Football bubble about to pop?

UrbanFret

Good. FFP about to be shown up for what it was always about.
Keeping the status quo. The cosy cartel, a closed shop if you like.
The Spanish whingers wanted city banned whilst they run up 100s of millions of debt.

cdeb

Donald Trump wrote: »

The inequality is that those at the top of the pile are getting everything and those at the bottom have little. Same as any other inequality.

I know that. But the point is that it's in everyone's individual power to change that if they want. Saying we need to look into Messi's wages (which he has earned, and it's his market value) isn't the way to change things though. Unless you want to go all communist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Local" in London is goigng to be different from "local" in Tipperary and teams in cities are going to have bigger fan bases and therefore larger incomes than those outside.

Don't know the Irish set-up well enough to commment, but the challenge there is the population density. Somewhere like the Netherlands is going to be far easier simply because of numbers, ease of transport and infrastructure.

I'm not really sure what your point is here?

I would say 90% of people in Ireland have a local team. I don't know why you expect your team to be "of European quality" before they're deemed worthy of support either?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Regarding the less TV money/more teams, rememebr that correation is not causation.

What do you think has caused markedly less competition at the top if it isn't much more TV money spread across much fewer clubs? (And the Bosman rule, of course)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For teams, as done in AMerican football. As I said, though, I don;t know or think it would work because of economic differences. And, as PAwwed Rig pointed out, overseas markets like China.

But there is a salary cap for teams.

(Also, AFAIK the salary cap works in American football because all the owners are in cahoots with each other to drive down salaries so the owners get more of the pie. Not an ideal model, I think)

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

Celtic cant even be scottish champions

Strange, I've just checked and the last 9 years they're the only ones that have been. :rolleyes:

Strumms

NIMAN wrote: »

A lot of Irish football fans are event junkies. Not quite the same excitement for them to go to an LoI game.
They like supporting a winning team too, hence many also become rugby fans when Ireland or the provinces are doing well.

Ireland must be the only country where so-called football fanatics don't support their local team?

Many leagues around Europe/the World are likely at the standard of the LoI or worse, but fans still support their teams.
Instead in Ireland we get "I wouldn't watch that sh1t" as a retort.

That’s true, but the league here was and to a point is in an absolute jocker in terms of facilities, entertainment etc..

I firmly believe that the league and clubs here should have been given a financial stimulus package to try and reinvigorate the domestic game...

Between the premier division and first division there are 20 clubs...

Give x million in one off payments to each to be invested in facilities... premier league 2 million, say first division by virtue of lower attendance... 1 million... about a 30 million investment total.. that can be utilized and enjoyed for decades...

Make the stadia somewhere kids and adults want to go on a Friday / Saturday night, comfortable, modern, smallish but nice facilities.

Victoria Park in Hartlepool... home to Hartlepool United in the National League, what was the conference. Accommodates 8,000 fans... Conference / National League sides over the water have similar facilities to what are here in our PREMIER division....

Malmo, a city with a population of 340,000 people has a stadium for their football team holding about 18,000 people..

Give people a night out...a comfortable entertaining experience.

Around 1.3 million people live in the greater Dublin metropolitan area. Easy to support four small - medium sized clubs... but fücking have good, comfortable modern facilities that the people...they can enjoy the games in...enjoy being there, a night out and event.

Mysterypunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Athletico Madrid would have won 2 Champions Leagues in the past 5 years. Monaco would have won one as well.

If Ajax were in a dominent phase, how come they couldn't beat Athletic or Monaco😊
The bubble has burst a while ago, just not at the top level yet, too many games on now, and the quality is diluted

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

I'm not really sure what your point is here?

What's "Local"?

If you have to drive an hour, I'd argue it's not local.

Driving an hour in London could give you any one of about 10/15 teams of varying quality.

I would say 90% of people in Ireland have a local team. I don't know why you expect your team to be "of European quality" before they're deemed worthy of support either?

By European quality, I mean reguaurly comoeting in European compeitions ay least to group stage.

What this boils own it is simply: is locality more important than quality?

