I have a new piece in Slate on parity in soccer, which of course means the lack of parity in soccer, which means the fact that Real Madrid and Barcelona have combined to win 51 La Liga titles compared to 28 for all the other clubs in Spain, and Blackburn is still the only club outside the Functional Big Three ever to win a Premier League title, and even a plucky underdog like Leyton Orient, after bravely winning an FA Cup draw against Arsenal at home, can expect to be roto-rooted into oblivion by Nicklas Bendtner at the Emirates. The piece is mainly focused on how league-structure decisions like the new plan for sharing TV money in Spain write this basic inequality into the rules. I also wonder whether that’s necessarily a bad thing—on the one hand, Barcelona-Almería might not be suspenseful (16-0 Barça in three games so far this season), but on the other hand, having a massive concentration of money and talent among a few top teams means that neutrals will at least get to see some fantastic collections of skill.
One point I’ve been thinking about since I finished the piece is how the new Financial Fair Play regulations [PDF] are likely to affect this situation. Right now, I think most of us have the sense that if UEFA succeeds in enforcing these—the likelihood of which is still open to discussion—it will work in fans’ best interest by eliminating some of the instability that comes with rampant deficit spending. If clubs have to balance their books, then transfer prices and wage bills should come back to earth, smaller clubs will no longer be competing against the Royal Bank of Scotland, and fewer clubs will suffer the fate of Gretna—sudden, dramatic success brought on by the arrival of a wealthy benefactor, followed by collapse and dissolution once the benefactor withdraws.
Admittedly, that’s simplifying the terms of the Financial Fair Play discussion a bit, but in broad strokes, I think that’s how the regulations have been seen. Threatening clubs with a ban from European competition if their revenue can’t cover their interest payments might (should?) put an end to the Attack of the Leveraged Buyouts. Limiting the extent to which donations from wealthy owners count as relevant income might (must?) slow the rate at which the game is colonized by plutocrats bored with their racing stables. Everybody wins, right? Even Abramovich supported the new rules.
Looked at from the perspective of parity, though, couldn’t you make the case that in the absence of any meaningful revenue-sharing system in the top leagues, FFP is just another method of using the rules to protect the status quo? After all, whatever you think of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour—and there are a lot of reasons to think badly of them, obviously—their money has been essentially the only force in soccer over the last decade or so that’s been capable of even challenging the ingrained club hierarchy, much less overturning it. If money produces wins (by enabling clubs to hire the best players and coaches), and wins produce money (by increasing fan bases and leading to more commercial and sponsorship revenue), then an influx of cash from the outside, for all the instability it brings to the game as a whole, might be the only hope for a smaller club to compete with the top teams. By telling clubs “you can only spend the money you make from football-related activities” in an environment in which Barcelona and Madrid are able to hoard the lion’s share of all TV revenue in Spain, UEFA is essentially promising that Barcelona and Madrid (and Manchester United, and Milan, and Bayern Munich) will be on top for the foreseeable future.
Again, I’m not sure that’s entirely a bad thing (this is not a hard-hitting opinion post), and even if it were, it might be worth it to keep the debt spiral from turning global soccer into a puff of smoke floating beside a mountain. But it’s at least worth noticing that the rules that may represent the best hope for fiscal sanity in soccer are also likely to make it even harder for the fans of most clubs to hope for large-scale success. Burnley won’t have to keep up with Manchester United’s borrowing power (again assuming the rules are stringently enforced), but they’ll be putting their commercial income and ticket sales against Manchester United’s commercial income and ticket sales, and that’s a competition Burnley are never going to win. (Picture Bertie Bee, shedding a single tear.)
Consider, in this light, the verdict of football-investment adviser Daniel Geey in his brilliant Liverpool-focused breakdown of the consequences of the FFP rules, which is probably the best quick summary of the new scheme for anyone who doesn’t want to read a 100-page UEFA pdf:
Unlike smaller Premier League clubs who will probably have only a finite level of commercial income (mid-range stadium capacity, merchandising sold only in the local area, limited commercialisation of overseas markets), Liverpool are one of only a small number of global football institutions that have the ability to expand their international commercial activities.
