Football as a business in unsustainable and unfair the way it is run now (1 Viewer)

SkyBlueSwiss

New Member
CCFC's current plight simply highlights the unsustainability of the business model and the fact that there is not a level playing field either nationally or - in particular - internationally.

Example internationally: the top Spanish clubs (Barca and Real in particular) buy many of the worlds top players for enormous sums of money, pay them fairy-tale salaries, incur levels of debt that would bring Man. Utd. and other British clubs to their knees, and what happens? Each year, the hundreds of millions of debt magically disappears and they start again in the closed season buying up the worlds best players and paying them ridiculous salaries. It seems to be a never-ending cycle that the rest of the footballing world cannot compete with, and creates an enormously unfair advantage for the Spanish teams.

In England, the same sort of unfair advantage is created by the top few clubs being owned by people with more money that sense. What happened with Manchester City is a travesty. A yoyo club brought by multi-billionnaire who spends well over a billion pounds on players and succeeded in "buying" the Premiership title. If I were a Man City fan, I would be caught somewhere between cheering and puking.

I recognise that I come from an earlier generation when football was a working man's game, there were no fences or security, most of the players on the team were local lads, the players were working class and lived next door and you would have a pint and a fag down the local with them.
Many football fans (especially of the big clubs) don't seem to mind that they have no local lads in their teams, and some of them don't even have an Englishman in their teams (and yes, I am convinced this is to the detriment of our national team!). How can you support such a team? Talk about the prawn sandwich brigade!
Different sort of game back then, before the Americanisation of our national sport, the corruption that comes from the very top here in Switzerland with that disgusting greaseball Sepp Blatter.
The fact that it was our own Jimmy Hill that broke the maximum wage structure is ironic when you consider that it is footballer's wages that now make football economically impossible for most clubs (and which is why FFP is tring to limit wages to a percentage of turnover).


Football is now unsustainable for the great majority of British clubs. FFP will not cure the problem. It is not the rent charge, the food and beverage income and all the other sideshows that are puting CCFC out of business, it is the player's wages. As with the vast majority of other clubs in the UK, it is the player's wages that make football in this modern era an unsustainable business.
Apart from the top clubs, it would seem that the days of paying expensive and over-the-top transfer fees are almost gone. When I look at the movements during recent transfer windows, the vast majority of moves are free transfers. But they still want to be paid salaries that you and I can only dream of. I mean, what did you earn as a 23 year old?
Imagine being thick as a plank and earning the salary that Wayne Rooney earns. Surely Rooney earns more in a week than Man Utd earn fron the home game they play every two weeks. I mean, this idiot earns more in one week than most of us earn in five years of hard work day in and day out. Jimmy, what have you done to our game??????

So don't be sidetracked by this "it's the rent" stupidity. While significant and obviously unsustainably high, it is not the rent that is killing CCFC and so many other clubs. It is the greed of the players and their agents that is bleeding British football and it is the greed of the footballers and their agents (and managers - see MR as an example) that make CCFC unsustainable as a business model. Even if we paid zero rent and had all of the income streams, CCFC would still be making a loss because of the wages.

Football has to come down to Earth again, it has to get rid of the corruption and the agents, it has to start paying players a reasonable wage and it has to start having local lads in the teams again, which in turn draws the supporters back because it is now "their" team again. And football has to limit non-Brits to a maximum of three or four players per team per game.
And there has to be a level playing field. If the corruption stops, and financial fair play is implemented in all countries in the same way so that the e.g. Spanish teams can no longer spend ridiculously and have their massive debt wiped out each year, then perhaps we fans can own our game again and concetrat on football instead of attacking each other over the financial stupidities that take up the vast majority of this and other football sites.

Just my opinion on the state of football. What do YOU think???????????????
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
I didn't read all of your post, but I think it is unsustainable, much like I think capitalism in general is.
 

Ashdown1

New Member
I agree, if it was all about common sense and ethics we'd all walk away from it but the game itself, tribalism, belonging to the cause, history and habit all grab you worse than an addiction!!
 

The Penguin

Well-Known Member
There are some things in your post that I agree with. A few thoughts, though if they are rambly I apologise, it's rather late here!

Football has, for too long now, been fiscally irresponsible. I continue to believe that the game is eventually headed for financial meltdown, partly because of the insane wage demands. However, that old maxim of, "vendors will charge what customers are willing to pay" applies beautifully to the modern game. If clubs weren't prepared to throw stupid money at footballers, they wouldn't ask for it.

FFP is a nice idea, but will, in my view, only serve to perpetuate the problem, rather than solve it. Sure, it may result in less clubs going to the wall. It may even, to a certain extent, drive wage demands down (if you're, say, Gary McSheffrey, and no club will pay your 3k/week salary because you're not good enough anymore, and because their wage budgets mean they need to spend wisely, you have the choice to either lower your demands or retire.) But if allowable wages become dependent on revenue only, the big clubs will still be bigger than the rest, only the gap will grow further as those clubs, with their significantly higher revenue, have even greater purchasing power.

