3 ms·
The wider issue here is whether football clubs should even be run as for-profit corporations. It seems wrong that the owners of a club would regard a "successfu
by fergie 6y ago
The wider issue here is whether football clubs should even be run as for-profit corporations. It seems wrong that the owners of a club would regard a "successful season" as one in which they made the most money, rather than the one where they actually won stuff.
- riffraff 6y agopart of the problem is the opposite: the clubs have dug themselves in a hole financially attempting to actually win something (think of Juventus in the last couple years wasting a ton of money while failing to achieve any international success).
- qeternity 6y agoEntertainment is fundamentally one of the simplest forms of enterprise. One party has disposable income and gives it to another party for completely non essential services. The incentives align perfectly. If there was ever a market that should run as a for profit entity, it’s football. People see Super League as some sort of failure. This is a free market success. The fans reign supreme through the power of their wallets.
- username90 6y agoNo, more profits doesn't mean more entertainment. People who are addicted to football pay a lot for it, increasing prices wont make them happier, increasing ads wont make them happier etc. You are basically increasing profits to make worse entertainment, having it not be profit seeking is so much better for the viewers.
- qeternity 6y agoYou're missing the point: the fact that people are willing to pay a lot means that there is a large incentive to provide the best level of entertainment. If you take the profit away, you risk misaligned incentives.
- username90 6y agoNo, capitalism doesn't work for front brand loyalty situations. Sure in theory building a good brand should be worth it, but that isn't what is happening here, the money grubbers came in long after the brand was built, changed it into a money making machine and the poor souls who got addicted to the brand now gets as much money as possible extracted from them. That kills the brand after a while, young people will stop watching and ultimately sports will die with that strategy.
- estomagordo 6y agoYeah. Clearly the 50+1 rule, as seen in Germany for instance, is a superior approach. If billionaires are desparate to become even more billionairy, I'm sure they can go invest in sausages, car engines, microprocessors or nylon plants instead.
- thom 6y agoThe reality of the 50+1 rule is Bayern Munich dominating forever. Even if it were possible to extract the current owners from English football, 50+1 would really just solidify the current ‘big six’ even further with other teams very unlikely to be able to raise investment and break in. That may well still be preferable, but I’m not sure it’s the utopia people are picturing.
- estomagordo 6y agoThey're dominating because they're the best, then. Not sure why it would be preferable to have rubber band mechanics. Plus, I'm not so sure about the causation you suggest either. Many other countries approach a 50+1 approach, but I'll just comment on Sweden, which I am most familiar with. There sure is no dominance of that kind at play in Sweden.
- thom 6y agoIn Sweden, the biggest clubs are less likely to retain the best talent, which keeps this more in check. That's less true in the big 5, from which the ESL would have been drawn. The German Bundesliga is an incredibly stale competition, for example. But hey, so is Ligue 1. I'm not really arguing either way, I just think people should be careful what they wish for, and there are plenty of clubs that are happy with their ownership.