Money and the Premier$hip
Last time I delved into the growing discrepancy in talent between the top teams in the world and everyone else. I offered nothing in terms of solutions in that article and I hope to remedy that in this one.
Introduction
Money may be the root of all evil, but in the world of football money is what makes everything run. In the era of ever growing transfer fees, bloated salaries, sponsorships and international scouting the impact of finance is felt heavily throughout the football world. Currently the amount of money paid out to a club by the Premiership depends on the table position of the club. The higher the finish, the more money a club receives.
This sounds fine since the system is based on merit, but without a countervailing force (amateur draft or salary caps) to equalize the teams, it leads to a rising discrepancy in talent, power and profits.
The Finances
Over the next three seasons (2007-2010), the Premiership is set to earn 2.7 billion pounds in broadcasting revenue which will eventually be redistributed to the clubs. Since I don’t know much about the EPL’s operating requirements etc., I’ll knock that down to 2.4 billion pounds (100 million pounds per year for the EPL bureaucracy to operate. Should be enough right?).
That means each year the EPL will have approximately 800 million pounds to distribute or approximately 40 million pounds per club. No doubt redistributing equitably will leads to howls of protest from the big 4 so that is automatically out. The problem lies as such: we need to redistribute the money so that the lower clubs get a share that allows them to compete with the major clubs and yet reward the top clubs for finishing well.
The Proposal
So we’re starting out with 800 million pounds to distribute amongst 23 teams (the 20 currently in the EPL and the 3 about to be promoted). Before I go through and spit out all the numbers, remember that this is just something I came up with out of the blue. I didn’t crunch statistics or weigh win values. I also have no idea how EPL manages the games shown on TV so I’ll assume that all matches are equal in this game. Ready? Lets go.
Conditions
- There are 380 matches played in the EPL (20 clubs, 38 matches each, but half are duplicates).
- There are 63 matches played in the FA Cup from the 3rd round on (Wiki). We’ll count 62 and handle the final separately.
- That gives us a total of 440 matches and the FA Cup final to reward.
- Premiership winner, FA Cup Winner and FA Cup Runner Up should be rewarded.
Match Payouts
- We’ll payout 500,000 pounds for every match played.
- 400,000 pounds to the winner; 100,000 pounds to the loser; Split evenly if it is a draw.
- FA Cup should be structured differently, but I’m far too lazy to assign values to each round.
- So 500,000 pounds per match, 442 matches so we’ve spent: 221 million pounds.
Amount Left: 579 million pounds
FA Cup and Premier League winner awards
- Premier League winner receives: 10 million pounds
- FA Cup winner receives: 8 million pounds
- FA Cup runner up receives: 2 million pounds
- Total: 20 million pounds
Amount Left: 559 million pounds
Relegation Parachutes
- 3 million pounds each to the poor souls who’ve been relegated
- Total: 9 million pounds
Amount Left: 550 million pounds
Base Payouts
- Each team receives a base payout of the revenues
- We’ll set the base payout to 18 million pounds per team
- 18 million pounds, 20 teams (17 staying up and 3 being promoted). Total: 360 million pounds
Amount Left: 190 million pounds
Payouts based on table position
- Here’s where I attempt to equalize the money. The general view is that the higher up you finish, the more money you should get and thats reasonable since the best teams should be rewarded. But we’ve already paid out huge bonuses to the Cup and League winners.
- Top 4 teams receive: 5 million pounds each. Total: 20 million pounds.
- Middle 10 teams receive: 14 million pounds each. Total: 140 million pounds.
- Bottom 6 teams receive: 5 million pounds each: Total: 30 million pounds.
Amount Left: 0 pounds
Well, we’ve spent a bunch of money. So what do each team’s earnings look like? Here it is for the 2006/2007 season (Note: I didn’t add in the match winnings for the FA Cup. I just paid out for the winner/runner up).