Additionally, and most importantly, the club has the potential for a much larger stadium to bring vastly increased revenues. Liverpool’s annual match-day income from their latest accounts of £42.5m is dwarfed by Arsenal’s £100.1m and Manchester United’s £108.8m in revenues. Being debt-free (a big ‘if’) and having £60m worth of additional revenue each season creates a much larger revenue stream with which to break even.
Therefore, in the long term, Liverpool’s hopefully increasing international commercial performance (perhaps into China) along with the potential revenue windfall of a new stadium should allow the Reds to keep within the rules by having larger revenues to balance against larger transfer spending.
Liverpool’s global following should give the club a disproportionate revenue advantage when compared with probably all but two or three other Premier League clubs. The fact that Liverpool are 7th (measured by revenue) in the Deloitte Football Money League 2010 for Europe shows the potential for further revenue growth.
In other words, Liverpool—which, thanks to its long tradition of success, has enormous revenue potential compared to most other English clubs—should acquire a further advantage over smaller clubs under the new rules. So will Arsenal, so will Manchester United. Of course, practically speaking, Preston North End weren’t about to challenge Liverpool or Arsenal anyway, but for me, at least, it’s striking to think about all the ways in which the structure of the game essentially prevents them from doing so. Every once in a while, maybe a spectacularly well-run club like Lyon will challenge the old guard somewhere in Europe. The rest of the time, the occasional Birmingham-style Carling Cup run is all most fans of smaller clubs can hope for.
Read More: Billionaire Owners, Parity
by Brian Phillips · March 3, 2011
All fair points, and well stated, but I think there’s still enough going on within the minutiae of the league to keep fans of those second-tier clubs interested. For one, there’s an EPL payout system similar in structure to that you’d find at a PGA tournament; I forget the specifics, but it does behoove you to finish 11th instead of 13th or 14th. There is a notable drop in cash as you go further down the ladder.
Similarly, glory and all that. Scott Murray’s bit in the Guardian today admonishing Houiller’s stone-cold pragmatism was also well done. As fans, we’re fairly simple to keep happy. Give us wins, give our club prestige, gain us respect where we can get it. For some, that invariably means trophies as trophies are there for a few clubs to wrestle over, but memorable cup runs and giant-killing afternoons tilt the paradigm enough to give us pride in our club’s achievements. I could be wrong, but as Wolves fans might be disconsolate at facing relegation, it’ll do nothing to diminish their memories of beating Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, and Manchester United in the same season. Yes, it hurts them in the pocketbook, but there’s a reason Norwich City fans (one of my best friends included) still speak fondly of beating Bayern in Germany, and being the only English team to win in Munich’s Olympic Stadium. Those things carry a value that transcends the ledger.
@James T Absolutely—again, I’m not arguing in favor of American-style revenue-sharing or radical parity mechanisms for soccer. I’m not arguing in favor of anything, really; I just think it’s worth looking at how these structural issues affect the game. Obviously, the current system works well enough for me that I spend much of every waking day following it! But then I also imagine that—even given those exceptional moments of glory—there must be a deep sense of unfairness in loving a team and knowing that they’re essentially not allowed to finish higher than eleventh.
Even in that light, I don’t think FFP is going to be major factor—this is just a minor wrinkle that I hadn’t really heard talked about.
There’s a parallel discussion going on in the NBA. Obviously, the scale of the issue is different simply because of soccer’s relative size, but perhaps higher quality concentrated at the top is more entertaining to a broader audience. In terms of what’s better for business, the preference for a model that ensures a high-quality product that is also financially stable is clearly preferable to an era such as 1970s English football, where meteoric rises such as that of Brian Clough’s Nottingham Forest/Derby County teams were balanced with the equally precipitous fall of a club such as Manchester United. It served as a fascinating storyline (even without a pitchman as charismatic as Clough), but it detracted from the overall product in the sense that the talent pool wasn’t optimally distributed. Great players could be stuck on poor teams, and distinctly average players could linger at all but the very best sides.
