I think that Sky has had a negative influence on the game, but not as much as the Champions League has. For me though it all boils down to the greed of the top clubs - any deal to make the distribution of money fairer will be vetoed by the big clubs because thanks to their popularity they are effectively able to dictate the terms of what in reality is a twisted version of a democracy. The big clubs have the option of breaking away yet again and taking the vast majority of the paying public with them and negotiating their own deal with someone else - meaning their votes effectively count for a lot more.
The only way that this can be solved as far as I can see, is for the football league to totally disassociate itself from the Premier League and spend a good few years developing a brand new product that is more exciting than the Premier League and over a generation or so, suck support and eventually talent, away from the Premier League. Can't see it ever happening though.
Football was a complete mess before Sky got involved. Run by faceless, blazered county officials. Crowds were down, grounds were appalling and the football was crap. Move on 20 years and we have many new top grounds, not just in the Prem. We have some of the worlds best players playing in England and we have had a major presence in the finals of UEFA competitions. Ok, there are downsides, too much corporate influence in football, strange scheduling and the national side has probably suffered as club football in this country is more powerful than the FA itself. Players earn too much money, totally disproportionate to the the job they do and unrealistic to the working man. However if you way things up seriously and take out your emotions for the good old days, if you are old enough to remember them of course, I'd say football and sport is in better place due to Sky. We take for granted how much football is on TV these days. There is a live game on virtually every day of the season, we used to have one a week pre-Sky. Not just football ahs benifited. Think what they've done for cricket? All England overseas tours are shown live as are many more domestic games. Other sports too like Rugby (both codes), boxing, and darts have had their profiles lifted massively by Sky.
Sky are always going to pay the big bucks for football. Sport in general is so much better on Sky. Can you imagine the mess football would become if left in the hands of the BBC or ITV? Sky would probably cover the Subbuteo world cup and still make it look slicker than Match Of The Day. And the comment about the premier league being boring makes me wonder what would happen if we got promoted? Are people going to tear up their season tickets in protest at all the bore draws we would encounter? Probably not.
I think it's genius that Sky have managed to get the public to contribute hundreds of pounds a year towards football, especially when the majority of those paying haven't been to a football stadium for years.
I know the players earn much more than they ever did, and we have a lot of hangers on (agents et. al.) but even ignoring that, there is no way The Valley could have been developed into the fantastic stadium it is today on the back of the season ticket income. Even in the Championship, there are only four (from memory) clubs that don't have a 20,000 plus capacity all seated stadium.
Football in this country was on it's knees in the 80s, and it is is unrecognisable today. I, personally, think Sky has probably saved our national game. The money was always going to end up being paid to the wrong places, it happens everywhere, banking, politics, education, the NHS. Anywhere there is a lot of money there are people asking much more than is fair/necessary. As objectionable as some of these footballers are, I suspect there was just as much inappropriate behaviour from the stars of the 70s and 80s, they just had a smaller mansion and less flash cars and toys.
No the sky money is not ruining football. The problem is the distribution of the money and whole structure of english football. For an example of how it should be done just look at the american nfl system.
Perhaps they couldn't have done it at the start of the pl but they could implement the following now. 32 teams in the premier league structure (split into a top division and a second division). All sky money to be split an equal 33 ways. (The 33rd share to go fl clubs). A strict salary cap. (Minimum and maximum spend) Upto age of 16 youth players to be developed at local academy. 16 to 18 the best youth players to be based at a national academy. At the end of this period youth players are drafted. No 1 youth product goes to 32 rated team etc, etc, etc.
No the sky money is not ruining football. The problem is the distribution of the money and whole structure of english football. For an example of how it should be done just look at the american nfl system.
Perhaps they couldn't have done it at the start of the pl but they could implement the following now. 32 teams in the premier league structure (split into a top division and a second division). All sky money to be split an equal 33 ways. (The 33rd share to go fl clubs). A strict salary cap. (Minimum and maximum spend) Upto age of 16 youth players to be developed at local academy. 16 to 18 the best youth players to be based at a national academy. At the end of this period youth players are drafted. No 1 youth product goes to 32 rated team etc, etc, etc.
An NFL style system would be a catastrophe for any league in Europe. Plus it's completely against the fabric of our sport, there will always be bigger and smaller clubs, richer and poorer. That's why we have a pyramid system with the drama of promotion and relegation. Success is rewarded, a draft system such as US sports doesn't reward success (in many ways quite the opposite).
