Dear football, we love each other so don’t make me divorce you

Dear football, we love each other so don’t make me divorce you

Football, in recent years, has hardly been the sanest of sports but even by recent standards Manchester City’s £100m bid for Kaka has seen the sport reach new levels of absurdity, even if the player himself eventually rejected the offer.

But this isn’t just about paying a man half a million a week to kick a ball around, ridiculous as that notion is. No matter how much tutting and appeals to go back to the good old days (whenever they were) of the sport, the bid for Kaka is part of a wider feeling that football has got to the point where even ardent fans start questioning what the game has become.

Last week, while discussing the bid, a friend of mine commented that he was “Mystified as to how exceeding an entirely arbitrary transfer fee figure now means football sold it soul, as opposed to this time last week.”

He’s right of course. God knows exactly if football ever had a soul, but if it did, it’s been slowly eroding over the years. It’s difficult to pinpoint why, but here’s a few reasons as to why football’s making itself very hard to give your undying love to these days.

Game 39

In picking a place to start, Game 39 is as good a topic as any – the point where those in charge of the Premier League essentially issued a statement to fans that, in a concise version, said “Screw you”.

The longer version was more akin to “Screw you. We’ve milked you as dry as possible, and now we’re going on the pastures new where there are less cynical fans willing to spend even more money than you chumps. Oh, and while you’re at it, we’re going to create an unworkable format to shoehorn this cash cow into. You’re not important any more, but we’d still like to take as much of your money as possible. Just in case there was any we missed.”

When the plans were Game 39 were released a little over a year ago there was a collective inhaling of breath. Perhaps inspired by the success of the NFL’s visit to Wembley, the Premier League announced their overseas expansion plans with no little fanfare. Or, it seems, consultation with any relevant parties involved.

That may have been their mistake – no preliminary discussions or softening up of fans through a series of dripped stories so the plans didn’t seem as shocking or come as quite a surprise. As it was, the announcements angered just about everybody, from FA heads around the globe, governing bodies, and, over here, fans. Such was the scale of opposition, it appeared the plans would die as rapidly as they were announced.

At this stage, it’s worth noting that the Premier League has done a lot to target other markets and there are plenty of successes here. It’s also logical that the league should target Asian markets as a ground for expansion; there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, just good businesses sense.

But the idea of disrupting a season to fly footballers half the way around the globe for games that many ordinary fans could not and would not go to seemed beyond the pale. Rivalries were put aside as fans from across the country joined together to oppose the game, seeing it for what it was: a naked money-making opportunity that had nothing to do with the fans who’d stuck with their clubs through thick and thin.

It’s all gone quiet on Game 39, but don’t think the Premier League have forgotten about it. Even after the outcry, the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Scudamore, was still talking up the proposal. Then there’s been the charm offensive to other national FAs to win them over.

Take Mohammed bin Hammam, president of the Asian Football Confederation and a vocal critic of Game 39. When it was first announced, he accused the Premier League of “putting money before responsibility and dignity.”

In October, after a few chats with Scudamore, he’d changed his tune, saying: “If they want to play matches in Asia they are welcome, and we should know what the benefits will be to all our stakeholders.

“I see they are responsible people and I do not see it as all being about money and greed. When we talked, I saw that Richard Scudamore does really care about football and fans and the national associations, and that touched us a lot.”

That the idea of Game 39 was even seriously considered is one thing. That, even after widespread opposition from footballing bodies and fans, it still continues to bubble along is a sign that fans has ceased to matter. If the Premier League could uproot the Big Four to the Far East for the sake of a few dollars more, it would probably do so without a second thought.

To our loyal customers… sorry fans

While we’re on the topic of money and fans, now seems to be an appropriate time to bring in the whole matchday experience and the cost of supporting a club. When Roy Keane launched into his prawn sandwich rant, it struck an easily identifiable chord. Today, it seems those prawns have grown even bigger.

Since the start of the Premier League, watching a football game has changed. No surprise in some respects – every sport evolves, and this is only to be expected, encouraged even. But not when this change involves paying an extortionate amount of money to watch a lifeless game in a soulless identikit stadium.

Back in 1990, The Taylor Report concluded that “it should be possible for seating to be £6″. Allowing for inflation, today you should be paying around £10. Today, £30 is a reasonably cheap ticket for a Premier League game, as ticket prices have risen by about 500% in 18 years. At £94, Arsenal have the dubious distinction of offering the most expensive seats in the Premier League.

But, if anything, prices are just as bad if not worse in the lower league. Take Gillingham from League Two, for example, where your average non-concessions supporter can expect to pay between £19 and £25, which is roughly the same as it’ll cost you to watch Hull City in the Premier League.

Dropping down into Conference territory, a seat at Stevenage will set you back £15, terraces £12, while Oxford charge between £11 and £19.50 and, one league below that, St. Albans City charge £10 to sit and £12 to stand. As a comparison, Bayern Munich charge £13.50 to stand for Category A games.

