Football bubble about to pop?

Pawwed Rig

Alot of the growth has come in the middle and far east where there are no domestic leagues of note. The growth has been built on selling a brand rather than the football itself in many cases. This is why all of the bigger teams trip over themselves trying to have an asian player in their ranks. As soon as a decent Chinese player emerges there is likely to be a world record transfer fee paid as the clubs factor in the merchandise sales.

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

Ah would you stop. It's essentially the same thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Coreallation =/= casuation.

So I'll ask again - what do you think causes inequality in football if it isn't inequality in money? (Which is it, because as I've said before, more money = better players = better results = higher profile = more money, as starkly demonstrated by results in the last 30 years)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I used these as examples off the top of my head

And they were bad examples. Because by and large, more money = more success.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

I never said otherwise. But if you have multi-million pound businesses, you can be fairly sure that the majority are actually quite good at what they do. Sure, the odd Leeds United will fall out entirely, but by and large multi-million pound businesses do invest wisely.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

What's the "next level"? Shamrock Rovers and Dundalk have both qualified for the Europa League group stages in the past 10 years - that sounds like "next level" to me.

Also, I didn't say finances weren't the problem. I said that when finances were available, results improved, and when they weren't available, they disimproved. Coaches are a function of finances - better finances = better coaches.

I don't see what relevance your "insular league" comment has tbh?

So to bring this all back to the starting point where you jumped in, I'm curious as to what Kivaro meant by -

Professional athletes are getting paid WAY too much.
When we talk about inequality, let's have a look at these people too.

It all sounds a bit social-justicey to me, without realising that everyone watching the same few teams is what creates the environment where Messi can be worth €100m a year.

cdeb

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Alot of the growth has come in the middle and far east where there are no domestic leagues of note. The growth has been built on selling a brand rather than the football itself in many cases. This is why all of the bigger teams trip over themselves trying to have an asian player in their ranks. As soon as a decent Chinese player emerges there is likely to be a world record transfer fee paid as the clubs factor in the merchandise sales.

Didn't Man United sign a Japanese player in the 2000s (Inamoto?) more or less just to tap into the Japanese market?

FWIW, on the original topic, I don't think you can equate a covid crisis with a bubble about to burst. Covid is too unique a situation to merely be a contributing cause to something else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

Ah would you stop. It's essentially the same thing.


So I'll ask again - what do you think causes inequality in football if it isn't inequality in money? (Which is it, because as I've said before, more money = better players = better results = higher profile = more money, as starkly demonstrated by results in the last 30 years)


And they were bad examples. Because by and large, more money = more success.


I never said otherwise. But if you have multi-million pound businesses, you can be fairly sure that the majority are actually quite good at what they do. Sure, the odd Leeds United will fall out entirely, but by and large multi-million pound businesses do invest wisely.


What's the "next level"? Shamrock Rovers and Dundalk have both qualified for the Europa League group stages in the past 10 years - that sounds like "next level" to me.

Also, I didn't say finances weren't the problem. I said that when finances were available, results improved, and when they weren't available, they disimproved. Coaches are a function of finances - better finances = better coaches.

I don't see what relevance your "insular league" comment has tbh?

So to bring this all back to the starting point where you jumped in, I'm curious as to what Kivaro meant by -



It all sounds a bit social-justicey to me, without realising that everyone watching the same few teams is what creates the environment where Messi can be worth €100m a year.

So.... having a lack of interest in something is automatically the same as thinking that it's "beneath" you....? Wow. OK.

Now - again - I am not aruging money and football. I'm pointing out a logical flaw in your thinking. Getting aggressive won't change that. I pointed out a few examples where correaltion was not caused. I'm saying that you can not assume that because two things happen, one must cause the other. Can you please indicate that you understand that bit? Yes or no?

Better finances does not automatically mean better appointments. This just downright daft. Chelsea and Man United were two of the wealthiest teams in England when there most successful managers left - neither has returned to their respective glories several managers later. Why didn't Rovers or Dundalk kick on form their appearances? What did they do with the money they earned?

TLDR - Money does not guarantee success. Hard work and shrewd investment are vital.

Take Kivaro's point up with Kivaro. I'm done here. I've pointed out the flaws in yoru argumetns more than once.

loyatemu

the Guardian's David Conn often writes about the economics of football, he had an interesting article on the recent takeover of Burnley by US "investors". They essentially loaded all the takeover debt onto the club. This is the same thing as happened with Man Utd but United are one of the 4 biggest clubs in the world and a money-making machine. Burnley are not and I can see them in some trouble in the next few years if they get relegated.

