Sky has ruined football...Utter bollocks

[diplomat]

People talk about the 300k+ per week some of the top players are on. The clubs that pay those wages can afford that because of the commercial and merchandising income that comes from having that player in their team outweighs the wage cost.

How much money does the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Gareth Bale, Neymar et al make for their respective clubs in commercial/merchandising? It is phenomenal. The players like that are global brands and in effect the clubs are justifying their outlay in wages because they are recouping that tenfold in other income because of the globalisation of football.

I'm not sure that's true though. Aren't both Madrid and Barca enormously in debt despite being global brands and benefitting from a very biased TV package in their favour?

 

[Clarkey87]

I'm not sure that's true though. Aren't both Madrid and Barca enormously in debt despite being global brands and benefitting from a very biased TV package in their favour?

True but we've got to remember that for every Messi and Ronaldo, there is a big squad behind them on huge wages as well. So in terms of the commercial benefits from those players it won't cover the overall running benefits of big club. Just partially offset the spending on that one players wages, if that makes sense?

 

[Clarkey87]

Except that most of them lose money hand over fist and need to be propped up by wealthy owners?

True, but that's because of the size of the infrastructures surrounding those clubs (including the high wages of the other players)

I'm not saying those clubs are money making. There are very very few clubs that actually make money. What I was referring to was how the big clubs that have the big brand players can afford to pay their wages at the levels they do.

But to go anywhere these days you do need that weather owner to bankroll you to sucess.

 

[billyblademan]

True, but that's because of the size of the infrastructures surrounding those clubs (including the high wages of the other players)

I'm not saying those clubs are money making. There are very very few clubs that actually make money. What I was referring to was how the big clubs that have the big brand players can afford to pay their wages at the levels they do.

But to go anywhere these days you do need that weather owner to bankroll you to sucess.

Last season, the majority of Premier League clubs were profitable. The season before, I think only Fulham made a loss.

 

[davidpinder]

Sky has ruined football

So much money in the game it has disenfranchised so many who were genuine fans.

It's "brand football" now - not a competition between clubs.

Football is utter bullshit now.
There's no dream left in it.
The inevitability is just crushing the life and variety out of it.

Sky money has killed football for me.

I couldn't agree more, I think sky and BT are a disgrace they run the top league, are biased towards the top teams and hate to see lower league clubs succeed. They have so much influence on football now all the kids of today will grow up loving clubs miles from home, fast forward 20 years and if we are in division 3 or 4 less than half the fans will be watching because they will not want to grow up watching the third tier because it's not on the tele and because of the crazy sky and BT money lower league clubs can not compete or build a team that can challenge.

It will soon become a yo yo affect when teams relegated from the prem will go straight back up because they have so much money available from these payments no one else can match them unless some billionaire owner ((not millionaire as that won't be enough) buys a club and because of the amount needed there will be less and less of them around.

 

[Esablade]

Last season, the majority of Premier League clubs were profitable. The season before, I think only Fulham made a loss.

Hardly surprising considering the 29% increase in revenue with the Sky-BT unprecedented 3-year TV deal..and even then those figure don't factor in a club's carried debts..

 

[Clarkey87]

Last season, the majority of Premier League clubs were profitable. The season before, I think only Fulham made a loss.

I stand corrected!
profits brought in by the sky money!

 

[super_pig]

its a self perpetuating cycle.. started by the transfer window. the transfer window means that big teams will stock up on reserves in case they need them.. specifically good players from lower league clubs. whether they need them or not. so basically they go round hoovering up all the talent (in case they need it..) and then get rewarded for finishing high up from the tv money. then they start again. man utd are on tv every bloody week. no wonder they have plenty of cash. so the reason is. the premiership is an exclusive club that keeps all of the money and then uses it to keep all the best talent and financial rewards to itself

 

[Darren]

If 'grim northern types' can be stretched to include well off lawyers in the Home Counties, it supports, I'd argue, my point that football has just changed rather than being 'ruined'.

I don't see that being (a) well off, (b) a lawyer and (c) living in Kent prevents one being grim and northern if one was (a) born and brought up in Sheffield and is (b) grim.

