football and money

[sigrid]

Today i ran into this article:

http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/...ticleid=110409

Also today there was some news on a footballclub in holland, called Emmen. To be able to go on a trainingcamp in turkey, fans can adopt a player for 900 euro, wich gives the fan the right to spend all events in turkey with the team, except for the actual trainingsessions.

What is money doing to football? I used to have a small crush on Chelsea, before it became russian and they hired a moron for manager. It ruined the club i think. How far should it go?
I personally liked the 2 foreigners max per team. They should bring back that rule again. Would make football much nicer again and fans more attached to their teams .

[Phang]

Originally Posted by sigrid

they hired a moron for manager.

i can't think of any angle from which this is justified. he's one of the better tacticians in the game's history and gives the best press conferences outside of ranieri.

[lokken]

Why is it good for football to take the excitement away from fans by overcharging
them for tickets to see "their" team?

This is the most true part of the article - In England we're having the piss taken out of us at every level - i hate going to the ticket office feeling bad about what i've spent, or indeed feeling tense at the game because i really want value for my money. And the clubs are all laughing at fans because of their loyalty. But we will keep going.

And is it really still "their" team when one club in England has a squad with 19 nationalities?

This is an indirect swipe at my own side, and to suggest that we could get by otherwise is just plain stupid. If there was a maximum limit on foreigners, we'd be financially worse off (either via a massive wagebill or being relegated), purely on the basis that English players are generally overpriced and technically inferior to those from abroad. And if they are putting the effort in, damn right they are our team.

[1-X]

there should be a limit on wages, in many cases giving footballers per year what they currently earn in a week

[Black Dog]

Wage cap by fifa across the board at 30,000 per week for a player and 500 000 per week for a squad in the top level of a league. Otherwise the money problems will keep getting worse.

There should be a maximum number of players in a squad (approx 25). This would operate like American Football where you promote people from a practice squad to the full squad to cover for injuries etc.

There should be a minimum number of home grown players in the squad at all times - say 10.

Most important of all - ban playing "hi ho silver lining" each time a goal is scored. Lump the people who want to spend 90 minutes as though they're watching 'The Magic Flute' at the Albert Hall in a corner and let everyone else stand up and sing all they want.

Finally Mark Lawrenson should be exiled to Albania.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by 1-X

there should be a limit on wages, in many cases giving footballers per year what they currently earn in a week

So what you're saying is the immense amount of money which football does generate should go not to the people who actually work for this, the players and the managers, but to the club owners who generally became such through virtue of being rich in the first place and are generally, at the level where wage caps would be applicable, less interested in the club than the team ever is?

[Zero]

There is a cap in France...thats why all the best French players move to forign clubs and the French teams aren't as good as their national team (used to?) represent.

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing the US american football/ice hokey system put into place where there is a draft of all the up and coming stars and the lowest ranked team of the previous season gets first pick as to which players they sign. It would atleast reduce the amount of bankrupcy happening in todays game.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by sigrid

What is money doing to football? I used to have a small crush on Chelsea, before it became russian and they hired a moron for manager. It ruined the club i think. How far should it go?

I don't see how it "ruined" the club in the slightest. Instead of an extremely dodgy English businessman, they have an extremely dodgy Russian businessman. The difference being that the Russian actually had money to pump into the club for the club's sake.

Also, Mourinho is far from a moron - he may in fact be the most intelligent person in the modern game.

I personally liked the 2 foreigners max per team. They should bring back that rule again. Would make football much nicer again and fans more attached to their teams .

I don't think the problem is the fans being attached to their teams, not in the slightest. I don't see any Gooners abandoning Arsenal just because it has a lot of Frenchmen in it.

Of course, they can't bring that rule back again, because it contravenes European Law, so it's a moot point anyway.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Most important of all - ban playing "hi ho silver lining" each time a goal is scored.