Wanderer78

loyatemu wrote: »

the Guardian's David Conn often writes about the economics of football, he had an interesting article on the recent takeover of Burnley by US "investors". They essentially loaded all the takeover debt onto the club. This is the same thing as happened with Man Utd but United are one of the 4 biggest clubs in the world and a money-making machine. Burnley are not and I can see them in some trouble in the next few years if they get relegated.

asset stripping?

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Now - again - I am not aruging money and football. I'm pointing out a logical flaw in your thinking. Getting aggressive won't change that. I pointed out a few examples where correaltion was not caused. I'm saying that you can not assume that because two things happen, one must cause the other. Can you please indicate that you understand that bit? Yes or no?

I'm not getting aggressive. (You are, though)

You pointed out one 5000/1 freak chance, and one case where more money immediately led to more success. That doesn't prove your case.

I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I've shown exactly why more money = better players = more trophies = more profile = more money. You haven't indicated what else could be causing inequality (despite being asked a few times)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Better finances does not automatically mean better appointments. This just downright daft. Chelsea and Man United were two of the wealthiest teams in England when there most successful managers left - neither has returned to their respective glories several managers later.

I never said better finances automatically equals better appointments. But on balance, it absolutely does. There's a reason Pep Guardiola is employed by Barcelona/Bayern/Man City and not by Bournemouth, for example.

But these cases actually prove my point again - once you drop out of the CL for whatever reason, your income reduces and it's harder to get back there again. That's because - once again - more money equals success. But you've got to keep driving more money to get more success.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why didn't Rovers or Dundalk kick on form their appearances? What did they do with the money they earned?

You're asking why they didn't kick on from having already kicked on? Tough crowd. But it's because too many people think football below European group stage is below them, which leads to a growing inequality. That's (a) increasingly hard to bridge and (b) my entire point.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument - you've actually backed it up.

weldoninhio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.



Coreallation =/= casuation.

Not the correation I'm arguing against.



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.



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.

What is the next level in LOI?? There is none.

smellyoldboot

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

I think a lot of people that bemoan the NFL have never actually sat and watched it. The amount of games where the lead changes multiple times in the last 5 minutes or a settled by a score in the dying seconds is insane.

And if you don't want the ads/stop start games then Redzone is the perfect format. Always something happening whether it's a score, takeaway, big hit, big pass etc. Blows soccer away.

loyatemu

Wanderer78 wrote: »

asset stripping?

If Burnley are relegated (for a club of their side, it's a matter of when not if; probably whenever the manager Sean Dyche moves on) then they may not be able to repay the loans and could lose their ground. Same happened at Brighton, Hull and a number of other clubs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

I'm not getting aggressive. (You are, though)

You pointed out one 5000/1 freak chance, and one case where more money immediately led to more success. That doesn't prove your case.

Do you actually know what my point is?

Because this would imply you don't.

I understand the difference between correlation and causation.

I've shown exactly why more money = better players = more trophies = more profile = more money. You haven't indicated what else could be causing inequality (despite being asked a few times)

---

I never said better finances automatically equals better appointments. But on balance, it absolutely does. There's a reason Pep Guardiola is employed by Barcelona/Bayern/Man City and not by Bournemouth, for example.

You said; "Coaches are a function of finances - better finances = better coaches."

But these cases actually prove my point again - once you drop out of the CL for whatever reason, your income reduces and it's harder to get back there again. That's because - once again - more money equals success. But you've got to keep driving more money to get more success.

Again, not a point I made. For what it's worth, teams drop out and come back all the time. But the leagues are competitive - four spots and more than four teams good enough in the Premier League alone.

You're asking why they didn't kick on from having already kicked on? Tough crowd. But it's because too many people think football below European group stage is below them, which leads to a growing inequality. That's (a) increasingly hard to bridge and (b) my entire point.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument - you've actually backed it up.

Your entire arguement is based on correlation equating to causation. I've pointed out out dozens of times and given examples of where rich teams did not make the best teams. Man U when Ferguson left. Chelsea when Mourinho left the first time. Leicester winnign the premier league. Athletico Madrid top of the Spanish league. Real Madrid and Man United dare the richest reams in the world accroding to Forbes. Neither are champions of their country.

There are incidences where it is true and they are linked. But equally there are incidences when it is not. You can NOT assume an automatic connection, which is what you have continuously done.

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the next level in LOI?? There is none.

Europe on a concistent level. But as I said, there are other factrors that just finances. Geogrpahy, population density and government investment in sporting facilities for example.