Do you really think the system is so broken it requires such a radical overhaul ?
No the sky money is not ruining football. The problem is the distribution of the money and whole structure of english football. For an example of how it should be done just look at the american nfl system.
Perhaps they couldn't have done it at the start of the pl but they could implement the following now. 32 teams in the premier league structure (split into a top division and a second division). All sky money to be split an equal 33 ways. (The 33rd share to go fl clubs). A strict salary cap. (Minimum and maximum spend) Upto age of 16 youth players to be developed at local academy. 16 to 18 the best youth players to be based at a national academy. At the end of this period youth players are drafted. No 1 youth product goes to 32 rated team etc, etc, etc.
Three problems:
1) The NFL is the whole sport. You would have to have the draft system to include all teams in the FIFA, otherwise you would not be able to 'trade' players. If it only included English players chances are some years none of the clubs would even want any of them! 2) The EU laws on freedom of movement would prevent players being unable to choose their own club. 3) Who would run the Academies? In America they have college football. Clubs would not be very motivated to run Acadamies if they couldn't keep the players.
Yes I do. Look at the clubs teetering on bankrupcy just trying to compete. It is only a matter of time before we have a rangers type situation in english football. To much money is being spent at the top of the football pyramid and this inflates transfer fees and wages all the way down to league 2. Nearly every club spends beyond their means. By giving every team a strict wages / transfer budget it would guarantee each team an annual profit bringing stability and security. Of course it will never happen as it would require clubs giving power away.
I think a draft would work. From 16 to 18 in the national academy they would play in a youth league (they would be protected from burn out, educated in dealing with money / fame etc and down the line benefit the english football team as they would train / compete with each other on a far more regular basis. The draft would be used as a mechanism to keep parity.
The natural order of rewarding success would still be in place and would actually be more obvious (in my opinion man city, chelsea have bought their titles) as money would not be a factor. Perhaps in this different system chris powell could take cafc all the way to the premiership title? I understand the idea is not everyones cup of tea, but I'm talking about adapting the nfl system to the english game not bringing in an american system and throwing out the old entirely.
You can't please everyone. Overall it's been beneficial. The big teams who don't play at 3pm on a Saturday are still playing in front of sold out crowds.
But the make-up of them crowds has changed. High prices and silly kick-off times have alienated your avg working class fan.
When were Leicester last in Prem 2004? So why are they used above as an example If our backer hadn't pulled out it would have been fine for us to lift a few more players Oh and it was fine and exciting for us to walk the league cos we had bought the best players last year and paid them more than anyone else to secure their services
Of course the money is a joke all throughout football and the rarity is the ones who deal with it sensibly , you only have to look at how poorly we were run once Lord Curbs had left the building. Not sure how it can be arranged more evenly but it has drip fed thru the leagues cos the quality of football in all leagues has improved considerably in the last 20 years
I love having the option of watching football in fact sky sports will prolly consist of 90% of my tv viewing
And if last seasons premier league race and finish wasn't exciting enough for you then you have no hope And I'm not a massive champions league fan but chelsea somehow winning/jamming it was pretty mental as well.
Even now back in the championship after 3 years in hell I think these games feel bigger and better than they did before , prolly cos we've come up than down to it but the league seems competitive to me with no standout team who will walk away with it and get 101 points
I'm loving my footy as much as I ever have but the money aspect is a scary thing hanging over it and the need for (relative)success by all fans is what puts some clubs in trouble
You should not give too much credit to the Sky money for the improved stadia. The most important changes came as a result of the Taylor report in the 90s, and were largely financed by the Football Trust with government assistance. Most of the Valley improvements were complete well before we got significant Sky money. Things like the Emirates were built on Sky money but not everyone there believes its such a good thing.
While KHA makes good points about the drawbacks of the NFL system, its worth pausing to consider why the Americans have the system. They recognise that the customer buys the competition, the unpredictability of it all, ad if it becomes too predictable, the product is diminished. While se9addick is right to talk about the drama of promotion and relegation and the pyramid system, the point is that the grossly unequal share of the Sky money means that promotion and relegation from and to the FAPL is all about avoiding financial meltdown, or reaching untold riches which might end up in directors' pockets; meanwhile the pyramid system is rotting from the bottom. The Germans understand this far better than we do. Fairer distribution, and more money at the grassroots is what they do, and what we should demand. Currently the Germans watch great football for a fraction of the price we do, standing up if they wish, and will continue to be much better at country level than us for the foreseeable future.