I’ve nothing against the clubs listed above, they’ve been picked at random. But it’s still an example of how costs of football have risen dramatically in recent years (and this is before we take into account travel, food, programmes and other matchday expenses).

And none of them are as bad as QPR, who brazenly raised their prices to £50 for a Category A Championship game earlier this season, and £40 for travelling supporters, while season tickets at Loftus Road for 2008/09 rose by nearly 50%.

Stadium Arcadium

But it’s not just pricing the ordinary or casual fan out of football, or causing the fanatic to remortgage their house to pay to support their club. As part of the drive to modernise football, much of the atmosphere has been lost.

No one would deny that in 1990 football needed the change. It had an image problem thanks to hooliganism throughout the 80s, and was reeling from disasters such as Hillsborough, Heysel and Bradford. Change was absolutely vital for the future of the sport.

And change it has, plenty of it for the better. The game has become more professional, to the benefit of players, clubs and spectators. Violence, while not eradicated, is much rarer, while the casual racism of the terraces has been left in the 80s. Football is much more welcoming to families. In short, it’s picked itself up no end since the Taylor Report.

But something has been lost along the way. Gone are the atmospheric stadiums that created one heck of a noise on matchday. Gone are the likes of St. Mary’s, Roker Park, Maine Road and even Highbury. Hello out of town stadium with little or no atmosphere.

I’ve been told to sit down at more stadiums than I’d care to remember – from Fulham to Rushden and Diamonds. I’ve also been told to be quiet in more stadiums than I’d care to remember. Singing, it appears, it also on its way out. As is atmosphere. Some clubs have no resorted to handed out ruffled pieces of cardboard of match days – which make a strange whistle-clack sound – in an effort to generate more noise. Noise that they’ve often done their best to kill in the first place.

Two of the worst offenders for this are the Emirates and the new Wembley. Both are impressive grounds that leave you awestruck the first time you visit them. Both are on par with a morgue, atmosphere-wise.

At Arsenal, the whole matchday experience is weirdly surreal; like gliding through a commercial for the perfect stadium. Even the cheap seats are so comfy you half expect to find a button on the arm-rest to summon a waiter. The Emirates is, without a doubt, the quietest place I have ever watched a game of football. It’s still a huge improvement on Wembley, though, which just feels like a particularly uninspiring airport terminal, complete with the hideously overpriced food.

Money, money, money

In 2007, the Premier League negotiated a £600m deal for overseas TV rights. This was on top of the £1.7 billion Sky and Setanta were paying for the domestic rights, and was on top of the £400m for internet and mobile rights.

Eighteen months later Halifax Town were issued with a winding-up order over an unpaid £8,000 debt. They were eventually liquidated with debts of £2.1m. In the current market, that would buy you around 1/8th of Kenwyne Jones.

The demise of the Shaymen may be unrelated to the mind-boggling sums of money thrown at The Greatest League In The World. But it does illustrate the gulf in cash between the top and the bottom of football.

Trevor Francis’ £1m transfer now seems like a drop in the ocean compared to where we’re at at the moment: a world where £16m isn’t enough for the aforementioned Kenwyne Jones, a decent, yet average, Premier League striker, but enough to buy you one Darren Bent.

And yet football, never one for restraint or, when it comes to business practices, sanity, presses on regardless. Liverpool waved their arms frantically to attract the attention of any passing suitor and eventually hoped into bed with a couple of bickering, broke Americans.

Still, they’re probably thankful their flirtation with serial human rights abuser Thaksin Shinawatra never came to anything as he pitched up at Manchester City. Had the current owners not stepped in, City’s future would have been a lot less secure. As it is, they’re now flashing around sums of cash that are utterly crazy as they attempt to lure the world’s superstars to a club that’ battling against relegation. In the process, they’ve become a difficult team to love (I won’t even get onto the words of Gary Cook here).

West Ham, meanwhile, are struggling with an owner who has seen the majority of his personal fortune wiped out by the credit crunch and are probably more at risk from administration than any other Premier League club. Even Chelsea are reluctant to employ their usual tactic of throwing vast sums of money at any player they fancy.

And so it continues throughout the Premier League. Hideously large amounts of money, the likes of which the average fan can barely comprehend, while footballers earn wages that the average fan certainly can’t relate to.

Then you’ve got the Championship, which is fast becoming an equally insane league. There’s the aforementioned QPR, owned by a couple of millionaires and a billionaire. Then there’s teams like Burnley, who’ve put out a cry for their own billionaire to come forward and invest in the club. Or Cardiff, who despite having a mountain of debt, are still pushing for the Premier League.

And at the bottom there’s the wreckage of ex-Premiership clubs who’ve seen their parachute payments run out, their financial woes increase and their side get steadily worse. Any one or more of Charlton, Southampton, Derby and Watford would be in League One next season.

