$ Football.
Saturday, 24 May 08, 08:14 AM
I was about to go to sleep and then read in interesting blog article here on OleOle. And frankly it got me thinking a tiny bit and then made me write this post.
So money in football, good or bad? That's the main question. The aforementioned blogger things it's ruined football, and I think it's done quite the opposite.
When you think about football you have to think of it as an economy -the football economy - driven by the football business enterprise. Being the sport with by far the largest audience (2 billion people roughly), there is a lot of money involved and a lot of development. Everything is about money... war, religion, welfare programs, and even charity - because either you pay money to charity or volunteer your time (which means you can afford to take time off from working.. I mean.. do you see the mine workers in Africa volunteering at their local food bank?).
So understanding that everything is about money is essential. Then comes what ideas you have about how economies work and what the best approach would be. The way it's working right now is through sort of a trickle down - free market system. And I'll go into why I think that's working in a bit.
I never like the arguments that certain clubs have monopolized football. If there really was one true monopoly in the football industry, then we'd have only one champion every year of everything, and football would get really boring. The fact that teams fluctuate so much eliminates the possibility of even considering that any one team has an absolute monopoly. Then comes the argument that the top clubs have some kid of cartel formed, where they just dominate. But that doesn't explain how come every season there is the surprise team breaking through, and they haven't spent more money than a team they place above in the league.
Big clubs with big bank accounts help smaller clubs more than they hurt them by "dominating". It's no coincidence that there are by far more professional footballers now than there were 50 years ago. Money that has been pumped into big teams has been spent towards transfers, stadiums, youth systems, academies, tournaments. Teams are making their living and growing because big clubs pay them money for talent they grow. The money they get, they invest in better facilities, higher paychecks, more youth, etc. For some teams it pays off, for others it does not.
Manchester United spent the money they won from Champions League revenue and the money they got for winning the league on all their transfers. The money they spent was earned through performance, and they received so much money because WE watch their games and see the advertisements, WE go to their stadiums for the matches, and WE buy their merch. Once clubs mature and profit like United has, they invest only money they win. And that's all they need to invest to maintain or add some youth. They don't spend 100 million extra to buy one super expensive player that they don't really need.
Think how much Tottenham have stimulated the football market in the past few years. They've paid high prices for crap players and they've won nothing (well some cup) and they're just abosulte shit. But the prices they paid helped other teams, and in turn that money helped other teams and so on.
The money invested helps the global football business grow, expand, and frankly employ more people and raise standards. We have a faster game, more exciting, and with more attention than ever before. And we still don't have a monopoly!
I can tell you when I did see a monopoly in football - during communism in Romania, at the peak in 86. No one was allowed to invest in any clubs, they were run by government organizations. The organization with the biggest budget was the Military, and their team was Steaua. They won basically every season, league and cup. And one season they won the Champions League too, with no foreign players. But they completely monopolized football in Romania and there was no money invested to make any kind of difference, making our league pure crap after those years. And we're still recovering from that now. Finally through investment and good management, a small team broke through the ranks and won the league - CFR Cluj. They spent far less money than Steaua, they spent much less time match fixing and hiring referees, but then won the league. And that to me makes a big statement.
When you have any kind of control and you don't allow the market to do it's job and allow a freedom of flow of money through the system you can't expect progress. You might have some for a short time, but then it all starts to snowball. Money makes people want to do things... like continue playing football, because it pays as well or better than working on a farm, cleaning shit off of toilets, or for a group of footballers, it pays better than managing a big company or being a doctor.
My last example is Arsenal, who spend very little money compared to other big teams in the Premiership, and continue to do well. They don't win the league every season, but they might be able to dominate for the next few years if they can keep their players - WITH MONEY! And with Hleb, Flamini etc. leaving, it's just another bit of proof that it's hard to monopolize football even if you have a completely created team and not a bunch of 50 million dollar superstars. Barcelona are suffering from the "too many superstar" syndrome. And they're changing their ways, selling players, promoting youth, etc.
But in the end, football has benefited from influx of money over the years. The rise of Eastern European leagues for example is due to money being invested. You've seen Romanian and Bulgarian teams in the Champions League groups for the past few seasons (though they didn't do very well.. but still..) and they were there because of money. The industries in these countries are growing in terms of football, and it will just give more and more young kids the opportunity to play an amazing game and maybe make a living out of it and entertain us.
Football sales and industry in Brazil also represents the amount of GDP that it cost to switch from oil to ethanol as their fuel. Eliminate the money in football in Brazil, and you would not have an energy-independent nation. Think about that for an impact.
Plus, if there wasn't so much money in football, you wouldn't have places like OleOle... and that would be no fun. ;)
Like this blog? Help spread the word:
Premier League
Manchester United
Shakthar Donetsk, Zenit St petersburg, Lyon, Bayern, Celtic, Man utd, Real Madrid. In every single league. The cream rises to the top and stays there. Do not be fooled. Money is fucking the game and there's nothing anyone can do about it. All you can do, is either sit back and enjoy some great games, and last season we really did, or u could be a mark hughes and an arry redknapp.
