Leeds exec: financial redistribution in football is 'Maoist'

[coloradoan]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59481154

'Enforcing upon football a philosophy akin to Maoist collective agriculturalism (which students of 'The Great Leap Forward' will know culminated in the greatest famine in history) will not make the English game fairer, it will kill the competition which is its very lifeblood," he said.

The Great Leap Forward was a campaign led by Mao Zedong's Chinese Communist Party from 1958 to 1962 that led to the largest famine in human history and the deaths of millions of people.

Kinnear added: "Redistribution of wealth will simply favour the lowest common denominator. Clubs who excel in recruitment, player development or commercial enterprise will be punished, while less capable ownership will be rewarded for incompetence."

Rhetoric like this just blows me away. Football clubs aren't like traditional competitors in a market setting - they need each other in order to be successful! Collectivism is inherent to organized sport. And the prem engage in plenty of redistribution via their TV money arrangements, commercial arrangements, and a flat participation stipend. The kind of argument Kinnear and others are making conflates two very different meanings of the word "competition". There's financial competition, and there's competition on the pitch. He wants to hop back and forth between them as though they are remotely similar.

I'd like to humbly suggest that America's National Football League (NFL) be used as a glowing counterexample anytime a PL exec starts talking about how financial redistribution will ruin the sport. If this redistribution is 'Maoist', then the NFL is Maoism's greatest achievement. No professional league is as competitive. No professional league is wealthier. Players' salaries are tightly regulated under a collective bargaining agreement, teams are subject to equal salary caps that prevent any one team from consistently outspending another, teams all share the profits between themselves... and from a sporting perspective, fortunes rise and fall rapidly.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that English football (or anyone else's football) convert to the NFL model. It's also a closed shop, we only have one professional league that anyone cares about (no relegation or promotion, loads of dead rubber games toward the end of the season), players have to enter into it via a college football draft, so no professional academies, yadda ya. It's a totally different world. BUT - it rubbishes the argument that financial redistribution harms sport. On the contrary, it keeps sport competitive.

(I also find it amusing and sad that we've perfected collectivism in professional sport, but we think universal health care is communist.)

 

[Wizaard]

Proof cultural Marxism is endemic

 

[td53]

What is ridiculous is 2 or 3 years ago, Leeds would have been saying "yes please!"

There's an absurdity to the way tbe two seperate leagues are part of the same thing and the clubs like Leeds or West Brom or whoever who go up and down have one set of values if they are in tbe Prem and another in the championship...

 

[td53]

Personally, I'd just take all the money away and give it an owl sanctuary or something.

Then they could stop bleating about it.

Sorted.

 

[bfcpete]

I wonder if the Leeds Executive would be of that opinion if they were still languishing in the Championship? Trying to protect themselves in the event they are relegated

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Sounds like some of the Old Boys from the Old Boys Club are getting the wind up about the transparency and accountability that an independent regulator might bring.

 

[Trammo]

I await Leeds MP Hilary Benn’s response. Hopefully it will not be his stock phrase” We need a confirmatory referendum on Brexit.”

 

[coloradoan]

What is ridiculous is 2 or 3 years ago, Leeds would have been saying "yes please!"

There's an absurdity to the way tbe two seperate leagues are part of the same thing and the clubs like Leeds or West Brom or whoever who go up and down have one set of values if they are in tbe Prem and another in the championship...

I figure the big PL club execs told the smaller PL club execs that it's time to go out and take one for the team, since it would be a very bad look for any of the "big six" to publicly oppose Crouch's recommendations. He's probably had his talking points delivered straight to him by Fenway Sports Group.

 

[voyeur]

What is ridiculous is 2 or 3 years ago, Leeds would have been saying "yes please!"

There's an absurdity to the way tbe two seperate leagues are part of the same thing and the clubs like Leeds or West Brom or whoever who go up and down have one set of values if they are in tbe Prem and another in the championship...

Absolutely. Bare faced self interest.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59481154


Rhetoric like this just blows me away. Football clubs aren't like traditional competitors in a market setting - they need each other in order to be successful! Collectivism is inherent to organized sport. And the prem engage in plenty of redistribution via their TV money arrangements, commercial arrangements, and a flat participation stipend. The kind of argument Kinnear and others are making conflates two very different meanings of the word "competition". There's financial competition, and there's competition on the pitch. He wants to hop back and forth between them as though they are remotely similar.

I'd like to humbly suggest that America's National Football League (NFL) be used as a glowing counterexample anytime a PL exec starts talking about how financial redistribution will ruin the sport. If this redistribution is 'Maoist', then the NFL is Maoism's greatest achievement. No professional league is as competitive. No professional league is wealthier. Players' salaries are tightly regulated under a collective bargaining agreement, teams are subject to equal salary caps that prevent any one team from consistently outspending another, teams all share the profits between themselves... and from a sporting perspective, fortunes rise and fall rapidly.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that English football (or anyone else's football) convert to the NFL model. It's also a closed shop, we only have one professional league that anyone cares about (no relegation or promotion, loads of dead rubber games toward the end of the season), players have to enter into it via a college football draft, so no professional academies, yadda ya. It's a totally different world. BUT - it rubbishes the argument that financial redistribution harms sport. On the contrary, it keeps sport competitive.

(I also find it amusing and sad that we've perfected collectivism in professional sport, but we think universal health care is communist.)

I don't. Good post btw.

 

[Curryman]

Personally, I'd just take all the money away and give it an owl sanctuary or something.

Then they could stop bleating about it.

Sorted.

Well, that's a hoot.

 

[Bandagem]

Plumber needs to sort this lot out.

 

[Giro]

Mao Zedong? Any relation of Zinidine Zedong?

 

[berthalovelybertha]

Mao Zedong? Any relation of Zinidine Zedong?

Talking of chairmen...

 

[Matesrates]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59481154


Rhetoric like this just blows me away. Football clubs aren't like traditional competitors in a market setting - they need each other in order to be successful! Collectivism is inherent to organized sport. And the prem engage in plenty of redistribution via their TV money arrangements, commercial arrangements, and a flat participation stipend. The kind of argument Kinnear and others are making conflates two very different meanings of the word "competition". There's financial competition, and there's competition on the pitch. He wants to hop back and forth between them as though they are remotely similar.

I'd like to humbly suggest that America's National Football League (NFL) be used as a glowing counterexample anytime a PL exec starts talking about how financial redistribution will ruin the sport. If this redistribution is 'Maoist', then the NFL is Maoism's greatest achievement. No professional league is as competitive. No professional league is wealthier. Players' salaries are tightly regulated under a collective bargaining agreement, teams are subject to equal salary caps that prevent any one team from consistently outspending another, teams all share the profits between themselves... and from a sporting perspective, fortunes rise and fall rapidly.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that English football (or anyone else's football) convert to the NFL model. It's also a closed shop, we only have one professional league that anyone cares about (no relegation or promotion, loads of dead rubber games toward the end of the season), players have to enter into it via a college football draft, so no professional academies, yadda ya. It's a totally different world. BUT - it rubbishes the argument that financial redistribution harms sport. On the contrary, it keeps sport competitive.