When one looks at that era from a broader perspective, there were a set of teams that were at the top in Europe and their respective leagues: Bayern Munich, Ajax, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter, Juventus, and perhaps Leeds and Forest. With the exception of Ajax and the latter two, it’s not terribly different from what’s on show now. The churn that went on below these teams in the table is what’s in question; and frankly, I’d rather see a higher quality product. It’s quality entertainment, and good business.
@David Perez Yes, I think it’s fair to say that a large part of European football’s success has been the way ridiculous inequality has allowed teams like Manchester United to flourish – why would I, a remote fan from the Asian market, get excited about a league full of vaguely equal squabblers? I don’t have local affection for any one, and football’s loci of power on field are so dynamic and variable that I don’t think I would ever have the chance to imprint upon a certain style, a method of football. So UEFA, like another European institution before it, must mete and dole unequal laws unto its savage race.
As they say in ~Globish~, hegemony gets attention.
Forgot to say – both very insightful pieces, Brian, thanks for writing them.
Great pieces and thanks for linking other interesting articles. I often find the arguments become a little circular, but it is always fascinating.
Personally, another interesting aspect, in the Premier League at least, is the attitude of recently promoted sides. This year the story has been the “refreshing” approach of Blackpool’s full court press, which appears to be doing enough to keep them up. Not unlike Hull’s approach two years ago. I think it comes about in part due to the relative parity of the Championship, where a hard-working pressing side can do well against ‘bigger’ teams.
I expect QPR (admittedly in a stronger financial situation to B’Pool) to continue playing their attacking/ passing football next year, but it doesn’t always work (e.g. Tony Mowbray’s WBA in 08/09).
The parity in this year’s relegation fight is spectacularly close and will probably provide more genuine intrigue than the top.
@Brian Phillips “there must be a deep sense of unfairness in loving a team and knowing that they’re essentially not allowed to finish higher than eleventh.”
I wonder about this, and if the great sense of injustice is somehow what makes these people love their teams even more? I don’t really know what that feels like, because I wasn’t stuck with the team I support via birth. I chose them, and because I’m a jerk, I chose one of the ones towards the top.
I know that in my experience with how it feels to follow, say, the NFL for example, the alleged parity leads to down times and up times and I find that I just don’t pay much attention to my team during the “rebuilding” years.
You get your big time draft picks when you really stink it up, and if things work you crawl out from the abyss and get your shot at the playoffs in another 3 or 4 or 5 years, and maybe you make a good run and win. It all seems very adult and reasonable, but it also makes it hard to build up years of anger and resentment that I can then proudly show off as true 100% authentic authenticity.
Maybe this is all due to my own personal failings and limitations, but that’s all I got, as I don’t know anything about the economics of professional sports leagues, or really anything. Careful what you wish for and all that.
Assuming fan interest in the Premier League is close to maximum in England, and has plenty of room to grow in foreign markets, the best way to increase gross revenue is to attract new fans. To do this however, The Premier League needs its Manchester United type teams. 8 very good and competitive teams won’t sell nearly as many jerseys (or generate as many viewers) in China/Indonesia/Nigeria as one Manchester United or Real Madrid. Therefore, to maximize overall revenue and impact, major European leagues should try to support a few juggernauts, while still maintaining local interest (given the entrenched loyalty of fans of “mid table” clubs, a safe proposition). Athletic Bilbao’s fans will stay with it through thick and thin, but Kenyan fans of Barcelona will move on to the next Champions League winners if Barca don’t maintain their success.
I think if the measure prevents the dissolution of smaller clubs due to an inability to cover wage bills costs, it’s worth it even if it does preserve the status quo. Rochdale will never win the Champions League, whether Brian is coaching or not. Better to give up Premier League dreams and prevent teams over a hundred years old from disappearing forever.
@Tim British football is largely a tribal affair although some of the successful clubs draw fans from all over the country.
I am intrigued by the current struggle for Champions League football in the EPL. What will happen to Liverpool if they continue to not qualify for this competition?
Liverpool have struggled with attendances this season so I am not sure what makes people think a bigger stadium is going to be filled. Chelsea also have a tiny fanbase which would become very apparent after a couple of seasons like this one.
My beloved Newcastle are one of the best supported clubs around yet I imagine we will still win nowt even with these regulations.