Then below them there’s the wreckage of Leeds, slowly coming back to life, and former top-flight club Luton, who, barring a miracle, will be in the Conference next season. And below them are other clubs who’ve seen a mixture of bad management or wild overspending or both.

York City have just announced a loss or £413,000. Salisbury keep asking fans to put their hands in their pockets. Northwich have just been locked out of their ground. Weymouth have just hung on by the skin of their teeth. And Leigh Genesis proved, to nobody’s surprise, that no amount of marketing speak and vision compensates for ridiculous expenditure and a few hundred fans.

Football should not be about worrying if you have a club to support next week. It shouldn’t even be about fretting if you can afford to go to the game next week. But that’s what it’s become

But wait, there’s more

In the interests of length (he says full knowing how much has already been written), I’ll only give a passing mention to the following, which add to the feeling of disenchantment with the game.

There’s the FA Cup – still the greatest competition in the world, but not so great that Manchester United couldn’t take a sabbatical one year to have a kickabout in a pointless brainchild of Sepp Blatter.

It’s also a competition that, in recently years, had been criticised for becoming boringly predictable as a succession of the Big Four cued up for their go with the trophy. Yet the moment you actually got some genuine shocks, it was criticised precisely because none of the Big Four were in it and therefore irrelevant. The Portsmouth v Cardiff final may not have been a classic, but it was better than some of the tepid snoozefests of previous years.

In the other corner, you have the Champions League, complete with a bloated system that is hideously skewed in favour of the bigger clubs and doesn’t get going until midway through the season. In the meantime, these extra, pointless group stage games prove to be a nice earner for all those involved.

Then there’s the Big Four’s monopoly on the Champions League qualification spots that lead to an often depressingly predictable Premiership. Meanwhile, other Premiership fans look at these four and demand big money signings and instant success and get very angry when this isn’t forthcoming. Newcastle United are a prime example.

Then, elsewhere down the leagues, fans look at the Premier League and conclude billionaires, throwing vast amounts of money at the team, and sacking managers are they way forward. And so we move into a depressing downward spiral.

Lastly, I’ve not even touched on the story that led up to the formation of the MK Dons. Partly because, hopefully, they should have already popped into your head by now. But also because I’ll get even more depressed. Suffice to say, if you could pick one story that encapsulates everything that is wrong with English football, the MK Dons would be that story.

And breathe

Then again, football has always been slightly bonkers. Cash, bad owners and taking fans for granted have always been in the game at some point. Did a golden age of football ever exist? It depends on your reference point, but there’s still plenty of football history that’s often given a rough ride or ignored in the modern game (I’m looking at you, Tim Lovejoy). And that’s a shame.

But, despite all it’s faults, football is still easy to love. For all my complaints about the Premier League, this season has been absolutely fascinating to watch. The big clubs have been unpredictable, Aston Villa and Martin O’Neill have provided much-needed competition, Hull have been a breath of fresh air, and this season is as close as the Premier League has ever been.

Lower down, there’s hope in the shape of supporter-owned clubs like Stockport, Brentford, AFC Wimbledon and Exeter, who’ve all started to find their feet in recent years and earn promotion or, in the case of Brentford, push for it this season.

Then there’s the moments that humble you, like seeing fans of two rival clubs – Exeter and Torquay – come together to raise money for Chris Todd, the Gulls defender diagnosed with leukaemia.

Then there’s the match day itself. The excitement as you wake up. The expectation as you head to the ground. The shiver that goes down your spine every time the turnstiles come into view. The 90 minutes to fight for glory or failure. The emotional bond you form with your team and which never leaves you, no matter how far away you are from the hallowed turf of your chosen club.

This is football’s soul, it’s heartbeat. And nobody, from a £100m pound player, to a owner with more money than sense, to the men in suits plotting their latest money-making scheme, can ever take this away from us.

Topics: English Championship, English Premier League, FA Cup, Help Football, League One, League Two, UEFA Champions League

Email This Post Email This Post

More

25 Comments

  1. John

    Nice sentiments – I love the idea of eleven men trying to pass a ball around and score goals against another team of eleven men. The trouble is that there’s just too much else going on around the side of the sport to make it easy to like a lot of the people involved in the game.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 13:36
  2. dave stopher

    The problems have only happened since the billionaires have got involved!!!