PA, I was under the impression that on promotion in 1998 the club stated that the £30m tv money would be split in thirds, stadium development, squad development and reserve funds.
The North Stand development was all carried out during the Prem years, and even though there is a mortgage on The Valley I just assumed that the £100m plus of TV money we received during out stay in the Premier League would have contributed to it.
I agree that some don't appreciate our big clubs being able to develop their infrastructure to compete with the top sides in Europe, but I, personally, think it is a good thing. I suspect that the new TV income was responsibly for funding the building of the New Wembley, which I also think is a good thing.
Sky money has been instrumental in making English Premier League players overpaid by a factor of about four. If used correctly it would have revitalised football in this country from top to bottom instead of just revitalising the bank accounts of EPL players and their agents. This disparity of division of money is actually killing off football at every level apart from EPL but the juganaut of wages and commission is unlikely to be halted now. Footballs problems are not a result of Sky money but how it is used.
Really don't think you can blame Sky for much to what has happened for football. Surely the blame still lies with greedy owners chasing the Premiership and living beyond their means?
Truth is there are some very wealthy owners who can "afford" to lose millions and not let it affect them while they search for trophies, in order to keep up with them other less wealthy individuals/companies break the bank trying to do so, all it needs is one bad season and it all comes tumbling down. Even those wealthy owners, we have yet to see the effects of one pulling out. The one questions you never hear Chelsea or City fans talk about is, what will happen when that backer pulls out?
I think UEFA's financial fair play rules are a good idea in principal but I cannot see how they will be enforced, just look at the continued spending across Europe.
As for sharing the money throughout football, one question, why should they? They are independent of the Football League so don't have any obligation to provide it with money. However they do provide parachute payments which they could quite easily have said no to. Also how far should it go? Say all the money was shared throughout the leagues, what happens to the conference? Should they be excluded? Then what happens if they were given a share? How far do you go down the pyramid?
As for sharing the money throughout football, one question, why should they? They are independent of the Football League so don't have any obligation to provide it with money. However they do provide parachute payments which they could quite easily have said no to. Also how far should it go? Say all the money was shared throughout the leagues, what happens to the conference? Should they be excluded? Then what happens if they were given a share? How far do you go down the pyramid?
Starts to sound a lot like Communism when you ask those questions.
Regarding the NFL system, that is a model of socialism which is quite incredible considering it's the USA we're talking about. I think it's a great idea, but could never work in a global game like football, more's the pity.
This debate certainly proves that there's no easy answers to the 'problems' in the English game. Some don't even think there is a problem.
As for sharing the money throughout football, one question, why should they? They are independent of the Football League so don't have any obligation to provide it with money. However they do provide parachute payments which they could quite easily have said no to. Also how far should it go? Say all the money was shared throughout the leagues, what happens to the conference? Should they be excluded? Then what happens if they were given a share? How far do you go down the pyramid?
When the Premier League started I was of the opinion that the rest of the league should have waved them goodbye then. I am not being wise after the event, the league was already dominated by a select few, and I could only see that situation becoming worse, which it did.
If they had have left them to it, the fans of the bottom few clubs would have soon got disillusioned with seeing their clubs get hammered every week, as those at the top got stronger and stronger. Interest in watching half the league having nothing to play for for half the season would have soon wained. So the Premier League knew it needed, and still needs the football league. That is why they should share the money throughout football.
The Premier League was part of The Football League, the conference and under was not, that is why they money should only be distributed through the top four divisions.
You should not give too much credit to the Sky money for the improved stadia. The most important changes came as a result of the Taylor report in the 90s, and were largely financed by the Football Trust with government assistance. Most of the Valley improvements were complete well before we got significant Sky money. Things like the Emirates were built on Sky money but not everyone there believes its such a good thing.
While KHA makes good points about the drawbacks of the NFL system, its worth pausing to consider why the Americans have the system. They recognise that the customer buys the competition, the unpredictability of it all, ad if it becomes too predictable, the product is diminished. While se9addick is right to talk about the drama of promotion and relegation and the pyramid system, the point is that the grossly unequal share of the Sky money means that promotion and relegation from and to the FAPL is all about avoiding financial meltdown, or reaching untold riches which might end up in directors' pockets; meanwhile the pyramid system is rotting from the bottom. The Germans understand this far better than we do. Fairer distribution, and more money at the grassroots is what they do, and what we should demand. Currently the Germans watch great football for a fraction of the price we do, standing up if they wish, and will continue to be much better at country level than us for the foreseeable future.
