• Liverpool Message Board

  • Michael M Michael M Aug 2, 2007 22:04 Flag

    Sport or Business?

    Do you consider football to be a sport or business?

    If it's a sport, then things like wage caps should be put in place so that ALL 20 teams begin each season on a fair and equal playing field. ALL 20 teams have the same chance of winning the league.

    If it's a business, then owners can pump in as much money as they want, and what happens in the boardroom has a major impact on the game.

    I see it as a sport, or at least I want it to be a sport. I'd like to know a team beat ALL 19 other teams to the title, even if only 6-8 had a real legitimate chance of winning it that particular season.

    Since the inception of the Prem, money has really taken over, and the need is there for teams to spend lots of money to have any chance of winning. So where's the true competition when only 2-3 teams can win the title and the rest are playing either for European qualification or to avoid relegation?

    Thoughts?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • " Then they will just piss off the the next promoted club"


      Not if (1) the relegated club won't sell the player (who will help promotion push) since he is contracted to them for several more seasons, or (2) there's a wage limit and the Prem clubs (including those promoted who give their own players a wage increase) are all at their limit.

      Hypothetical example, with team wage limits per division as follows:
      50M Prem
      20M Championship
      10M Div 1.
      5M Div. 2

      You are a top earner at a Prem team, and get relegated. Your wages drop from 100 grand a week to 40 grand a week now that you're in the Championship. If you have a 4 year contract, you can hope to be sold, but it's out of your hands, even if you turn in a transfer request. If all the Prem teams are close to their wage cap limit, would you stay in the Championship at 40 grand a week, or move to a Prem team, but only get 5 grand a week as that's all they have to offer? They might offload some players next season, and increase your wages, or they might not!

      Unless it's a top team challenging for trophies, most players would stay relegated and get the extra money until the contract expires!

    • Football team is a "Product" in a business world. I heard that somewhere.

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • Absolutly correct. There's a reason so many foreign business men are getting involved in the prem, they see it as a good buisness. I'm not saying its bad for the prem, but lets call it what it is, investment in a product.

        The only excetion might be Lerner at Villa as he's supposed to be a football fan from his days at University in the UK, but also should be noted he's given the least amount of money to O'Neal than the other foreign owners.

    • Thought I'd bump this thread. The Burnley boss is threatening legal action over the 'parachute' payments clubs that were relegated are to receive over the next 2 seasons. He argues these payments give teams relegated from the Prem an advantage in the Championship.

      He obviously considers football as a sport rather than purely as a business.

      Thoughts?


      Burnley want end to parachute payments

      Burnley chairman Barry Kilby is considering a legal challenge to the Premier League over so-called 'parachute payments' which he claims are an 'illegal subsidy'.

      Kilby is preparing a potential case against top-flight officials after alleging relegated clubs are given an unfair financial advantage over longer-standing Championship teams.

      Charlton, Sheffield United and Watford will each receive £6.8million this year and next year after failing to avoid the drop, while next season the three relegated teams will each be handed £24million, spread over two years.

      Kilby told Radio Lancashire: 'I will be campaigning this autumn for us to bring this to court. It's a good, strong case.

      'I honestly feel that it's an illegal subsidy from the Premier League that distorts our competition so badly.

      'Our next step will be to bring it to the League's attention. I would like to see what the League is going to do about it and discuss it with the other clubs.'

    • but where would you set the cap?

      as most wages are payed for via fans coming to the games different clubs could argue for different levels

      e.g. (stats from last season)

      man utd average attendence 75,000 <> reading average attendence 22,600 thats a big difference as reading couldnt go above that and man utd would not wwant to go that low both are due to start the prem next season on very different footings

      • 1 Reply to MATTHEW
      • Its a good point, and shows how difficult implementing any kind of cap would be. If you put in a cap you might be able to address compentitiviness of a Reading or Wigan against a Man U or Chelsea, but at the same time you will be hurting a Liverpool or Arsenal when they try to complete in Europe. Even if you got all of UAFA to agree to a cap, then your going to see players going off to the middle east or other places to play, so the Cap would have to be FIFA wide. How are they going to agree to that, how you going to work out how much a player should make in Turkey vs Japan vs Ireland vs USA vs England vs etc.

        I say let the market work out it out. It aint perfect, but mrket controls have never worked. If salaries and transfer fee's get out of control, trust me their will be a market correction. That might not be a pretty outcome, but also remember both owners and players have an incentative to avoid that market correction, so they will push things but only so far.

    • another way to look at this is to consider amateur vs professional

    • good point - everton were kicked off anfield due to business reasons!!

    • Don't fool yourselves, its always been a business. At LFC its been a business since 1892. No-one ever started a professional anything, including football teams out of only the goodness of their hearts. They did it to make money.

      It maybe packaged as a sport so it maintains its entertainment value, but that's just so we buy tickets, Shirts, or cable packages. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow it will always be about making money. But I still love it.

    • One thing to remember, in MLS just like most North American sports, there is only one busness entity, the league itself. Teams are only franchises, not individual clubs.

      Its like McDonalds, each team owner may own an individual McDonalds restuarant, but the league owns the chain. Teams will raise and fall just like a fast food resturant. Those in the best locations have an advantage, and those that can manage best will be successful. That's why teams move in the US, they all try and take advantage of being in a larger market.

      Another thing to bear in mind is that salary caps in the US are set so high they really don't have a major impact. Rich team still outspend poorer teams. In MLS they just make up rules to get around it, like the Beckham rule! What keeps the leagues more competative is the draft process. The weakest teams based on last seasons performance get the pick of the litter of the players turning pro.

    • in today's world money talks, therefore football is a business more than a sport.

      a sport is what we and our children play in the parks, a business is what we pay to watch.

    • Thanks for that explanation - certainly enlightening!

      You're right it is very different now then it was 20 odd years ago -eg nottingham forest doing well purely due to manager & style of play, same with us.

    • View More Messages