    January 21st, 2009 @ 15:12
  3. Yomi Akinyemi

    The problems have only happened since the billionaires have got involved!!!? what are u saying!!! If you’ve have been following football for the past 10 years, you would have realized that the game became a business a decade ago thus players have become commodities being traded to the highest bidder. I’ve accepted the fate of modern football a long time ago but like all economies or financial institutions, it will reach its breaking point and need i say it require a bailout but till that day comes, let’s enjoy God’s greatest gift and breathe the beautiful game.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 15:53
  4. Bobmagee

    I agree on most of your points but I don’t see how you can blame the op 4 clubs in the premiership for being – you guessed it, the top 4 clubs in the premiership. If things are so bad with them then how did they represent the Premier League as the best league in the world last year in the CL? You cannot blame clubs for being successful, most of the clubs up there have fought and worked hard on their way to the top (apart from chelsea) and made their own success by winning games, attracting more fans for money to be able to compete in Europe. Can you really say that a club like Newcastle would be a better representation of the league’s strength than he like of Manchester United?

    January 21st, 2009 @ 16:41
  5. John in the USA

    I think you’re being over-dramatic about the ticket prices. It would not make business sense if they did not raise the prices. Supply and demand my friend. When you have something everyone wants but only have a limited number, that’s a business opportunity. What you’re suggesting is leave the prices low and let the internet trollers snap them all up and sell them outside the stadium. Pick your poison. There are more fans than seats, so you have to find a price that will allow the maximum amount of fans for the maximum price. You Europeans are not the greatest capitalists…

    With out all that revenue one of those stars on your side might venture somewhere else for a paycheck.

    You also can’t blame players for needing all that money. The football clubs make a killing off of their typically short careers. I mean what is the 100 million Kaka asked for in comparison to Milan’s owners? It’s not much. And his career will last more than ten years if he’s lucky, then he needs to support himself for the rest of his life.

    I think you’re anger is misguided. You seem a bit jealous that your league is looking for new fans. Like “aren’t we good enough?” Yes! The English fans are the best in the world. And so is the EPL. Top notch. The rest of the world thinks so and wants to share it with you. So stop hating and just join in the new global conversation on football, because it’s never going back to “the good ol’ days.” If they even existed as you claim.

    Cheers!

    January 21st, 2009 @ 17:40
  6. Gervillian Swike

    John makes the point that there are more fans than seats. Not at Middlesbrough, Wigan, Blackburn, Bolton and plenty more Premiership clubs there ain’t. And because these clubs depend on this money to pay the incredible wages required by ordinary players to survive, they play in half-empty stadiums and hope for the best. As did Leeds, Southampton, Ipswich, Leicester, and many more clubs who paid the penalty. Football can’t be ruled by pure capitalism (hardly a great time to be telling us that that’s a rip-roaring success either) because its customer-base is different. You can’t “pick” a club that plays 50 miles away if the one you support treats you like a customer when times are good and a bucket-rattling, fund-raising, ground-digging fan when they’re bad.

    One thing though – the Portsmouth v Cardiff final was shocking. As dull as Chelsea v Man United the year before, but without any of the quality either.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 18:14
  7. Gary Andrews

    Some really interesting comments here and food for thought. It’s definitely not the billionaires fault, that’s for sure. They’ve brought with them their own issues – some good, some bad – but there was enough crackpot stuff around waaaay before then (see also: Maxwell, Robert: cc Oxford United, for one).

    Bob (#4): Yes, that’s very true (although the Champions League kinda comes with its own problems and needs a rejig as the format is getting a bit stale, but that’s another post for another time).

    I think my problem, as it were, with the big four, is not so much the fact they’ve achieved their success but the success itself has perhaps stagnated the league and isn’t good for it in the long-term.

    Having the same four teams winning (or not in terms of Arsenal and Liverpool recently) or taking the top four spots season after season isn’t necessarily good for the game. It also makes things a bit self-perpetuating, as the more they win the more money they have, the harder it is for other teams to even get anywhere near them (just look at this season’s table).

    This isn’t a particularly good analogy, but F1 where Schumacher won title after title started to get dull by the end of it. Although things often go in cycles, it’s unclear as to how long this will go on for. I don’t think it’s overly healthy for teams promoted to the Premiership to automatically have to struggle to such an extent that they often go straight back down. Look further down the pyramid and the promoted teams often shake things up a bit.

    That said, this season’s PL has been much more enjoyable than others thanks to Villa, Hull and even Stoke.

    It’s also worth saying that the top four aren’t necessarily to blame, but are perhaps symptomatic of a wider malaise. What, if any, solution there is, I have no idea.

    Plus (and this is as much of a fault of the media as much as anything), it really irks me that there’s a general assumption that the big four are all that matter. But that’s been the case for a while and has been moaned about better elsewhere.

    John in USA (#5): Ooh, ok, lots there, so I’ll start with ticket prices.

    Yep, I know how supply and demand works, and that would be fine if clubs were filling their stadia week in week out. As Gervillian points out in (#6), there’s plenty of Premiership clubs who can’t fill their stadiums. And that goes throughout the pyramid right down to Ryman Premier (where it costs me £10 to watch Tooting & Mitcham United. Go figure). Also, if it was purely about supply and demand, I’d expect Villa (one of the cheaper clubs) to bump up their prices.