@Peter Raynor
We’ll let you know. As yet undetermined, though I will note that the Sparta Prague game at 6pm on a Thursday sold out. That’s freakin’ remarkable.
Fair play, shmair play was always my motto. Imagine how boring fair play would be.
The Financial Fair Play program imposes strict rules on that bastion of middle class mobility, credit. While we can all agree that deficit spending with no end in sight will lead to ruin, how many American families have advanced in the middle class via a school loan or a decent mortgage? Will the FFP attempt to stamp out payday loans but really hinder advancement?
I think that, perchance, the FFP may lead to upper (but not quite top) clubs prioritizing domestic league revenue and saying to heck with the Europa league. As noted above, if a team needs to spend money to get a bigger slice of the EPL pay by finishing 5th instead of 10th, the opportunity/cost loss of potential Europa revenue won’t seem too bad.
The greatest irony is that as clubs struggle under debt and host-nations too, FIFA and these “management structures” cut a huge profit off the top.
It’s worth remembering that FFP only applies to UEFA competitions. There is nothing to stop somebody investing in a club, say West Ham, and buliding them up to a level that eventually means that they are big enough to comply with the rules.
FFP could also mean that none UEFA competing clubs can actually outbid the likes of Chelsea because they have no restrictions.
There are an awful lot of “whats ifs” around at the moment that will only be proved once it is put into practice.
@Russell Very good points, although since the compliance period is spread across several seasons, billionaire-backed clubs that did want UEFA competition would at least have their ascents significantly slowed.
I think Richard Whittal’s point below is really where the FFP rules can have a positive effect. If we define “positive ” as reducing the potential for small (less popular) clubs to be purchased and leveraged to the hilt in the hopes of winning a big tournament (pay-check) in the short to medium term. Indeed, Article 2, Sections 1 & 2 yield the clear negative inference: the Rules are not meant to increase competition among the clubs. The Rules are meant to preserve the status quo with respect to teams that are currently able to martial huge financial resources and compete on multiple fronts year in, year out. I’m inclined to agree with you, Brian, I don’t think that this is a bad thing.
What I do think is potentially problematic is that FFP reduces the incentives for owners to risk investing in an “unfashionable” team (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575544030227545858.html). Will future Venkys invest in future Blackburns if new owners face the daunting prospect of having to break even almost immediately? Foreign investors probably promote interest in the team in which they invest in their home countries, so discouraging this type of investment potentially eliminates one of the ways in which soccer teams and leagues can expand into new markets.
By the way, this is an amazing site. I’m really glad to have found it.
Parity died with the Bosman ruling. After that, smaller teams do not have a chance. For example, Tottenham has 3 players from Dinamo Zagreb. With these 3 players, Dinamo would have a decent chance of reaching Champions League, but without them, even a couple games in Europa League is considered success. I like parity in NFL. It is much better because as someone said, everyone has its ups and downs. But again, it is so hard to have any kind of parity in soccer because there are so many leagues and countries involved.
Paper parity is one thing, but true parity would be something else entirely, and I’m not sure anyone wants true parity to actually happen, least of all UEFA. Do we think Platini really wants to see the semi-finals of his showcase competition being between Nottingham Forest, Cologne, Austria Vienna and Malmö, as happened in 1979? Hand on heart, does anyone want that, other than the supporters of whichever four of a couple of hundred clubs happen to make it that far in any given season? We are often – to borrow Jose Mourinho’s word of the week – hypocritical about whether big-club dominance of the game is a good or bad thing. On the one hand, we cry “unfair!” and demand that our local team have a decent chance to chase the dream. Then, come May, if our team has been knocked out, all our principles of parity are quietly forgotten, as we demand mighty battles with high stakes between big clubs with global support, not “meh” matches of purely local interest.
For as long as TV revenue continues to account for so much of the money circulating in the game, then the TV rights holders will continue to lobby, cajole and force the hand of leagues and federations not to treat the situation in Spain as an anomaly but to consolidate it as the norm: every weekend, pick the most attractive matches between the most popular clubs, hype them up to the hilt as this week’s Showdown of the Century, and sell the ad space to the highest bidder and secure the highest ratings possible to wave in the face of the advertisers so you can justify hiking up the price of a spot even higher next weekend.