(I also find it amusing and sad that we've perfected collectivism in professional sport, but we think universal health care is communist.)

Good post, send it to Tracy Crouch.

 

[seasideone]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59481154


Rhetoric like this just blows me away. Football clubs aren't like traditional competitors in a market setting - they need each other in order to be successful! Collectivism is inherent to organized sport. And the prem engage in plenty of redistribution via their TV money arrangements, commercial arrangements, and a flat participation stipend. The kind of argument Kinnear and others are making conflates two very different meanings of the word "competition". There's financial competition, and there's competition on the pitch. He wants to hop back and forth between them as though they are remotely similar.

I'd like to humbly suggest that America's National Football League (NFL) be used as a glowing counterexample anytime a PL exec starts talking about how financial redistribution will ruin the sport. If this redistribution is 'Maoist', then the NFL is Maoism's greatest achievement. No professional league is as competitive. No professional league is wealthier. Players' salaries are tightly regulated under a collective bargaining agreement, teams are subject to equal salary caps that prevent any one team from consistently outspending another, teams all share the profits between themselves... and from a sporting perspective, fortunes rise and fall rapidly.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that English football (or anyone else's football) convert to the NFL model. It's also a closed shop, we only have one professional league that anyone cares about (no relegation or promotion, loads of dead rubber games toward the end of the season), players have to enter into it via a college football draft, so no professional academies, yadda ya. It's a totally different world. BUT - it rubbishes the argument that financial redistribution harms sport. On the contrary, it keeps sport competitive.

(I also find it amusing and sad that we've perfected collectivism in professional sport, but we think universal health care is communist.)

Using the NFL as a bastion of how finances should work is completely against everything football is and needs - and is simply dangerous.

NFL finances work because it is a closed shop and nobody can break into it, and hence you never have to worry about major loss of income due to relegation.

As you say they do not have academies and rely on college football, where in simple terms the worst NFL team gets the first pick every year.

The draft system works in some ways because NFL is not a global game, ie there is only a handful of NFL clubs in comparison to football.

Football finances need to change, but using a financial and structural model that was similar to what the ESL were proposing is simply madness.

Somebody mentioned sending this model as an example to Tracy Couch.

Please don't!

 

[Chunkylad]

What is ridiculous is 2 or 3 years ago, Leeds would have been saying "yes please!"

There's an absurdity to the way tbe two seperate leagues are part of the same thing and the clubs like Leeds or West Brom or whoever who go up and down have one set of values if they are in tbe Prem and another in the championship...

Reminiscent of Bolton’s push for a 2 tier premier league with no relegation.
Wonder what Bolton would make of that being enacted now?

Leeds could well get relegated this year, will be interesting to see how such a well run club fairs at that point

 

[nameless]

[QUOTE="Chunkylad, post: 596849, member: 319
Leeds could well get relegated this year, will be interesting to see how such a well run club fairs at that point
[/QUOTE]
That's a fair point given their finances which were scrutinised by Kevin McGuire previously, indeed QPR,Leicester and Bournemouth went into huge debt to achieve promotion too.
Having read what he actually said though with reference to the distribution of money down the pyramid he has a point, because I doubt say a couple of million chucked at Bury would have made any difference. Clubs should of course be run properly and keep within constraints and at the moment get something for nothing in respect of Sky money etc, so on a pro rata basis should cut their cloth accordingly.
Fleetwood for instance might not have been able to sustain a L1 tenure without their TV /consolidatory payments, and a number of money rewarding cup runs.

The distinct feeling I have is that the PL are starting to react to the Fans Led Review and will be putting up a fight against it, and might yet pull the drawbridge up on the rather generous share that EFL clubs already receive.

*did anyone catch Kinnears reference to retired Westminster civil servants? It seemed a bizarre thing to say unless of course someone has given him some sort of insider info?

 

[coloradoan]

Using the NFL as a bastion of how finances should work is completely against everything football is and needs - and is simply dangerous.

NFL finances work because it is a closed shop and nobody can break into it, and hence you never have to worry about major loss of income due to relegation.

As you say they do not have academies and rely on college football, where in simple terms the worst NFL team gets the first pick every year.

The draft system works in some ways because NFL is not a global game, ie there is only a handful of NFL clubs in comparison to football.

Football finances need to change, but using a financial and structural model that was similar to what the ESL were proposing is simply madness.

Somebody mentioned sending this model as an example to Tracy Couch.

Please don't!

I agree with all of your criticisms of the NFL, and in particular I agree that the ESL proposal (which looks like it was modeled on the NFL) would be madness. My guess is that the American owners of ManU, Liverpool, and Arsenal didn't quite realize what they were getting themselves into when they first bought in, and they saw the ESL proposal as something natural and familiar, the kind of league they're accustomed to at home.

My point is that financial redistribution does not, as the Leeds exec and apparently every other PL exec claim, degrade the quality of the sport. None of the negative features you note are necessitated by the redistributive system. The NFL could have academies, they could do away with the draft system that sends the best young players to the worst teams; they could even get rid of the salary cap, and the profit sharing model would still be (all else equal) good for the league in terms of competitive balance - for the obvious reason that it's hard to dominate a league where all of the other teams have roughly the same amount of money to spend.

Kinnear is suggesting that greater redistribution (from the PL to the lower leagues) would harm competition. And that just seems to me like a made up claim with zero empirical support. It would harm the top teams. Boo-hoo. But it's worse than that for him... not only does his claim lack empirical support, it contradicts existing evidence on the effect of forcing financial balance via redistributive policies. The NFL, for all its flaws, shows that better financial balance leads to better competitive balance, and that fans like this balance. And the NBA and NHL are similar. There are no analogues to the top 4 of the prem in these leagues, and they are still extremely popular.

I guess if they want to argue that redistributive policies would put English clubs at a disadvantage in Europe, then OK. That's probably true. But I see no reason to think that these would harm the domestic sport in any way, unless we take as granted that having a handful of powerhouse teams is intrinsically good. How many people are really going to stop watching if we don't have the same 6 teams at the top, season after season?

 

[voyeur]

@nameless

"did anyone catch Kinnears reference to retired Westminster civil servants? It seemed a bizarre thing to say unless of course someone has given him some sort of insider info?"

Maybe BFCx3 has grassed Basbob up to the EPL clubs?

 

[Rektseasider]

They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount.

As you say football is strange and the Football Pyramid at large does contribute in this case to earning the PL income. (Albeit at diminishing levels).

Money earned by the PL in that case does need to be shared with its partners that helped it earn the money. The level that this money is transferred at is currently too low, however I fear a regulatory body will have no clue how to do this either and like many things the government get their hands on will be completely botched.

Over the years though, the EFL and FA have continued to diminish their own product, ie poor owners, weak rules etc and anyway in effect signed their mediocrity status through in 1992.

I think you’re also forgetting the franchise relocations in the NFL. There’s been plenty of high level teams that have needed to relocate in order to remain viable - that’s the football equivalent of going bust or calling in the receivers.

But my main point is that the NFL isn’t wealth redistribution, 32 teams earn X amount and this is then divided between the 32 partners.

