• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

I find it a bit strange how accepted the financial inequality in the game is, or even how little it's talked about. For me personally, it's got to the point where the sport is a bit of a sickening farce, and difficult to enjoy because a) it's virtually impossible for any teams to disrupt the status quo, and b) I can't see this ever changing, because there seems to be no no determination to try - or even much of an appetite for change in the first place.

Why aren't there more protests from fans about the financial inequality? Some people say it's because football is a business and there's nothing you can do, but it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) - it's a sport first and foremost, with regulating bodies, and it's a pretty brick business because no-one makes any profit! All the increased revenue of the top teams goes into the huge wages of the best players, who by and large seem like undeserving and ungrateful dingdongheads (Raheem Sterling anyone?)

I'd love to see someone have the balls to even suggest, let alone push through, a redistibutive system along the lines of:

- More equal sharing of gate receipts between home and away teams
- Completely equal distribution of TV money (perhaps with a certain amount set aside as bonuses for clubs who move up a certain number of places, to reward clubs that achieve above their means)
- Limits on replica shirt prices
- Graded 'tax' on sponsorship money (or even anything above a certain cutoff point all having to go the club's foundation, not the club itself)

Until then we'll continue with something like this (from 2013-2014):

upload_2015-9-5_15-55-51.png

Where no team outside of the top 3 or 5 have a chance of winning the league, and no team from outside the top 5 or 6 has a chance of playing in the Champions League.

fudging *yawn*.

Except 99% of people don't seem to care, and instead continue to pour their money into the game whilst pouring themselves into pubs and online forums to moan about how brick their team is.
 
Why aren't there more protests from fans about the financial inequality? Some people say it's because football is a business and there's nothing you can do, but it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) - it's a sport first and foremost, with regulating bodies, and it's a pretty **** business because no-one makes any profit! All the increased revenue of the top teams goes into the huge wages of the best players, who by and large seem like undeserving and ungrateful dingdongheads (Raheem Sterling anyone?)

theres little protest against the financial inequality because most people are relatively happy with it imo. the people in power to change it, certainly seem to be happy anyway. the stauts quo makes them a lot of money, or keeps them in prestige positions, why would they want to distrupt that?

also, sport isnt a busness. thats why you've rightly pointed out that many of the top sides dont make money. and thats also why introducing financial limitations such as ffp is departed. the owners in favour of it are purely business men. if an owner is first and foremost a fan of football, they wouldnt be in favour of ffp imo. look at the epl chairmen who seem to be in favour of ffp. arsenal's, ours' , liverpool's, and utd's.

all these guys want to take money out of their clubs. and ffp would allow them to do so. chairmen who are football fans and want to actually put money into football, do not support ffp. ffp is simply about owners being able to profit from their clubs like they do in america.

football is about chasing glory, not generating profits. and if theres a chairman who is willing to financially subsidise football fans' chase for glory, we should welcome it imo.

I'd love to see someone have the balls to even suggest, let alone push through, a redistibutive system along the lines of:

- More equal sharing of gate receipts between home and away teams

would promote mediocrity imo. if someone is willing to invest in a new stadium with more seats, we should reward them as much as we can. splitting gate receipts would incentivise teams not to develop new stadiums.

- Completely equal distribution of TV money (perhaps with a certain amount set aside as bonuses for clubs who move up a certain number of places, to reward clubs that achieve above their means)

the current payout structure works fine imo. its the outside investment of the likes of abramovic that is really influencing title races and top 4 races.

- Limits on replica shirt prices

what effect would this have? seems to me like you want a cheap shirt, and have included this into a "bill" about financial inequality in football ;)
Until then we'll continue with something like this (from 2013-2014):

View attachment 2442

Where no team outside of the top 3 or 5 have a chance of winning the league, and no team from outside the top 5 or 6 has a chance of playing in the Champions League.

fudgeing *yawn*.

Except 99% of people don't seem to care, and instead continue to pour their money into the game whilst pouring themselves into pubs and online forums to moan about how **** their team is.

this is where is think you're wrong. 99% of epl fans are probably fans of one of the top 4 teams. thats basically why there is little desire to change the status quo imo.
 
wasn't the primary aim of FFP to stop rich people coming in, bankrolling clubs at unsustainable levels then leaving them in the brick when they didn't get instant success

it was never about a level playing field
 
this is where is think you're wrong. 99% of epl fans are probably fans of one of the top 4 teams. thats basically why there is little desire to change the status quo imo.

That would depend on how you define fan
 
A perspective shift is in order.
Once you understand that this is entertainment, then everything will be clear.
 
theres little protest against the financial inequality because most people are relatively happy with it imo. the people in power to change it, certainly seem to be happy anyway. the stauts quo makes them a lot of money, or keeps them in prestige positions, why would they want to distrupt that?

also, sport isnt a busness. thats why you've rightly pointed out that many of the top sides dont make money. and thats also why introducing financial limitations such as ffp is departed. the owners in favour of it are purely business men. if an owner is first and foremost a fan of football, they wouldnt be in favour of ffp imo. look at the epl chairmen who seem to be in favour of ffp. Ar5ena1's, ours' , liverpool's, and utd's.

all these guys want to take money out of their clubs. and ffp would allow them to do so. chairmen who are football fans and want to actually put money into football, do not support ffp. ffp is simply about owners being able to profit from their clubs like they do in america.

football is about chasing glory, not generating profits. and if theres a chairman who is willing to financially subsidise football fans' chase for glory, we should welcome it imo.



would promote mediocrity imo. if someone is willing to invest in a new stadium with more seats, we should reward them as much as we can. splitting gate receipts would incentivise teams not to develop new stadiums.