What the **** are you on about?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Zero

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing the US american football/ice hokey system put into place where there is a draft of all the up and coming stars and the lowest ranked team of the previous season gets first pick as to which players they sign. It would atleast reduce the amount of bankrupcy happening in todays game.

That only works if:

1. The clubs aren't funding the development (which they are)
2. There aren't several hundred professional or semi professional football clubs in england alone (which there are)
3. There's only one league (which there isn't)
4. There's no competition at a club level outside the country (which there is).

Plus it just makes the game much more boring to watch.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So what you're saying is the immense amount of money which football does generate should go not to the people who actually work for this, the players and the managers, but to the club owners who generally became such through virtue of being rich in the first place and are generally, at the level where wage caps would be applicable, less interested in the club than the team ever is?

Football isn't really a profit-making business. Once the EU Commission get their mitts on the TV deal, the Premiership will face a few of the problems that the Football League suffered after ITV Digital threw itself off a cliff.

Doing things like equalising the payments depending on where you finish in the league would level things out a bit more as well. With a wage cap it will still be only the top teams that make huge profits, and for them that might mean that the shareholders get a payout every so often.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What the **** are you on about?

Clubs now play music each time the home team scores. This is because people would forget to cheer unless happy beats were pounded into their ears from speakers around the ground. It's silly, too American and naff.

Sheff Wed just happen to play hi ho silver lining on the rare occasions that they get a goal.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Football isn't really a profit-making business. Once the EU Commission get their mitts on the TV deal, the Premiership will face a few of the problems that the Football League suffered after ITV Digital threw itself off a cliff.

That's just not true. The EU proposal only refers to the anti-competitive nature of the deal, if the reporting I've seen on it have been any way accurate.

In any case, you appear to be putting this forward as a way of levelling the playing field, which just isn't true - any move by the EU is likely to penalise the lower, poorer clubs disproportionately, which is precisely what we saw when ITV digital went under. Of course, the situation is hardly that similar.

There's two issues at hand:

1. The monopolisation of the live games by one supplier.
The Premier League have already said that they're not going to allow this in future, however it's not clear if the EU will force more than the 5-10% currently "free" to be broken off. Some people are quoting figures around 50%.
There is, of course, debate about how this will affect the payout - NTL, for example, have claimed that the Premiership rights are undervalued (which I don't think anyone agrees with), but I think it's fairly obvious that the majority of the money BSkyB have been paying is for the monopoly alone - why pay such a huge amount for exciting games like Bolton vs Villa if not for the sole reason of stifling your competitors?
Now, you clearly have assumed that this will reduce the money floating around, and I agree with that - but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that this will relatively benefit anyone but the richest clubs, and Chelsea disproportionately. The collapse of ITV digital (which is not analogous, that was a complete loss of income that was budgeted for, not a reduction in expected funds which can be adapted and prepared for) disproportionately hurt the smaller clubs, so why won't this?

2. The unified TV deal.
Currently, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United get the same amount of money for the TV rights as Wigan, Fulham, Bolton and Blackburn (no offense JC) do. The EU has made rumblings about breaking up the unified TV deal, and given that this explicitly gives more money to the richer clubs, and takes it away from the poorer, I don't see how you can believe that this can create a level playing field either.

Doing things like equalising the payments depending on where you finish in the league would level things out a bit more as well.

While making an enormous number of games at the end of the season meaningless. What's the point of bothering if it doesn't matter if you finish 7th or 17th? Whilst to an extent this is already true, to remove the distinction further is silly.

Furthermore, by splitting up the TV money equally (which is a much larger pot than the prize money) the English game is more equalised

With a wage cap it will still be only the top teams that make huge profits, and for them that might mean that the shareholders get a payout every so often.

So you're saying that the talents and efforts of the individual footballers, who, essentially, generate the vast majority of money in football, don't deserve this money over someone who's done essentially nothing? Fine, if you want to hold a stupid opinion.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Clubs now play music each time the home team scores. This is because people would forget to cheer unless happy beats were pounded into their ears from speakers around the ground. It's silly, too American and naff.