A flat salary cap for all clubs in every league would probably work better, though it will never happen, as it requires leadership, vision and balls, something which nobody currently running any organising body in the world possesses. Additionally, could you imagine what the Man Uniteds, Chelseas, Real Madrids etc. of the world would do if they were told they could spend only a certain amount on their entire salary budget for a season, and that this salary budget was exactly the same as every other club in their league? As you say, a level playing field is required for this sort of action to work. That's why it'll never happen.

The only things I disagree with are, firstly, if football had been "Americanised", then there would be a salary cap and clubs would not have youth setups. The top talent in the country would instead be drafted by every club, with the worst clubs getting the best players. You would have squad limits, and could only sign players if you had space on your squad and room in your salary cap. (Perhaps football needs to be properly Americanised!)

Lastly, I don't think the lack of quality in England's national team can be blamed on no Englishmen in the Premiership team. I just don't think English coaches encourage passing, control, retention of the ball and mental capacity enough, while these things are highly prized in the better nations of the world (and even some of the crappy ones like Australia.) ;) As fans (and I have been guilty of this as well where England is concerned) we tend to think that skillful players are 'lazy' because they 'don't work hard enough' off the ball, no matter how great their skill on it. I think if this attitude changed it would go a long way towards improving England's standing in world football.

Also, English players should be using the chance to train and play with (and against) some of the world's best players as an opportunity to get better. The incentive is there to improve yourself so you can push one of these players out of the side. If Manchester City had a better English striker than Aguero you can bet he would be playing...but they don't. Use English cricket as an example - better coaching combined with a desire to improve and push a veteran player/Kolpak import out of the side has helped put England near the top of the cricket tree. I don't think football is any different.

Just my $0.02. :)
 

SBS

Active Member
I understand a lot what you're saying SkyBlueSwiss. However, when it comes to Man City, they're a club I actually quite like. I don't see how you can say you'd be puking in your mouth - imagine if Cov were Man City and United were Leicester or Villa. The last day of the season mustve felt unbelievable. They're developing the area around the ground, creating a huge academy. The chap who owns them has actually invested quite a lot in Manchester itself. I understand where the 'buying the title' criticism comes from, but what hope have a team like City got of competing with United? Isn't this an owner we can only dream of?

For what it's worth, I also think the City fans are some of the best in the country. So much more understanding and bearable than any other of the top 6 Premier League teams.
 
The problem is that unless you cure football finances globally the best players will always go where the money is being offered. Which means the financially strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. It will not stop unless either Sky or some of the big clubs go out of business.

Until then its a case of attempting to get out of the financially poor league to take the if you cant beat em join em gang.
 

Diehard Si

New Member
You could actually make a case that the American way of running their MLS is better than our model.

The financial fair play rules might scratch the surface of the problem, but it is nowhere near doing enough.
 

Baginton

New Member
Germany is the model we should all be looking at the see how football is run correctly, no club are allowed to make a loss, cheaper tickets, full stadiums, safe standing areas.

All people here are interested in is filling their pockets with cash.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
Great post Swiss and I agree with most of it, but I can't see anything changing in the short-term. For one the foreign player restriction you mention would be deemed a restraint of trade by the EU. Although if Cameron gets his way we may not be in it soon I suppose.
 

Tad

Member
I think everyone knows its not substainable in its current form. The problem is, nothing can be done till fat cats calling the shots either get bored and all leave the sport or the FA start doing they're job. It's not all about bringing money into the league. Would be nice for them to realise that before its too late.
 

SBS

Active Member
Germany is the model we should all be looking at the see how football is run correctly, no club are allowed to make a loss, cheaper tickets, full stadiums, safe standing areas.

All people here are interested in is filling their pockets with cash.

Did you watch Inside Out a couple of weeks ago? It's scary how much better it is than the English league. It was saying the clubs have social responsibilities and aren't ran as companies. £13 for a ticket for the journey there and to watch top flight football. That's another reason I quite like the City fans, hopefully they've started something by sending tickets back to Arsenal
 

dadgad

Well-Known Member
Germany is the model we should all be looking at the see how football is run correctly, no club are allowed to make a loss, cheaper tickets, full stadiums, safe standing areas.

All people here are interested in is filling their pockets with cash.

You are right. Football in this country has lost its soul. The shadow of Bradford, Hillsborough has had deep implications.
TV money, foreign investment and political interference has only continued to rob communities of that influence which
gave football its character.
This erosion has been difficult to measure....... for instance the loss of vocabulary of say a dialect is simple proof that a culture is vanishing....but in football:confused:
all you can say "when I was kid it was more fun, the grass seemed greener, the Chairman arrived in a Rolls and smoked a fat one, nowadays; she's a c**t in a suit and doesn't show her mush" etc.,.....hardly scientific.
Maybe, in another twenty years the kids of today will get dewy eyed about football today but if that's the case then God help us.
Football today is bad enough.....it cannot be allowed to deteriorate further though - as the current plight of ccfc illustrates - our ability to affect improvements is hamstrung by greed and self interest. :(:confused::(
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
There are some things in your post that I agree with. A few thoughts, though if they are rambly I apologise, it's rather late here!