What do you think has caused markedly less competition at the top if it isn't much more TV money spread across much fewer clubs? (And the Bosman rule, of course)

But there is a salary cap for teams.

I never said it wasn't - I just said you can;t nessecarly assume causation.

There is no salary cap rules in European soccer.

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By European quality, I mean reguaurly comoeting in European compeitions ay least to group stage.

What this boils own it is simply: is locality more important than quality?

I don't care you you support, but if regularly competing at European competitions at least to group stage is your baseline for a team to support, then you can't complain about inequality when resources get pooled at a small group of clubs and players like Messi get huge wages. You're part of the problem in that case.

(Tis funny though that you think an hour's drive isn't local, but presumably an hour's flight away, plus transfer time to/from the airport, etc, is ok?)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never said it wasn't - I just said you can;t nessecarly assume causation.

But what else is it?

I'm saying you absolutely can read causation into it, because money lets you buy better players lets you be more successful lets you get more money, etc. That's been the experience of the past 30 years since football money really started exploding. What's your counter-argument to that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There is no salary cap rules in European soccer.

Yes there is. There's a salary cap in the LoI for example; has been for years. Although in fairness, Financial Fair Play is more a cap on loss making alright - though the two are linked as wages are going to be your single biggest expense.

But to go back to my question on your American football cap suggestion - do you really want a situation where a salary cap is in really in place to redirect funds from players to owners?

Brussels Sprout

IPTV and other forms of illegal streaming have basically broken the model. A small percentage of subscribers (usually older) are being left to try and foot the bill for the people (mostly younger) who are no longer paying for their monthly subscriptions. In order to tread water the TV companies keep increasing their subscriptions fees which only pushes more of their subscribers to the black market.

The whole model is basically in a death spiral in the same way that happened to recorded music 20 years ago.

smellyoldboot

Its been coming a while now in fairness. Too much money and too much of a mercenary attitude in the game these days. At fan level most clubs still operate much like our GAA, it's linked to pride of place, identity etc. But there is now a massive disconnect between this and the actual squads made up of lads chasing the biggest paycheque no matter where it comes from (and rightly so, you'd do it yourself).

I'm only in my mid 30s and I can remember a time when most players at English clubs were:
a) Mostly British or Irish.
b) At the same club for most of their careers.
c) Had a strong connection to the club or local area.

I doubt you can compare the connection fans felt to Tony Adams, Ian Rush, Steve Bruce etc to whomever the latest £100m signing is. It lost its way a good while back and a big reset could be the best thing to happen.

Having played soccer almost exclusively in my teens and had a few good friends from school/club end up across the water, I'd say I haven't watched a game of soccer now outside of internationals in 15+ years.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

I don't care you you support, but if regularly competing at European competitions at least to group stage is your baseline for a team to support, then you can't complain about inequality when resources get pooled at a small group of clubs and players like Messi get huge wages. You're part of the problem in that case.

Hey - I like watching football. Good football. I don't care where it is or what region it is or how "local" it is. And European level quality is what I like to watch. If I want to see something, I want to see it done well.

(Tis funny though that you think an hour's drive isn't local, but presumably an hour's flight away, plus transfer time to/from the airport, etc, is ok?)

Way to move the goalposts, no pun intended!

For the recond, no, I don't think this is local. Nor would I think anyeone else who does it would conisder it local either. Exactly what makes you think I'd believe this...?

But what else is it?

I'm saying you absolutely can read causation into it, because money lets you buy better players lets you be more successful lets you get more money, etc. That's been the experience of the past 30 years since football money really started exploding. What's your counter-argument to that?

That's not relevant to my argument: you could be right, but it;s wrong to assume you are simpe baed on correlation. I'm not presenting a counter argument because I've never actually taken the counter position. That was your assumption.

Yes there is. There's a salary cap in the LoI for example; has been for years. Although in fairness, Financial Fair Play is more a cap on loss making alright - though the two are linked as wages are going to be your single biggest expense.

But to go back to my question on your American football cap suggestion - do you really want a situation where a salary cap is in really in place to redirect funds from players to owners?

