Chimbo!
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,588
- 3,323
Much has been written on the extortionate player wages, transfer fees, agent fees and ticket prices. This swollen market sickens many, having lost all connection with its roots: the fan-base.
In reality, however, the influx of money into the market has only served to make football more exciting, more accessible and, in the eyes of many, better.
Instead of paying for season tickets one can pay for an annual Sky Sports subscription and watch many more games in “scintillating” HD for a fraction of the price.
The excitement is built up far more in part because Sky make it so but also because everyone knows far better about football as a whole rather than just their own club. The relegation battle is a case in point. Even those that support the top clubs tune in for the relegation dogfight at the end of the season.
The money in football, however, is a double-edged sword which has only now began to show it’s other side.
The heart and soul of football, as with any sport, is competition.
Competition is generated by a free and open market. In a competitive and thriving market there are many competing parties. They range in size but none is too big but no one can be too small. In such an environment it is possible for anyone to thrive if they are good enough.
We see it in the business world. The travel agency business used to be one populated by small high-street chains and one-off shops. Now, with the advent of the internet, the business has metamorphosed into something unrecognizable. Instead of small competing businesses, the industry is made up of large online companies that have sought to automate as much as possible. They have taken away the human element. They dominate the market and have reduced the competition. Instead of 10 competitive prices for similar holidays you may only find 3.
In the travel industry this is not so bad. What killed the competition was the drop in prices; something the public benefited from. In football, however, the repercussions of such a development would be very different.
Football is first and foremost a form of entertainment. It is colourful because of the different leagues, the countless teams, the endless conveyor belt of quality players and so on. The very fabric of football is based on the variety it brings. That variety stimulates competition. It is obviously true that a league with 5 top teams is more competitive than a league with 2 top teams. The former is less predictable.
Competition thrives on unpredictability. We watch a match because we do not know what is going to happen. How many people would watch Manchester City against Barnet compared to Manchester City against Arsenal in the 3rd round of the FA Cup? We are more compelled to watch if we do not know what is going to happen.
The continual influx of cash into football is now threatening to kill the variety that makes football the most popular sport in the world.
What are the signs of this?
Last season the top 6 in the Premier League finished:
1. Manchester United.
2. Chelsea
3. Manchester City
4. Arsenal
5. Tottenham Hotspur
6. Liverpool
During the close season Chelsea, the 3rd placed side, has so far attempted to force Spurs, the 5th placed side, into selling their best player. There has been rumour that Chelsea could afford to triple the wages of one of Tottenham’s top earners.
At the same time Arsenal, the 4th placed side, has been forced into selling one of its best players to the 3rd best side, Manchester City. The rumour is that money was the driving force in Nasri’s (the player concerned) decision to force Arsenal’s hand.
Money appears to be exaggerating the difference in strength between competing sides. Chelsea are not 3 times better than Spurs but they can afford 3 times the wages. Manchester City are not obviously better than Arsenal but they can force an Arsenal player to move to them just through the appeal of money.
In a healthy and competitive league, the 4th placed side would try to finish ahead of 3rd the next season. After all, there was very little to choose between the two. However, if the 3rd placed side then takes the 4th placed side’s best player then the gap between 3rd and 4th will widen. Therefore, the battle between 3rd and 4th becomes less competitive and the league suffers.
The point being made here is that money, the very thing that propelled football to incredible success, could yet prove its undoing. Football is no longer about who finishes above who but who has more money.
If it continues to drift in that direction then football will become increasingly elitist and uncompetitive. When Spurs finished 4th ahead of Man City, City spent over £150 million in 6 months. Spurs spent less than £15 million.
Last season was until March, the most competitive and enjoyable Premier League for a long time. However, if some sides can spend at 1000% the rate of another competing side then the very thing that made that league season so good will be lost. All the good players will concentrate in a few teams and the league will become less competitive.
Just as money gave football an extra competitive edge, it will also take it away.