Football has, for too long now, been fiscally irresponsible. I continue to believe that the game is eventually headed for financial meltdown, partly because of the insane wage demands. However, that old maxim of, "vendors will charge what customers are willing to pay" applies beautifully to the modern game. If clubs weren't prepared to throw stupid money at footballers, they wouldn't ask for it.

FFP is a nice idea, but will, in my view, only serve to perpetuate the problem, rather than solve it. Sure, it may result in less clubs going to the wall. It may even, to a certain extent, drive wage demands down (if you're, say, Gary McSheffrey, and no club will pay your 3k/week salary because you're not good enough anymore, and because their wage budgets mean they need to spend wisely, you have the choice to either lower your demands or retire.) But if allowable wages become dependent on revenue only, the big clubs will still be bigger than the rest, only the gap will grow further as those clubs, with their significantly higher revenue, have even greater purchasing power.

A flat salary cap for all clubs in every league would probably work better, though it will never happen, as it requires leadership, vision and balls, something which nobody currently running any organising body in the world possesses. Additionally, could you imagine what the Man Uniteds, Chelseas, Real Madrids etc. of the world would do if they were told they could spend only a certain amount on their entire salary budget for a season, and that this salary budget was exactly the same as every other club in their league? As you say, a level playing field is required for this sort of action to work. That's why it'll never happen.

The only things I disagree with are, firstly, if football had been "Americanised", then there would be a salary cap and clubs would not have youth setups. The top talent in the country would instead be drafted by every club, with the worst clubs getting the best players. You would have squad limits, and could only sign players if you had space on your squad and room in your salary cap. (Perhaps football needs to be properly Americanised!)

Lastly, I don't think the lack of quality in England's national team can be blamed on no Englishmen in the Premiership team. I just don't think English coaches encourage passing, control, retention of the ball and mental capacity enough, while these things are highly prized in the better nations of the world (and even some of the crappy ones like Australia.) ;) As fans (and I have been guilty of this as well where England is concerned) we tend to think that skillful players are 'lazy' because they 'don't work hard enough' off the ball, no matter how great their skill on it. I think if this attitude changed it would go a long way towards improving England's standing in world football.

Also, English players should be using the chance to train and play with (and against) some of the world's best players as an opportunity to get better. The incentive is there to improve yourself so you can push one of these players out of the side. If Manchester City had a better English striker than Aguero you can bet he would be playing...but they don't. Use English cricket as an example - better coaching combined with a desire to improve and push a veteran player/Kolpak import out of the side has helped put England near the top of the cricket tree. I don't think football is any different.

Just my $0.02. :)

Agree with most of your points but on this there are a few other factors: firstly the Kolpak definition was tightened quite a lot. Secondly, the clubs are mostly skint. Thirdly, the ECB salary incentive scheme means that clubs get paid money (yes hard cash!) for fielding England-qualified players; the younger they are, the more they get paid. The smaller clubs like Derbyshire have gone from being Kolpak-dominated sides to full of young English players for this very reason.

Can you imagine the effect this would have on English football? The incentives to play our own homegrown youngsters would be huge; we'd be playing Connor Thomas every game rather than wasting a spot on Bailey as we would actually be getting paid a lot more money to do so! Edge would never get a look in as Willis and Cameron would be fast-tracked ahead of him. And before you say "booh, Cameron's shite", yeah, but if he hadn't been consigned to the stiffs for the past two seasons he'd be a lot better by now.


Of course it will never happen as in Cricket-like some of the American sports to an extent-all the power is in the hands of the ECB and the England project. The SKY deal is with them, that funds most of the game-unlike in football, where it goes directly to the clubs, who have wasted it first on transfer fees and now on wages.


It's also worth pointing out that you are allowed only one overseas player per side in County cricket (two in T20); conveniently all the nations that are good at cricket are not in Europe, so the usual work permit critereon applies and there's nothing the European Civil Right's Court can do to ruin things!
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
I don't have time to comment on most of what you say in the OP but may do later...a couple of key things: -

1987 FA CUP Final: Squads including managers totalled 28. 5 of those were not English...& only 2 were foreigners.

2012 FA CUP Final: 38; 24; 22 respectively

We do entice these foreign players to come & "entertain" us for fabulous wealth. Cannot think of any other genuine reason most of them would come otherwise. The Clubs simply do not care about the national side doing well.

The link to "local" lads playing for their local team is long since gone in the professional world of football in England due IMO to more instant results from buying a cut-price foreigner...so to watch local lads playing & feel the passion in the original spirit of the game where they are proud to serve their local community by representing it on the pitch...you have to go way down the leagues now. The professionals generally have no affinity to the club beyond the training pitch. A few token visits to local schools, & hospitals (which mean a lot to the kids & sick in fairness) in their spare time mean not a lot to the players...unless there's a chance they bump into a friend or relative too! Then there's genuine emotional attachment that doesn't exist in the professional/business world as soon as earning power is negatively affected unless united by tragedy such as those mentioned earlier.
All IMO
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top