By European football, I meant champions league and top domestic leagues. If a LoI team competes in Europe, do the other teams have to play with a salary cap?

Did you accidently read that I put forward the suggestion that football should have an identital calary cap implented in exactly the same way it should be in the NFL? Because I don't remember mentioning the NFL at all.

You seem to read a lot of incorrect assumptions into my posts, insterad of what I actually wrote - any chance you could stop doing that?

cdeb

Ah look - you mentioned salary caps in American football. I think it's fair to assume you're talking about the NFL there. And you're the one who accuses me of moving the goalposts? Come on.

I'm not assuming I'm right on TV money simply based on correlation. I outlined a solid argument as to how it works which is based on basic business principles. That's not basing my argument on correlation. If you want to argue against that point, fire ahead. If you don't want to argue my point, then it still stands.

Look, the bottom line is if you think football below European group stage is below you, then that's entirely your choice. But it does mean that you can't complain about inequality in football, or about the size of Messi's wages. You're part of what generated that inequality.

Mysterypunter

Lee Dixon, former Arsenal and England defender gave the best answer I heard when there was a discussion on players wages. Question was simple, Are footballers overpaid?
His answer, "the bad ones are".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

Ah look - you mentioned salary caps in American football. I think it's fair to assume you're talking about the NFL there. And you're the one who accuses me of moving the goalposts? Come on.

I'm not assuming I'm right on TV money simply based on correlation. I outlined a solid argument as to how it works which is based on basic business principles. That's not basing my argument on correlation. If you want to argue against that point, fire ahead. If you don't want to argue my point, then it still stands.

Look, the bottom line is if you think football below European group stage is below you, then that's entirely your choice. But it does mean that you can't complain about inequality in football, or about the size of Messi's wages. You're part of what generated that inequality.

I didn't even say American Football, I said American sport.

Not did I say anything about football being below me.

Again. Assuming I said something I didn't.

DraftDodger

buried wrote: »

European Super League in a NFL style incoming

Absolutely inevitable

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I didn't even say American Football, I said American sport.

Do you want to try that again? Maybe without the attitude this time?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For teams, as done in AMerican football.

amacca

buried wrote: »

European Super League in a NFL style incoming

I actually like NFLand I think part of it is because of the structure. You wont be able to draft players in an attempt to make teams more equal in football but if it could be set up so it meant more single knock out games Id like it

Always hated two legged games as I felt they only really came to a head in the second leg and many times any chance of an entertaining upset was gone as the superior team would get the upper hand in the end and grind it out - I can see how it makes perfect sense revenue wise though.

In fact Id be all in favour of a champions league being a single game knockout from the start with big rewards for making any progress so reduce the chances of anyone making up the numbers or attempting to make it through at a canter rather than a gallop.....but Id say I wouldnt be popular with the accountants and TV people etc etc

Yamanoto

Deleted User wrote: »

The French league doesn':rolleyes:t matter.

Zut allies!

Yamanoto

Deleted User wrote: »

The French league doesn':rolleyes:t matter.

Zut allors!

RoversCeltic

beerguts wrote: »

A story on France 24 is highlighting that the domestic league is in financial trouble. The TV deal offered didn't even reach the reserve price and it looks as if a lot of clubs might have to reduce spending dramatically.
I know the French league would be the poorer relation to the PL but does anyone think this might be the start of the football bubble popping?

https://f24.my/7KB1.W

did the football bubble ever come to Ireland?

cdeb

RoversCeltic wrote: »

did the football bubble ever come to Ireland?

Yes - in the 2000s

Sell the ground

Scene missing

Champions League group stages!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

Do you want to try that again? Maybe without the attitude this time?

Fair point - corrected - American sport. In my defense, I did say "sport" in an earlier post here.

But three points still remain: some of us would rather watch quality sport instead of "local" sport in the same way I'd rather drink good beer instead of Guinness because it's loca or listen to good music instead of U2 becaue they grew up nearby.

Traveliing for an hour us not local, be it across Ireland or across the Irish sea. No one said going to Old Trafford / Anfield / wherever was "local". That's not the reason people go.