Sheff Wed just happen to play hi ho silver lining on the rare occasions that they get a goal.

Maybe you should be noisier, then. I believe they play music at the SoL when we score a goal but I've never been able to hear it above the crowd.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Wage cap by fifa across the board at 30,000 per week for a player and 500 000 per week for a squad in the top level of a league. Otherwise the money problems will keep getting worse.

There should be a maximum number of players in a squad (approx 25). This would operate like American Football where you promote people from a practice squad to the full squad to cover for injuries etc.

There should be a minimum number of home grown players in the squad at all times - say 10.

Most important of all - ban playing "hi ho silver lining" each time a goal is scored. Lump the people who want to spend 90 minutes as though they're watching 'The Magic Flute' at the Albert Hall in a corner and let everyone else stand up and sing all they want.

Finally Mark Lawrenson should be exiled to Albania.

ban "rumblestix"

[1-X]

MrL, you keep going on about who deserves the massive amount of money generated by football but the point is that it doesn't need to! Where does the money come from if not from overcharging the fans? If wages were lower, ticket prices and tv rights would be lower too. The football fan, the customer of the football business, would get a fair deal.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Now, you clearly have assumed that this will reduce the money floating around, and I agree with that - but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that this will relatively benefit anyone but the richest clubs, and Chelsea disproportionately. The collapse of ITV digital (which is not analogous, that was a complete loss of income that was budgeted for, not a reduction in expected funds which can be adapted and prepared for) disproportionately hurt the smaller clubs, so why won't this?

I didn't state that breaking up the TV deal won't hurt the smaller clubs more. It will. My point was that when that happens Premiership clubs will be forced to alter themselves.

I'm starting on the basis that without a monopoly the money for TV coverage will drop. The top clubs already get more money from this because their matches get shown more often. My assumption is that when the TV deal is split, the money paid to secure Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd games will be significantly higher than Wigan.

Whilst the ITV Digital saga isn't strictly analagous, it forced clubs in the football league to introduce wage caps as a proportion of turnover. Because of the loss of money from TV Revenue, clubs were forced to self-limit and this has to happen in the Premiership.

While making an enormous number of games at the end of the season meaningless. What's the point of bothering if it doesn't matter if you finish 7th or 17th? Whilst to an extent this is already true, to remove the distinction further is silly.

£500 000 per place in the Premiership. Let's face it, no-one really cares whether they finish 7th or 9th other than on a purely financial level. It means Man Utd and Chelsea are taking home £4 million than 8th or 9th position. For a club like Charlton that means buying Darren Bent and Darren Ambrose. Equalising the payments may make a few games worthless but that is only on a monetary basis and would really help to support the smaller clubs. I'd say that is a fair trade off.

Furthermore, by splitting up the TV money equally (which is a much larger pot than the prize money) the English game is more equalised

Exactly. But that won't happen under the EU TV deal. At the moment whilst the basic sum for TV money is split evenly, you get more money each time you are on TV. Look at Sunderland trying to sue Liverpool for £250k because they moved their match from a TV slot because of other commitments.

So you're saying that the talents and efforts of the individual footballers, who, essentially, generate the vast majority of money in football, don't deserve this money over someone who's done essentially nothing? Fine, if you want to hold a stupid opinion.

How can you think that £40k a week is insufficient? The current wage structure in the Premiership is unsustainable. It relies upon a TV deal that is absurdly overpriced. Most clubs struggle to keep up and Abramovich's millions have raised expectations even further.

Limiting the wage structure (not as a proportion of turnover because that will benefit the larger clubs) is the only way to bring expectations back down and allow smaller clubs to compete. I would love to find a way that means that the money would filter back into the game, but in order to create a level playing field, allowing some of the money to filter to the businessmen isn't a terrible idea.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by 1-X

MrL, you keep going on about who deserves the massive amount of money generated by football but the point is that it doesn't need to! Where does the money come from if not from overcharging the fans? If wages were lower, ticket prices and tv rights would be lower too. The football fan, the customer of the football business, would get a fair deal.

