[Archived] A Fairer Way To Distribute The Tv Money.

[waggy]

the money football is generating from sky grows every deal yet many smaller clubs in the lower division's do not see much of this.

i was having a heated debate with a utd fan about rovers/chelski buying the league,he reckoned utd were self financing and the big signings came from what the club earned.very true i thought,and indeed does a club the size off utd need the tv money.

every team gets 30million and every place is worth 1million winner gets 50 million and bottom gets 31million.

now how about every club that makes a profit utd/arsenal/liverpoo etc and in no need of the tv money ie the 30million, let them keep the prize money as the premiership is a competition after all .

this money could be filtered down the league's giving smaller clubs a boost.

clubs would still get money for their game being a live match

[Eddie]

Why would a team accept to having money taken away from them on the basis that they run themselves well?

[waggy]

Why would a team accept to having money taken away from them on the basis that they run themselves well?

utd make millions from having trillions of fans,nothing to do with being well run

[Jonnolad]

Can you see the likes of the Glaziers / Hicks etc forgoing the TV money because they've got a lot of fans?

[Fife Rover]

utd make millions from having trillions of fans,nothing to do with being well run

Your proposal waggy is a lovely thought, but I just can't see either the clubs or the EPL agreeing to it so sadly it will never happen.

Personally I would like to see the whole TV driven, money-making roundabout collapse in ruins, then maybe Football in the UK would pick itself up, dust itself down and realise just how badly wrong it has gone over the last 40 odd years. Then MAYBE we would see again a gradual re-building and emergence of Football as an entertainment for the masses instead of a money making machine. A return to Football CLUBS, not Football PLC. And a proper and sensible pricing and wages structure, with transfer fees that are affordable and agents nothing more than a bad memory.

Alas I fear my vision will never happen either; at least not within my few remaining years. I honestly thank God that I have at least seen around 20 years of sensible and genuinely exciting and entertaining football prior to the middle 60's.

[Fife Rover]

Waggy, you're going to get a general response of football clubs not being charities, which is true (unless it's doing stuff in their own community etc.). In the eyes of owners, football clubs are businesses and they're not going to take kindly to discriminatory taxing; the only solution would be voluntary donations and I'm not so sure that would work.

The lower leagues aren't necessarily impoverished - nothing has changed over the years as far as I'm concerned, rather that the Premier League has grown global appeal and money is saturating it; rightly so... whatever is in demand demands money. The lower leagues aren't in demand but it's not as though the playing field isn't level, i.e. lower league sides are not competing against EPL sides in the league!

The only argument would be for Championship clubs getting promoted and not being able to establish themselves in the Premier League... but hasn't that always been a problem?

No Celaeno it hasn't always been a problem. In the years prior to the 70's (but starting to go wrong in the mid-60's) it was not only possible for any club getting promoted from 2nd to 1st Div to not only settle in immediately, but in many instances to thrive and go on and win the F.L.Championship. In fact going back to the 50's and ALL the years prior to that from the inception of the F.L. it was perfectly normal for clubs to move up and down between the leagues, and for what are now seen as "big clubs" to be no better than any other club. All had their time in the sun and their time in the doldrums. Anf dthat applied to Man.U and to Grimsby Town alike. (just samples). What we now see as permanent fixtures in the top flight, Everton,Liverpool, Man.U. etc all had their ups and downs and changed places with the likes of Oldham, Burnley, PNE etc.

[Claytons Left Boot]

Can't argue with any of that Fife - It would be quite amusing to see football in this country implode and then watch all the foreign players desert us for Spain, Italy and whoever bids the highest. Maybe we could then start afresh and build an international side to be proud of and at the same time see the likes of Derbyshire playing in the Prem week in, week out.

[LeChuck]

The smaller clubs (ourselves included) already get more than our fair share in my opinion.

The only reason we get a huge amount now is because we have Man Utd/Chelsea etc. in the league. We're very lucky that this money is distributed evenly because it's certainly not generated on an even basis. The smaller clubs would be crazy to try and upset the apple cart with a proposal like that, if they did then I'm sure the bigger clubs would fight back and try and change it so that each club negotiates it's own television deal (as I gather is the case in Italy)...then we all REALLY would screwed.

[philipl]

The EPL distribution is actually the most equitable there is in all the major football leagues. And it has got fairer with the new deal as the top placed club gets a 50:30 ratio against the bottom compared with the 30:15 ratio on the old numbers.

I agree that a more even distribution would be better still but the scheme we have has the support of all the clubs.

[Blackburn Ender]

This is a fascinating argument. I think it's right that in the USA some sports leagues agree to share money and distribute players equitably.