Money does not guarantee you success alone. You still need quality of coaches, tactics for example. Case in point Anzhi Makhachkala.
Nor does it block you from winning - case in point, Leicester City. And you could spend all the money you wanted in LoI if the coaching levels are't good enough, you won't get nay different results. And from what I hear, coaching levels at teenage soccer is far from good enough. Too may old stylers relying on long ball hoofs and crosses. Furthermore, if you don't provide quality football, you won't get the fans in.

Football's bubble is not nessecarily going to burst, but it will deflate a little. But there never was one in LoI of a size allowing them to be competitive with other countries to start off with. And the reasons for that are geographical as much as they are financial.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

English league's TV rights value going to take a hammering next time round

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/11/tension-everywhere-premier-league-back-foot-uk-tv-rights-auction-nears

Wanderer78

I'd imagine illegal streaming is also having an effect here

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But three points still remain: some of us would rather watch quality sport instead of "local" sport in the same way I'd rather drink good beer instead of Guinness because it's loca or listen to good music instead of U2 becaue they grew up nearby.

But you're ignoring my point here. I've said that's fine - but (a) it absolutely does mean you consider a certain level of football below you, despite your protestations, and (b) that's what drives inequality in football. So you don't get to complain about inequality in football or huge wages for top players if you are part of what's causing that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Money does not guarantee you success alone. You still need quality of coaches, tactics for example. Case in point Anzhi Makhachkala.
Nor does it block you from winning - case in point, Leicester City. And you could spend all the money you wanted in LoI if the coaching levels are't good enough, you won't get nay different results.

There is a very strong correlation between wages spend and league position (see this paper for example - https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/business-studies/stefan-szymanski-on-the-business-football#:~:text=The%20figure%20shows%20that%20wage,between%20wages%20and%20league%20standing.)

the report wrote:

The figure shows that wage spending is highly correlated with league position over time. The ‘R2’ is a statistic which measures the percentage of variation in league position that is captured by wage spending, so a value of 90% is a very strong signal of a significant relationship between wages and league standing

Leicester were a 5000-1 aberration that doesn't disprove that. Anzhi were quite successful when spending money - they qualified for Europe in their second and third seasons after promotion for example. Reached the last 16 of the Europa League twice, in fact. And then the money ran out, and they're third tier now.

Of course you need good coaches, facilities, etc - that's what more money will get you. The best everything. So more money because of TV, centralised across fewer clubs because lots of people think clubs who don't regularly make the group stages of Europe are below them, absolutely does drive inequality in football.

Any LoI club who has suddenly gone splashing the cash - and there's been plenty; Drogheda, Bohs, Shels, etc, or Waterford and Limerick in recent FD seasons - has really obviously had a dramatic improvement in results. And really obviously had a disimprovement when the money ran out.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

But you're ignoring my point here. I've said that's fine - but (a) it absolutely does mean you consider a certain level of football below you, despite your protestations, and (b) that's what drives inequality in football. So you don't get to complain about inequality in football or huge wages for top players if you are part of what's causing that.

Not interested =/= thinking it's beaneath me.

Not complaining at all about it - I just put forward an idea which I admitted at the time was porbably not workable.

There is a very strong correlation between wages spend and league position (see this paper for example - https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/business-studies/stefan-szymanski-on-the-business-football#:~:text=The%20figure%20shows%20that%20wage,between%20wages%20and%20league%20standing.)

Coreallation =/= casuation.

Not the correation I'm arguing against.

Leicester were a 5000-1 aberration that doesn't disprove that. Anzhi were quite successful when spending money - they qualified for Europe in their second and third seasons after promotion for example. Reached the last 16 of the Europa League twice, in fact. And then the money ran out, and they're third tier now.

Of course you need good coaches, facilities, etc - that's what more money will get you. The best everything. So more money because of TV, centralised across fewer clubs because lots of people think clubs who don't regularly make the group stages of Europe are below them, absolutely does drive inequality in football.

I used these as examples off the top of my head, but again: you're arguing a point I never made.