Where the NFL has succeeded, is in the collective bargain agreements with the players which allowed them to enforce the salary cap. Unfortunately the horse has already bolted on salaries in the PL, I can’t see a cap ever being introduced and at this point without the other top 4 leagues in Europe doing it would just harm the PL.

Market forces will have to correct players wages and the level of payments the PL makes to the EFL, anything else would be unnatural and damage the system.

 

[coloradoan]

They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount.

As you say football is strange and the Football Pyramid at large does contribute I t his case to earning the PL income. (Albeit at diminishing levels).

Money earned by the PL in that case does need to be shared with its partners that help it earn the money.

Over the years though, the EFL and FA have continued to diminish their own product, ie poor owners, weak rules etc and anyway in effect signed their mediocrity status through in 1992.

I think you’re also forgetting the franchise relocations in the NFL. There’s been plenty of high level teams that have needed to relocate in order to remain viable - that’s the football equivalent of going bust or calling in the receivers.

But my main point is that the NFL isn’t wealth redistribution, 32 teams earn X amount and this is then divided between the 32 partners.

Where the NFL has succeeded, is in the collective bargain agreements with the players which allowed them to enforce the salary cap. Unfortunately the horse has already bolted on salaries in the PL, I can’t see a cap ever being introduced and at this point without the other top 4 leagues in Europe doing it would just harm the PL.

Market forces will have to correct players wages.

Yeah, I agree that a salary cap would harm the PL, and that wages are ripe for a correction. But financial redistribution is a different proposal. You can still have high salaries, but probably you'd end up with fewer high salary players on a single team. The anti-redistributive argument being made is that doing this would not only weaken the top sides; it would weaken the league overall. And I don't see how this claim is justified.

Not sure I agree on NFL franchise relocations being necessary to "remain viable". The moves might bring in more money, but the Los Angeles Rams would be plenty viable if they were still the St. Louis Rams. Based on the recent moves by the Chargers and Raiders, this seems more like a negotiating tactic to get local governments to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums.

Admittedly I don't know what the pre-PL English first division looked like relative to the other top divisions in Europe. Was is relatively weak? I gather that the PL made the top sides much more powerful, but did it improve the overall quality of the sport?

 

[Rektseasider]

Yeah, I agree that a salary cap would harm the PL, and that wages are ripe for a correction. But financial redistribution is a different proposal. You can still have high salaries, but probably you'd end up with fewer high salary players on a single team. The anti-redistributive argument being made is that doing this would not only weaken the top sides; it would weaken the league overall. And I don't see how this claim is justified.

Not sure I agree on NFL franchise relocations being necessary to "remain viable". The moves might bring in more money, but the Los Angeles Rams would be plenty viable if they were still the St. Louis Rams. Based on the recent moves by the Chargers and Raiders, this seems more like a negotiating tactic to get local governments to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums.

Admittedly I don't know what the pre-PL English first division looked like relative to the other top divisions in Europe. Was is relatively weak? I gather that the PL made the top sides much more powerful, but did it improve the overall quality of the sport?

But the premise of your argument was, the NFL has been successful with wealth redistribution. It’s not wealth redistribution. 32 partners form the NFL. It’s wealth is then shared with the 32 partners, it is more complex than that, but at its basic level that’s the model. That’s not wealth redistribution because they’re all necessary to earn the money and by agreement they benefit.

Redistribution would be to give the CFL or the next start up league X% of their revenues.

Just keeping this simplistic, I’m not sure how you can argue that giving away some of your financial means will not make all teams weaker. Even in its current state the PL has a delicate eco system, you start messing with it, all I can see is harm coming to the whole of English football.

Be very careful what you wish for with the regulator, once they’re in they’ll never leave and we’ll probably never see the standards of football that we have in this country.

I think what you’re saying is that the PL, FA and EFL should come together and thrash out a better deal, I’d be in agreement. However to merely give the EFL a huge sum of money for the reason of equality will only harm things.

 

[seasideone]

But the premise of your argument was, the NFL has been successful with wealth redistribution. It’s not wealth redistribution. 32 partners form the NFL. It’s wealth is then shared with the 32 partners, it is more complex than that, but at its basic level that’s the model. That’s not wealth redistribution because they’re all necessary to earn the money and by agreement they benefit.

Redistribution would be to give the CFL or the next start up league X% of their revenues.

Just keeping this simplistic, I’m not sure how you can argue that giving away some of your financial means will not make all teams weaker. Even in its current state the PL has a delicate eco system, you start messing with it, all I can see is harm coming to the whole of English football.

Be very careful what you wish for with the regulator, once they’re in they’ll never leave and we’ll probably never see the standards of football that we have in this country.

I think what you’re saying is that the PL, FA and EFL should come together and thrash out a better deal, I’d be in agreement. However to merely give the EFL a huge sum of money for the reason of equality will only harm things.

Sadly I do not know what the answer to this is BUT I do know once governments get involved and directing private money away from its source - it is a recipe for disaster.

I fear that unless the Top leagues in Europe do something together then there is no equitable solution......and if they did come together no doubt it would be against EU competition law.

Don't forget the US is far less regulated than the UK and Europe - and it tends to let business get on with it.

I am all for a proper fit and owners test and maybe a proper 3 year funded business plan if you take over - and maybe even a secondary board for fans that can veto stadium moves, stadium sales and kit colours - but no way would I insist a fan sits on the main board, which could be easily worked around anyway.

I know people talk about the German model, but the reality is, it is still Bayern Munich that get much more cash than anyone else - and hence why they tend to win things.

As the main problem with distribution of wealth in the championship is parachute payments from relegation which we all know gives unfair advantage.

It is unrealistic to make every player have a relegation clause, unless again the top leagues all agree it - otherwise it puts the prem at the lower end to even a bigger disadvantage.

Maybe the answer / compromise is to reduce the parachute payments and use what is saved to be distributed lower down with a top up of a 'tax' on prem TV rights.

Again, that may need gov intervention which I am not really in favour of.

 

[basilrobbie3]

The NFL comes from a different sporting culture and therefore isn't wholly transferable. Not least because it is a closed shop of the kind envisaged by the people behind the ESL.

However, that doesn't mean we can't learn from it. It's finance distribution model helps to promote parity, albeit the draft system strengthens that in a way we can't easily match. They also have a strong collective bargaining agreement ethos that protects players at all levels (and salary levels).

Add in strong protocols around player safely and they seem way ahead of us in quite a lot of areas.

The need for reform in our game goes well beyond where the money goes, albeit if you get that right then you are well placed to deal with everything else.

Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to people. Too many of the people at our biggest clubs care far less for the health of the sport than they do for the money that goes with it.

 

[seasideone]

The NFL comes from a different sporting culture and therefore isn't wholly transferable. Not least because it is a closed shop of the kind envisaged by the people behind the ESL.

However, that doesn't mean we can't learn from it. It's finance distribution model helps to promote parity, albeit the draft system strengthens that in a way we can't easily match. They also have a strong collective bargaining agreement ethos that protects players at all levels (and salary levels).

Add in strong protocols around player safely and they seem way ahead of us in quite a lot of areas.

The need for reform in our game goes well beyond where the money goes, albeit if you get that right then you are well placed to deal with everything else.

Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to people. Too many of the people at our biggest clubs care far less for the health of the sport than they do for the money that goes with it.

Putting Bury aside for the moment.....

As you have spent time on this, in simple bullet points and ideally not more than ten.

What would you do and what would be your top three - IF you could only have three?

 

[Rektseasider]

Sadly I do not know what the answer to this is BUT I do know once governments get involved and directing private money away from its source - it is a recipe for disaster.



Again, that may need gov intervention which I am not really in favour of.

Your first paragraph is bang on the money. Pun intended.

Regarding your last, as soon as Gov gets involved that’ll be the end of our dominance and unique footballing culture.

Our games success over the last hundred years has been based on the success of individual clubs in a cup or league format. That success has come about generally through rational self interest. Where the clubs needs have been rationally met, players, stadiums managers etc.

As soon as you have that rational self interest removed by the regulator something gets extinguished. Clubs should be able to live and thrive with the jeopardy in place otherwise we’ll end up with some sterile crap as a product.

A regulator wouldn’t have stopped Bury and Macc going to the wall, this is, in my view a natural occurrence, clubs have floundered and gone to the wall before, and in their place other well run or finically backed clubs have come in.

Again we need to be very wary of a centrally planned and regulated league system, for me there should be an outline of rules and organisation but beyond that it’s what the clubs want to do but they live and die by their decisions.

 

[nameless]

The need for reform in our game goes well beyond where the money goes, albeit if you get that right then you are well placed to deal with everything else.

Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to people. Too many of the people at our biggest clubs care far less for the health of the sport than they do for the money that goes with it.

Absolutely but the biggest clubs are run by and large on recognised financial principles and are producing colossal revenues, where those looking to join the party can't get onto the next level.
Norwich and West Brom etc are a number of clubs who know their limits and won't overstretch and I bet you can add Reading and Derby to that list in the future.
Leicester are probably the best example of how to tackle the problem as they buy and sell wisely, move forward at a measured rate and have done better pound for pound than say Tottenham.

The issue for many EFL clubs may be they're missing a great opportunity with the free EPL money and are choosing to squander it, when in reality the source of people's ire is poor governance much further down the pyramid.

Macclesfield,Bury and the like would have fallen on their backsides irrespective of anything to do with the PL imo

 

[BigHandsOliverKahn]

Football needs more Maoism. It's obscenely imbalanced nowadays due to unfettered capitalism. The fact the Leeds bloke is so blind to see this problem is what really gets me. He's obviously surrounded by so much obscene wealth that he's utterly blinkered by it.

 

[Wizaard]

Yeah, I agree that a salary cap would harm the PL, and that wages are ripe for a correction. But financial redistribution is a different proposal. You can still have high salaries, but probably you'd end up with fewer high salary players on a single team. The anti-redistributive argument being made is that doing this would not only weaken the top sides; it would weaken the league overall. And I don't see how this claim is justified.

Not sure I agree on NFL franchise relocations being necessary to "remain viable". The moves might bring in more money, but the Los Angeles Rams would be plenty viable if they were still the St. Louis Rams. Based on the recent moves by the Chargers and Raiders, this seems more like a negotiating tactic to get local governments to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums.

Admittedly I don't know what the pre-PL English first division looked like relative to the other top divisions in Europe. Was is relatively weak? I gather that the PL made the top sides much more powerful, but did it improve the overall quality of the sport?

Pre PL, English teams were regular winners of the European Cup.

Arguably we haven't won it as often post EPL, despite more teams being in it, but that will make 20s cry so keep it quiet.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount.

As you say football is strange and the Football Pyramid at large does contribute in this case to earning the PL income. (Albeit at diminishing levels).

Money earned by the PL in that case does need to be shared with its partners that helped it earn the money. The level that this money is transferred at is currently too low, however I fear a regulatory body will have no clue how to do this either and like many things the government get their hands on will be completely botched.

Over the years though, the EFL and FA have continued to diminish their own product, ie poor owners, weak rules etc and anyway in effect signed their mediocrity status through in 1992.

I think you’re also forgetting the franchise relocations in the NFL. There’s been plenty of high level teams that have needed to relocate in order to remain viable - that’s the football equivalent of going bust or calling in the receivers.

But my main point is that the NFL isn’t wealth redistribution, 32 teams earn X amount and this is then divided between the 32 partners.

Where the NFL has succeeded, is in the collective bargain agreements with the players which allowed them to enforce the salary cap. Unfortunately the horse has already bolted on salaries in the PL, I can’t see a cap ever being introduced and at this point without the other top 4 leagues in Europe doing it would just harm the PL.

Market forces will have to correct players wages and the level of payments the PL makes to the EFL, anything else would be unnatural and damage the system.

"They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount."

Except that the "product" does not earn X. An external body Y (non-terrestrial media companies) invest huge sums (X) into the product in order to secure a substantial return from another external body Z (non-terrestrial TV customers and pubs). This 'golden egg' awarded to teams simply because they're in the EPL (and a further tranche to those teams that get into European competition), ensures that these teams can afford to pay increasingly preposterous wages to players who, therefore, prostitute themselves solely within the circus that is the EPL. Of course, within that circus lies an even smaller quota of players who prostitute themselves around the teams on the European merry-go-round, because they pay even higher wages.

This, then, is not the theoretical market forces dreampt up by writers of A Level economic text books. It is a closed economic cabal. Whilst entry to it is supposedly open to those who can achieve promotion (ie in a sports competition), we all know that it is, in reality, restricted by the inability of incomers to survive for any length of time becuase they do not have the financial wherewithall.

No doubt, the clubs with the resources to survive comfortably within the EPL, need have no interest in the survival of clubs who ply their trade in the lower leagues. But the requirement to ensure a continued and meaningful redistribution of EPL earnings down the leagues is not - thankfully - in the gift of those owners and Chairmen who have no interest in sharing out the dosh. Rather, it is in the hands of those whose interest is the survival of a nationwide professional footballing competition, based on a league of 92 clubs - not 20. And if Angus Kinnear wants to know why clubs among the "lowest common denominator" struggle maybe he should seek answers from the owners of SKY, BT and Amazon because they are his paymasters.

 

[nameless]

No doubt, the clubs with the resources to survive comfortably within the EPL, need have no interest in the survival of clubs who ply their trade in the lower leagues. But the requirement to ensure a continued and meaningful redistribution of EPL earnings down the leagues is not - thankfully - in the gift of those owners and Chairmen who have no interest in sharing out the dosh. Rather, it is in the hands of those whose interest is the survival of a nationwide professional footballing competition, based on a league of 92 clubs - not 20. And if Angus Kinnear wants to know why clubs among the "lowest common denominator" struggle maybe he should seek answers from the owners of SKY, BT and Amazon because hy are his paymasters.

The underpinning of the greed league gravy train is the supporter who pays his subscription, where 'lowest common denominator' clubs should/could be getting folk to give up bad habits. Whether the EPL is good,bad or indifferent its still up to EFL clubs to market its product where the 3pm traditional game has been unaffected in context; using its windfalls rather than squander it on wages.

If the nations fans cant be bothered and prefer the remote to the walk up, then all this outrage and angst is simply navel gazing.