Shakhtar did worse after they spent the last batch of millions than they did before. They;re performing so well because they have the most amazing manager ;). And Dinamo Kiev.. did they disappear or something?
Bayern had to invest more than they had to come back to top. Meaning.. they lost that position as the best.
Zenit is only recently the best, and that's because they're owned by the RUSSIAN FUCKIGN PRESIDENT!. I won't go into that anymore.. but until now CSKA and Lokomotiv were in control.
Celtic...them and Rangers have split the SPL 60%-50% in the past 10 years. Not quite the single monopoly by either.
Lyon is a unique team because they did invest a lot, but they built a young team at core and have been living off of money won in champions league and from sales of these youngsters.. not with massive investments of their own. Either way, they almost lost the league.
But Lyon are in a cycle, a very successful team in a decent league. Lyon did well because their team isn't all the typical french-african team in Ligue 1, they actually bought cheap brazilians and didn't sell them! Can you believe it? Think about how good PSG were and would be if they kept Ronaldinho? Lyon decided to change policies a bit, and they've been doing well. Monaco dominated, PSG dominated, and now it was Lyon's cycle.
And Real Madrid? Seriously? You're going to call them a monopoly? Do I really need to go into that one? La Liga has two big teams and many smaller teams that are good, but Real Madrid has monopolized nothing except a boring game.
And the simple fact that United hasn't won every single league proves that they're not a monopoly. They've dominated far less than Lyon have in France for example.
The investments in these big clubs are making other richies invest. Look at Manchester City and they players and managers they signed.
And the whole inflation thing is something I don't buy too much. "Darren Bent is apparently of higher value than Thierry Henry. Wayne Rooney earns more than Cesc Fabregas." This just proves my point. You need SMART management. Obviously the price of a player is not set by "inflation" because then Henry would cost way more than Bent. It's teams overvaluing players and willing to pay extreme amounts to get them before their contract is expired or about to expire. It's piss poor management.. not inflation. Why don't United spend that much money on players that bad? Why don't Arsenal do it?
And yes United can spend 18 mil on a youngster, like Anderson. But Arsenal can spend MUCH less for someone better (Fabregas). And trust me, there's plenty of youth.
And one last thing, a monopoly is.. a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller, so you can ask any price.
It's one company controlling a whole market and having literally no competition. Microsoft is not legally considered a monopoly because of Apple (who has much less market share than Chelsea and Arsenal do compared to United).
So no.. we don't have a monopoly in football. And a monopoly can't exist and won't exist in a free market with absolutely no regulations where the market dictates the price.
The MLS is shit because there are salary caps, and other crap limiting the flow of money. The MLS is very anti-american to be honest. And that's why they're not and won't ever be as good or prosperous as the Premiership. ;)
Teams like Wigan, Fulham etc get vast amounts of money. This causes them to over inflate the value of players who are basically shite. Celtic canny compete with the likes of bloody Wigan and Fulham when it comes to transfer fees and wages.
We just hope the promise of CL football and not a relegation fight wins through.
We played Shakhtar in the CL this season. They had a spent 42 million euros in the summer. We got hammered in the Ukraine but best them easily at CP. Did they look like a 42 million euro team? No. The reason they had to pay top dollar for guys to go and play in their league.
In Scotland (Celtic have won the title 6 times in 8 years and the two they have lost were on goal difference and by 1 point) the spend by Celtic each season is usually higher than the rest of the league put together. But….in world terms it’s a drop in the ocean (on average £10m a season).
15 Comments
The points difference between fourth and fifth in England is fucking wide. it was closest when arsenal and spurs were fighting it out, but arsenal was off the pace too then. the cartel you're speaking of is the G14. The monopoly you're talking about is in non communist france. Man Utd, were taken over by Malcolm Glazer. With Chelsea their total debt is 1.5 billion pounds. believe me, it is NOT the fans that got them there. Billionaires buy them BECAUSE of the fans and the excessive earnings they could get from the new play thing, but at the same time, they are in exorbitant debt. The reason spending is bad, is because it causes inflation in this economy u speak of. Darren Bent is apparently of higher value than Thierry Henry. Wayne Rooney earns more than Cesc Fabregas. The point is, Fergie can spend 18 million on a squad player for the future.
meanwhile wigan, reading, etc. can't do too much with the millions they get for the bullards and sidwells because they are a small club with small management and they generally, in the case of Derby, etc. need the money for previous debts. Inflation is NEVER good. Essentially the rich get richer and the poor poorer. Capitalism's favorite excuse is the trickle down effect. the point is by the time the drops start trickling, there's a full tank for the rest of the economy to deal with. Arsenal has something no other club really has. That's a long term goal. A future they are building NOW. Man utd are doing it and as a balance I have to say they've been the best at it. But do not be fooled. One or two surprises does not mean there's no monopoly. Next year's champions league will still have almost the same teams. The UEFA cup will be further forgotten, and Lyon will win AGAIN!