Christ, when will people stop and understand that football clubs are businesses that, above all, aim to maximise shareholder profits. Fan entertianment comes second. It's capitalism not communism. I would love for all clubs to be owned by their fans with profits reinvested every year but it's not like that. Stop acting so shocked, Ayre was merely asking why profits from foreign markets (ie asia which is dominated by united and Liverpool) are shared equally between all 20 clubs. It's not domestic rights he's on about so it wouldn't exactly turn the league on its head. I agree with many of your points but at the same time do feel that teams raking in more viewers for games (including yourselves now) should get proportional tv revenues to reflect their input on achieving a greater viewership. Doesn't mean sharing has to stop completely though lest la liga Mach 2 be created, god forbid...
Spot on! I can't wait for the European superleague to start, then fail and the breakaway clubs to have to beg for readmittance to their domestic leagues.
I take Red's point. And, of course, it is a problem for the EPL. As Ensil pointed out, most clubs are run at a loss. This is due to a variety of factors, not least of which is the ever spiralling cost of wages. Whether we like it, or not, these clubs, be they in public, or private hands, are not run by philanthropists. The overwhelming majority of owners are successful businessmen who made their money in other fields. However, just because they now own a football club, that doesn't mean that they don't expect it to make money. Unfortunately, with the potential revenue in the game today, it has become dog eat dog. Expect these clubs to do whatever they perceive to be best for themselves financially. Whether they succeed, or not, remains to be seen. I don't expect this issue to go away any time soon. There's far too much at stake.
Even if Spurs had the absolute monopoly on international fan-base i'd say this was a terrible, terrible idea. We've made several strides towards evening out the quality of the Premier League and this completely negates that promise. What makes this league the most watchable is the pace not the money. There will always be a big group of teams but how interesting will that really be if no one can even take a point off them. Yes, Barca and Madrid have a shed load of money but what does that really say of the Spanish League? They have 2 great teams and another 16-18 teams who can't even get near them. At least over here, it's more than possible for Swansea to take a point off Man United. There's no way that would happen in Spain. This to me is a farcical suggestion and will never be pushed through.
Also, just to add, does anyone here think that the NHS is a bad idea? A health service that costs absolutely nothing because we have a system in place so that we don't have to, taxes. Everyone is taxed a proportional amount of their earnings and a chunk of that is given to the NHS to run an efficient service. It's the perfect system is it not? Privatisation is a greedy, tory policy that, in this case deprives the poor of a decent health service but props up the high earners. No one can possible say that this is a fair and democratic way to run the health service, right? The reason i use this analogy is because this is exactly what Liverpool are aiming to do with the breakaway TV deal. It's like saying, "Why should i pay my taxes so someone else can get the benefits?". I'm sorry but 'Red' hasn't got a leg to stand on here. To support this action is to effectively throw yourself headfirst into Thatcherism. Rich richer, poor poorer. I don't care whether it's football or the health service, it's the same bloody thing.
I agree with you EFB. However, I was merely pointing out that there are potentally vast sums of revenue, that we are talking about, here. Hence, why I don't expect this issue to go away quietly.
So, which is going to produce the most money overall: a collection of separate tv deal which lets me shell out money to watch elite teams beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor, or a single tv package which lets me watch fifteen games every week which can and do go either way (as with the NFL in the US), due to shared rights and a cap? There would be more money for everyone (though less for the biggest teams) if you went with the latter. But that would only happen with a world organization that grew a pair, plus a cooperative spirit from the big clubs that's even more unlikely.