 

[Rektseasider]

"They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount."

Except that the "product" does not earn X. An external body Y (non-terrestrial media companies) invest huge sums (X) into the product in order to secure a substantial return from another external body Z (non-terrestrial TV customers and pubs). This 'golden egg' awarded to teams simply because they're in the EPL (and a further tranche to those teams that get into European competition), ensures that these teams can afford to pay increasingly preposterous wages to players who, therefore, prostitute themselves solely within the circus that is the EPL. Of course, within that circus lies an even smaller quota of players who prostitute themselves around the teams on the European merry-go-round, because they pay even higher wages.

This, then, is not the theoretical market forces dreampt up by writers of A Level economic text books. It is a closed economic cabal. Whilst entry to it is supposedly open to those who can achieve promotion (ie in a sports competition), we all know that it is, in reality, restricted by the inability of incomers to survive for any length of time becuase they do not have the financial wherewithall.

No doubt, the clubs with the resources to survive comfortably within the EPL, need have no interest in the survival of clubs who ply their trade in the lower leagues. But the requirement to ensure a continued and meaningful redistribution of EPL earnings down the leagues is not - thankfully - in the gift of those owners and Chairmen who have no interest in sharing out the dosh. Rather, it is in the hands of those whose interest is the survival of a nationwide professional footballing competition, based on a league of 92 clubs - not 20. And if Angus Kinnear wants to know why clubs among the "lowest common denominator" struggle maybe he should seek answers from the owners of SKY, BT and Amazon because they are his paymasters.

Owh I hope that wasn’t a few digs at me and A level understanding of things. After I’d been so nice to you in the past as well. That would be a shame.


But anyway for me there, you’ve gone around the houses to say 20 clubs earn X amount from the PL’s revenue potential from who ever, in your example broadcasters.

These people don’t ‘invest’ into a closed shop, the PL markets it’s product at a certain price, then this price is paid and divided up between the participants who produce to make the price in the first place. There’s no investment. I have you dead wrong there, sorry.

After that I’m not sure what your advocating for? Limiting the potential competition? Making it fairer for people?

But to my mind and some of the argument I made previously is that, it should be in owners and chairman’s rational self interest to want to perpetuate the league structure on its current guise and make it more robust, not sacrifice them selves at the alter of equality.

They should want to make the pyramid robust as it does feed into their success, I’m not saying PL owners and chairman necessarily do have this rational, they should.

Perhaps the failure of the Super League and the threat of a regulator will be enough to make them want to see the merits of a strong pyramid, maybe it won’t.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

They’re all part of a product which earns X amount, X amount is then split 20 ways, because the 20 partners have all earned the X amount.

Redistribution is person or group A earning the X amount and then giving a portion of X amount to group B even though they’ve had no input into earning X amount.

As you say football is strange and the Football Pyramid at large does contribute in this case to earning the PL income. (Albeit at diminishing levels).

Money earned by the PL in that case does need to be shared with its partners that helped it earn the money. The level that this money is transferred at is currently too low, however I fear a regulatory body will have no clue how to do this either and like many things the government get their hands on will be completely botched.

Over the years though, the EFL and FA have continued to diminish their own product, ie poor owners, weak rules etc and anyway in effect signed their mediocrity status through in 1992.

I think you’re also forgetting the franchise relocations in the NFL. There’s been plenty of high level teams that have needed to relocate in order to remain viable - that’s the football equivalent of going bust or calling in the receivers.

But my main point is that the NFL isn’t wealth redistribution, 32 teams earn X amount and this is then divided between the 32 partners.

Where the NFL has succeeded, is in the collective bargain agreements with the players which allowed them to enforce the salary cap. Unfortunately the horse has already bolted on salaries in the PL, I can’t see a cap ever being introduced and at this point without the other top 4 leagues in Europe doing it would just harm the PL.

Market forces will have to correct players wages and the level of payments the PL makes to the EFL, anything else would be unnatural and damage the system.

Another aspect of the NFL is almost every franchise gets massive government taxpayer funded subsidies, pretty much all of them have taken public funds to develop stadia that are a) trying to out-do each other, b) an attract to move location and c) all the profits from publicly funded development go to the franchise.

when you look at the financial model of NFL it is wholley monopolistic, and protectionist. It has very little in the way of costs for sporting development, the college system creates millions of dollars from a system where players are unable to recieve even food or sustenance if the are playing, but it means that players arrive on the professional stage to the franchises as already marketable commodities, and the franchise has little in the way of risk, as there is no real penalty for sporting failure, and fan based apathy to sporting failure would probably see the franchise move location with an influx of cash from a new locality.

Sport has no traditional market forces, in fact clubs need other clubs, as much as Manure might think they are above being beaten by so called minnows like Watford the non partisan interest in their games is maintained by the chance that they might be beaten, which is the financial bread and butter of the broadcasting companies.

You could say that a cap on salaries in the NFL helps them maintain financial seciurity where many PL clubs can't. but it is the combination of no sporting risk, no sporting development costs, and very little in the way of infrastructural development costs that maintain the franchise financial security. i'd go as far as saying that the player wage cap, and the recruitment process is exclusively bolstering and securing risk free profitability, and it has to be considered that the franchise owners can take out as much as they want.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Personally, I'd just take all the money away and give it an owl sanctuary or something.

Then they could stop bleating about it.

Sorted.

 

[Mark_GT]

Sounds like some of the Old Boys from the Old Boys Club are getting the wind up about the transparency and accountability that an independent regulator might bring.

That's the Greed League for you

 

[Rektseasider]

Another aspect of the NFL is almost every franchise gets massive government taxpayer funded subsidies, pretty much all of them have taken public funds to develop stadia that are a) trying to out-do each other, b) an attract to move location and c) all the profits from publicly funded development go to the franchise.

when you look at the financial model of NFL it is wholley monopolistic, and protectionist. It has very little in the way of costs for sporting development, the college system creates millions of dollars from a system where players are unable to recieve even food or sustenance if the are playing, but it means that players arrive on the professional stage to the franchises as already marketable commodities, and the franchise has little in the way of risk, as there is no real penalty for sporting failure, and fan based apathy to sporting failure would probably see the franchise move location with an influx of cash from a new locality.

Sport has no traditional market forces, in fact clubs need other clubs, as much as Manure might think they are above being beaten by so called minnows like Watford the non partisan interest in their games is maintained by the chance that they might be beaten, which is the financial bread and butter of the broadcasting companies.

You could say that a cap on salaries in the NFL helps them maintain financial seciurity where many PL clubs can't. but it is the combination of no sporting risk, no sporting development costs, and very little in the way of infrastructural development costs that maintain the franchise financial security. i'd go as far as saying that the player wage cap, and the recruitment process is exclusively bolstering and securing risk free profitability, and it has to be considered that the franchise owners can take out as much as they want.

Yep you’re right, off the top of my head I think 15 or possibly 16 teams have built stadiums with local government grants.

But that’s not what this threads on about. It’s talking about money generation from one aspect of the game being spread to another aspect of the game to increase fairness.

That’s not how the NFL operates.

Again you’re correct that the NFL has very little in the way of development of players, the college game operates in that market.