Yes, because history has shown that businesses don't make money but pass all the savings onto the consumer.

Can you really see the prices dropping significantly at Manchester United, or Newcastle, or Chelsea? It's not as if Chelsea need the money in the first place, yet they charge stupidly enormous amounts.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by 1-X

MrL, you keep going on about who deserves the massive amount of money generated by football but the point is that it doesn't need to! Where does the money come from if not from overcharging the fans? If wages were lower, ticket prices and tv rights would be lower too. The football fan, the customer of the football business, would get a fair deal.

No way dude. People have demonstrated that they're willing to pay the current exorbitant prices. You might get some small widely proclaimed as making the chairman more generous than jesus price drops but nowhere near the same as any drop in salary.

[JC]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Blackburn (no offense JC)

We have the cheapest tickets in the Premiership, were the first Premiership to do student/young adult tickets (i think) and probably give out more free/dirt cheap tickets to young school kids than any other club. Everyone should be a Rovers fan .

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by JC

We have the cheapest tickets in the Premiership, were the first Premiership to do student/young adult tickets (i think) and probably give out more free/dirt cheap tickets to young school kids than any other club. Everyone should be a Rovers fan .

Its also scientifically proven that you have the coldest, windiest ground in the country and that hypothermia is common amoungst away supporters stupid enough to visit blackburn

I think Sunderland, Blackburn and Wigan are the 3 cheapest teams to watch, which would suggest to me the clubs are concerned about failing attendences atleast

[JC]

Originally Posted by Reidy

Its also scientifically proven that you have the coldest, windiest ground in the country and that hypothermia is common amoungst away supporters stupid enough to visit blackburn

Dont take your top off next time it is snowing!

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by JC

Dont take your top off next time it is snowing!

i quite like Ewood Park, do u remember the 96' game vrs Scumcastle when Fenton scored twice... bliss

Jakiri, they could play gary glitter at the match for all i care as long as s'land score on saturday...

[Nodrog]

Seems like little more than the standard jealousy and resentment really (both "waaaaa, my club cant win anything because others are spending too much money :(" and, on a more personal level, "its not fair that HE gets to earn x million a year while i have to slave away 40+ hours a week for less than £30K!!!!!")

I wonder how many of those complaining about there being 'too much money' in the game have objections to the amount of football that gets shown on TV these days. Perhaps the two are connected?!

[JC]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I wonder how many of those complaining about there being 'too much money' in the game have objections to the amount of football that gets shown on TV these days.

Quite a lot of people actually. I'm sure most people dont want to watch a televised game of Blackburn v Bolton because chances of it being a thriller are pretty damn low. I'd be happy to see all weekend football games go back to being played on Saturday at 3pm. Rather than stupid times like 12:45, 4:05 etc.

Originally Posted by Reidy

i quite like Ewood Park, do u remember the 96' game vrs Scumcastle when Fenton scored twice... bliss

Ah Graham Fenton, a true legend.

[sigrid]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see how it "ruined" the club in the slightest. Instead of an extremely dodgy English businessman, they have an extremely dodgy Russian businessman. The difference being that the Russian actually had money to pump into the club for the club's sake.

Also, Mourinho is far from a moron - he may in fact be the most intelligent person in the modern game.


I don't think the problem is the fans being attached to their teams, not in the slightest. I don't see any Gooners abandoning Arsenal just because it has a lot of Frenchmen in it.

Of course, they can't bring that rule back again, because it contravenes European Law, so it's a moot point anyway.



What the **** are you on about?