    I don’t necessarily have a problem with the Big 4 – or those clubs that DO fill their stadiums – having their prices high if they can fill it (although £94 for Arsenal… sorry, I can think of much better ways to spend my cash, thanks). Although suggesting that lowering prices would encourage more touting is a bit simplistic – a lot of clubs have priority tickets in place and there’s an easier way to get out touting (as the Glastonbury Festival proved).

    But I would question the wisdom of, in the current economic climate, keeping the prices so high. You’ll always get those who’ll sell their arm and leg to follow their team, but it might well price the next generation of supporters from getting into football, or discourage the casual fan. It’s no coincidence that when Blackburn lowered their prices, their crowds went up.

    And, in all seriousness, how can a second-tier club like QPR justify hiking their tickets up to £50 for the ‘privilege’ of watching the likes of Derby County? And £22 at Gillingham? Which most definitely does NOT have lines of fans queueing up to snap up every available ticket? These clubs are the ones that can profit the most from the expense of the Premier League…

    Also, as my team (Exeter) is in League 2, I really wouldn’t begrudge them moving onto better things. In fact, we’ve developed a reuptation for developing young players and then giving them the opportunities to move onto bigger sides. Both George Friend and Jamie Mackie have moved for six-figure sums, which is a LOT of cash for lower league teams.

    Blaming players for asking for money? I guess not, although a bit of loyalty would be nice as well. I completely accept that a lot of these players only have a short career and need to earn wisely. Although I seriously doubt Kaka really needed half a million quid a week. I’m pretty sure he’ll be able to support himself on his current salary for many years to come. Or that Rio or Frank *really* need their current salaries. And, gosh, we can all relate to Ashley Cole when Arsenal failed to match his wage demands. My heart bleeds for him, it really does.

    (If they were smart, they’d invest it, like Robbie Fowler has done. He could have happily retired years ago thanks to his property dealings).

    Actually, I’d quite like to see more British players try their hand abroad, which we may well see thanks to the poor position (currently) of Sterling. I think it would do the game a bit of good.

    I’m really not jealous at all that the Premier League looks to get new fans. That is fine. It’s another revenue stream for the clubs and if they can maximise that, good on them (although it wouldn’t hurt to reinvest a lot more than they do at grassroots).

    What I do object to is an utterly hair-brained scheme like Game 39 which rode roughshod over generations of supporters and, essentially, told them where they could stick that support. Not to mention being so logistically incomprehensible that just trying to see how the structure would work makes my head hurt.

    What I think I’m trying to say is you can (and should) embrace globalisation quite easily without royally cocking around with the whole format of the league or abandoning old fans to chase new ones with more cash. Game 39 really isn’t the answer to a problem that doesn’t really exist in the first place.

    I’d agree that the good old days probably didn’t exist. That description is only relevant depending on what point in time you peg it against and is largely made up of nostalgia anyway.

    Just finally, I’d like to repeat a bit of Gervillian’s comment: “You can’t “pick” a club that plays 50 miles away if the one you support treats you like a customer when times are good and a bucket-rattling, fund-raising, ground-digging fan when they’re bad.”

    Quite.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 19:15
  8. Mr. Arbuckle

    John, John, you really are an American, aren’t you? Now, British are not great capitalists, right? And why would capitalism be a good thing, because your country says so? As you know, we’ve just witnessed yet another collapse of your beloved system, just like in 1929 and like dozens of times before and after that and when the market recovers it’s going to crumble once again. It may be not happen in the next 70 years, but it WILL happen again, and it will be so because capitalism is inherently unstable. People invest money trying to make a profit, the majority of time they do, but sooner or later the prices of stocks will fall and in one day they will lose all they made in 10 years. I’m sorry for sounding so hostile, but you Americans clearly don’t understand how European football works and you don’t understand the proverbial “what’s it all about”. Kaka didn’t ask for 100 milion, it was what man City offered to Milan and all that money would go to them. His wage at Man Shitty is a separate issue, and that would be some 25 milion a year. And meanwhile Halifax are being liquidated because they owe 2 milion?! I’m sorry, but that just isn’t fair, capitalism or no capitalism. And it is things like these that make us European football fans fuming mad. And what about poor Halifax fans? Their heart has been ripped apart for a sum City sheiks spend for lunch. And believe me, Halifax fans are not going to start supporting a big club now, because football doesn’t work that way. It is all about your local team and it is all about the fans. Us fans are the living soul of football and we all want to see our local team playing in the Champions league and theoretically it is possible. We don’t want to watch obscenely rich clubs filled with foreign mercenaries winning even more undeserved millions. A triple A club cannot be promoted to the Major league, but a 4th division team has the possibiluty to get promoted to the first division and then qualify for the CL. This sort of social mobility is the part of football magic. We dream, kinda like Barack…

    January 21st, 2009 @ 19:54
  9. Will D

    I really can’t sympathize with your griping over a 39th game overseas, and I can’t fathom why you presume it to be a major point of contention. Your league has not forsaken you in this regard – it’s an EXTRA GAME. Perhaps you don’t understand this. There would still be 38 games played domestically in league, as there always have been. NO DOMESTIC PLAY would be denied your loyal domestic fans.