Interesting points. I always find it amazing how "socialist" American sport is. Even merchandising money is split so Yankees selling caps benefits the Mets, this helps to keep everyone on a more equal footing. This benefits the popular teams like the Yankees because American supporters don't want a predictable league. Can't see it working in soccer simply because our leagues don't operate in isolation. Also, I'm not sure that most soccer fans want genuine competition, all over Europe the best supported and dominant clubs open up massive gaps in their leagues and those teams are the ones with the biggest support.
People are blinded by the glossy Sky image of the Premier League and can't see past it. If you peer deeper you can see that English football is being held back at international level by many hundreds of cheap imports who are blocking the development of young English footballers that can't breakthrough. Getting in a cheap foreign import is the short term fix paid for by the ridiculous amount of money EPL teams suck out of the system. We import more overseas players these days and the Prem clubs don't shop in our lower leagues making it even harder for the rest of football to survive. The sooner fair play rules come into play the better as far as I am concerned although I doubt even that will have the desired effect.
Comments
The only way that this can be solved as far as I can see, is for the football league to totally disassociate itself from the Premier League and spend a good few years developing a brand new product that is more exciting than the Premier League and over a generation or so, suck support and eventually talent, away from the Premier League. Can't see it ever happening though.
Move on 20 years and we have many new top grounds, not just in the Prem. We have some of the worlds best players playing in England and we have had a major presence in the finals of UEFA competitions.
Ok, there are downsides, too much corporate influence in football, strange scheduling and the national side has probably suffered as club football in this country is more powerful than the FA itself. Players earn too much money, totally disproportionate to the the job they do and unrealistic to the working man.
However if you way things up seriously and take out your emotions for the good old days, if you are old enough to remember them of course, I'd say football and sport is in better place due to Sky.
We take for granted how much football is on TV these days. There is a live game on virtually every day of the season, we used to have one a week pre-Sky. Not just football ahs benifited. Think what they've done for cricket? All England overseas tours are shown live as are many more domestic games.
Other sports too like Rugby (both codes), boxing, and darts have had their profiles lifted massively by Sky.
I know the players earn much more than they ever did, and we have a lot of hangers on (agents et. al.) but even ignoring that, there is no way The Valley could have been developed into the fantastic stadium it is today on the back of the season ticket income. Even in the Championship, there are only four (from memory) clubs that don't have a 20,000 plus capacity all seated stadium.
Football in this country was on it's knees in the 80s, and it is is unrecognisable today. I, personally, think Sky has probably saved our national game. The money was always going to end up being paid to the wrong places, it happens everywhere, banking, politics, education, the NHS. Anywhere there is a lot of money there are people asking much more than is fair/necessary. As objectionable as some of these footballers are, I suspect there was just as much inappropriate behaviour from the stars of the 70s and 80s, they just had a smaller mansion and less flash cars and toys.
For an example of how it should be done just look at the american nfl system.
Perhaps they couldn't have done it at the start of the pl but they could implement the following now.
32 teams in the premier league structure (split into a top division and a second division).
All sky money to be split an equal 33 ways. (The 33rd share to go fl clubs).
A strict salary cap. (Minimum and maximum spend)
Upto age of 16 youth players to be developed at local academy. 16 to 18 the best youth players to be based at a national academy. At the end of this period youth players are drafted. No 1 youth product goes to 32 rated team etc, etc, etc.
Do you really think the system is so broken it requires such a radical overhaul ?
1) The NFL is the whole sport. You would have to have the draft system to include all teams in the FIFA, otherwise you would not be able to 'trade' players. If it only included English players chances are some years none of the clubs would even want any of them!
2) The EU laws on freedom of movement would prevent players being unable to choose their own club.
3) Who would run the Academies? In America they have college football. Clubs would not be very motivated to run Acadamies if they couldn't keep the players.
I think a draft would work. From 16 to 18 in the national academy they would play in a youth league (they would be protected from burn out, educated in dealing with money / fame etc and down the line benefit the english football team as they would train / compete with each other on a far more regular basis. The draft would be used as a mechanism to keep parity.
The natural order of rewarding success would still be in place and would actually be more obvious (in my opinion man city, chelsea have bought their titles) as money would not be a factor. Perhaps in this different system chris powell could take cafc all the way to the premiership title?
