Legal threat over FFP rules

[axel smeets]

Isn't the fundmental problem is that most of the money in football now comes from people who watch it on TV so the game is organised around them rather than the people like us who fanatically support a particular club and go to matches.

That's the beauty of the free market: the customer (or the majority thereof) is always right.

That is absolutely correct Darren. Was it inevitable though that as technology developed, it would have ended up like this anyway, as a format for dedicated sports channels became available in the late 80's?

 

[Selly]

I find it highly amusing that, someone who is generally highly in favour of the free market, when it comes to something he really cares about, argues that it is a "special case" where the rules of the free market do not apply

As you say the problem with the free market in football is that, normal rules of supply and demand do not apply to the football fans in that their clubs have an effective monopoly on their support and can thus charge monopoly prices.

If I was a free market zealot, I would say more fool the football fans. They need to be liberated from their irrational attachments. The clubs charging higher and higher prices will eventually do that via the magic of the free market. Thus what we need is a complete liberation of market forces in football to get rid of the stupidty and irrationality currently involved in the game.

yes, I will happily admit that I do consider Sport to be a special case, and I will happily admit that that is somewhat contrary to my general outlook on life.

Surely in a free market economy, if BT Sport has paid more than its competitors to screen said FA Cup game, that's the way it is?

Yes, but we don`t operate in a Free Market economy, we have a Monopolies and Mergers/Competition commission to prevent Mon/oligopoly behaviour from harming the consumer.

Their view (or rather the view of the EU) was that "football" was the product, and thus if you can see "football" on a number of different TV channels, competition exists. I find that arguement bollocks, as I (and I imagine most Charlton and SUFC fans) don`t want to watch any "football" on Sunday 9th March, we want to watch Sheffield United v Charlton. Equally on 17th March I want to watch Preston v SUFC.

If a single company controlled electricity, and a single company controlled gas, I wouldn`t consider that competition. Define the market as for "Energy", and you can argue there is.

Your argument is essentially a socialist one - that the organisers have football have a duty to sell TV coverage of their product at a "reasonable" price because people who want to watch it should not be priced out of so doing.

I agree it is a socialist one. I'd rather see a situation where the televised fixtures are agreed in advance and a fixed fee is agreed for any football match (based on the competition) and any company that wants to show the match can if they pay that fee. The consumer would then be able to choose from a number of different suppliers for their TV football "service". This would be good for the consumer, but would presumably reduce the value of the TV contract, so UEFA/the PL ain`t going to like that one.

 

[Selly]

That is absolutely correct Darren. Was it inevitable though that as technology developed, it would have ended up like this anyway, as a format for dedicated sports channels became available in the late 80's?

No, not if you prevented the rights holders from exploiting their monopoly position. The selling of "Exclusive" rights is bad for competition in both a sporting and consumer sense, as it ratchets up costs for the consure, and further skews the sporting competition.

 

[axel smeets]

No, not if you prevented the rights holders from exploiting their monopoly position. The selling of "Exclusive" rights is bad for competition in both a sporting and consumer sense, as it ratchets up costs for the consure, and further skews the sporting competition.

I would have thought that the rights holders have the right to exploit their position in a free market economy?

I actually tend to agree with your point, but like Darren, I find it amusing that it is contrary to your outlook on life.

 

[Darren]

yes, I will happily admit that I do consider Sport to be a special case, and I will happily admit that that is somewhat contrary to my general outlook on life.



Yes, but we don`t operate in a Free Market economy, we have a Monopolies and Mergers/Competition commission to prevent Mon/oligopoly behaviour from harming the consumer.

Their view (or rather the view of the EU) was that "football" was the product, and thus if you can see "football" on a number of different TV channels, competition exists. I find that arguement bollocks, as I (and I imagine most Charlton and SUFC fans) don`t want to watch any "football" on Sunday 9th March, we want to watch Sheffield United v Charlton. Equally on 17th March I want to watch Preston v SUFC.

If a single company controlled electricity, and a single company controlled gas, I wouldn`t consider that competition. Define the market as for "Energy", and you can argue there is.



I agree it is a socialist one. I'd rather see a situation where the televised fixtures are agreed in advance and a fixed fee is agreed for any football match (based on the competition) and any company that wants to show the match can if they pay that fee. The consumer would then be able to choose from a number of different suppliers for their TV football "service". This would be good for the consumer, but would presumably reduce the value of the TV contract, so UEFA/the PL ain`t going to like that one.