The reason why i made this post and comment is because personally i am less attached to my team.
I used to be a huge Ajax fan, still am in many ways, but the feeling changed. Now Ajax was or is known for their good youtheducation, many great footballplayers started there, and they all used to flow into the first team ,

Ajax would be a team i KNEW, you saw players grow into it.
Since the rules changed and the BOSMAN affair, things changed. My team has players who's names i cant even pronounce, its just not something that belongs to Amsterdam anymore, in fact, you could dump the tream anywhere in euope and it would just do its job, thats how it feels to me.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Seems like little more than the standard jealousy and resentment really (both "waaaaa, my club cant win anything because others are spending too much money " and, on a more personal level, "its not fair that HE gets to earn x million a year while i have to slave away 40+ hours a week for less than £30K!!!!!")

I wonder how many of those complaining about there being 'too much money' in the game have objections to the amount of football that gets shown on TV these days. Perhaps the two are connected?!

This isn't a case of petty jealousy.

Few would disagree that ideally footballers should be paid a wage set by the market. Unfortunately the market is horribly skewed. It is also unsustainable. No team can compete with Manchester United on a long term basis unless they 'do a Chelsea' and get a billionaire of their own.

That doesn't make for an exciting sport.

There is far too much football on TV these days. Ideally all games should start at 3pm on a Saturday with 2 games on a sunday that were televised. But that isn't the main reason that attendances are dropping.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

There is far too much football on TV these days. Ideally all games should start at 3pm on a Saturday with 2 games on a sunday that were televised. But that isn't the main reason that attendances are dropping.

It is one of the main reasons. We tend to have much smaller attendances at televised games than non-televised because people see it as effectively getting the game for free, so why bother going out in the cold and paying for what could be a boring game. That and the fact people cant afford season tickets so just pick the big games to go to.

Seeing as we are on this topic, only 5 Prem teams had attendances down by more than 1500 when this came out at the end of September.

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

This isn't a case of petty jealousy.

Few would disagree that ideally footballers should be paid a wage set by the market. Unfortunately the market is horribly skewed. It is also unsustainable. No team can compete with Manchester United on a long term basis unless they 'do a Chelsea' and get a billionaire of their own.

That doesn't make for an exciting sport.

There is far too much football on TV these days. Ideally all games should start at 3pm on a Saturday with 2 games on a sunday that were televised. But that isn't the main reason that attendances are dropping.

Ofc TV is the main reason, especially in areas like Sunderland. For your £25 match ticket u can go to the pub, have 5 pints, some food and still have change left over. Football on TV is the ultimate convenience...

I also dont think masses of money is needed to get to the top - it helps but u can do it on a budget too. Using the champions league as an example... Porto, Dortmund, Ajax, Marseille... didnt have the massive reserves of money.

[Black Dog]

The main reason that attendances are dropping are prices.

The number of games on television is a factor, but so is the lack of atmosphere at grounds because you can't stand up, the fact that the season started so early, the Premiership is fairly predictable and the type of football being played is fairly poor at the moment.

Attendances will pick up towards the latter part of the season but have a look around and there aren't many teenagers or younger kids at football grounds any more. The real problems won't be seen for 10 years.

[Ephor]

If a wage cap were instituted, would there be anything preventing clubs offering players 'incentives' for their employment?

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

The main reason that attendances are dropping are prices.

The number of games on television is a factor, but so is the lack of atmosphere at grounds because you can't stand up, the fact that the season started so early, the Premiership is fairly predictable and the type of football being played is fairly poor at the moment.

Attendances will pick up towards the latter part of the season but have a look around and there aren't many teenagers or younger kids at football grounds any more. The real problems won't be seen for 10 years.

Well im a sunderland season ticket holder and my ticket has stayed the same price. I can also do to the arsenal cup match for £5 and its only £1 for juniors. My ticket only costs £250 for the entire season, which works out at £13 a game. We average 32,000 this season compared to last time in the premier league which was 40,000 and we were getting beat every week. The atmosphere is as good at the minute as its ever been, ask west ham. Therefore in sunderlands case atleast its because of the TV.
I do accept tho that i cant comment first hand on other clubs but in Sunderlands case your argument is flawed

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Reidy

Therefore in sunderlands case atleast its because of the TV.