And without clipping the big clubs’ wings by denying them the opportunity to take money from wherever it’s offered – and in most cases it’d probably take national legislation to do that – then there’s not a fat lot Michel Platini can do to bring the handful of Barcelonas and Bayerns down to earth so that the hundreds of Brescias and Blackburns can spread their wings and fly.
Slightly off-topic but the stadium issue really interests me.
Not only does the clear advantage of having more seats on which to put more bums provide more income, but in the cases of Arsenal, West Ham when they move to the Olympic Stadium and Spurs if they are allowed to develop the Northumberland Park area, it allows them to redevelop the sites which they are leaving.
Add to the revenue increase from match day income the profit made on the sale of houses and flats built on sites such as Highbury Square and you are also looking at another significant, albeit finite, revenue stream for such clubs.
Interesting to note that Arsenal, so recently held up by Platini as the model of football financing, returned far worse end of year accounts as the sale of these flats decreased/ran out.
Brian et al, do you think that the development of such assets will become a bigger consideration for clubs guilty of splashing the cash, once the FFP comes into play? It seems to me a sensible way to offset certain losses and balance the books.
I feel firmly against the argument of having all the talent condensed in 8 or 9 rich European teams. European competitions were much more exciting in the 70′s and 80′s when teams like Ajax, Anderlecht, Steaua, Red Star Belgrade, Benfica, Celtic, or Marseille were formidable opponents for giants like Milan or Real Madrid. Just take a look at European Champions Cup/Champions League past winners and tell me if the past 10 years haven’t been boring…
@Rich Pye Maybe someone else can chime in on this—it’s not entirely clear to me from the language of the regulations whether income streams like Arsenal’s Highbury flats qualify as “relevant income.” The rules exclude “income from non-football operations not related to the club,” but here’s how that’s described in Annex X, Part B(1)(k):
The income (and expenses—see part C(1)(k)) of non-football operations only needs to be excluded from the calculation of relevant income if it is clearly and exclusively not related to the activities, locations or brand of the football club, in which case it must be excluded.
Examples of activities that may be reported in financial statements as non-football operations but for the purposes of the calculation of relevant income and expenses would not normally need to be adjusted include:
* Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams; and
* Operations clearly using the name/brand of a club as part of their operations.
So I guess as long as the flats/waste-management company/high-end yogurt shoppe either clearly use a club’s brand name (which they do, in the case of Highbury Square) or can trade on proximity to the stadium, they’re allowable. I’m not sure if most clubs, even big clubs, have the wherewithal to operate large commercial ventures, but this seems like another possible loophole for billionaires. What would UEFA do if Manchester City opened up a doughnut shop at Eastlands and Al Mubarak ordered fifty million crullers?
@Brian Phillips thanks for that Brian. From the language in the regs, as you rightly say, it would seem that such ventures could be fair game. I’m sure we’re going to see a plethora of creative accounting over the next couple of seasons and loopholes to be exploited.
@Rich Pye Agreed and I think that the biggest loophole has to be shirt sponsorships. What keeps a billionaire from deciding that one of his companies is now going to sponsor say…. Racing Santander to the tune of $50M/year?
@Ben Indeed – one precedent for that being Marbella District Council’s sponsorship of Atlético Madrid while the club’s chairman was, er, the mayor of Marbella. Can’t afford a new player? That’s what the taxpayers are for.
@Archie_V @Ben Not to say that shirt sponsorships aren’t a possible loophole, but the rules do at least require clubs to demonstrate “fair value” in income transactions with “related parties.” So if Abramovich’s high-end yogurt shoppe wants to sponsor Chelsea for $100 billion a year, Chelsea would only be able to count as relevant income the portion of that sum that the sponsorship was actually worth, whatever that means. Same with selling corporate suites, manipulating commercial transactions, etc.
“roto-rooted into oblivion by Nicklas Bendtner”
is how Nicklas Bendtner picks up women…
@Brian Phillips Given the subjectivity of value, I wonder how they will figure out what fair value is… It’s easy for them to say that they will do that, but it may prove to mite more challenging than they expect
@Archie_V back in 2004, the Champions League semi-finals were between Deportivo la Coruña, FC Porto, AS Monaco and Chelsea FC. TV figures were as strong as ever. The final, between FC Porto and AS Monaco had similar TV numbers to every other Champions League Final.