You’re quoting the extreme of players that struggle through on a pittance but there’s an equal amount that come from nothing and receive plenty in their college careers, even though that’s “against the rules”.

I don’t agree there’s no sporting risk in the NFL merely because it’s a locked league. There’s plenty, it’s just not the same as footballs.

Again how NFL teams operate within the cap provides jeopardy, it can make or break a franchise for decades, as by definition you can’t just spend your way out of it like a PL club can spend out of mistakes.
It’s just a different sort of jeopardy to PL teams. Get the draft/cap/GM wrong and you’re in a tonne of trouble for years. It’s arguably harder to recover because of the rules of the league. Unlike the PL.

All of that does have an impact on franchises revenue streams etc. Look at the two New York teams. Now completely surpassed by NE.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Yep you’re right, off the top of my head I think 15 or possibly 16 teams have built stadiums with local government grants.

But that’s not what this threads on about. It’s talking about money generation from one aspect of the game being spread to another aspect of the game to increase fairness.

That’s not how the NFL operates.

Again you’re correct that the NFL has very little in the way of development of players, the college game operates in that market.

You’re quoting the extreme of players that struggle through on a pittance but there’s an equal amount that come from nothing and receive plenty in their college careers, even though that’s “against the rules”.

I don’t agree there’s no sporting risk in the NFL merely because it’s a locked league. There’s plenty, it’s just not the same as footballs.

Again how NFL teams operate within the cap provides jeopardy, it can make or break a franchise for decades, as by definition you can’t just spend your way out of it like a PL club can spend out of mistakes.
It’s just a different sort of jeopardy to PL teams. Get the draft/cap/GM wrong and you’re in a tonne of trouble for years. It’s arguably harder to recover because of the rules of the league. Unlike the PL.

All of that does have an impact on franchises revenue streams etc. Look at the two New York teams. Now completely surpassed by NE.

your're right the sporting risk in the NFL is different, but unlike the PL or even la liga the sporting risk is not immediately an existential problem for a franchise that underperforms very badly on the field, They may lose sponsorship and other commercial revenues but it would take a long period of severe mismanagement to undermine them as businesses, at the end of the day american football was specifically designed as an advertising medium and the "clubs" are first and foremost promotional and advertising corporations. Sport is simply the medium, this is the same as Facebook being little more than a promotional and advertising corporation despite its reknown as a technology business.

My point I suppose is this is where the new corporate owners in the PL want to be. They want the PL as a closed shop in the same way that the bigger clubs want a euro league as a closed shop. Manure are firstly if not entirely a promo and ad business, chelsea and citeh and now newcastle are PR platforms. The Leeds execs were making objection noises about PL hedgemony a couple of years ago and recently about the euro super league because they were not a part of it, its the general nature of corporate behaviour is that you want to arrive at a position where you no longer have to compete. Once you arrive at a certain position then co-operation between the entities involved is paramount to protect the market from outsiders and to a great extent from themselves, it stops any one player in the market from causing too much distruption - its the same in a lot of other industries.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Owh I hope that wasn’t a few digs at me and A level understanding of things. After I’d been so nice to you in the past as well. That would be a shame.


But anyway for me there, you’ve gone around the houses to say 20 clubs earn X amount from the PL’s revenue potential from who ever, in your example broadcasters.

These people don’t ‘invest’ into a closed shop, the PL markets it’s product at a certain price, then this price is paid and divided up between the participants who produce to make the price in the first place. There’s no investment. I have you dead wrong there, sorry.

After that I’m not sure what your advocating for? Limiting the potential competition? Making it fairer for people?

But to my mind and some of the argument I made previously is that, it should be in owners and chairman’s rational self interest to want to perpetuate the league structure on its current guise and make it more robust, not sacrifice them selves at the alter of equality.

They should want to make the pyramid robust as it does feed into their success, I’m not saying PL owners and chairman necessarily do have this rational, they should.

Perhaps the failure of the Super League and the threat of a regulator will be enough to make them want to see the merits of a strong pyramid, maybe it won’t.

Absolutely I was NOT having a fig at you. I always find your posts intelligent and worthy of proper thought. That said, I still disagree with your view. The EPL pushes the boat out for what it can get, yes. But the TV companies pay it. It's not Leeds Utd or any other club 'earning' these huge sums. But they reap the financial benefits, then push up the price of players, well out of the reach of EFL clubs, thereby perpetuating a closed cabal.

I know you are determined to resist the economic inevitability of my position so let's agree to differ.

 

[Rektseasider]

Absolutely I was NOT having a fig at you. I always find your posts intelligent and worthy of proper thought. That said, I still disagree with your view. The EPL pushes the boat out for what it can get, yes. But the TV companies pay it. It's not Leeds Utd or any other club 'earning' these huge sums. But they reap the financial benefits, then push up the price of players, well out of the reach of EFL clubs, thereby perpetuating a closed cabal.

I know you are determined to resist the economic inevitability of my position so let's agree to differ.

Fair enough my apologies on getting the wrong end of the stick.

And no problems with the disagreement, very few ever do. Ask the missus.

But for me Leeds United and the other 19 do earn the money. Because if they don’t who does?

I’m not sure there ever is an economic inevitability about anything really, and in part why regulator of football would never work on my book. A regulator could never be able to predict or react to the world of football like an organic and as I say rational football club would.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Fair enough my apologies on getting the wrong end of the stick.

And no problems with the disagreement, very few ever do. Ask the missus.

But for me Leeds United and the other 19 do earn the money. Because if they don’t who does?

I’m not sure there ever is an economic inevitability about anything really, and in part why regulator of football would never work on my book. A regulator could never be able to predict or react to the world of football like an organic and as I say rational football club would.

Thanks Rekt. I included the economic inevitability reference as an ex-Maxist.

 

[Rektseasider]

included the economic inevitability reference as an ex-Maxist.

Oh sorry that one went over my head. I must have fallen asleep before that point in Das Kapital.

 

[Loco]

Personally, I'd just take all the money away and give it an owl sanctuary or something.

Then they could stop bleating about it.

Sorted.

Sheffield Wednesday are massive enough thanks very much

 

[basilrobbie3]

I'm pretty encouraged when these EPL luminaries start lining up to attack these proposals. It suggests to me that some precious, vested interests might be under threat. And if we are going to have an argument about the pros and cons of ANYTHING, being on the opposite side to Karren Brady suits me fine.

The comments of the CEO at Villa are especially risible. There are a series of tweets doing the rounds at the moment that were written by Swiss Ramble (the alternative Kieran Maguire). They make interesting reading :

• Mr. Pursloe's "well run" enterprise at Villa Park has run up losses of just over £450m in the last ten years
• at it's peak in the Championship, Villa were spending 175% of turnover on wages. It is still 97% now
• the club is only "debt free" because the owner has waived his right to over a third of a BILLION in debt repayments, loans etc.

I'm not at all au fait with the financial position at Leeds, but West Ham are hardly a paragon of virtue in terms of debt management either, and until recently were very keen to sell the club outright (as opposed to taking on a new business parter with a big stake, which they did a few weeks ago). I'm sure that Ms. Brady's sudden enthusiasm for the status quo has nothing to do with her club suddenly being in the mix for a Champion's League place next season.