What do you think? Am I going too far an reacting to more to the failings of Spurs than the success of City? Or am I right, has the money in football now gone too far?
In reality, however, the influx of money into the market has only served to make football more exciting, more accessible and, in the eyes of many, better.
Instead of paying for season tickets one can pay for an annual Sky Sports subscription and watch many more games in “scintillating” HD for a fraction of the price.
The excitement is built up far more in part because Sky make it so but also because everyone knows far better about football as a whole rather than just their own club. The relegation battle is a case in point. Even those that support the top clubs tune in for the relegation dogfight at the end of the season.
The money in football, however, is a double-edged sword which has only now began to show it’s other side.
The heart and soul of football, as with any sport, is competition.
Competition is generated by a free and open market. In a competitive and thriving market there are many competing parties. They range in size but none is too big but no one can be too small. In such an environment it is possible for anyone to thrive if they are good enough.
We see it in the business world. The travel agency business used to be one populated by small high-street chains and one-off shops. Now, with the advent of the internet, the business has metamorphosed into something unrecognizable. Instead of small competing businesses, the industry is made up of large online companies that have sought to automate as much as possible. They have taken away the human element. They dominate the market and have reduced the competition. Instead of 10 competitive prices for similar holidays you may only find 3.
In the travel industry this is not so bad. What killed the competition was the drop in prices; something the public benefited from. In football, however, the repercussions of such a development would be very different.
Football is first and foremost a form of entertainment. It is colourful because of the different leagues, the countless teams, the endless conveyor belt of quality players and so on. The very fabric of football is based on the variety it brings. That variety stimulates competition. It is obviously true that a league with 5 top teams is more competitive than a league with 2 top teams. The former is less predictable.
Competition thrives on unpredictability. We watch a match because we do not know what is going to happen. How many people would watch Manchester City against Barnet compared to Manchester City against Arsenal in the 3rd round of the FA Cup? We are more compelled to watch if we do not know what is going to happen.
The continual influx of cash into football is now threatening to kill the variety that makes football the most popular sport in the world.
What are the signs of this?
Last season the top 6 in the Premier League finished:
1. Manchester United.
2. Chelsea
3. Manchester City
4. Arsenal
5. Tottenham Hotspur
6. Liverpool
During the close season Chelsea, the 3rd placed side, has so far attempted to force Spurs, the 5th placed side, into selling their best player. There has been rumour that Chelsea could afford to triple the wages of one of Tottenham’s top earners.
At the same time Arsenal, the 4th placed side, has been forced into selling one of its best players to the 3rd best side, Manchester City. The rumour is that money was the driving force in Nasri’s (the player concerned) decision to force Arsenal’s hand.
Money appears to be exaggerating the difference in strength between competing sides. Chelsea are not 3 times better than Spurs but they can afford 3 times the wages. Manchester City are not obviously better than Arsenal but they can force an Arsenal player to move to them just through the appeal of money.
In a healthy and competitive league, the 4th placed side would try to finish ahead of 3rd the next season. After all, there was very little to choose between the two. However, if the 3rd placed side then takes the 4th placed side’s best player then the gap between 3rd and 4th will widen. Therefore, the battle between 3rd and 4th becomes less competitive and the league suffers.
The point being made here is that money, the very thing that propelled football to incredible success, could yet prove its undoing. Football is no longer about who finishes above who but who has more money.
If it continues to drift in that direction then football will become increasingly elitist and uncompetitive. When Spurs finished 4th ahead of Man City, City spent over £150 million in 6 months. Spurs spent less than £15 million.
Last season was until March, the most competitive and enjoyable Premier League for a long time. However, if some sides can spend at 1000% the rate of another competing side then the very thing that made that league season so good will be lost. All the good players will concentrate in a few teams and the league will become less competitive.
Just as money gave football an extra competitive edge, it will also take it away.
What do you think? Am I going too far an reacting to more to the failings of Spurs than the success of City? Or am I right, has the money in football now gone too far?