Fr Tod Umptious

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

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

Yea that's a good piece.

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.

The PPV thing was the EPLs doing not the TV companies, they were very wary of it in the knowledge that people would associated it with them and them only and not the EPL.

The problem for the EPL is that the next TV deal is going to be lower than this one which is lower than the last one.
The article in the other quoted post gives a good overview of the problem for the EPL.
Essentially BT and Sky are not going to get into a bidding war for rights like they might have done a few years ago, and no "new media" company are going to start any bidding war either.

Media companies know that illegal IPTV is cutting into their market so they are not going to splash the cash for another rights deal when they that they will lose a certain percentage to piracy.

And the if they do pay high prices for rights they cannot offer subscriptions at knock down prices to combat the illegal IPTV either because that will not pay for the rights they have just acquired.

And because the EPL is structured for a shared rights deal, with every club getting certain air time and no "individual club" broadcast rights etc , the TV companies cannot tailor their subscription options to suit an evolving market.

So the TV rights, the thing that has helped the EPL to expand the way it has for 3 decades is no longer the golden goose, and added to that you have the COVID situation that even tough relatively temporary is burring a huge hole in clubs pockets.
It all points to a poorer EPL going forward with clubs not being able to afford the big money signings and wages they may be been a few years ago.

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, not a point I made. For what it's worth, teams drop out and come back all the time. But the leagues are competitive - four spots and more than four teams good enough in the Premier League alone.

What leagues are competitive? The Premier League isn't - I've shown that the richest clubs always win, with the one 5000/1 exception. Beyond the top 6, no-one has any chance. Compare that to, say, the 60s when eight separate clubs could win.

And yet the PL today is still one of Europe's most open major leagues. Juve have won 9 titles in a row, Bayern have won 8, PSG 7 of the last 8, Barca/Real 14 of the last 15. Yet you say "the leagues are competitive"? Go smaller - Red Bull Salzburg 7 in a row, Sheriff Tiraspol 8 in 9, Legia Warsaw with 6 league wins and 2 runners-up spots in 8 years. Competitive? Actually, every one of those leagues is unprecedently uncompetitive, including the Premier League.

Porto are the only club from outside the big 5 to reach the CL final in the last 25 years - is that competitive? In the preceding 25 years, you had clubs from Holland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Scotland and Greece all reaching that stage - so even the CL is less competitive.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Your entire arguement is based on correlation equating to causation.

I've repeatedly shown that not to be the case. You're seem to be arguing that that clubs should end the season in strict wealth order - that's not what 90% correlation means. It does mean, however, that while there can be exceptions (and Man Utd in second place in the Premier or Atletico top of the Spanish league are not exceptions), by and large wage spending is factually the single biggest factor in predicting where a team will finish. If you have a bigger wage budget than other teams, you should finish ahead of them. You don't disprove that by selecting the few times it didn't happen. That's you not understanding what 90% correlation means.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Europe on a concistent level. But as I said, there are other factrors that just finances. Geogrpahy, population density and government investment in sporting facilities for example.

What's Government investment if not money?

What's population density if not more people to go games = money? In any event, population density and geography haven't materially changed in the past 30 years and so can't be factors in why inequalities have grown so quickly in that timeframe. (TV money, however, has)

There were always big and small teams. But the point is TV money - significantly biased by people thinking the group stage of European football is the be all and end all - dwarfs all that and has massively increased inequalities.

GarySmith

True in football there’s a lot of money poured by many clubs who are so rich and paying a good amount of money to athletes and ready to offer even more to make their stay further in their team of the club, higher level have a huge chunk of money and it’s all because of the very strong structure at the bottom of this, also the hard work is really very high no doubt in that for the most of the percentage except for the teams playing and enjoying all the plus in the higher level. Rest let see what the time has to say as depends on how the policies will change or work with almost the same with little change.

joseywhales

I just don't see why we should care about pl teams. If they go under so be it, it's the lower leagues that should be protected. In the end people love playing football, all over the world, there will always be great players and great teams whether they get paid 500m or 50k. If there is somewhat of a financial reset all the better, the entertainment will still be there, people aren't going to stop playing. Though it would be nice to safeguard training facilities and academies.

cdeb

joseywhales wrote: »

people aren't going to stop playing.

Interestingly, lower leagues are starting to die out in the past few years as people are stopping playing. Astro is taking over, as is just going to the gym, and some local divisions and even clubs are folding. I know it's a growing issue in England, and I think it's a problem here too.