- Manchester United: 47,950,000 pounds
- Chelsea: 43,650,000 pounds
- Liverpool: 34,000,000 pounds
- Arsenal: 34,150,000 pounds
- Tottenham: 42,250,000 pounds
- Everton: 42,250,000 pounds
- Bolton: 41,800,000 pounds
- Reading: 41,650,000 pounds
- Portsmouth: 41,800,000 pounds
- Blackburn: 41,350,000 pounds
- Aston Villa: 41,650,000 pounds
- Middlesbrough: 40,900,000 pounds
- Newcastle United: 40,600,000 pounds
- Manchester City: 40,450,000 pounds
- West Ham United: 31,150,000 pounds
- Fulham: 31,450,000 pounds
- Wigan: 31,000,000 pounds
- Sheffield: 11,000,000 pounds (Relegated)
- Charlton: 10,700,000 pounds (Relegated)
- Watford: 10,250,000 pounds (Relegated)
The three teams promoted will get 23 million pounds each (18 million base + 5 million compensation).
The slight discrepancy you’ll notice is that Liverpool and Arsenal get paid out less than those that finished below them. I think this is okay because by finishing in the top 4, they are guaranteed a Champions League spot which means another big infusion of cash. I haven’t crunched the numbers but my guess is that by finishing first or winning the FA cup, you’re guaranteed somewhere around 45 million pounds which will be a little more than the middle 10 teams will get (unless the race is really, really tight). Also note that Chelsea and Man U will be bumped up another 2 million or so due to their FA cup match winnings.
Compare this distribution of income with this one: In the Money
Personal Plug
I’m creating a Digg like website for footy fans. If some of you could look around, test it and get back to me I’d appreciate it. Link: Fan Scope
Another long entry so thanks a bunch for reading. Thoughts?
The 2008 Soccerlens Awards: Vote For Your Favourite Football Sites Here
Well actually pAying Middle teams so much is a joke, the big four deserve more. So what if arsenal and liverpool can get injection of cash from champions league, its a different tournamet and only the tough nes can make it out there and earn themselves millions.
So either each team should receive equal amount of money or the big 4 should get the biggest share.
This is one of the worst ideas ever almost everybody gets as much as ManUtd but the fact is that most likely 80% and more EPL watchers will only care about 1st 4 teams. So let me get this straight 4 teams bring almost everything, but 20 team share everything. You should give money to teams from Championship who failed to get promoted and don’t forget the poor all of the world, what is this communism? I hate Liverpool and Arsenal but the fact that the team which almost got relegated (Man City hopefully next year)is getting more money than the ones that almost became champions is just stupid. The post was really funny though I’ll give you that.
I’ll beg to differ. Like I said in the article itself, the numbers are something I just pulled from thin air. You can weight things differently.
Also, you’re forgetting the extra revenue which the top 4 teams will receive from the Champions League which is quite significant. Also missing is the amount of money each will bank in the FA cup matches. Man U and Chelsea should each have atleast 2 million pounds more.
EPL watchers only care about the top 4 teams because those are the only ones who have the most talent. If Bolton had the cash to go after top talent and get them I’ll bet money that more people would watch their matches as well.
I don’t watch an EPL match simply based on the names of the teams playing. I watch based on whether or not it’ll be a good match. Frankly 90% of the matches are utter crap because of the talent discrepancy between the top and the bottom. If I wanted to see Man U beat up on Fulham, I’d fire up FIFA 07 and play a 15 minute game instead of wasting 2 hours of my time.
If you fail to solve this discrepancy, then you have a massive split within the EPL itself: the big 4 with their pockets and everyone else. That’s horrible for the league and the game. All the teams must be marketable and watchable for the long term health of the league.
Lastly you seem to have a problem with my concept of income redistribution. Well guess what our income taxes are. The rich pay a lot more in tax than the middle class which pay more than the poor. Maybe you think everyone should pay the same tax too?
I should also note that the numbers above were fiddled with. The way I had it at first, Man U ended up with around 60 million pounds and Chelsea somewhere in the low 50 million pounds I believe.
The rest were clustered around 35 million pounds.
I ended up revising because I wanted to be a more equitable distribution, but it’s a matter of changing 2-3 numbers in order to skew things more towards the top or the middle.
I think this is a nice structure.
What about makeing table positions more relevant? Perhaps weekly/seasonal incentives for the table position (as apposed to a “accross the board” payout. With your current structure, a team will not care much wether it lies 6th or 7th, but if there is an extra incentive, perhaps things could become more competitive?