The fact that the stronger teams seem to always go further in the competition is connected to the rules of the competition (such as seeding and the league system) as opposed to an enourmous advantage in quality of play.
As far as de FFP rules, as a suporter of a “big-fish-small-pond” club, like Benfica, i welcome them. I have seen what unreasonable money-spending can do to a club, when Benfica almost went bankrupt in the early 90′s.
I do believe, however, that you can be competitive with less money, specially (but not only) if there’s a Tv revenue distribution system that allows a fair division of the money, as we have seen in Spain in the beggining of this century, when Deportivo and Valencia won Ligas.
Money is overrated in football. It’s not the only reason for success.
@joao jorge You’re right; money’s not the only reason for success. The extremely good coaches, players, executives, and facilities that money can purchase are also contributing factors.
“Then, come May, if our team has been knocked out, all our principles of parity are quietly forgotten, as we demand mighty battles with high stakes between big clubs with global support, not “meh” matches of purely local interest.”
@Archie_V do you think this is the way most fans feel now? If so then I fear we’ve succumbed to the marketeers and grown bloated on a constant diet of hyperstar-laden mega-club squads. Surely at some point we’re going to look at this empty can of Champions League Pringles and feel ill and full of self-loathing?
Maybe that says less about the state of the modern football and more about my snack-eating habits but there you are.
@Alex I don’t think many would admit it, but I think that, yes, the average Oldham Athletic fan, once it’s clear that Oldham are not in the running for a Champions League place, would rather watch A.C. Milan-Arsenal than, say, Getafe-Sunderland. Just compare the Europa League’s viewing figures with those of the Champion’s League.
The situation in Spain – one of every-man-for-himselfery when it comes to TV money, basically – has demonstrated this to be true. If the freeview channel La Sexta has picked Madrid or Barcelona for its live match on Saturday, all the bars and restaurants are deserted; if it’s a mid-table clash between Espanyol-Real Sociedad or something, they’re packed. The TV channels are always, always going to pick the matches they’re confident of getting the highest ratings for. And if the right to pick and choose matches is taken away from them, they’ll slash their bids for the rights, reducing the more humble clubs’ share of the pot even more. What club chairman up for re-election is going to want to be part of that?
@joao jorge Hmm. With the 2009 final between Barcelona and Manchester United – i.e. two of football’s top five “brands” – the Champions League surged past the Superbowl as the world’s most-watched sporting event, with a reach of over 200 million potential consumers ahem I mean scarf-waving diehard supporters. Obviously, it could be argued that the big clubs’ drive to open up new markets in Asia and North America throughout the Noughties had made such a result (that’s “result” as in ratings, not as in 2-0, I’m afraid) inevitable at some point, regardless of the teams involved, but I’m sure the two clubs that were involved that year had something to do with that particular milestone being reached when it was.
@ZZ is quite right. The Bosman ruling gave Pandora the green light to – as the marketing people might put it – debox and go, baby, go. And, according to credible sources, she was last seen somewhere in the Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area, sitting in front of a beat-up Trinitron with a rabbit-ear antenna on top – in her brand new Barcelona shirt.
I’m not justifying any of this – it’s all rather depressing; I’m just calling it the way I see it, with Platini talking con la boca chica, as they say in Spain: without really meaning it.
There’s a whole chapter in the Kuper/Szymanksi book “Soccernomics” about this. In trying to find out whether the NFL really has more parity than the EPL, they compared the distribution of win percentages in both (comparing them to a theoretical “coin toss win” league where any team had a chance to beat any other team on “any given day” as the NFL slogan goes, or went). They found that the NFL’s distribution of win percentages, or standard deviation, was about 60% higher than the theoretical 50-50 league whereas the EPL’s was about 70% higher–so the NFL has more parity, but not much more. Rather, as Tim and other commenters are pointing out, the NFL uses devices like the draft (they also point to MLB’s revenue sharing, including on merch sales, and luxury tax as examples) to reshuffle the cards every year, presumably with the intent and largely with the effect that the top teams keep shifting. I’m not an NFL fan so I can’t say for myself, but I get what Tim is saying about how it may produce a bit more “parity” but it also feels engineered, and interrupts the fans’ narratives about their chosen teams.