But agree with everything in your post other than that. Though I'd add that people love going to watch games (as in, not on TV) as well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

What leagues are competitive? The Premier League isn't - I've shown that the richest clubs always win, with the one 5000/1 exception. Beyond the top 6, no-one has any chance. Compare that to, say, the 60s when eight separate clubs could win.

And yet the PL today is still one of Europe's most open major leagues. Juve have won 9 titles in a row, Bayern have won 8, PSG 7 of the last 8, Barca/Real 14 of the last 15. Yet you say "the leagues are competitive"? Go smaller - Red Bull Salzburg 7 in a row, Sheriff Tiraspol 8 in 9, Legia Warsaw with 6 league wins and 2 runners-up spots in 8 years. Competitive? Actually, every one of those leagues is unprecedently uncompetitive, including the Premier League.

Porto are the only club from outside the big 5 to reach the CL final in the last 25 years - is that competitive? In the preceding 25 years, you had clubs from Holland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Scotland and Greece all reaching that stage - so even the CL is less competitive.

None of which counters anything I posted.

I've repeatedly shown that not to be the case. You're seem to be arguing that that clubs should end the season in strict wealth order - that's not what 90% correlation means. It does mean, however, that while there can be exceptions (and Man Utd in second place in the Premier or Atletico top of the Spanish league are not exceptions), by and large wage spending is factually the single biggest factor in predicting where a team will finish. If you have a bigger wage budget than other teams, you should finish ahead of them. You don't disprove that by selecting the few times it didn't happen. That's you not understanding what 90% correlation means.

Again - not the argument I presented.

What's Government investment if not money?

What's population density if not more people to go games = money? In any event, population density and geography haven't materially changed in the past 30 years and so can't be factors in why inequalities have grown so quickly in that timeframe. (TV money, however, has)

There were always big and small teams. But the point is TV money - significantly biased by people thinking the group stage of European football is the be all and end all - dwarfs all that and has massively increased inequalities.

1 - I clearly said " government investment in sporting facilities" - not in teams or leagues. Things like community sports centers, indoor/all-weather ptiches, training courses for youth personnel and coaches.
2 - Desnity is important for infrastructure and numbers. Case in point - Nehterlands. Bigger population, more teams, better quality of product, easier for away fans to travel.
3 - For the third time - does not counter the argument I presented.

cdeb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

None of which counters anything I posted.

You said "But the leagues are competitive - four spots and more than four teams good enough in the Premier League alone." I then show that many European leagues - including the Premier League - have never been less competitive. Of course that counters what you posted.

Showing you don't understand what 90% correlation means - because you think a 5000/1 long shot winning the Premier League, or Atletico Madrid being top in Spain, disproves my point (linked to a formal study) that there's a correlation wage budgets and performance, caused by bigger wage budgets buying you better players, coaches, etc - absolutely does counter what you posted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - I clearly said " government investment in sporting facilities" - not in teams or leagues. Things like community sports centers, indoor/all-weather ptiches, training courses for youth personnel and coaches.
2 - Desnity is important for infrastructure and numbers. Case in point - Nehterlands. Bigger population, more teams, better quality of product, easier for away fans to travel.

Do you honestly think Government investment in a community sports centre has remotely the same impact on football as a multi-million pound TV deal?

I've already said that population density isn't a factor in what we're talking about because population density hasn't significantly changed since 1992, whereas football inequality significantly has. How can something not changing be responsible for such huge change?

And just to go back to where you jumped in on this and to note the point which I made (because at this stage, I'm not sure you know what it is) - it is that people deeming regular European group stage qualification a base line for interest in a club drives massive inequality in football and huge wages for the likes of Messi, and the solution to that is for people to stop all watching the same clubs, not to go all SJW and "look into Messi" in the name of inequality.

Granadino

Bubble burst years ago. I don’t know how anyone over the age of 15 can watch professional football and keep a straight face. A handful of wealthy clubs. Most leagues around Europe are ruined.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cdeb wrote: »

You said "But the leagues are competitive - four spots and more than four teams good enough in the Premier League alone." I then show that many European leagues - including the Premier League - have never been less competitive. Of course that counters what you posted.

Not my point.

My point: correatlation does not follow causation.
Your interpretation: correalation never follows cauation.

Showing you don't understand what 90% correlation means - because you think a 5000/1 long shot winning the Premier League, or Atletico Madrid being top in Spain, disproves my point (linked to a formal study) that there's a correlation wage budgets and performance, caused by bigger wage budgets buying you better players, coaches, etc - absolutely does counter what you posted.