 

[nameless]

I'm not at all au fait with the financial position at Leeds, but West Ham are hardly a paragon of virtue in terms of debt management either, and until recently were very keen to sell the club outright (as opposed to taking on a new business parter with a big stake, which they did a few weeks ago). I'm sure that Ms. Brady's sudden enthusiasm for the status quo has nothing to do with her club suddenly being in the mix for a Champion's League place next season.

Good points on Ms Brady where they were in real trouble post UP move but have managed to swing it around, and by going back to a previous 'failed' manager and utilising their rental arrangement at the LS to its maximum.
There are however several strands to what's going on with the proposed improvements to football, notably
*poor governance aka Bury (which had nothing to do with PL money etc)
*the financial chasm and the perils it brings in the top half of the Championship
*the proposed ESL (the threat of which still exists)
*the desire to have the Sky TV money etc more evenly spread around

Its difficult to see how a UK regulator can oversee what could be a situation where the top six do one, as that anyway would fall under the auspices of FIFA who might change tack in the WC is set for every two years. Its been pointed out that foreign investors might be put off with what they consider is over regulation, which may have had a detrimental effect on Leicester,Chelsea and even Blackpool (with VB).
The EFL rules stipulated that anyone convicted of a financial misdemeanour in a court of law would be sanctioned, which I think affected Rotherham and a few others when it reality those cases were irrelevant.

I think that the point on the C/S disparity is the one clear issue that many would agree upon, because that clearly is making the jump up/promotion almost a closed shop and encourages risk taking by the Derbys and QPRs. The PL does give considerable funds for distribution and that shouldnt be overlooked, and that includes a share of transfer dealings which seems to be getting ignored.

The problem though that once the indvidual's club is promoted then its a case of 'I'm alright Jack', as we've seen with Newcastle and the leader of the FSA which has been the group pushing for a toughening of the rules on ownership. I think that sort of sums up the state of play and the reason why objectivity always become the first casualty.
In some respects it seems hypocritical of BST to complain about having a rapist in charge of a club now, when during the run to PL it wasnt a problem because the team was winning.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'm pretty encouraged when these EPL luminaries start lining up to attack these proposals. It suggests to me that some precious, vested interests might be under threat.

I’m not sure that ‘Independent Regulation’ and Government interference in revenue streams would ever be welcomed with open arms by business owners in any sector really.

The reaction from some of the Clubs is perfectly normal and I’m not sure we should read too much into the fact that they’d prefer to continue exercising control over their own earnings etc..

 

[basilrobbie3]

Good points on Ms Brady where they were in real trouble post UP move but have managed to swing it around, and by going back to a previous 'failed' manager and utilising their rental arrangement at the LS to its maximum. (1)
There are however several strands to what's going on with the proposed improvements to football, notably
*poor governance aka Bury (which had nothing to do with PL money etc) (2)
*the financial chasm and the perils it brings in the top half of the Championship (3)
*the proposed ESL (the threat of which still exists) (4)
*the desire to have the Sky TV money etc more evenly spread around

Its difficult to see how a UK regulator can oversee what could be a situation where the top six do one (5), as that anyway would fall under the auspices of FIFA who might change tack in the WC is set for every two years (6). Its been pointed out that foreign investors might be put off with what they consider is over regulation, which may have had a detrimental effect on Leicester,Chelsea and even Blackpool (with VB). (7)
The EFL rules stipulated that anyone convicted of a financial misdemeanour in a court of law would be sanctioned, which I think affected Rotherham and a few others when it reality those cases were irrelevant.

I think that the point on the C/S disparity is the one clear issue that many would agree upon, because that clearly is making the jump up/promotion almost a closed shop and encourages risk taking by the Derbys and QPRs (8). The PL does give considerable funds for distribution and that shouldnt be overlooked, and that includes a share of transfer dealings which seems to be getting ignored. (9)

The problem though that once the indvidual's club is promoted then its a case of 'I'm alright Jack', as we've seen with Newcastle and the leader of the FSA which has been the group pushing for a toughening of the rules on ownership (10). I think that sort of sums up the state of play and the reason why objectivity always become the first casualty.
In some respects it seems hypocritical of BST to complain about having a rapist in charge of a club now, when during the run to PL it wasnt a problem because the team was winning. (11)

(1) Agreed. West Ham have really landed on their feet with the move to the new stadium, and you have to wonder why there hasn't been more fuss about it.

(2) Correct. But I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

(3) Glad to see you acknowledge that the "chasm" is real. It encourages the kind of misbehaviour we have seen at Derby - a club that has been shamefully mismanaged by a man who walked away from the mess he created (see also point (8).

(4) Agreed, and it won't go away until Crouch is implemented (see 5 below).

(5) I don't think it is difficult to see at all. Under Crouch, there would be veto rights for fans and any club that tried to override that would in all probability lose its license. I ready accept that this sort of eventuality would be a real test of the regulator's strength of will, should it happen. But a failure by the regulator to deal with it decisively would probably damage its credibility for good. Time will tell.

(6) FIFA are a factor in all this, as are UEFA. But the FSA evidence devotes an entire appendix to the European compatibility issue and past precedents in countries like France and Spain suggest that the issue can be managed. I have no idea what the World Cup has to do with this, perhaps you can explain in a bit more detail?

(7) I think you are wrong here. The system of regulation we currently have is opaque, throughly inconsistent in the way it is applied and very inflexible. What is proposed should give new investors confidence that they will be fairly treated. In any case, 50 of the 54 nations who are part of UEFA have some form of independent regulation - it is hardly a novel concept.

(8) The current abyss between EPL and Championship is having thoroughly perverse consequences in terms of the behaviour of some club owners and you have cited a couple. But you could add in Reading, Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday just for starters. That cliff edge needs to be smoothed significantly.

(9) You are right that there is a transfer levy (4% I think?). I think it is too low, and making the levy far more significant a part of the whole "real" cost of a transfer might make clubs re-examine their policies on recruitment and the extent to which they use agents. I would have liked to see the levy extended to betting companies personally, but politically I accept that may have been a step too far for Ms Crouch.

(10) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, other than to have a swipe at Kevin Miles. If you are saying that many ordinary football fans are thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to standards and financial probity - I agree with you, they are. But having a dig at him over events that are completely outside his control seems to me more a case of playing the man, rather than making any serious point. What would you have him do that would make a difference to the decision taking about the ownership of Newcastle?

(11) In your haste to have a swipe at BST (and re-write history at the same time) you appear to have overlooked something. Our "run to the PL" took place four years before SISA was even formed, let alone BST. So how could either organisation have had an opinion of any kind back then? In any case, given a key part of our later campaign was that the EPL and EFL between them could not construct a coherent policy on owner and director conduct, do you really think OO's rape conviction wasn't relevant? People who support Blackpool FC certainly thought it was.

 

[nameless]

I’m not sure that ‘Independent Regulation’ and Government interference in revenue streams would ever be welcomed with open arms by business owners in any sector really.

