The death of competition

[timeoutbigbar]

so we have a league that is a wash with money, yet most clubs are in massive debt, thats not SKY's fault, thats the chairman and administraters of the clubs.

a lot of the money has come from SKY but the  its spent by the respective clubs, its just to easy to put the whole blame onto SKY tv, and make them the scapegoat,

they put on a product that people want to see, i dont like talking about football as a product, but thats the way it is nowadays.

the only way forward to a more competitive league, is the formation of a European super league for all the big club and big money franchises,
 and let the rest of us get on with it without all the razamataz and OTT bollox that we have now

So as fans we bang on about the monotony of the league, yet the only way of challenging is to invest in the team.  Now your saying that it's the owners fault for spending to try and improve the team?  Make your mind up.

but your never going to challenge Man Utd are you,
 you might give them a bloody nose every now and then, but they sold a player last year for more than Randy bought the whole of villa for, what chance we got ?

I agree to an extent, but that example is mental.  No player can ever be considered 'worth' £80 million.

[seanthevillan]

The German league seem to share their top four a bit more. Off the top of my head they don't seem to have a team who dominates for years on end.

But they run their game far better and fairer than most league,i'm sure thats no coincedence.

I would have to agree with you Gary I like the way German football is run plus they get good crowds to watch there football.

Whenenever Bayern get their act together they win the league - they don't even usually have to be at their best to do so. I think they've won something like 23 out of the last 45. Their spending power is also far beyond all the other clubs.

Generally though I agree with you point about how the game's run.

[timeoutbigbar]

Didn't Dortmund absolutely stroll it this year though?

[Damo70]

I nineteen seasons of the Premier League there have been four winners. In the previous nineteen years of the old Division One there were seven different winners. I also think in the Premier league years there have been seven different runners up who include the four winners. In the last nineteen years of Division One there were ten runners up including teams like QPR, Ipswich, Watford and Southampton. God knows how many different teams achieved a top four finish between 1974 and 1992 but obviously a hell of a lot more than in the Premier League. I think the domination of the league title by two or three clubs is as bad in Spain and Italy, but the battle for the top four places is far more open.

[TheSandman]

Bayern have had a couple of shocking seasons recently.

[Pat McMahon]

Agree with the above sentiments, especially those re the number of league winners since 1995.

Probably the most telling stat for me is that the double was achieved by 5 clubs in the first 100 years of the League, and was a rare and tremendous achievement. From 1994 - 99 it was achieved 4 times and Chelsea won it last season. The big boys are winning the league and are so far ahead of the rest that it is no longer a s much of a haul to reach the latter stages of the cup too.

It is all so drearily predictable.....

[Rudy Can't Fail]

I think Sky wouldn't really care who was top of the league, as long as there are Chelseas and Citehs splashing the cash on marquee players along with the traditional big clubs Manu, Arsenal and Liverpool battling it out, it will make for exciting games watched by full stadiums.

Why would Sky want to lose advertising revenue showing teams that won't have the same level of audiences and viewers that live in less aflfuent areas of the country? To their credit, Sky took a massive risk in investing in the Premier League but now are milking it for all they can. Don't they also 'sell on' or at least get paid a percentage from international distribution?

Their argument would be that audiences demand to see the top teams, who also happen to have the best players and these teams still manage to fill their stadiums, so no harm done. It was never designed to be fair.

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

Don't they also 'sell on' or at least get paid a percentage from international distribution?

Their argument would be that audiences demand to see the top teams, who also happen to have the best players and these teams still manage to fill their stadiums, so no harm done. It was never designed to be fair.

The international rights deal is entirely independent of Sky. Unless Sky have an interest in the production company that provides the pictures they won't get a bean.

It's not "fair" in the sense that the teams that are involved in events are screened more than those that aren't, and that's perfectly understandable that they'd want to maximise their advertising revenue. However, Sky voluntarily undertake to show the less interesting (to them) teams a minimum number of times throughout the season. This doesn't make them Mother Theresa, but it's a huge improvement on the Spanish and Italian modles where Real and Barca get vast amounts from their exclusive deals and the likes of Getafe etc. get the short end of bugger all.

The money and marketing effect of Champions League football on a regular basis, and the insane gulf between the Premier League and the lower divisions is far more divisive than the current Sky arrangements.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

This season they bought the rights to show 115 live PL games meant they would have to show 'other teams' outside the Top 4, though how many of those games were against the Top 4, I have no idea. I'd love to see the complete list.

You're right about Spain. It makes you wonder why the other teams bother but that's what happens we clubs become too powerful.

As for the lower leagues in England, I'm surprised so many are still in business. Hopefully fans will continue to support their local teams but from just reading on here, the number of Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool shirts seen around the country doesn't leave me with much faith they will. Their only hope is finding a good, young talent and selling him on. In effect, we're all just feeder clubs for the rich, elite clubs.

EDIT: Just remembered that Sky (BSkyB) also own 33.3% of MUTV. Make of that what you will.

[JUAN PABLO]

 I think German match tickets are pretty cheap too..

[Dave]

I agree to an extent, but that example is mental.  No player can ever be considered 'worth' £80 million.

They can be considered 'worth' £80m because they have been.

[Chipsticks]

Despite how dead the competition is in our country, it's a lot worse in Italy, Spain, and Scotland in particular.

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

The Premier League distributes TV rights money based partly on performance, partly via equal shares of TV income, and partly on the number of times a club's matches are screened live on domestic television.
 
This season, each club will receive £13.8million as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.7million as the equal share of overseas TV rights.
 
On top of that, every place in the Premier League table is worth £752,000 - the bottom club will get that amount and the top club £15.04million.
 
Facility fees of £485,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match - with a minimum income of £4.85million even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games.
 
The top four clubs usually play in at least 20 live TV games a season, meaning they will earn around £10million in facility fees.

Link

This shows the direct financial impact of TV on club's finances (note not just Sky, but admittedly the lion's share). See that the clubs shown the least will only get around £5m per annum less that the top clubs from being shown on TV. The biggest difference by far is the finishing position - an amount not affected by Sky but by the Premier League.

Indirect revenues from additional TV exposure would clearly inflate this effect.

Sky also have first choice on matches and in theory they could show Man Utd every game if they felt like it. Clearly they don't, they try and go for the more competitive big club games, whereas ESPN pick up the dregs and will show a big club whatever the mis-match if they can.

[Dante Lavelli]

One thing that they have in germany is compulsory fan ownership of clubs.  I recall that all clubs must be 51% owned by the fans.  This ensures cheap tickets and a high degree of fan representation on the boards and therefore in the club's decision making. 

This is great but would do nothing to even the playing field other than deterring Abramoviches getting involved as they would always have to answer to their fans.

[Sexual Ealing]

This is why I don't understand fans of clubs like ours being agains Platini, because 'he hates England'.

He doesn't - he hates the way that big finance has skewered the game in Europe and wants to attempt to redress the balance away from the sugar-daddy approach that's so powerful and seemingly desirable in this country.

And, yes, I know that we have a sugar-daddy, but we're in a position to comply - as I'm sure RL wants to - far more so than Man City or Chelsea.

Having said that, I'd still support the Wenger/Platini position even if we were in breach in the short-term.