    In contrast, American Football extradites several games of the preseason, which many Americans have reservations about in the first place, overseas, as well as experimentation of regular season games in Europe and Asia. Do you hear Americans complaining about games from their standard 20-game (including preseason) being omitted from a domestic play schedule? Of course. But is it a primary point of contention, and exemplary of American greed and betrayal of domestic fans? Absolutely not.

    We have a whole lot more to complain about than you in terms of fan betrayal, and yet we have learned to appreciate our national sport for what it is – a business, within which players are payed exorbitant salaries to entertain. We do not convinced ourselves, as you clearly have, that sport exists for the benefit of fans exclusively. Your argument that these clubs ought to exist simply for the enjoyment of fans is juvenile and nonsensical.

    Perhaps, to assuage your fears of over-capitalization, your leagues ought to implement a salary cap. Would that make you happier? Denying the top players in the world competitive wages, thus forcing top competitors overseas? Not to mention the fact that your FOUR top teams far outweigh the narrow competition of virtually all other world sport leagues.

    Major League baseball has been dominated for decades by the Yankees and Red Sox – TWO teams. Half your core competition group, despite our MLB possessing a penal luxury tax for expenditures past a total salary cap, and 30 total league teams, as opposed to your 20 Premier League teams. And yet, American sport-business ingenuity provides small-market teams like the Florida Marlins (the team that I support) to win two World Series in less than a decade, with a total payroll less than a tenth of the top clubs.

    What’s more – our other two primary professional leagues, basketball and the NFL, possess flat-rate salary caps. No luxury tax, no possibility of overspending other clubs. Yet, dynasties are still simple to form. The New England Patriots won three super bowls in four years, despite being unable to outspend other clubs. You cannot simply put the responsibility on players for seeking the highest bidder for their services, especially since the highest bidders in Europe also happen to be the most successful clubs. It is not so much about greed as it is about an added bonus of competition while simultaneously acquiring the highest fee for a player’s services.

    The responsibility ought to be placed squarely on the fans. Shame on you, for supporting clubs that extort their fans, and if the prices you are forced to pay are truly so exorbitant, how is it that these clubs continue to have as much money as they have available for ridiculous transfer fees and player wage demands? Are you truly so obsessed with you national pastime that you cannot settle for watching a game on TV? Is stadium atmosphere truly worth 100 pounds per game to experience? I think not.

    Rather, you ought to show your support by denying your clubs a steady decline into immoral business practices and excessive debt. You ought to enjoy your football in the friendly and forgiving confines of a bar, or the comfort of your own home. Without fans willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to watch games in person, your clubs could scarcely justify absorbing exorbitant debt to bring more and more high-profile, high-cost talent to your stadiums. You ought to take responsibility for the integrity of your game by withholding your monetary support from clubs whose conduct you do not approve of, rather than continuing to play in to their hands by coughing up your hard-earned money , and feeling sorry for yourself. It is not the clubs’ fault that you continue to be subject to their abuse. Do something about it personally, or stop bitching.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 21:15
  10. John in the USA

    I hope no one thinks I was suggesting that you support another club… far from it! That would be ridiculous. And you must excuse my American ignorance; that some clubs don’t fill their stadiums is outrageous and absolutely should lower their prices. That they don’t is a result of poor planning, they likely need the revenue.

    I’ll leave it at this (because I’ve already spent more time at this site than my job allows) about player salaries. Every player is entitled to as much as he can grab whenever he can grab it. If this is not the case than you better see a cap on profits also. To have these guys completely trash their bodies and give up their normal lives for football in order for an owner to have glory and profits is wrong without the oodles of cash. There is a cost-benefit analysis you could probably apply to most players and clubs; if a player can help you get to the next level and earn higher revenue, you can pay him more (relative to other players salaries and expected contribution) justifiably. But, if the player stinks or forces other players out, it’s ownership’s problem, that guy’s career will be over in a decade but the team’s finances will last a lot longer. If someone was making a billion dollars off of your work and you were only getting paid 50 million, wouldn’t you be pissed? Or are you a good little boy and just shut up and take what Daddy gives you? No way. It is a player’s decision when he decideds to take a pay cut for loyalty or glory. But how can you possibly ask a player to be loyal to a club that would certainly sack him should he slump in form? That is ludacris. No, a player is devoted to himself and his business first, and whatever he decides comes next. Some will take a shot in the arm in order to make a run at a title (like Kobe Bryant and Shaq did when the Lakers won three rings). But if a player has fiscal concerns (you don’t know, Kaka may be trying to start a business or charity, which costs millions. Point is, doesn’t really matter it’s his money). than who are you to say that he should be loyal? Kaka is Brazilian, what loyalty does he owe to an Italian side? None except for what’s contractually binding, and that’s his training and professionalism. That’s it.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 21:58
  11. John (last time) from the USA

    Forgot to mention, without the players there is not game. Pay these people their money and tell the owner’s to figure it out.

