a £M profit, that £M has to have come from someone else.

The business can be perfectly fair and square, but soneone can still regret they went into the deal on the first place, because it's left them out of pocket. Then there's the poker - there must be many people who have said to Tony Bloom, "I'll see you and raise you £xxx" who regret ever having met him!

 

[BBassic]

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.

Oh yeah for sure.

I guess my Blair Witch example, in footballing terms, would be more akin to Luton coming up via the playoffs and winning the Premier League the next season. It just doesn't happen in football.

 

[Justice]

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!

It works the same way as a hedge fund, an employee said in the worst case scenario they break even over a year considering the minimum is a £1m investment over the long term I’m not sure anyone is getting xxxxxx over. Like a hedge fund the investors make a percentage return and you have the ability to invest more and make huge profits whilst keeping the investors happy.

 

[big nuts]

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.

Interesting. I would say though, that even if a small band of clubs; in particular Liverpool were dominant, they weren’t winning leagues with 90-100 points per season.

The old adage of win at home and draw away would more often than not win you the title.

2 points a game used to be enough now it’s 2.5. That for me is the worrying thing and a sign of an uncompetitive league.

 

[GT49er]

It works the same way as a hedge fund, an employee said in the worst case scenario they break even over a year considering the minimum is a £1m investment over the long term I’m not sure anyone is getting xxxxxx over. Like a hedge fund the investors make a percentage return and you have the ability to invest more and make huge profits whilst keeping the investors happy.

Ah, so they just make some more money then.

No they don't - it comes from somewhere. There are always winners and losers.

 

[raymondo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60819647

…£400k a week.

A WEEK! And not the 1st to command such sums in their team. It’s grotesque, it really is.

Meanwhile, on the South Coast…

Yes, it's truly obscene, as are the salaries and bonuses enjoyed (I won't say earned) by many executives/CEOs. The gaps between top and bottom widen yearly. Maybe the so-called top teams really should p$ss off and have their elite European league of zero promotion/relegation.
For me? I refuse to have pay TV (a minor and rather pathetic protest I know), but I soak up every highlight of the Albion I can ( I can't wait for the pitchside video of our tonking of Man Ure!!!), and I'm not above asking my 12 yr old to find me a decent stream and
If I lived closer, and had more time, I reckon I'd still happily shell out for an Amex season ticket.

 

[Justice]

Ah, so they just make some more money then.

No they don't - it comes from somewhere. There are always winners and losers.

You want to get into the morality of gambling or understand about the Star lizard model

 

[saafend_seagull]

Very injury prone and doesn’t suit Man City style. Would have been perfect for Liverpool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tronnogull]

The huge sums of money come from tv deals. If the Prem were to publish the season's fixture list and tell the tv companies to bid on that, then they would probably pay less. But.....this would be much better for fans because we wouldn't get messed around by tv dates being announced at relatively short notice. The lower tv payments would translate into lower salaries for players and lower transfer fees, but presumably it would still be the same players.

There is also huge fixture congestion because of the ever expanding European competitions. Cut back on European competitions and make the domestic leagues the main and necessary focus. Again, less tv money but a much better experience for domestic fans. It would also reduce fixture congestion and stop teams fielding understrength teams in the domestic competition. For instance, it will be very unfair on Burnley if Chelsea field an under strength team today against Leeds because they have an eye on the FA cup final on Saturday.

 

[East Staffs Gull]

My understanding is that TV money is relatively evenly distributed across the EPL clubs (approx £100m-£150m per annum per club). On that basis all 20 clubs should have the financial ability to compete for the top spots. Commercial income and match revenue will tilt the balance a bit more in favour of the big clubs, as will their ability to attract talent. IMHO where the system starts to become really unfair is when you bring in financial support from the owners and also “uncommercial” sponsorship deals. Football chairmen used to have primarily a stewardship role. Clubs were a community asset and chairmen were meant to be a safe pair of hands looking after the club and occasionally having to dip their hands into their pockets to do this. That model was broken and ownership now is probably the biggest factor in determining the success of a club. How this ultimately plays out remains to be seen. However, without external intervention, e.g. introducing restrictions on ownership or financial support from owners, we may well see a widening of the gulf between the EPL haves and have nots.

 

[Robinjakarta]

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

I think we can hope for better than that and we have done better this season. On the other hand, not sure for what should be obvious reasons how much if at all higher we can go.

 

[dazzer6666]

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.

It’s not that different. If you’re going to quote extremes, Veltman is a Blair Witch Project and Locadia is Waterworld

 

[Bozza]

My understanding is that TV money is relatively evenly distributed across the EPL clubs (approx £100m-£150m per annum per club).

That's spot on. You can see the payments for last season here: https://www.premierleague.com/news/2222377

Man City pulled in the most at £152m, with Sheffield United at the other end of the spectrum with £97m, We got £109m.

The difference in earnings comes from three parts:

- Facility Fee (how often you're on TV)
- Merit payment from UK broadcasting revenues (where you finish in the league)
- Merit payment from overseas broadcasting revenues (as above)

Each place in the league is worth about £1.75m, so there's quite an incentive for the team to not "be on the beach" too early.

 

[Surf's Up]

Yet Pep still moans about the state of his squad.

I can understand why - there has, after all, only been a modest investment in the team........

Jack Grealish £100m

Kevin de Bruyne £68m

Ruben Dias £61m

Riyad Mahrez £61m

Joao Cancelo £58.5m

Aymeric Laporte £58.5m

Raheem Sterling £57.3m

Rodri £56.4m

Benjamin Mendy £51.7m

Erling Haaland £51.2m

 

[BBassic]

It’s not that different. If you’re going to quote extremes, Veltman is a Blair Witch Project and Locadia is Waterworld

Locadia as 'Waterworld' is so apt.

Lots of money thrown at a vanity project. Excellent!

 

[drew]

No, you're interpreting it that way - it's a long way from what I said. Money is finite - when it goes somewhere it has to nave come form somewhere else; sorry, that's just an incontravertable fact. If a deal is made - and legal and legitimate deal at that - and someone makes a £M profit, that £M has to have come from someone else.

The business can be perfectly fair and square, but soneone can still regret they went into the deal on the first place, because it's left them out of pocket. Then there's the poker - there must be many people who have said to Tony Bloom, "I'll see you and raise you £xxx" who regret ever having met him!

You can have business deals that are mutually beneficial to both sides!

It's also not an incontrovertible fact that money is finite. Governments create money. If they didn't then there would be the same amount of money in circulation now as there was 100 years ago!!!

 

[SAC]

I didn't come here for a lecture in Communism!