It's TV and the fact that loads of "fans" got up and left after the relegation season. I'm actually glad we haven't gone up in attendences to the level we were before if it means everyone in the crowd's behind the lads.

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's TV and the fact that loads of "fans" got up and left after the relegation season. I'm actually glad we haven't gone up in attendences to the level we were before if it means everyone in the crowd's behind the lads.

um, its a tough one mate. I agree in the sense that the 30,000+ produces an extra togetherness in the support. I certainly feel more connected to the team than i have done for a while - i skive off work to watch them train on a thursday. But, the extra 15,000 is probably part timers or 'fans' with plenty of disposable cash to throw at the club which i suppose help financially so i suppose even tho i havent got too much time for them i would still welcome them back.

What do u think for saturday? Julio and Godzilla are big losses... i'd like to see le tallec get atleast 45mins

[MrL_JaKiri]

We've been playing better than our results have suggested, especially against Man City and Liverpool, and Manchester United are staggering a bit.

I don't expect much of a result, because they always seem to **** it up for us, but it wouldn't be the biggest shock the world has ever seen if we walked away with some points.

It'll be interesting to see how our midfield gets on, especially Deano who's looked the part every second of every game, and you have to fancy someone like Welshy running at the Man U third choice full backs.

About ALT, to quote a quote from ALS.com,

It is not easy every day at Sunderland but I tell myself that I am just here for one year.

I'm not going to pass judgement, but he seems a good player from his time with the U21's and we'll see. I'd like Stead to be getting a bit more time on the field, he needs to get a bit of confidence back.

[Ste]

Feel sorry for us Forest fans
Prices stayed the same and we're in League one...
Although we're still getting higher attendances than some premiership teams.

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

We've been playing better than our results have suggested, especially against Man City and Liverpool, and Manchester United are staggering a bit.

I don't expect much of a result, because they always seem to **** it up for us, but it wouldn't be the biggest shock the world has ever seen if we walked away with some points.

It'll be interesting to see how our midfield gets on, especially Deano who's looked the part every second of every game, and you have to fancy someone like Welshy running at the Man U third choice full backs.

About ALT, to quote a quote from ALS.com,



I'm not going to pass judgement, but he seems a good player from his time with the U21's and we'll see. I'd like Stead to be getting a bit more time on the field, he needs to get a bit of confidence back.

Yeah, i agree... i think if he hit the onion bag once or twice stead would be a different player. Ur right about Deano too, although he gets clattered a few too many times for my liking, i'd love to see him build himself up physically. Le Tallac changes his mind over his future every day at the minute! i'm just trying to judge him when he's one the pitch

[MrL_JaKiri]

Also, Matty Piper in "injured" shocker.

Talking of injuries, I'm still mad about that nightmarish, unpunished, tackle that's seriously disrupted, if not potentially ended, Healy's career.

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Also, Matty Piper in "injured" shocker.

Talking of injuries, I'm still mad about that nightmarish, unpunished, tackle that's seriously disrupted, if not potentially ended, Healy's career.

was that safri? atleast morroco arent going to the WC

all i can think about is the skunks, not long now

good vrs evil etc....

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Reidy

was that safri?

Yep. Was it the match that Gary McAllister injured Breen off the ball as well? That's harder to find as none of the national media ever report anything bad about one of their darlings.

Oh, and what's the betting that the mags training surface was put in by a man wearing red and white?

[Reidy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yep. Was it the match that Gary McAllister injured Breen off the ball as well? That's harder to find as none of the national media ever report anything bad about one of their darlings.

Oh, and what's the betting that the mags training surface was put in by a man wearing red and white?

i hope he pissed all over the changing rooms if it was... i know theres a red and white shirt burried under hotch potch
McAllister is a cheat, always has been, thinking dives, penalties and liverpool...

FTM

[Torz]

I believe he was cheated at a certain penalty when Uri Gellar moved the ball just before he hit it ((((((((((((((