I call this communist football
Let us assume that there is only one way to distribute wealth among EPL clubs and that is an egalitarian way of distributing wealth among 20 EPL clubs solely responsible for generating that wealth. Such approach sends a clear signal to Football fans that EPL competition “despite years of its history’- rivalry, business nous, evolution, geographical locations, dedications, and its fan base all count for nothing. Clubs may then asks why bother to work so hard and take risks when at the end of the day no merit is granted. Communist regimes failed in their pursuit for classless societies because the element of greed as token of appreciation for rewards and effort had been taken away. Olympic idealism based on concept of amateurism succumbed to principles of professionalism in sports for the sake of continuity and its future existence. I suggest next time when you want to be creative try to use an economic model where rewards are appropriate for efforts and risks taken.
nice attempt though i dont agree with your structure coz…
Firstly, if this method of payment is followed then the 3 relegated teams get 12ish million pounds less money than the 3 promoted teams, so having played in the EPL, having played 38 matches which r broadcast on TV, they get paid lesser than 3 teams which dint play in the premiership at all!
i say the promoted teams get paid according to the championship tv deals.
Secondly, there is a huge 9 million pound gap between finishing 14th and 15th, unfair, i say.
Plus the idea of the 14th team getting more cash than the 3rd is ridiculous!
Also, I was wondering that the relegated clubs might be getting more money than what u have mentioned anyway. I am not so sure on this though…
Lastly, imo…FA cup winner getting almost as much as the EPL winner is not fair, purely coz of the number of games played by each team in EPL is much much greater than in the FA cup.
good idea!!!!! hope that happens
This is, without doubt, the most asinine idea I have ever heard. Reward mediocrity! I imagine that politically you are a hardcore leftist, pseudo-communist as well, and want the government to take even more of your money in taxes, too.
sorry longshot i dont agree with this idea. you should be rewarded on merit. and just because teams 3 and 4 get to play in the champions league which means more games for them + qualifying for the tournament is slightly unfair since teams 5,6,7 get to play in the uefa cup where they will also get cash incentives.
there should be bonus payment system e.g margin of victory, respect shown to referee
your proposal not only devalues the league but also the “champions league” in my opinion
Would this apply to the other football leagues in Europe? If so i don’t see it happening. The top clubs in Spain & Italy would jealously guard their financial share of the pie what with all the buying power they have and the lengths they go to win (a la Serie A scandal 2006).
How do EU rules affect the rest of the game if the EPL ever put this structure into practice anyway?
Would like to read your thoughts.
@harry and everyone else in here who…speaks about “communism”.
Communnism means classless society,but also means that simple citizens own nothing while in the same time everything belongs to them.In communism businesses make public profit and there is no business that makes private profit.
EPL teams make private profit and belong to shareholders.So,EPL football cannot be called communist football,no way!!!Even if you take Abramovich’s money and give them to Sunderland it’s still capitalism!
@everyone: I agree with most of the comments that this is skewed towards the middle table teams. At first, I started out by rewarding the teams more equitably and also paying out massive amounts for a FA Cup win and League win. This, however, led to Man U and Chelsea having an almost 20 million pound advantage over their closest rivals. So I fiddled the numbers to make it more equitable.
I disagree that this system is communist or that it takes away the incentive to win. The 5 million or so difference between 3 and 5 is easily made by the Champions League and the prestige that being in the top 4 slots is probably worth it.
@devil: I almost thought about deleting your comment. Then I realized how funny unsubstantiated, ad hominem attacks are. Do you actually have something constructive to add or are you just going to continue 1940s style fear mongering? Oh noes the commies!
—
Funny isn’t it that the most “communist” league, the NFL, is also the most equitable in terms of talent and most watchable (I’d say about 90% of the matches are watchable compared to the EPL where I’d argue 90% of the matches aren’t) and most rewarding to the fans.
Could this system be better? Of course. In fact I agree that the top 4 should be rewarded a bit more, that their drawing power should be rewarded as well etc. But frankly, I don’t have the data or the time to crunch all those numbers so I just made up this simplistic system.