There was a point made by Richard Masters (EPL CEO) on the Newcastle takeover that the new owners had to prove there was no (Saudi) government interference, and that the money being used was from an independent account.
FIFA have strict rules in place over government manipulation and control, and so its a tight line to walk if they do go ahead with the recommendations

 

[nameless]

(3) Glad to see you acknowledge that the "chasm" is real. It encourages the kind of misbehaviour we have seen at Derby - a club that has been shamefully mismanaged by a man who walked away from the mess he created (see also point (8).

Its always been the same situation on a pro rata basis which is why (say) Billy Cartmell was reluctant to invest, given the wages and costs would increase should the Seasiders gain promotion.

(5) I don't think it is difficult to see at all. Under Crouch, there would be veto rights for fans and any club that tried to override that would in all probability lose its license. I ready accept that this sort of eventuality would be a real test of the regulator's strength of will, should it happen. But a failure by the regulator to deal with it decisively would probably damage its credibility for good.

As has been pointed out elsewhere a 'regulator' has failed in real terms with other industries ie water, utilities and communication. The Newcastle position is an interesting one where there are massive issues with their new owners, who btw have asked fans not to wear anything that disrespects the Arab culture. Not a good start and hardly helpful whilst the fans celebrated the end of MAs tenure

I have no idea what the World Cup has to do with this, perhaps you can explain in a bit more detail?

Yup. I think -and hope actually- that the new proposals will cut back on the football calendar and the knock on effects of televised football

(7) I think you are wrong here. The system of regulation we currently have is opaque, throughly inconsistent in the way it is applied and very inflexible. What is proposed should give new investors confidence that they will be fairly treated. In any case, 50 of the 54 nations who are part of UEFA have some form of independent regulation - it is hardly a novel concept.

Aye but the PL is the richest and most popular league in the world-on a par with the NFL and as such hasnt really needed a regulator of its own.Any issues have arisen further down the pyramid from clubs own inability to deal with the situation

That cliff edge needs to be smoothed significantly.

Agreed although some would say that the latest raft of measures are doing just that eg Derby,Sheff Weds which btw have opened the door for the likes of the Seasiders .

(9) You are right that there is a transfer levy (4% I think?). I think it is too low, and making the levy far more significant a part of the whole "real" cost of a transfer might make clubs re-examine their policies on recruitment and the extent to which they use agents. I would have liked to see the levy extended to betting companies personally, but politically I accept that may have been a step too far for Ms Crouch.

Indeed although how high that level goes is subjective where the EPL have already said they feel that there is already an appropriate distribution

(10) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, other than to have a swipe at Kevin Miles. If you are saying that many ordinary football fans are thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to standards and financial probity - I agree with you, they are. But having a dig at him over events that are completely outside his control seems to me more a case of playing the man, rather than making any serious point. What would you have him do that would make a difference to the decision taking about the ownership of Newcastle?

The man is the CEO employed by the FSA where they are making judgements on how the CEOs of the EPL and other clubs are going about their business.Its only fair he is asked to explain his position given he's had plenty to say about others notably Mike Ashley.

(11) In your haste to have a swipe at BST (and re-write history at the same time) you appear to have overlooked something. Our "run to the PL" took place four years before SISA was even formed, let alone BST. So how could either organisation have had an opinion of any kind back then? In any case, given a key part of our later campaign was that the EPL and EFL between them could not construct a coherent policy on owner and director conduct, do you really think OO's rape conviction wasn't relevant? People who support Blackpool FC certainly thought it was.

No-one's having a swipe at BST but they have said the conviction is now an issue, however they only emerged (via SISA) etc when it was clear money was being extracted from the club. Many Blackpool fans might have felt ashamed to have been associated with the club and not bothering attending, as have other clubs supporters when similar issues have arisen there.

BST and any other fans organisation should be challenged where people think its appropriate and not have such a thin skin in that instance. If they are involved in criticism of others then I'm afraid it goes with the territory.

 

[coloradoan]

But the premise of your argument was, the NFL has been successful with wealth redistribution. It’s not wealth redistribution. 32 partners form the NFL. It’s wealth is then shared with the 32 partners, it is more complex than that, but at its basic level that’s the model. That’s not wealth redistribution because they’re all necessary to earn the money and by agreement they benefit.

Redistribution would be to give the CFL or the next start up league X% of their revenues.

Just keeping this simplistic, I’m not sure how you can argue that giving away some of your financial means will not make all teams weaker. Even in its current state the PL has a delicate eco system, you start messing with it, all I can see is harm coming to the whole of English football.

Be very careful what you wish for with the regulator, once they’re in they’ll never leave and we’ll probably never see the standards of football that we have in this country.

I think what you’re saying is that the PL, FA and EFL should come together and thrash out a better deal, I’d be in agreement. However to merely give the EFL a huge sum of money for the reason of equality will only harm things.

I agree on that last part. And I think that "better deal" should involve more money being... I'm having a tough time coming up with a better word, so I'll say "distributed"... from PL to EFL. And, such a deal is probably going to require some outside forces putting pressure on the PL.

I think we've been using the term "redistribution" to mean different things. I'm talking solely about money brought in by a team (via tickets, merch, advertising, IP rights deals, or the big one: TV viewership) being transferred to other teams. In the NFL, this is done via a voluntary arrangement that all the teams have agreed to. Crouch's review is calling for an involuntary arrangement (from the PL teams' viewpoint). So, if the key distinction is whether the arrangement is voluntary, I agree with you. I take the position that what is voluntary from the teams' perspective and what is good for football as a whole need not be the same.

I also don't think that sending PL money to the EFL is analogous to sending NFL money to the CFL or the resurrected corpse of the XFL or to some other completely unconnected league that happens to play roughly the same sport. The PL made a power play and broke off from the EFL, but maintains a close connection. The breaking off was a great piece of business for the teams that were in the breakaway club, and for those who have made it in for long spells. They certainly have every incentive to keep things this way. But does this mean it was "good" for football as a whole? I'm normally a believer in the free market principle that participants in a competitive market acting in their self interest tends to produce the best results (though of course there's a lot packed into what is meant by "best"). But sport is different. What is good for the wealthiest teams is not necessarily good for the sport as a whole. The fact that the "big 6" just tried to create the European Super League is all the demonstration of this that we need. Would the ESL be good for teams that signed on? Absolutely! Would it be good for English teams who aren't a part of the club? Absolutely not. Should we defer to the wishes of those 6 teams, because we have a philosophical commitment to free market competition? I say no.

I'm not suggesting that this is your position, but I don't see the difference in justifiability, from a market economics point of view, between "don't tell the PL teams that they have to distribute more of their earnings to the EFL" and "don't tell the richest PL teams that they don't get to break off into a closed shop European Super League". Some will make the argument that it is simply wrong on its face for the government to be interfering in these matters. And fair enough, I respect that, though I don't agree. And I think there's a difference between saying coerced wealth redistribution is fundamentally wrong and coerced wealth redistribution will be bad for the sport as a whole. I don't think that an argument supporting the former necessarily supports the latter.

I also realize that redistribution can be taken too far, and if it does that this will hurt the sport. I don't know what the % of wealth transferred from PL to EFL should be. I just don't think it should be up to the PL to decide this value.