    January 21st, 2009 @ 22:00
  12. Madschester United

    Wow! I read it all and (besides the spelling errors), I say excellent job!

    I cannot agree with you more. Hopefully Villa will get a CL spot and Arsenal will not win the CL. It would be nice to see the wealth spread more evenly in the league and amongst the lower leagues as well.

    Living in USA, I for sure would be insulted if EPL clubs came to this shore and expected me to watch their pity games.

    Until next match, Cheers!

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 01:39
  13. steve

    ‘casual racism of the terraces has been left in the 80s.’

    Has it? I think thats a pretty naive point of view to be honest.

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:04
  14. Gary Andrews

    Wow, ok, there’s a lot here and, typically, I did this piece in a week where I’m ridiculously busy and haven’t had as much chance to reply as I’d like to. Apologies for the spelling errors – it was finished quite late and it completely slipped my mind to run it through a spell check, dozy sod that I am.

    Will, what you’ve written about baseball is fascinating, and it’s one of the few sports I really know next to nothing about, so I’ve made a mental note to read up a bit more around that topic.

    What I will say, briefly, is there is probably a fair bit that English football could learn from the business and organisational side of American sports. Not all of it will be applicable – the NFL, Baseball, Basketball, etc are very different beasts with their own history and way of doing things and football shouldn’t be looking to ape them. But there’s a few very interesting elements that may be worth looking at in detail.

    Salary cap? It’s certainly a much-discussed idea, and ther’s already a cap in the lower leagues (which Crawley Town have fallen foul of in the past and incurred a points deduction). Would it help or work? Maybe. Would the big clubs go for it? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

    It’s also worth noting, that this isn’t just about the EPL (sorry, always find that a very weird term to write) – it’s about so much more than just the 20 teams that currently inhabit that division – it’s about something that affects every team in the English pyramid system (and that’s probably where it differs wildly from the NFL with the promotion and relegation) all the way from the NFL to the Vodkat North West League.

    It’s what makes football such a wonderful sport in England that a team like Wimbledon can rise from the non-league to have a prolonged stay in the top flight and win the FA Cup (and why the MK Dons move was so so wrong on so many levels). It’s why you’ve got a team like Hull, who I saw Exeter take apart less than ten years ago, hold their own against the likes of Arsenal in the Premier League. It’s why you’ve got teams like Leicester and Leeds in the third tier and Oxford United to be the only team to have won a major domestic trophy to now be a non-league side.

    Witholding cash and support from the bigger clubs is fine (and if I were a QPR fan, I’d have definitely started boycotting the games after that price hike). But where smaller clubs often live a hand to mouth existence, it’s just not an option for fans. At £16 a pop to sit at Exeter, it feels a bit pricey. But then I have a good idea of the finances there and know that the price reflects a realistic break even figure for the club (and we certainly don’t make anywhere near the sums that premier league clubs do).

    “Are you truly so obsessed with you national pastime that you cannot settle for watching a game on TV? Is stadium atmosphere truly worth 100 pounds per game to experience?”

    The answer to that is yes ;) I’d never watch my team on TV if I had the chance to be at a game. It just doesn’t compare. The atmosphere sends shivers down my spine every time!

    John, there’s a lot of what you’ve said there that I don’t disagree with – the onus really is on the clubs a lot of the time be sensible!

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:22
  15. Gary Andrews

    Steve, ok, it’s not been eradicated completely sadly, but, my God, it’s definitely a lot better than it used to be. A lot of clubs now eject and ban those who use racist chanting. Perhaps it should have been “while there will always be fan elements who use casual racism, clubs are now clamping down on this and the worst elements have been left on the terraces in the 80s”.

    Anyway, that’s just a small point in the whole point of the article.

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:47
  16. PaulieA

    I’m coming to this late but such a good inital piece and interesting comments. I’m pretty much with you all the way Gary, although would definitely add that people have probably been saying similar for years – when Jimmy Greaves went for just under £100,000 back in the day to when Blackburn went on their spending spree in ther early 90′s. Mind you, that all seems rather quaint and low-key in today’s market.

    Game 39 was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me – utterly pointless, poorly thought-out and motivated entirely by money. And we certainly haven’t seen the last of it.