Interesting. So the bottom line is that, with things that matter to you, everything should be organised in a cuddly socialist way, whilst in things that don't matter to you, everyone gets the cold blast of the free market

As I say, most consumers of TV football don't agree with you. Most such consumers want to watch Real Madrid v Man Utd, not SUFC v Charlton. You're in the minority and the free market says "tough".

"Monopoly" is always relative. You could say that the league selling football collectively is exploiting a monopoly. Why doesn't each club negotiate seperately with the TV companies? I am sure the TV companies could get Hull City v Norwich a lot cheaper (and thus charge the consumer less) if they didn't have to . But even that could be seen as exploiting a monopoly position. Why should the TV companies not negotiate with the players indiviually? Stephen Quinn's wages are artifically inflated at the expense of Wayne Rooney through the fact that the TV companies have to pay for TV rights collectively rather than indivdually.

 

[sportinguista]

Problem is, there are too many people willing (rich/stupid enough) to fork out the £50 a month or whatever it is to have Sky Sports and/or BT on their telly at home...essentially buying a season ticket to the premier league as a whole rather than for one particular team...and if that costs £500 a year it's still cheaper than season tickets at most Prem clubs that those people are paying to watch (let's be honest, not many will buy Sky TV/BT to avidly follow Norwich or Stoke, leave those teams to the partizans who turn up in their ground week in week out)
How many people on this forum have Sky Sports and/or BT at home? You know Sheff United aren't gonna be on there every week so who are YOU paying to watch?
While there are people buying into the product nothing will change...someone earlier in this thread referenced Germany and suggested things will inevitably change...I'm not so sure, the only change has been BT coming in and offering even more money for TV rights, ultimately finishing with football on terrestrial TV (you might not like ITV's coverage, but at least it's been free to us all). The Germans are much more about the people than the British, whilst we love to hark back to our glorious past and wonderful community spirit and fighting them on the beaches and all that, you only have to go to Germany these days to see how much more people orientated they are as a nation in just about every aspect of society.

 

[Darren]

No, not if you prevented the rights holders from exploiting their monopoly position. The selling of "Exclusive" rights is bad for competition in both a sporting and consumer sense, as it ratchets up costs for the consure, and further skews the sporting competition.

I assume you are against trade marks and intellectual property in general then.

MacDonalds are very precious about their logo and branding. Only franchisees can use it - i.e. MacDonalds grant exclsuive rights to certain people to use their logo etc on payment of a certain fee and fulfilment of certain conditions. In other words they operate a monopoly control over their logo and so on and the connotations it has.

If they were not permitted to do this any cheap burger joint could use the logo and no doubt the prices of burgers in general would fall.

 

[BerksBlade]

I can see what the FFP regulations are trying to do, but they're flawed. All they're doing now is protecting the clubs who already have money. Surely to improve the "product" what the PL wants is more teams developing (like Man City) into title contenders instead of the Man Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal carve-up we've had for years. But no club will be allowed to spend their way there anymore.

Problem is, the PL is so popular that Sky and BT can afford to throw money at it. The vast majority of that money should be being used to improve football at all levels, but it's just lining the pockets of greedy chairmen, players and agents.

I admire what the Germans have done - their model seems much more fan-centric. But for the PL to change the top clubs would need accept a smaller slice of the pie, and that's not likely to happen.

I still find it amazing that this country can support 92+ fully professional teams. But long may it continue in the case of smaller clubs who are at the heart of their community.

Would be fitting if Leicester got in the PL after the shambles of their "bankruptcy". They deserve each other.

 

[Selly]

Interesting. So the bottom line is that, with things that matter to you, everything should be organised in a cuddly socialist way, whilst in things that don't matter to you, everyone gets the cold blast of the free market
.

In defence of my position, i beleive I have always been consistant that I am against any abuse of monopolistic positions, be that from companies or employee groups.

As I say, most consumers of TV football don't agree with you. Most such consumers want to watch Real Madrid v Man Utd, not SUFC v Charlton. You're in the minority and the free market says "tough".

It isn`t a free market. Even if I want to watch Real Madrid v Man Utd, I can only do so via the single company showing that game.

