exactly, it was always about protecting the status quo.
makes sense for the big owners, also makes sense for the leagues/media/associations/sponsors who have all invested in certain "brands" (e.g. the infamous Sky 4)
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
exactly, it was always about protecting the status quo.
makes sense for the big owners, also makes sense for the leagues/media/associations/sponsors who have all invested in certain "brands" (e.g. the infamous Sky 4)
Baleforce
Ron Henry
yep
it does also protect fans to some degree, theoretically, although I'm sure many would waive such protection for a sniff of "success"
I do, because I made it! XD
It represents distributing (almost) all TV money based on teams' non-TV revenues, rather than their league position or number of televised games:
- a flat £90m to all 14 teams outside of the richest 6
- gradually decreasing amounts to Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and City (in order)
- nothing to Man U
And having a pot of about £120m leftover, to be distributed to those teams who improve their league position the most in any given season (perhaps compared to their average over the last 3-5 seasons) - so that there is still a financial reward for smaller teams overachieving in a season.
Obviously this would be very much going against any sort principles of the free market, but as football is a sport first and foremost I don't see why any lover of the sport would find that unacceptable. And it would just be trying to negate the warping effect of the Champions League.
Don't know who exactly decides how TV money gets distributed though, and whether this would be legally or practically possible in practice.
questionable imo. my sample size is small and a bit biased because i live in london, but if you include us and liverpool in the top 4 (so top 6), the majority of football fans i know certainly support one of these top 4 teams.
questionable again imo
milo
Jack L. Jones
That is difficult for me to gauge because I do not know your circle of friends. Age could have something to do with it too.
I work in London and live in the SE. I know a lot of people who support London clubs but I know as many West Ham fans as I do Chelsea.
Of the southern "fans" of north west teams that I know, only a handful show any real interest in the sport or actively follow their team.
Sandman
Dean Austin
I was reading an article on this list basically talking about the power of the Premier League and London in particular. But they noted it would be hard to break into the top 10 for Tottenham or West Ham. But looking at that list we are 50million behind Juventus. With the increase in TV revenue from next season. And in the future our increased capacity. It looks possible for us to get past them to 10th.
Lemonade Money
Steffen Freund
I think with the new stadium and Chelsea getting relegated, top ten is doable.
jts1882
Dean Richards
That table is messed up. I was trying to compare the growth of various teams and was puzzled by our apparent stability and Liverpool's growth.
As far as I can tell the 2013-14 number for Spurs (190) is the 2013-14 revenue of the 12th placed team (AC Milan) converted at the current Euro rate. Sky didn't account for the changed position in the table when doing their conversions.
The Liverpool number in 2013-14 is the euro revenue converted to pounds at the current exchange rate. The comparable figure for Spurs is £164, which gives us growth of 19% compared to Liverpool's growth of 28%. While a good portion of that growth is due to the exchange rate change, it does show that Liverpool are pulling away on the commercial revenues. Their fans may not be happy with their owners but that have closed the gap on Chelsea and Arsenal quite impressively given their football.
Edit: using a 2013-14 exchange rate to try and compare actual revenue growth, Liverpool grew almost twice as fast as us (16.5% vs 8.7% ). I used numbers from the BBC report, which used appropriate exchange rates to convert the Euro figures published by Deloitte (table on p6).
Last edited:
Baleforce
Ron Henry
not as much as Juve, how is such a storied and decorated club leaving so much money on the table
Preferably Arsenal's looking at their matchday revenue.
Nearly 40k seats less than the Camp Nou and their bringing in over £11m more, can see who gets the "Rip Off Merchant of the Year" Award.
jts1882
Dean Richards
In the 20 years Deloitte have been doing this, there are a few constants and a few changes. Below is the first survey for the 1996-97 season.
We are one of the ever-presents, although never making the top ten. Roma also share this distinction, while the other ever-presents have spent most of the time in the top ten: Real, Barcelona, Juve, Milan, Inter, Bayern, United, Liverpool and Arsenal. Chelsea marginally missed out the first year and Saudi Sportswashing Machine dropped out the year they dropped to the Championship.
PSG made the first few and then disappeared before their recent reemergence. City were newcomers in 2003-04 and have slowly risen. Atletico was in the first list and then disappeared (I'm not sure why). The big three Italian clubs have slipped down the rankings.
We are one of the ever-presents, although never making the top ten. Roma also share this distinction, while the other ever-presents have spent most of the time in the top ten: Real, Barcelona, Juve, Milan, Inter, Bayern, United, Liverpool and Arsenal. Chelsea marginally missed out the first year and Saudi Sportswashing Machine dropped out the year they dropped to the Championship.
PSG made the first few and then disappeared before their recent reemergence. City were newcomers in 2003-04 and have slowly risen. Atletico was in the first list and then disappeared (I'm not sure why). The big three Italian clubs have slipped down the rankings.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Totally market based investments made by companies related to their Qatari owners. There is no reason to think this is less proper than their appointment of the younger Platini to a lucrative post. UEFA, led by Platini senior, have approved the deals.
Same as City, massively inflated sponsorship deals via their owners.
