Televison Money Disparity

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
suprimir

suprimir

Active Member
Aug 26, 2013
778
147
43
NULL
This is why television payments should be paid equally among clubs and not shared.

Manchester City 26 £38.63m £149.44m
Manchester United 28 £36.69m £149.77m
Tottenham 25 £34.76m £144.45m
Liverpool 28 £32.83m £145.90m
Chelsea 26 £30.90m £141.71m
Arsenal 28 £28.97m £142.04m
Burnley 10 £27.04m £119.77m
Everton 19 £25.11m £128.01m
Leicester 12 £23.18m £118.17m
Newcastle 18 £21.24m £123.02m
Crystal Palace 12 £19.31m £114.31m
Bournemouth 11 £17.38m £111.25m
West Ham 17 £15.45m £116.09m
Watford 10 £13.52m £106.25m
Brighton 13 £11.59m £107.71m
Huddersfield 10 £9.66m £102.39m
Southampton 16 £7.73m £107.24m
Swansea 10 £5.79m £98.53m
Stoke 12 £3.86m £98.86m
West Brom 10 £1.93m £94.67m

Swansea, Stoke, and West Brom all about £50 million behind. That kind of money would help even up the comp a bit more, not that the FA really want that.
 
Domestic and overseas contract television money is equally shared between all the Prem clubs each season - they all got about £75M each.

The difference in the final figures is made up of "Merit Money" - that's final position table position defined - Man City got £38M for finishing top whereas Swansea got £5M for finishing 18th. The other variable is "Facitity fees" which is money received for actually been televised live by Sky.

Top clubs Man Utd and Man City were on the box far more times than say Swansea and got a lot more dosh for being televised live. Don't know if that's fair but that's the way it's structured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
It's made for the (so called) big clubs, Burnley in 7th were only on Sky 10 times while Everton in 8th were shown 19 times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
Dai Jones said:
It's made for the (so called) big clubs, Burnley in 7th were only on Sky 10 times while Everton in 8th were shown 19 times.
Click to expand...


Yep Dai, it sure is biased toward the "big clubs" who will always be more attractive for the TV audience figures re advertiser revenue.

The rules for live broadcast money are a bit odd but they do guarantee every club something.

All clubs get just over £12M for being live on the box up to 10 times that season whether they get chosen for that number or not. After that though they get just over £1M per game for any additional over the 10, so someone like Man U who were shown live 28 times last season pocketed an extra 20 mill or so from being selected.
 
The Premiership actually divvies up its money far, far better than pretty much any top flight league out there. Of the total payments made out, 66% is distributed evenly across all clubs, with the rest tiered on the basis of league position and how often their matches are televised. The former, no-one should have any issue with at all, otherwise where's the incentive to finish 11th instead of 12th for instance?

The second is more open to debate, but the reality is that there are more people out there that will tune in to watch Man Utd play for the 28th time, rather than Burnley for the 1st. Even here, the lowest earning side (Burnley) earned £20.3m less as a result, which whilst not insignificant, is also not a massive gulf considering the total amount (it equates to 5% of the total 'facility fees paid out). There's also a guarantee of a minimum pay-out, regardless of how few times certain sides are televised.

I know people like to make out like there's a conspiracy to unfairly favour the big teams, but the Premier League actually does a fine job in ensuring as fair distribution as is reasonably possible. The further financial gulfs between the very biggest clubs and the rest is income generated on their own terms (match-day income, merchandising, sponsorship etc), for which they have no jurisdiction, naturally.

Below is an interesting breakdown:

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
NickH said:
know people like to make out like there's a conspiracy to unfairly favour the big teams, but the Premier League actually does a fine job in ensuring as fair distribution as is reasonably possible. The further financial gulfs between the very biggest clubs and the rest is income generated on their own terms (match-day income, merchandising, sponsorship etc), for which they have no jurisdiction, naturally.
Click to expand...

Good post <ok>

Would it to be fair to say that it is the how the money is fairly distributed throughout the entire football pyramid that is the main problem then? The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: remote
NickH said:
The Premiership actually divvies up its money far, far better than pretty much any top flight league out there. Of the total payments made out, 66% is distributed evenly across all clubs, with the rest tiered on the basis of league position and how often their matches are televised. The former, no-one should have any issue with at all, otherwise where's the incentive to finish 11th instead of 12th for instance?
Click to expand...

Yes Nick, decent point about the "conspiracy theory" not really being the case - more or less what I was driving at. The overall distribution of the wealth is reasonably handled by the Prem League - it's the side issues that creates a lot of the differentials.

It's just that the "big clubs" by dint of being just that are going to benefit financially from being televised more regulary apart from just the fees. They then become locked into that ever increasing circle of exposure/income stream cycle.

The more the exposure, the greater their own generated club income from sponsorship etc. I read somewhere that that Man U got £47M from Chevrolet for their shirt sponsorship - staggering money that's dependent upon that excessive exposure that other "less fashionable" can only dream about.
 
ccfcremotesupport said:
Wonder if any of those deals are tied into remaining in the premier league?
<confused>

Not that some can drop by much.:emoticon-0102-bigsm
Click to expand...
Quite possibly if the deals are over the course of a number of years. I'm pretty sure I remember reading about how Man Utd being out of the Champions League for a couple of years meant that Adidas didn't pay them as much as they otherwise would have.
 
Blue Sheep said:
Good post <ok>

Would it to be fair to say that it is the how the money is fairly distributed throughout the entire football pyramid that is the main problem then? The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer?
Click to expand...
I think the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too. I'm sure there's still room for discussion about how money reaches grass roots, but I think that sometimes people don't distinguish between the FA and the Premier League (two different entities) and unfairly assume that those in the FA line their own pockets, when the truth is they don't have the same financial muscle.
 
NickH said:
I think the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer.

It's like trying to move up the housing ladder in an inflating market. The house you want to buy I'd going up faster than the house you own.
 
ccfcremotesupport said:
The problem is that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer.

It's like trying to move up the housing ladder in an inflating market. The house you want to buy I'd going up faster than the house you own.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but it's a by-product of capitalism - as long as the likes of Real Madrid, Man Utd and Barcelona remain the most marketable of clubs on a global scale, they'll have the most disposable income and have a greater chance of having the best teams at any given moment.

I think the rest of us just have to hope that occasionally we are able to catch lightning in a bottle and make the most of those times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remote
Oldsparkey said:
Domestic and overseas contract television money is equally shared between all the Prem clubs each season - they all got about £75M each.

The difference in the final figures is made up of "Merit Money" - that's final position table position defined - Man City got £38M for finishing top whereas Swansea got £5M for finishing 18th. The other variable is "Facitity fees" which is money received for actually been televised live by Sky.

Top clubs Man Utd and Man City were on the box far more times than say Swansea and got a lot more dosh for being televised live. Don't know if that's fair but that's the way it's structured.
Click to expand...

I thought the facility fee made a bigger difference. If not then I guess my complaint is baseless. :)
 
Having been a part of the PL for 7 seasons, it's going to be strange in the Championship, so to help me adjust, I shall be taking a keener interest in your games this coming season!!!......................<laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaiJones
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back