They also ultimately come down on the side of the idea that fans dont’ in fact prefer more equal leagues, although they admit that various attempts to measure this sentiment show mixed results. They seem partly convinced that (having earlier established a quantifiable home-field advantage in soccer) a balanced league “would result in an almost interminable procession of home wins.” This might be attractive for fans in terms of raising attendance for home fans who always want to see their own team win, but bad for television viewers (and revenues) because TV viewers tend to turn off when the outcome is predictable. They also point out that even with an unbalanced EPL, many teams who can’t hope to win the league have crucial games (avoiding relegation, getting into Europe, derbies) that create interest, although possibly on a more localized scale.
I was really surprised to find out that of all 92 teams in England’s top 4 divisions, only 17 had lower average attendance in 2008 than in 1992! So, as they wrote, it’s hard to argue that the dominance of a few teams kills interest. And as Brian and others wrote here, juggernauts create interest, both for the opportunity to see really top-level talent, and for the storylines they create. It seems like there’s a bit of a divide between what’s ideal for TV viewers (a global audience) and fans attending matches, but maybe not as much as we might think. I think the main problem with the current unequal-ness is that it violates some of our ideals of fairness, or limits our sense that there’s something great and unexpected waiting to happen. But when I complain that I wouldn’t mind seeing Sevilla or Valencia (or anybody else) winning La Liga every now and again, I’m not wishing for a crap Sevilla or Valencia to win–I want someone else to be good enough to win, which is kind of like saying I wish Sevilla or Valencia to be Barca or Real Madrid. Mainly as an American fan, I’m just really happy how much easier it is to watch soccer on cable than it was even 4 or 5 years ago.
Sorry for the novel there. I’m really interested in this question of parity. I’m also a Red Sox fan and I’m always getting the most outraged-to-the-point-of-epilepsy lectures on all this from my friends who are Tigers fans.
I do have to ask, as someone completely new to being soccer obsessed, why is it so much harder for a team to build a really good squad by scouting insanely well and getting top young players locked into contracts at rates they can afford before they hit the transfer market? I think of, say, the way the Tampa Bay Diamondbacks competed in baseball to beat the Yankees and Red Sox for a 2-3 year span.
I know that with multiple leagues and no draft it can be much, much harder, but as Brian Phillips mentioned, Lyon seems to do it. Also, isn’t Dortmund in the Bundisliga essentially doing that? Why does this not happen more often?
Pardon my ignorance.
@Rogersworthe I think the simple answer is just that it’s really, really hard to scout that well and to bring an entire organization on board with smart financial management. And then, of course, once you’ve done it, the scouts and managers who’ve brought success to the club are themselves subject to being poached away by bigger, richer teams.
@Rogersworthe- due to European law there is no such thing as “locking a player into a contract” which makes it insanely difficult to maintain a top squad of players unless you have large amounts of cash.
So Tampa Bay (for example) would never have been able to hold on to somebody like Carl Crawford for as long as they did.
And I hate to be pedantic (actually I don’t) but the Tampa Bay Diamondbacks?!
@Russell Yes, I noted the error after I hit post. In my defense, both franchises were created at the same time.
I blame the error on my recent obsession with soccer.
@Russell As to continue a different line of questioning, how then do teams agree on payment and salaries for players? Is it year to year?
@Rogersworthe- the agreements are the same as in baseball but in practice once a player has decided that he wants to move, it is incredibly difficult to stop him.
A transfer fee has to be agreed between the two clubs but this tends to be a formality. An exception this season has been Blackpool holding on to Charlie Adam when he wanted to leave to join Liverpool, but even then they will almost certainly lose him at the end of the season.
@Archie_V I don’t think the ideas about restoring some parity to European soccer ever had much to do with the Brescias and Blackburns, but with the Ajaxes, Anderlechts, Red Star Belgrades, Celtics and Rangers. The formerly great European soccer powers, that purely based on the size of the country they’re based in, were excluded from the exploding soccer TV revenues after the new Champions League setup, but were exposed to the same player wage explosion as everyone else after the Bosman ruling.