Again, not my point:

My point: here are examples of causation not following correaltion in football.
Your interpretation: correlation never follows causation in football.
(The fact that the examples even exist, closes the case here)

Do you honestly think Government investment in a community sports centre has remotely the same impact on football as a multi-million pound TV deal?

Again, not my point.
My point: government investment has an effect on how well a nation's sports teams do.
Your interpretation: goverment investment has less of an effect on tv deals.
(Strawman arguement)

I've already said that population density isn't a factor in what we're talking about because population density hasn't significantly changed since 1992, whereas football inequality significantly has. How can something not changing be responsible for such huge change?

Again, not my point.

My point: geographical factors have an effect on how well a nations club teams do.
Your interpretation: geogrpaphical factrors have less of an effect on football ineguality.
(Yep, maybe)

And just to go back to where you jumped in on this and to note the point which I made (because at this stage, I'm not sure you know what it is) - it is that people deeming regular European group stage qualification a base line for interest in a club drives massive inequality in football and huge wages for the likes of Messi, and the solution to that is for people to stop all watching the same clubs, not to go all SJW and "look into Messi" in the name of inequality.

And again, my counter to that was that I don't consume a product simply because it is local.

(Just to clarify something I should have clarified earlier on - and apologies for not doing so - I don't actually live in Ireland at the moment, so LoI is not local to me anyway.) I'm within commuting distance of two Bundesliga teams, and I've seen then both twice in maybe five years. Guess that means that I think they're "beneath me".

But as mentioned above there are other factors that influence how a team does, not just money.

Now - for the thrid time - can you please restrict your comments to points I actually made? If not, I'm not going to bother replying any more.

cdeb

Sigh.

I have repeatedly said that the very close correlation between wage budget and performance in football is caused by the bigger clubs getting better players, coaches, etc. You keep ignoring that though - you seem to think repeating the phrase "correlation is not causation" is a valid argument of itself. I've repeatedly asked you what else you think has driven the huge growth in football inequality in the past 30 years, and you seem to think the local council building a new pitch has something to do with it.

When you say "The fact that the examples even exist, closes the case here" confirms you don't understand what you're talking about. The case of Leicester City would close the case if there was a 100% correlation between wages and performance. But there's not. The study linked showed a 90% correlation. That, by definition, means there'll be outliers - so picking those outliers doesn't even challenge the case (and the cases of Man United and Atletico being second and first in their leagues don't even count as valid examples)

Government investment having significantly less of an impact than TV deals isn't a strawman argument when the very point being argued is the impact of TV deals on sports teams. And seriously - what impact does building a new council pitch have on Bayern Munich, who have their own private academy for players from probably the age of 9 up?

Your point that "geographical factors have an effect on how well a nation's club teams do" is irrelevant to the point being discussed, which is how the significant growth in football inequality is primarily down to TV money. Geographical factors are the same now as they were 30 years ago, when such inequalities were far less significant, so they cannot have been a driver in the growth of those inequalities. Again, I've said this a number of times now.

You say "I don't consume a product simply because it is local." I don't care why you do or don't consume a product. The fact remains that because lots and lots of people think regular European group stage qualification is the baseline for supporting a team has generated the current huge inequalities. And the fact remains that if people turned off their TVs and watched their local sides instead, those inequalities would rapidly reduce.

I think you're better off ignoring my posts if that's to be the level of your replies to be honest.

Fr Tod Umptious

Granadino wrote: »

Bubble burst years ago. I don’t know how anyone over the age of 15 can watch professional football and keep a straight face. A handful of wealthy clubs. Most leagues around Europe are ruined.

I don't think the sniggering of 15 year olds constitutes the economic definition of a bubble.

A hand full of wealth clubs and the rest living way beyond their means, which is currently the case is very much a bubble situation.

The fact that you say most leagues around Europe are ruined is also evidence of a bubble.

Akrasia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

Nah, what is the real problem is the fact that you can’t just subscribe to one service to watch a tournament

The chopping and packaging of tournament’s to separate subscription services has killed demand for legal sports subscriptions

Would you follow a tv series if you could only watch every 3rd episode on one subscription and had to subscribe to 2 other services for the others...


Most people just say ‘screw that’ not worth the cost or effort

Viewers collapse, advertisers fall away, prestige evaporates, capitalism eats itself, the venture capitalist investors cash out and leave the sport in bits

Harry Palmr

UEFA are meeting on Friday to discuss the CL being reformatted so it looks a bit like a Super League.
Using a fanciful thing called the Swizz System (not a round robin but of that nature) as a replacement for the Group stages so 6 games becomes 10 another four pay days and probably just a way to try and keep the value of the rights no worse than as they now are at the very least.