PS: I think you have been to the Medway Towns. Apart from the geographical sense, it's about as "Home Counties" as Romford.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I don't see that being (a) well off, (b) a lawyer and (c) living in Kent prevents one being grim and northern if one was (a) born and brought up in Sheffield and is (b) grim.

PS: I think you have been to the Medway Towns. Apart from the geographical sense, it's about as "Home Counties" as Romford.

I knobbed a bird from Strood once. We watched Road House starring Patrick Swayze as foreplay. True story.

 

[PeteBlade]

Last season, the majority of Premier League clubs were profitable. The season before, I think only Fulham made a loss.

I knobbed a bird from Strood once. We watched Road House starring Patrick Swayze as foreplay. True story.

Roooooadhouse.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

By heck, there's some right cobblers being posted on here. It's amazing how nostalgia can re-write history. If you're unhappy with the state of football, then fine, there are plenty of factors that have contributed - and too much money swilling about in the top half of the Prem and too little lower down isn't great - but it isn't Sky that has single handledly destroyed football.
Sky has transformed television coverage. The BBC took about 3 cameras and a notebook to a match, once a week, and it always seemed to be Man Utd or Liverpool. The world has changed, it is always changing, football coverage was bound to change.
Clubs in this division used to have strips of "grass" with sheds around them. As you go back, football was more akin to mud wrestling, facilities were terrible, attendances dropped massively at one point. And the players had little exposure and earnt a pittance before retiring and opening a pub.
Sky has given the sport more coverage and exposure and pumped masses of money in - how can that in any way be bad? Any of the things that aren't working as they should be has to be down to other people/groups, not least the governing bodies who are all-powerful and dictate how everything is done.

 

[PeteBlade]

Sky has given the sport more coverage and exposure and pumped masses of money in - how can that in any way be bad? .

It can be bad for multiple reasons.
Here's a few:

• The decline of 3pm kick offs
• The moving of key sporting events like the FA Cup final to evening kick off
• The amount of money for the premier league compared to the rest of the leagues
• The influence of the premier league meaning they can blackmail lower league clubs into accepting awful deals for young players
• The monies received meaning that only clubs bankrolled by foreign billionaires will win the league

 

[Highbury_Blade]

It can be bad for multiple reasons.
Here's a few:

• The decline of 3pm kick offs
• The moving of key sporting events like the FA Cup final to evening kick off
• The amount of money for the premier league compared to the rest of the leagues
• The influence of the premier league meaning they can blackmail lower league clubs into accepting awful deals for young players
• The monies received meaning that only clubs bankrolled by foreign billionaires will win the league

1. Yep, Sky's fault
2. Yep Sky's Fault
3. Do sky mandate that the vast majority of money goes towards the premier league?
4. Premier leagues fault
5. See 3.

 

[PeteBlade]

1. Yep, Sky's fault
2. Yep Sky's Fault
3. Do sky mandate that the vast majority of money goes towards the premier league?
4. Premier leagues fault
5. See 3.

The creation of the premier league and sky go hand in hand.

The decision to break off from the football league was made because of the offer of lucrative TV rights.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

What % of all matches do not kick off at 3.00pm? Apart from the fact that I don't believe the FA couldn't make their own demands at negotiation regarding kick off times, what part of the bible is a 3.00pm kick off a commandment? It wasn't so long ago that there were no Sunday matches allowed, as I say, the world changes.

PS Did Sky have the FA Cup?

 

[billyblademan]

1. Yep, Sky's fault
2. Yep Sky's Fault
3. Do sky mandate that the vast majority of money goes towards the premier league?
4. Premier leagues fault
5. See 3.

1) Not Sky's fault. Sky would have no 3pm kick offs if possible, to get all 10 live. PL say you can have 3 per week, and BT get 1 as well. PL could say you get 1 per week, or only 2 - but they let 4 matches be moved for TV revenue.
Any further than 4 is I believe due to police, but that's after Sky and Bt have chosen their games.