Fair point on disincentive for new stadiums - but a) I don't think stadium size has a huge impact on enjoyment of football matches (particularly on TV), b) I think that's a worthwhile tradeoff for more financial equality anyway, and c) it could still be benefical to build a new stadium, just less beneficial.

the current payout structure works fine imo. its the outside investment of the likes of abramovic that is really influencing title races and top 4 races.

No, that's just not true - look at the graph, which is based purely on revenue and doesn't include anything on owners investing additional money - the gulf is already gigantic.



what effect would this have? seems to me like you want a cheap shirt, and have included this into a "bill" about financial inequality in football ;)

:) I'm 31 and rarely buy a shirt anymore - it would just be a small change to reduce the difference in clubs merchandise revenues, as well as being a nice gesture to fans.

this is where is think you're wrong. 99% of epl fans are probably fans of one of the top 4 teams. thats basically why there is little desire to change the status quo imo.

Doubt it's 99% in England! Either way, there are still millions of fans outside of top 4 who don't seem to care or make their voices heard. Perhaps most of them are so far from the top 4 that it just doesn't feel relevant to them. As Spurs fans we are currently most affected. But even as a neutral it's boring always having the same teams competing at the top and hoovering up the rest of the league's best players.
 
remember Malaga was banned from european competition but of course they're a small club, UEFA wouldn't dream of extending that sort of penalty to any of the big boys, the only good thing I can say about UEFA is they aren't quite as corrupt as FIFA are
 
Even something like this would be an improvement, where the orange bars represent what revenues would be purely by giving a greater shares of TV money to the poorer teams:

upload_2015-9-8_14-22-22.png

Does anyone have good detailed info on who has what power when it comes to distributing PL TV money amongst the teams?
 
I know Swiss Ramble is for certain tastes; his blogs are often just graph porn. But he's done a bit on my club during the latest window, and essentially explains how we've been able to afford the enormous outlay of ~£150m on three players.

http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/09/manchester-city-i-threw-brick-through.html

Worth a read if you're arsed/can be bothered.


Even something like this would be an improvement, where the orange bars represent what revenues would be purely by giving a greater shares of TV money to the poorer teams:

View attachment 2446

Does anyone have good detailed info on who has what power when it comes to distributing PL TV money amongst the teams?

Interesting graph, do you know what the parameters of it are?
 
People who spend money which the club receives? In which case I think that you are wrong.

surely the club's themselves should decide who their fans are. just like how jesus decides who his disciples are ;)
 
surely the club's themselves should decide who their fans are. just like how jesus decides who his disciples are ;)

Clubs would certainly define it as customers.

In domestic terms we are lucky in that there is widespread support for smaller teams and there is no way that the top four account for even a majority of football fans.

Overseas it is more difficult to gauge but I suspect that if you define it as someone picking a team and sticking with them, then again support for English teams is far more diverse.
 
wasn't the primary aim of FFP to stop rich people coming in, bankrolling clubs at unsustainable levels then leaving them in the **** when they didn't get instant success

it was never about a level playing field

exactly, it was always about protecting the status quo.

makes sense for the big owners, also makes sense for the leagues/media/associations/sponsors who have all invested in certain "brands" (e.g. the infamous Sky 4)
 
exactly, it was always about protecting the status quo.

makes sense for the big owners, also makes sense for the leagues/media/associations/sponsors who have all invested in certain "brands" (e.g. the infamous Sky 4)

yep

it does also protect fans to some degree, theoretically, although I'm sure many would waive such protection for a sniff of "success"
 
I know Swiss Ramble is for certain tastes; his blogs are often just graph porn. But he's done a bit on my club during the latest window, and essentially explains how we've been able to afford the enormous outlay of ~£150m on three players.

http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/09/manchester-city-i-threw-brick-through.html

Worth a read if you're arsed/can be bothered.




Interesting graph, do you know what the parameters of it are?

I do, because I made it! XD

It represents distributing (almost) all TV money based on teams' non-TV revenues, rather than their league position or number of televised games:
- a flat £90m to all 14 teams outside of the richest 6
- gradually decreasing amounts to Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and City (in order)
- nothing to Man U

And having a pot of about £120m leftover, to be distributed to those teams who improve their league position the most in any given season (perhaps compared to their average over the last 3-5 seasons) - so that there is still a financial reward for smaller teams overachieving in a season.

Obviously this would be very much going against any sort principles of the free market, but as football is a sport first and foremost I don't see why any lover of the sport would find that unacceptable. And it would just be trying to negate the warping effect of the Champions League.

Don't know who exactly decides how TV money gets distributed though, and whether this would be legally or practically possible in practice.
 
there is no way that the top four account for even a majority of football fans.
questionable imo. my sample size is small and a bit biased because i live in london, but if you include us and liverpool in the top 4 (so top 6), the majority of football fans i know certainly support one of these top 4 teams.
Overseas it is more difficult to gauge but I suspect that if you define it as someone picking a team and sticking with them, then again support for English teams is far more diverse.
questionable again imo
 
questionable imo. my sample size is small and a bit biased because i live in london, but if you include us and liverpool in the top 4 (so top 6), the majority of football fans i know certainly support one of these top 4 teams.

That is difficult for me to gauge because I do not know your circle of friends. Age could have something to do with it too.

I work in London and live in the SE. I know a lot of people who support London clubs but I know as many West Ham fans as I do Chelsea.

Of the southern "fans" of north west teams that I know, only a handful show any real interest in the sport or actively follow their team.
 
Wayne Rooney will earn around £73m on current Manchester United deal | Daily Mail Online
All men are born equal but some are more equal than others.

While the average salary for a Premier League footballer is a mouth-watering £44,000-a-week – equating to £2.29million a year – the biggest clubs pay a lot more than that.

And even within those big clubs, the star players who sell the shirts are in a league of their own.
COd14UGW8AAFmAK.png:small
 
Back