12-02-2015, 09:36
^^^ All very the true, with one important caveat, however.
Sport is slightly different to most businesses because -- as consumers -- despite our individual fan loyalties, we are ultimately paying for the aggregate products of all clubs. There is no point in supporting Chelsea, if they don't have Arsenal to play against. It is the COMPETITION we are paying for, not the performance of individual teams.
That key anomaly -- the relationship between individual clubs and the collective league -- was a major factor in setting up the Premier League to begin with. Before that, clubs were individually negotiating media deals, creating a huge disparity between the top clubs and the smaller ones but, more importantly, reducing the value of the league as a whole. It gave more bargaining power to the media companies. If Man United played hardball, the TV partner could simply show more Tottenham games.
The issue here is that clubs have already demonstrated an ability to act collectively and in concert when negotiating media contracts because that is in their interest for filling the trough. But then they all act out of individual self-interest when it comes to stuffing their faces in the trough and emptying it. If they can act collectively when addressing the short term cash grab of a media deal, why should it be impossible for them to act collectively when addressing the long term issues that affect the game?
But there is absolutely no reason why -- having established the Premier League and its collective bargaining ability -- they could not have shown a little foresight and set aside SOME of the money for strengthening the game.
I agree though that it is probably too late now. Practices are too established and expectations too entrenched. It is one thing to say, "we're all going to get MORE, but not as much as we theoretically could, because we're going to set some aside." It is quite another thing to say, "next year, you will be getting less than you got last year."
Sport is slightly different to most businesses because -- as consumers -- despite our individual fan loyalties, we are ultimately paying for the aggregate products of all clubs. There is no point in supporting Chelsea, if they don't have Arsenal to play against. It is the COMPETITION we are paying for, not the performance of individual teams.
That key anomaly -- the relationship between individual clubs and the collective league -- was a major factor in setting up the Premier League to begin with. Before that, clubs were individually negotiating media deals, creating a huge disparity between the top clubs and the smaller ones but, more importantly, reducing the value of the league as a whole. It gave more bargaining power to the media companies. If Man United played hardball, the TV partner could simply show more Tottenham games.
The issue here is that clubs have already demonstrated an ability to act collectively and in concert when negotiating media contracts because that is in their interest for filling the trough. But then they all act out of individual self-interest when it comes to stuffing their faces in the trough and emptying it. If they can act collectively when addressing the short term cash grab of a media deal, why should it be impossible for them to act collectively when addressing the long term issues that affect the game?
But there is absolutely no reason why -- having established the Premier League and its collective bargaining ability -- they could not have shown a little foresight and set aside SOME of the money for strengthening the game.
I agree though that it is probably too late now. Practices are too established and expectations too entrenched. It is one thing to say, "we're all going to get MORE, but not as much as we theoretically could, because we're going to set some aside." It is quite another thing to say, "next year, you will be getting less than you got last year."