2) As mentioned in OP - the FA decide the extra £30m is worth the later kick off time. TV companies don't force the change - they just offer more cash for it. If everyone in the UK said 'fuck this shit, they've got our pants down here kicking the final off at 5pm not 3, I'm not watching the bloody thing', then they'd change it. As it is, people still watch it, and I suspect for some, maybe most, 5pm is actually more convenient.

 

[Tyler Durden]

The job of any TV company when it comes to football should be to shut the fuck up and cover what is happening on the pitch.
They have no place dictating what happens on the pitch.
Anyone who thinks that the amount of money now in the game can only be a positive thing should consider who is holding the purse strings, because they also hold the power. Power which may not be used for the good of the game or those who actively follow it.

 

[billyblademan]

The job of any TV company when it comes to football should be to shut the fuck up and cover what is happening on the pitch.
They have no place dictating what happens on the pitch.
Anyone who thinks that the amount of money now in the game can only be a positive thing should consider who is holding the purse strings, because they also hold the power. Power which may not be used for the good of the game or those who actively follow it.

Alright, say you and your mates play 5 a side every Monday night at 7, and had done for the last 20 years.

If I were to say folks, how about you play at 8 instead, or Tuesday night at 7, and I'll give you all £50, what would you say? Bollocks to me because I have no place dictating what happens on the pitch?

 

[Tyler Durden]

Alright, say you and your mates play 5 a side every Monday night at 7, and had done for the last 20 years.

If I were to say folks, how about you play at 8 instead, or Tuesday night at 7, and I'll give you all £50, what would you say? Bollocks to me because I have no place dictating what happens on the pitch?

I would say , "Thank you very much, I would be delighted to move the game for 50 quid" no question.

However, if my 5-a-side team had 20,000+ people watching us at the astroturf every week, I would have to consider their wishes over those of a casual viewer who might be watching us on the telly if it doesn't clash with Eastenders.

 

[billyblademan]

I would say , "Thank you very much, I would be delighted to move the game for 50 quid" no question.

However, if my 5-a-side team had 20,000+ people watching us at the astroturf every week, I would have to consider their wishes over those of a casual viewer who might be watching us on the telly if it doesn't clash with Eastenders.

But moving SUFC games (or any other, really for that matter) has very little affect on attendance.

And actually, it may actually be convenient to see your team on the box. As a Blade not living in God's own land at the minute, United being on the box is rather convenient for myself. Do SUFC lose money by people not turning up? I'd say they more than make up for it in the TV fee the receive.


Edit - Also, no matter how bad you are, you have my viewing over Eastenders any day.

 

[JJ Sefton]

However, if my 5-a-side team had 20,000+ people watching us at the astroturf every week, I would have to consider their wishes over those of a casual viewer who might be watching us on the telly if it doesn't clash with Eastenders.

Why?

I was at a do with the wife a bit back. There were a bunch of blokes there, Asian fellas from East London, who all supported Manchester United. Very clued up they were about them too, I listened in for a bit and they were having a pretty in depth discussion. Turned out one of them had been to Old Trafford once, the rest had never been, they watched on TV.

Are they not proper fans?

 

[JJ Sefton]

But moving SUFC games (or any other, really for that matter) has very little affect on attendance.

And actually, it may actually be convenient to see your team on the box. As a Blade not living in God's own land at the minute, United being on the box is rather convenient for myself. Do SUFC lose money by people not turning up? I'd say they more than make up for it in the TV fee the receive.


Edit - Also, no matter how bad you are, you have my viewing over Eastenders any day.

I remember when the BBC showed United play Aston Villa about 10 years back. Moved the game to about 1pm. Probably saved lots of Blades a few quid.

 

[Tyler Durden]

But moving SUFC games (or any other, really for that matter) has very little affect on attendance.

And actually, it may actually be convenient to see your team on the box. As a Blade not living in God's own land at the minute, United being on the box is rather convenient for myself. Do SUFC lose money by people not turning up? I'd say they more than make up for it in the TV fee the receive.


Edit - Also, no matter how bad you are, you have my viewing over Eastenders any day.