I understand the idea is not everyones cup of tea, but I'm talking about adapting the nfl system to the english game not bringing in an american system and throwing out the old entirely.
It will never happen.
Never had sky in my life. Would rather spend that £40 a month on following my club/Country..
When were Leicester last in Prem 2004? So why are they used above as an example
If our backer hadn't pulled out it would have been fine for us to lift a few more players
Oh and it was fine and exciting for us to walk the league cos we had bought the best players last year and paid them more than anyone else to secure their services
Of course the money is a joke all throughout football and the rarity is the ones who deal with it sensibly , you only have to look at how poorly we were run once Lord Curbs had left the building.
Not sure how it can be arranged more evenly but it has drip fed thru the leagues cos the quality of football in all leagues has improved considerably in the last 20 years
I love having the option of watching football in fact sky sports will prolly consist of 90% of my tv viewing
And if last seasons premier league race and finish wasn't exciting enough for you then you have no hope
And I'm not a massive champions league fan but chelsea somehow winning/jamming it was pretty mental as well.
Even now back in the championship after 3 years in hell I think these games feel bigger and better than they did before , prolly cos we've come up than down to it but the league seems competitive to me with no standout team who will walk away with it and get 101 points
I'm loving my footy as much as I ever have but the money aspect is a scary thing hanging over it and the need for (relative)success by all fans is what puts some clubs in trouble
You should not give too much credit to the Sky money for the improved stadia. The most important changes came as a result of the Taylor report in the 90s, and were largely financed by the Football Trust with government assistance. Most of the Valley improvements were complete well before we got significant Sky money. Things like the Emirates were built on Sky money but not everyone there believes its such a good thing.
While KHA makes good points about the drawbacks of the NFL system, its worth pausing to consider why the Americans have the system. They recognise that the customer buys the competition, the unpredictability of it all, ad if it becomes too predictable, the product is diminished. While se9addick is right to talk about the drama of promotion and relegation and the pyramid system, the point is that the grossly unequal share of the Sky money means that promotion and relegation from and to the FAPL is all about avoiding financial meltdown, or reaching untold riches which might end up in directors' pockets; meanwhile the pyramid system is rotting from the bottom. The Germans understand this far better than we do. Fairer distribution, and more money at the grassroots is what they do, and what we should demand. Currently the Germans watch great football for a fraction of the price we do, standing up if they wish, and will continue to be much better at country level than us for the foreseeable future.
The North Stand development was all carried out during the Prem years, and even though there is a mortgage on The Valley I just assumed that the £100m plus of TV money we received during out stay in the Premier League would have contributed to it.
I agree that some don't appreciate our big clubs being able to develop their infrastructure to compete with the top sides in Europe, but I, personally, think it is a good thing. I suspect that the new TV income was responsibly for funding the building of the New Wembley, which I also think is a good thing.
Truth is there are some very wealthy owners who can "afford" to lose millions and not let it affect them while they search for trophies, in order to keep up with them other less wealthy individuals/companies break the bank trying to do so, all it needs is one bad season and it all comes tumbling down. Even those wealthy owners, we have yet to see the effects of one pulling out. The one questions you never hear Chelsea or City fans talk about is, what will happen when that backer pulls out?
I think UEFA's financial fair play rules are a good idea in principal but I cannot see how they will be enforced, just look at the continued spending across Europe.
As for sharing the money throughout football, one question, why should they? They are independent of the Football League so don't have any obligation to provide it with money. However they do provide parachute payments which they could quite easily have said no to. Also how far should it go? Say all the money was shared throughout the leagues, what happens to the conference? Should they be excluded? Then what happens if they were given a share? How far do you go down the pyramid?
This debate certainly proves that there's no easy answers to the 'problems' in the English game. Some don't even think there is a problem.
If they had have left them to it, the fans of the bottom few clubs would have soon got disillusioned with seeing their clubs get hammered every week, as those at the top got stronger and stronger. Interest in watching half the league having nothing to play for for half the season would have soon wained. So the Premier League knew it needed, and still needs the football league. That is why they should share the money throughout football.
The Premier League was part of The Football League, the conference and under was not, that is why they money should only be distributed through the top four divisions.
That's my take on the situation.
Maybe the Premier League teams will decide that sharing is better than what you say Algarve. We certainly can't be any worse off for trying.