@Boo But wouldn’t levelling that particular playing field create artificial parity? The four big European leagues, to which the bulk of the clubs in the final stages of UEFA competitions always seem to belong, also happen to be the four most populous EU countries. To transfer this principle across the Atlantic, isn’t this also the main reason why the New York Yankees are (I assume) stronger than the Caracas Leones? Bigger fan base, higher TV income, etc. Since Europe’s clubs are UEFA affiliates, not franchises, I don’t see how that built-in inequality can ever be “corrected”.
@Archie_V It’s not that these clubs from smaller leagues used to be mediocre clubs, artificially elevated to parity. Look at Ajax of the last 10 years compared to 1970 – 1996, and tell me you believe nothing of value has been lost. Before the Bosman ruling, clubs were restricted in how many players they could buy, and player wages were much lower. The very best players still left for the big leagues, but clubs from smaller leagues could compete with a focus on youth training and innovative tactics. These days, youth training is losing money. A player will generally leave for the big four leagues after just one good season, sometimes even before ever having played in the first team of the club that trained them. It seems likely that the future will bring fewer Bergkamps and Sneijders.
Then there are the TV revenues for the Champions League. Although the prize money is divided equally, purely based on performance, TV money is not. Tottenham Hotspur gets more money for getting through the group stage than a hypothetical club from Belgium would for reaching the finals. Since the big four leagues have three or four clubs bringing in such money every season, and Belgium (for example) one or none, the difference is accelerating.
I don’t see the financial fair play rules changing this. I don’t see anything changing this, good club football outside the big 4 is just a thing of the past, though maybe in the long run, there will be a big 6 (Turkey and Russia).
Some great comments and debates on here, but can’t we all at least agree that you can’t spell “p-a-r-i-t-y” without “party”?
@boo
regarding clubs like ajax, benfica, etc i’d say the only way for clubs with strong youth systems to stay competitive in the future is for uefa and fifa to incentivize what they’re doing.
i’m thinking if a chunk (say 10 or 15 percent) of the revenue that goes towards prize money in the champions and europa leagues as well as the world cup was awarded to the youth teams of the players appearing in said tournament then a club like ajax, who might’ve been the youth team of 20 or 30 champions league players could get a few million extra each year whether they qualify or not.
i’m not sure if the political will to do this exists within uefa or fifa but i’m pretty sure it’s an effective way of encouraging youth development in the game and balancing out the effects of the bosman ruling to whatever degree.
Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this site, because i want enjoyment, since this this site conations truly good funny material too.
It’s important to give off a good and dress well.However, you don’t have to take too much time primping, spending a lot of money or primping yourself up for hours a day. Many fashion designs are easy to incorporate into your wardrobe.Read on to see more information.
Add a belt for a touch of style to a simple outfit. You can get a belt in countless styles and colors.
Sheer clothes are a good option, but beware of how sheer and what’s showing. Wearing see-through items that are sheer in private areas can make you appear to be more trashy rather than classy.
One terrific tip for fashion is to always looking out for new trends and changes. They usually catch new trends in style.
This will make you look wider. Instead, wear clothing with vertical patterns, which appear to elongate your body and make you seem thinnger.
You need not worry about clashing colors and you can put together different looks with the few pieces you have. Try a scarf or belt to bring your look together.
You need not worry about clashing items and you can put together different looks with the few pieces you have. Try utilizing belts and scarves to bring the look together.
This will make your look wider and is completely unflattering.Instead, go for vertical stripes, which will draw attention to height rather than girth.
There are some basics every woman should have in their closets. Two pair of hemmed jeans, a single pair of jeans hemmed for sneakers, and one hemmed for heels. In addition to these, a black dress is necessary as well.
Looking like a star is much easier than you think. You have to educate yourself in fashion to get the look you want. When you use what you’ve learned here, you’ll be highly successful.クロエ トートバッグ
Someone essantielly help to make seriously posts I’d state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and to this point? I surprised with the research you made to make this particular publish incredible. Wonderful task!