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:48
  17. Bobmagee

    The one thing that you are forgetting my American friends is that boycotting games for big clubs will do next to nothing to their pockets, as there’s always another fan lined up, waiting to snap up a ticket and besides most top 4 clubs revenue probably comes from merchandise and football shirts etc so there’s no point in not going.

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 20:22
  18. John in the USA

    Mr. Arbuckle, I’m flattered that you paid so close attention to my posting as to reply. I agree with you that capitalism is not a very good model to build a country on. But for a business it is the only way. You’re fooling yourself if you think that English football is played ‘for the love of the game.’ Why would an owner offer to pay grown men corporate salaries to play a kids’ games? Because they can get even more rich (and famous) along the way. Sure, they may love football, but these people are not stupid, save for a handful of owners most of them are in it to get paid. It’s a business. That it happens to be associated with your neighborhood is a coincidence. Maybe the ‘for the love of football’ argument stands while you play for your pub team, but the EPL and it’s subsequent leagues are there as a revenue source for their owners, they just happen to please you along the way.

    And as for your poor Halifax fans, darn, they’re all out of… what? A football side to cheer for? Poor them. What about the people that Halifax employed? You’re really blinded by your love for football, but I admire that. Just one day you’ll wake up and see that a) no matter how much you love it, it’s still only a child’s game and b) it is a business first and a football side second.

    By the way, I should mention that I’m not pro-capitalist, but I do very much understand it’s importance in the business world (where your beloved football is considered a business venture not a way of life).

    January 22nd, 2009 @ 22:00
  19. Bobmagee

    for the record my real names not bob magee, thats just something I thought would be funny

    January 23rd, 2009 @ 01:25
  20. Bobmagee

    John if footballs a kids game then whats American football? having to play in armor, is that not what a mother would do for their 7 year old? If you are not interested in the sport then why are you even on this site?

    January 23rd, 2009 @ 20:24
  21. John in the USA

    Bobmagee, what on earth are you talking about? ALL SPORTS ARE KIDS’ GAMES. American football, soccer, baseball. Pick one, kids play it. More kids play it that grown ups, that’s for sure. And what are they called again… oh, GAMES. That implies it is not vital to survival to PLAY a GAME.

    What are you so uptight for?

    And FYI, I love football and futbol. I’ve played and followed both my whole life. Take your European blinders off and you’ll there is room in life for more than one sport. And I ain’t talkin’ ’bout just cricket either.

    The term “kids’ game” is not a diss on football, it’s a comment about the reality that these grown men get paid to kick a ball. Nothing essentially gets accomplished that could feed you, provide you with shelter, or make you more comfortable. It’s just for perspective. Deep breath mate.

    January 23rd, 2009 @ 22:01
  22. Bobmagee

    Fine, It was just that you were coming across as if you were looking down on the sport

    January 24th, 2009 @ 00:51
  23. Andy Sammons

    I just done think things can sustain themselves with money going one way and people’s love of the game being eroded with so many issues

    http://www.addedtime.blogspot.com

    January 24th, 2009 @ 15:41
  24. Andy Sammons

    I think that the Kaka deal could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back to be honest, but I think that in many ways both parties, particularly Milan, bottled it. Moving to City from Milan would have been for money alone, and this would have been a serious watershed and precedent for football in general. Nothing quite like this has been seen before- although Robinho was incredible, he was unhappy and just wanted the cash. In Kaka’s case, we have a deeply spiritual guy in a city he loves, in a team he loves, being prized away simply for the cash.

    This debate is not as simple as people might think. As a Liverpool fan, I saw that the £9bn man was in for the club yesterday, and I certainly wouldn’t be adverse to it. Below I wrote about the natural order of things, and I stand by that, but in all honesty I can understand why people should just assume things can’t change more instantly. Football has changed beyond all recognition since even the time I have followed it. I still being absolutely flabbergasted that Vieri was on more than £100,000 a week 15 years ago, which players are now routinely on.

    I read the argument on http://www.soccerlens.com (very well written) and totally understand his point. I do feel more of my heart going out to Southend United, who I suppose my heart is now really with as my local side. I feel no self-recognition with Liverpool and the premiership in general now. Money talks, just like everything does in the free market. In all honesty, I think things are heading for an almighty crash, and cannot sustain themselves. Something has to snap. What makes football so special is that people watch it for the same reasons as they always have, which is why the “money” variable is one which is so worrying.

    January 24th, 2009 @ 15:46
  25. Andy Sammons

    As well as this, I think people are missing the point slightly. The paradox is that the glamour and the glitz, and the awesome stadiums/players are now synonymous with cash. I would like people to think about how this will effect the lower league clubs more, with the bigger clubs being more and more commercially enslaved. The real nerve centre of football is still with is in some way, but I think that with the free market being applied to something as non-sensical and irrational as love of a football team, that the two can only go hand in hand before something crashes miserably…

    January 24th, 2009 @ 16:14