I understand that it's good for those who don't live in close vicinity to the ground on a match day. Plus with the separate issue of ticket pricing being high as it is, I accept that it's preferable sometimes.

Then again the conspiracy theorist in me would suggest that high ticket prices are very convenient for Sky.

Ultimately the impact on the clubs revenue is minimal like you say, but on the supporters it can be significant. Surely they have more worth than whatever they contribute financially?

* Eastenders was quite interesting this week

 

[Tyler Durden]

Why?

I was at a do with the wife a bit back. There were a bunch of blokes there, Asian fellas from East London, who all supported Manchester United. Very clued up they were about them too, I listened in for a bit and they were having a pretty in depth discussion. Turned out one of them had been to Old Trafford once, the rest had never been, they watched on TV.

Are they not proper fans?

Depends how you define it. I'd describe them as 'enthusiasts' myself but maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Depends how you define it. I'd describe them as 'enthusiasts' myself but maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.

Why are they not 'fans' then?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

As someone who watched lots of football pre-sky and pre-Premier League and has watched lots since. Give me the shitty grounds, minimal coverage, random violence and smaller crowds of the old football league. Even the European competitions were better, with only champions in the European Cup. It was worth winning for the achievement rather than just the money.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Why are they not 'fans' then?

I'm not necessarily saying they aren't, I'm just going on my own personal definition.

For instance I follow the fortunes of the New Orleans Saints NFL team, one day I'd like to see them in the flesh but until then I wouldn't call myself a 'fan'. Same with my 'second' team Borussia Dortmund.

There's obviously different levels of support. From the casual type to the hardcore followers who think nothing of watching Carlisle at Plymouth on a weeknight.
I just think that those who follow their side more actively shouldn't be pushed out of joint. It shouldn't be hard to accomodate all parties.

 

[Pedro Verde]

No matter how much money Sky put into football the players and their agents will gladly relieve the clubs of this money. Its a shame we cant have a League more like the German model where its cheaper for the fans to go and watch. The way football has gone in this country means Im not really bothered about watching The Blades in the PL anymore. This is down to Sky more than any other factor

 

[Cyprus Blade]

Is that sky's fault or the premier leagues fault though? Do Sky dictate how the money is spread around? Genuine question.

Sky gives fabulous coverage and has revolutionised tv with 3D multi angle HD , wonderful
The problem arises entirely with how the money they pay is distributed-

Can't believe it but I agree with you BTL. The FA is to blame for giving away control of the game which it effectively did in 1991 when giving the Premier league the power to negotiate and control its own broadcasting and sponsorship. From that moment on the die was cast. It is the distribution of football generated income that is the issue and it is no surprise that the clubs with their snouts in the trough regard it as their money and use it to their own advantage with little thought to the long term future of the development of the game.

But it wasn't Sky that put up the money that enabled the breakaway. It was LWT and its head Greg Dyke, who met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England in 1990. The meeting was to pave the way for a break away from the Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs decided it was a good idea and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of the FA and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position.

So in 1992, the First Division clubs resigned from the Football League en masse and on 27 May 1992 the FA Premier League was formed as a limited company working out of an office at the Football Association's then headquarters at Lancaster Gate. This meant a break-up of the 104-year-old Football League that had operated until then with four divisions; the Premier League would operate with a single division and the Football League with three.

There has been some recognition of the damage that has been caused in the very recent agreement with the FA that a tiny fraction of the money from the PL will trickle down to FL clubs, but the amount is so derisory as to render it ineffective in fending off the sterility of the PL and football in general. In the 12 seasons following the formation of the Premier League, there were just three seasons where none of the newly relegated sides failed to win an instant return to the Premier League.The widening gulf between the top two divisions of English football can largely be put down to the increased wealth of the Premier League clubs. The wealth gained by these clubs – combined with parachute payments following relegation – has also made it easier for many of them to quickly win promotion back to the top flight.

Clubs greed and the FA's agenda are the true mother and father of the PL and the growing inequality and unfairness that goes with it. And we were part of it in 1992. So were the pigs. Something about reaping what you sow comes to mind.