The biggest issue from a consumer POV with the current set-up is that this sort of competition is the absolute worst for teh consumer, with rights for various competitions and games spread across different subscription channels. At least when Sky had all the rights, you only had to pay Sky to ensure you could watch the footy you wanted to. Now you have to pay for Sky and BT.

"Monopoly" is always relative. You could say that the league selling football collectively is exploiting a monopoly. Why doesn't each club negotiate seperately with the TV companies? I am sure the TV companies could get Hull City v Norwich a lot cheaper (and thus charge the consumer less) if they didn't have to . But even that could be seen as exploiting a monopoly position. Why should the TV companies not negotiate with the players indiviually? Stephen Quinn's wages are artifically inflated at the expense of Wayne Rooney through the fact that the TV companies have to pay for TV rights collectively rather than indivdually.

Because, as I have explained before, Sport is a special case. To take this in a slightly different direction, I vehemently disagree with the recent carve up of the cash in International Cricket by India, England and Australia. Any Sport is only interesting whilstever the element of surprise is involved.

I'm not interested in getting teh best deal for the TV companies, I'm interested in:

• The best deal for the consumer
• Promoting a healthy level of competition within the sport.

at the moment we have neither...

I assume you are against trade marks and intellectual property in general then.

MacDonalds are very precious about their logo and branding. Only franchisees can use it - i.e. MacDonalds grant exclsuive rights to certain people to use their logo etc on payment of a certain fee and fulfilment of certain conditions. In other words they operate a monopoly control over their logo and so on and the connotations it has.

If they were not permitted to do this any cheap burger joint could use the logo and no doubt the prices of burgers in general would fall.

They aren't exclusive rights if they are granted to several people/franchisees

 

[Darren]

In defence of my position, i beleive I have always been consistant that I am against any abuse of monopolistic positions, be that from companies or employee groups.



It isn`t a free market. Even if I want to watch Real Madrid v Man Utd, I can only do so via the single company showing that game.

The biggest issue from a consumer POV with the current set-up is that this sort of competition is the absolute worst for teh consumer, with rights for various competitions and games spread across different subscription channels. At least when Sky had all the rights, you only had to pay Sky to ensure you could watch the footy you wanted to. Now you have to pay for Sky and BT.



Because, as I have explained before, Sport is a special case. To take this in a slightly different direction, I vehemently disagree with the recent carve up of the cash in International Cricket by India, England and Australia. Any Sport is only interesting whilstever the element of surprise is involved.

I'm not interested in getting teh best deal for the TV companies, I'm interested in:

• The best deal for the consumer
• Promoting a healthy level of competition within the sport.

at the moment we have neither...




They aren't exclusive rights if they are granted to several people/franchisees

You have missed the point about "monopoly" being a relative concept.

Virtually everyone has a monpoly of something. Wayne Rooney has a monopoly of particular talent. He exploits that monopoly ruthlessly to get paid £300K a week.

Anyone who invents some super duper gadget that everyone wants is in a monpoly position. He will then only let people use it if they pay him the money he wants. The law gives him an intellectual property in it and thus upholds his monopoly.

It's a political decsion as to which sort of monpolies are permitted as being in the public interest and which aren't. Saying that someone has a "monopoly position" adds nothing.

And there is, of course, outside the jungle, nos such thing as a pure "free" market. All markets have state imposed rules and it's again a political decision as to what those rules are.

On the specific example of football, since all the TV money came in about 20 years the standard of the game has undoutedly gone up and far more people watch it. There is therefore a strong argument that, insofar as there has been a "monopoly" it has been in the interests of the game as a whole and the majority of supporters. Why should politicians interfere with that?

Unfortunately, that is no consolation for the likes of us left stranded on the beach of supporting a shit team whilst the masses watch the PL and the CL. But, as I said, that's the free(ish) market for you.

 

[Bladesway]

Interesting. So the bottom line is that, with things that matter to you, everything should be organised in a cuddly socialist way, whilst in things that don't matter to you, everyone gets the cold blast of the free market

As I say, most consumers of TV football don't agree with you. Most such consumers want to watch Real Madrid v Man Utd, not SUFC v Charlton. You're in the minority and the free market says "tough".