Bit in bold is fallacy - you have to invest wisely. It's not automatic.

Any LoI club who has suddenly gone splashing the cash - and there's been plenty; Drogheda, Bohs, Shels, etc, or Waterford and Limerick in recent FD seasons - has really obviously had a dramatic improvement in results. And really obviously had a disimprovement when the money ran out.

Not arguing with you here - you know more about the domestic scene than I do - but I'd consider it a very insular league. None of them made the jump to the next level. The problem there is either finances or coaching; and if you're telling me it's not finances, then it must be coaching.

DraftDodger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd imagine illegal streaming is also having an effect here

Big time. The SKY/BT model is finished and as much as they've attempted to stop it live streaming is more available now than ever. Haven't paid to watch football in a good few years now. Greed has played a big part also and i think if they had priced their packages at a reasonable price point (30 euro a month maybe) they would have kept a lot of subs. The recent pay for view effort that turned out a huge PR disaster will have driven many away for good now.

Wanderer78

DraftDodger wrote: »

Big time. The SKY/BT model is finished and as much as they've attempted to stop it live streaming is more available now than ever. Haven't paid to watch football in a good few years now. Greed has played a big part also and i think if they had priced their packages at a reasonable price point (30 euro a month maybe) they would have kept a lot of subs. The recent pay for view effort that turned out a huge PR disaster will have driven many away for good now.

their business models are based on this, which includes their debt obligations, this is a lot more complicated than just pure greed, and the broadcasters themselves, id class it as the 'financialisation of sport', and its failing, big time!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DraftDodger wrote: »

Big time. The SKY/BT model is finished and as much as they've attempted to stop it live streaming is more available now than ever. Haven't paid to watch football in a good few years now. Greed has played a big part also and i think if they had priced their packages at a reasonable price point (30 euro a month maybe) they would have kept a lot of subs. The recent pay for view effort that turned out a huge PR disaster will have driven many away for good now.

There terms and conditios are ridiculous. When I last had SKy (in Germany) it was 60 eur oa month, but I had to pay for bundesliga AND sport; and I had to sign for a two-year minium period. For 3-4 games a month that I'd watch? No.

That plus the fact that going down the pub isn't an option at the moment means streaming, yes plaese.

Cyrus

Kivaro wrote: »

Well, in fairness, after paying Messi €555 million over the last 4 years, is there any money left in the kitty? €1/2 billion is a bit much.
Professional athletes are getting paid WAY too much.
When we talk about inequality, let's have a look at these people too.

when they offered that contract to messi it was based on two things,

his market value, you can be sure he could have gotten that elsewhere and his value to barcelona, they make more out of having him for four years than he costs.

barcelona arent well run, and the loss of revenue caused by covid is putting a spotlight on this but id argue its the other players on massive salaries albeit less than messis that arent performing are the issue not messi.

Leroy42

I think that Covid could definetly have a massive impact.

I think many people watch the games now and, well IMO, many of the games are quite boring. Many people bemoan the NFL for its stop start nature, adds, etc, but at least every play there is a chance of something happening. In many soccer games it is endless passing around at the back, midfield, wing, recycle. There have been plenty of games where one team doesn't even manage a shot on target!

There are also amazing games, games that are exciting. The issue is are people really going to continue to pay for all the boring stuff in the hope of seeing some good games?

The one thing that Covid situation, ie lack of fans, has shown to me, is that the fans are akin to a laughter track in a comedy show. Take it away and suddenly it doesn't seem so funny, or in the case of a game, so exciting. It strips the game down to just what is happening on the pitch, and in many cases, and for long periods in many games, there really isn't much happening.

Liverpool of the last few years, Utd in their pomp, Real Madrid at times, Bayern. Leicster on the title run. There are plenty of examples of good teams and great games, but it is but a fraction of the number of actual games played.

Apart from the core supporters, are people really lining up to watch Watch Ham versus Brunely on Thursday evening?

And to continue to generate the level of funds football needs more than just the hardcore supporters. The need a constant renewal and increase in the paying watchers.