I don't know the philosophy behind this apparent altrusim, though.

Is it still capitalist in thinking? i.e. the more equal and exciting the league, the more TV income, etc, can be generated?

Or is it the only way to get all clubs interested.

Or is there a socialist (with a small 's') view that says, in sport, there ought to be a level playing field (pardon the pun)?

When do Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal & Liverpool come to decide that a more competitive league is more exciting & could generate even more money?

or deos the Champions League fulfil that goal?

[Beta Ray Bill]

How about all 92 league clubs paying 1% of their gate receipts into a collective pot.

This is then distributed back to every club on a 1% basis (including the two that drop out of the league and the two promoted) and the remaining 6% goes to the FA to use in grassroots schemes.

I'd guess 70+ clubs would benefit, a dozen would be about even and maybe single figures lose out.

Yes, I know it'd never be introduced but it's a thought.

[USRoverME]

re: American "altruism"... its technically illegal except for the fact that the major sports get an "anti-trust" exemption from the government (you'll see that phase get tossed about in the near future with the Congress looking into the Spygate scandal). the idea being that you are forcing a player to play for a team that picked him as opposed to allowing him a "Free market" to find his employer.

My understanding is that the owners used the draft not only as a way to promote competitive balance, but also as a means to control salaries and signing bonuses. That being said, the first person ever drafted in the NFL draft never played a snap of football in the NFL. I'll try to do some digging to find some history references, but that being said, with the EU rules, a draft would never happen.

edit: horrible spelling.

more info, baseball used to be an open market signing process. However the owners did change to a draft in order to control costs. That is actualy on the mlb.com website. So I guess most of the sports did it for the same reason. Also the intracacies of the draft, who eligible, compensations etc are all negotiated betweent he league (owners) and the player's union. Trust me, the last thing you want is to give power to a player's union. That's how baseball ended up with players getting 30 mil a year, a strong players union...

[philipl]

How about all 92 league clubs paying 1% of their gate receipts into a collective pot.

This is then distributed back to every club on a 1% basis (including the two that drop out of the league and the two promoted) and the remaining 6% goes to the FA to use in grassroots schemes.

I'd guess 70+ clubs would benefit, a dozen would be about even and maybe single figures lose out.

Yes, I know it'd never be introduced but it's a thought.

Under the old TV deal, the Premiership gave 5% to developing grass roots football. The actual cash doubles this year as the 5% increases to 7.5% on a much bigger TV deal.

In addition, the Premiership pays towards the FA (how else could they afford £6m pa for Capello) and makes contributions to all the clubs in the Football League decreasing as you go down through the divisions. I think the dingles and pals get £1.5m pa each now.

That number is swamped by the size of the parachute payments the clubs getting relegated from the Premiership receive. If a relegated club gets promoted straight away, its second year of parachute money goes into the Football League pot for distribution.

[T4E]

Two words. Salary Cap.

It's the players and their outrageous wage packets that are destroying this game.

[philipl]

But we will get clobbered if the salary cap is a %age of turnover.

If it goes in at 60%, we would need to cut our wage bill by a third whilst Man U could increase their wages by another 20% and still be within the cap.

I agree wages have to be managed somehow but I just cannot see any formula which would both work and not handicap the Rovers.

[USRoverME]

The only way to make a cap work is to have a salary cap be a fixed number for all clubs, other wise the usefulness of a cap is gone. However, I think the NHL does have their cap based on a % of the TV revenue league wide. That might be a fair way to do it. The Rich clubs woudl still be more able to pay the astronomical signing bonuses (assumign they aren't pro-rated into the salary cap somehow), but the wages would still have to make sence...

[American]

re: American "altruism"... its technically illegal except for the fact that the major sports get an "anti-trust" exemption from the government

Totally untrue. Only baseball has the anti-trust exemption. The ironic thing with this is that baseball is the only major sport without a salary cap. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_law#An...ssues_in_Sports ). Labor laws also help, but they are not only applied to sports leagues.

The reason the "altruism" works is that the league is self-containing. No promotion or relegation. In England if a club is broke and can't afford players, they get replaced by another club (or if they have a good manager they stay in 8th position!). In American sports if all of the teams aren't competitive, the league as a whole suffers. Revenue sharing makes sure that even the smaller teams have the chance (not all take it) to stay competitive and provide entertaining competition for the larger teams.

I'm sure other reasons for why it happens (and is allowed to happen) is that technically the owners of the clubs also own the leagues. Add to that lack of international competition and you have the current system.

[doctorryan]

Totally untrue. Only baseball has the anti-trust exemption.