"Monopoly" is always relative. You could say that the league selling football collectively is exploiting a monopoly. Why doesn't each club negotiate seperately with the TV companies? I am sure the TV companies could get Hull City v Norwich a lot cheaper (and thus charge the consumer less) if they didn't have to . But even that could be seen as exploiting a monopoly position. Why should the TV companies not negotiate with the players indiviually? Stephen Quinn's wages are artifically inflated at the expense of Wayne Rooney through the fact that the TV companies have to pay for TV rights collectively rather than indivdually.

The point is Sport shouldn't be an economy, it should be run in a "socialist ideal" because it should be for the people. The minute it changed and become business first and the fans second was the minute TV revenue came first and gate money second (or lower still). Clubs started being about the people who supported them, they were set up for that reason.

I shudder at the thought of aligning a game alongside a bank or multi national company on the stock market. I don't blame politics, I don't blame economies, I blame the arseholes who ran the show and stopped it being about the fans to line their own pockets. I blame people like McCabe who were once running Sheffield United with a view to what the fans wanted, who when the bright lights of the Premiership beckoned suddenly thought some kid in Chengdu would look better in a Blades shirt. We probably didn't know it at the time but when Jack Walker bought Blackburn it accellerated a horrible, rotton process of the biggest wallet buying the league.

I actually have little beef with the Liverpools and Manchester Uniteds because they have grown big on the back of their success. Clubs like Chelsea and Man City make me sick because they are utterly classless and plastic organisations. City fans in particular make me laugh. Once upon a time working class heros have ever so quickly started looking down their noses at where they came from.

My own theory to stop it is simple (and I have spouted it before). Each game you have a pot (lets say £1m for arguements sake) to pay your first eleven players. Anyone else at the club is not allowed to earn any more than £5k per week but the players who start the match can be paid additional bonuses from that pot. So you can pay Rooney £300k if you want to but then you only have another £700k to pay the remaining 10 players. Effectively you cap the wages of the club. You also stop clubs hoarding players. When a player can go and play for someone elses first team he isn't going to sit warming the bench at Chelsea or he only gets £5k per week.

In the Championship same rules apply but with a smaller pot, League One etc etc. Also, a better percentage of the TV money every year HAS to be shared amongst the other 3 divisions. To the point where you ringfence the 92 clubs we have to make it very difficult for them to go into administration. If a club then does go into administration they are ejected from the league into conference etc.

Its simple but I think it works and it stops players being overpaid unless they acutally play matches for the clubs they play for.

 

[itsinyerblood]

It may/may not be a useful comparison, but the same drive is at work throughout football as it is through society in general.

Football is awash with money. Footballers, some who might be termed 'intellectually challenged', relate to the environment that says they can earn fortunes. Off the back of this sports agents capitalise on the inability of footballers to negotiate agreements that are more favourable to their clients. As with any contract negotiation I've ever been involved in, I doubt whether agent or client see beyond their own needs or wants. Similarly, clubs will approach these negotiations with nothing more than a scavenger's eye for the effectiveness of a player and what they're prepared to offer. A vicious circle indeed.

The days when clubs ruled the roost, treating players as nothing more than the front-door mat, was well and truly conquered the day Jimmy Hill successfully argued for Fulham's Haynes to receive more than the existing maximum wage. It took a while for the current mania to come about, but now that billionaires are part of football's hierarchy, viewing their clubs as playthings, then the domino effect of this will trickle down to the divisions below.

Bladesway, there's part of me that responds to your idea, I wish it could happen mate, or at least something that was close to this. Unfortunately, guys like Wayne Rooney or John Terry are now lumbered with the moniker of 'celebrity', whatever the fuck that means. Gormless, just about capable of mumbling, unable to form a coherent and interesting viewpoint, these men and their venal guardians are no better or worse than those at the top of the game. They are all driven by the same disregard for the supporters. Don't you just love it when a player takes the badge in hand, kisses it, swears unspoken allegiance to the club, then fucks off a few years later? I'm not suggesting that there once existed a higher moral purpose in football, but the game's appeal has accompanied a decline in connection between those who pay through the turnstiles and those who are paid by said club.

The world has changed, thus this is reflected via the attitudes of everyone in the game who are paid (smallish) fortunes, let alone those who collect a lifetime's savings each week. I doubt any of this will improve during my lifetime.