Thanks for reading
I repeat you fckn capitalistic worm! (ooooopsss)
Communism means private property exists no more.
Since the previous sentence is a part of communism’s definition you canna talk about communist leagues or rules in the present-day society.
YOU CAPITALIST!
the measure you ‘re suggesting here belongs to reactionary socialists’s political parts…
Nikos- I suggest read my comments before you use my name in vain. I referred to communism failures; I did not talk about propriety rights. Please do not teach me about communism and principles of egalitarian societies “utopia” where concentration of power and wealth is not exercised. FYI, I teach in uni the principles of Karl Marx and its impact on our contemporary societies. Capitalism has a life cycle like any other thing in our universe. Globalisation is the last stage in life cycle of capitalism. Unfortunately the author “Longshot” in his article for some unknown reasons has chosen to overlook that football like any other industry does not live and operate in vacuum. There are stakeholders, and powerful forces in motion that have profound impact on future landscape of football. Taking a simplistic approach to such complex issues in our society is a fool’s paradise.
[harry]
congratulations!
my point is that you can’t call a private property communist.It’s an oxymoron.
I don’t really know how to use the English language correctly,but I think I’m clear.
Besides,your comment has nothing wrong in using the word communism.Longshot’s and Taron’s comments do.
@harry
I should remind you that the communist revolution cannot take place in one country alone and and it’s an internatinal(e) revolution,therefore no communist countries and regimes have existed.Maybe,you ‘re refering to socialist regimes…the step before communism
Nikos- in all honesty this is supposed to be a fun page for football fans. I really do not want to drag you and others into boring and arduous discussions. Football is a beautiful game because is based on healthy competition when the audiences appreciate the game for its physical aspects, spectacular moments, and its tribal rivalry. At the end of each match, the looser gets opportunity to compete on another day, contrary to the gladiators in Roman era when only the winner would see the light of another day. It is unfortunate that reality has come to fore for fans that there are other unsavoury facets to football than meets the eye. When I go to see my beloved team, I do not think how much a particular striker is purchased. All I want to see my team plays a beautiful football free from media controversy. On the other note, there has never been communism or true socialism on this earth. What so far human race has witnessed is the proletariat dictatorship and partial socialism which was instigated by Milton Keynes’ economic model.
Longshot. In terms of what it is trying to accomplish your model is fairly good, I have to admit. However I still disagree with your reasoning, why are you so opposed to there being a discrepancy in talent? The top teams deserve to be where they are, they’ve earnt it through good management, their fans and players deserve the rewards because at the end of the day they wont last for ever. If you go back 10 or 15 years you will see that things were different. If Arsene Wenger joined Tottenham or Leeds instead of Arsenal, If Bayer Leverkusen had won their Domestic treble a few years ago, or if Lazio had spent their money better after they won seria A things would be different. There is always hope for teams, its just a case of the fans being able to stick with them when things are not so good, which most do. Its not like NFL where no-one cares unless there team has a chance of winning.
It is fair that all teams get roughly the same. If this didn’t happen the Big teams would be running the league, like what is happening in Italy.
All the big teams in Italy own the players of the smaller teams because they cant afford to buy their own players! This means they can dictate the team they play against. In other words Match Fixing!
Spreading the money evenly keeps the league healthy.
nice post but i don’t agree that the premier league winners and the FA cup winners get the same.In FA cup sometimes top teams r pitted against low division teams and get to the final easily whereas in the premier leauge teams face much tougher competitions to win the league. Now most of the premierleague teams r getting foreign investment so they have the money to compete with the top teams .Distributing equal money will promote mediocrisy.A team will not care if it finishes 3rd or 14th.Moreover,if money alone can buy success and is all that is required for generating competitiveness then chelsea with all its buying power should have won all the competitions in which they have played including the champions league?
we totally agree harry,but fottball has its social aspect and it’s a good reason to start a discussion on society.
It’s far greater than Beckham’s strings,Rivaldo’s jaw-plates, Ronaldo’s “hate” for Rooney…or every other blsht the media care for.
I agree with you. The Premier League is a far bigger achievement than the FA Cup, but just think of how much revenue comes in for just the Final on its own! The teams in the final have got a right to a good chunk of that money.