The National Football League also retains a limited antitrust exemption, mostly under the rules of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

[licker]

I'm in complete agreement with the original poster, the smaller clubs are falling by the wayside at an alarmig rate and what do the governing bodies do, they not only demote them but also give them a 10, 12, or 15 points deduction penalty, i mean thats not helping the clubs at all, most of whom have been members of the football league for a 100 years or more, what a way to treat your members.

Think you will be surprised at the amount of money that teams will actually get from this new deal, the £50m and the £30m for top and bottom is just for starters that is the basic pot, the TV money is additional and is paid in parachute fees depending whether you play sunday lunch, sunday afternoon, monday evening, saturday 5 oclock all different prices between half a million up to a million. The teams at the top can expect 60 or more million, the teams at the bottom and relegated will recieve 31m, 32m, and 33m respectively plus if they have been on tv maybe 12 to 15 times they can expect another 5 million. but at relegation thats where it should stop.

Another 30 million pounds for the next two seasons, and dont forget that is times 3 for the other two relegated clubs, and that is the money that should be shared, 100 million pounds every year is paid to the relegated clubs and as far as i am concerned that is criminal when you have other clubs going into liquidation and bankruptcy on a regular basis.

Just my slant on it.

[joey_big_nose]

It's going to be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Man City, Spurs, Villa, Portsmouth and Everton are all spending a lot of money and putting together good teams. Hopefully some of them will be able to reshuffle the top four a bit over the next few years. The only reason this is happening is because of investors, but there hasn't been a riper time for the order fo things to change a little as for once quite a few clubs can financially compete.

In order to survive English football needs to remain competitive. If it does not, if the same four clubs dominate, the league could start to creak a bit. The whole reason football is popular is because it is one of the most uncertain sports invented, where the smallest often (compared to other sports) beat the biggest, and where freak results are often thrown up. If this is squashed then the game will some of its appeal.

[OscarRaven]

In order to survive English football needs to remain competitive. If it does not, if the same four clubs dominate, the league could start to creak a bit. The whole reason football is popular is because it is one of the most uncertain sports invented, where the smallest often (compared to other sports) beat the biggest, and where freak results are often thrown up. If this is squashed then the game will some of its appeal.

I thought like this too and still do to a certain extent but over the last 20 years we have seen a move from 1 club dominating (Liverpool) to another club dominating (Man Utd) but more recently you would have to argue the league has become MORE competitive with 4 teams now dominating. This was achieved by the bench mark being set and everyone else having to catch up not handicapping everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Now question is can everyone else catch up or are the Champions league berths effectively annexing the top European teams from the rest?

[waggy]

people could say utd/liverpoo/arse/chelski would do there own tv deals but if all the other clubs stuck together,the big 4 would lose out eventually,their fans would not be happy just seeing home games on tv,they could not survive without the rest

[Ronin]

The SPL probably put that to the test when the other clubs threatened to resign when Celtic & Rangers, I think, planned to do their own TV deals.

[Jan]

The SPL probably put that to the test when the other clubs threatened to resign when Celtic & Rangers, I think, planned to do their own TV deals.

Aye, and that deal worked out SO well. Two ha'penies worth of bog all in revenue.

[rover6]

Is it still capitalist in thinking? i.e. the more equal and exciting the league, the more TV income, etc, can be generated?

Or is there a socialist (with a small 's') view that says, in sport, there ought to be a level playing field (pardon the pun)?

When do Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal & Liverpool come to decide that a more competitive league is more exciting & could generate even more money?

or deos the Champions League fulfil that goal?

Capitalist concerns, only, it seems, will change the situation. The established philosophy in British football is solipsistic and that's not gonna change without something radical. It's not until big clubs are hit in the pocket because the league is a procession they'll sit up and worry about the inequality. And that will only happen if sponsorship revenues falls and that will only happen if fans of clubs abandon watching football in their droves because their team plays crap football against other crude football teams and has jack all chance of doing anything interesting in the league/cups.

However, the Premier League, to an extent, is exploiting a captured market (think vending machines in public places, miles from the nearest store). Footy fans are addicts and will not easily give up their team or sport - no matter how crap things get. And with foreign investors piling in, things have genuinely got more interesting for some teams, which will make the day when the average footy fan says, enough is enough, a more distant prospect.

Further, with the Premier League's fanbase going global, there may come a day when, even if domestic fans pull the plug, the world brand is so entrenched that it'll be a mere hissy fit in the ocean.

Which basically, my friends, means, nought's gonna change because we have an entrenched solipsistic ideology. The day Blackburn fans worry about the financial health of Burnley FC, might be the day when football strives for equality. It's a selfish wo/man's sport until then.