 

[raul]

No, not if you prevented the rights holders from exploiting their monopoly position. The selling of "Exclusive" rights is bad for competition in both a sporting and consumer sense, as it ratchets up costs for the consure, and further skews the sporting competition.

If you like North Korea so much you filthy Bolshevik why don't you go and live there....

 

[Darren]

The point is Sport shouldn't be an economy, it should be run in a "socialist ideal" because it should be for the people. The minute it changed and become business first and the fans second was the minute TV revenue came first and gate money second (or lower still). Clubs started being about the people who supported them, they were set up for that reason.

I shudder at the thought of aligning a game alongside a bank or multi national company on the stock market. I don't blame politics, I don't blame economies, I blame the arseholes who ran the show and stopped it being about the fans to line their own pockets. I blame people like McCabe who were once running Sheffield United with a view to what the fans wanted, who when the bright lights of the Premiership beckoned suddenly thought some kid in Chengdu would look better in a Blades shirt. We probably didn't know it at the time but when Jack Walker bought Blackburn it accellerated a horrible, rotton process of the biggest wallet buying the league.

I actually have little beef with the Liverpools and Manchester Uniteds because they have grown big on the back of their success. Clubs like Chelsea and Man City make me sick because they are utterly classless and plastic organisations. City fans in particular make me laugh. Once upon a time working class heros have ever so quickly started looking down their noses at where they came from.

My own theory to stop it is simple (and I have spouted it before). Each game you have a pot (lets say £1m for arguements sake) to pay your first eleven players. Anyone else at the club is not allowed to earn any more than £5k per week but the players who start the match can be paid additional bonuses from that pot. So you can pay Rooney £300k if you want to but then you only have another £700k to pay the remaining 10 players. Effectively you cap the wages of the club. You also stop clubs hoarding players. When a player can go and play for someone elses first team he isn't going to sit warming the bench at Chelsea or he only gets £5k per week.

In the Championship same rules apply but with a smaller pot, League One etc etc. Also, a better percentage of the TV money every year HAS to be shared amongst the other 3 divisions. To the point where you ringfence the 92 clubs we have to make it very difficult for them to go into administration. If a club then does go into administration they are ejected from the league into conference etc.

Its simple but I think it works and it stops players being overpaid unless they acutally play matches for the clubs they play for.

That's basically how football used to be run until around the 1960s - since then a whole series of changes (abolition of the maximum wage, freedom of contract, the Bosman ruling, the PL etc etc) have changed it into the money fest it is today.

I agree with your approach, but the reality is that as long as

(a) we live in a soceity where the making of money is seen as the main indication of personal worth; and
(b) the money keeps coming into football via the TV companies (which in its turn depends of people contnuing to buy the product)

nothing will change.

The stars are dead. The animals will not look.
We are left alone with our day, and the time is short, and
History to the defeated
May say Alas but cannot help or pardon.

 

[Bladesway]

Darren, I am not saying it has a cat in hells chance of happening I am just saying what should happen. I absolutely agree with point B and whilever people have sky dishes the game won't change. My advice get rid of it.

 

[BladeFisher]

I find it highly amusing that, someone who is generally highly in favour of the free market, when it comes to something he really cares about, argues that it is a "special case" where the rules of the free market do not apply

As you say the problem with the free market in football is that, normal rules of supply and demand do not apply to the football fans in that their clubs have an effective monopoly on their support and can thus charge monopoly prices.

If I was a free market zealot, I would say more fool the football fans. They need to be liberated from their irrational attachments. The clubs charging higher and higher prices will eventually do that via the magic of the free market. Thus what we need is a complete liberation of market forces in football to get rid of the stupidty and irrationality currently involved in the game.

You could say the same thing about religion and possibly politics. I see that Nigel Farage is coming to the Medway Towns with a big wedge, could he buy your support Darren?

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

If it is Leicester City who have instructed solicitors to look at legal implications, I would be embarrassed.

Short memories, given the fact the inherent role they played, in the rules that have been brought in over the last 10 years, in attempt to stop overspending.

The bottom line is they are cheating.

One thing I am surprised at, is that championship clubs agreed to share the fines imposed. That will go down well at S6, when Mandy gets the bill for Tony Fernandes and Harry's spending spree at QPR.

But Man Dick would get helped out when the semi final bill lands on the pigs mat