Premier League is getting a big financial advantage due to rich TV deal

[Jenks]

You can claim macro aesthetic and weather, but culture and food? Na. London has an unparalleled culture and cuisine scene outside of New York City. I know Parisians will get mad at me for saying that, but while they have mastered the art of fine dining, you can literally find any kind of world class cuisine you can think of in London, and a thousand other experimental venues (as so many French immigrant chefs will attest). I guarantee there will be some top of the line Catalan cusine to be had in London, along with everything else you can think of. Raising your kids in an English speaking country is a bonus too. I do obviously see the draw of Spain though if there's a certain kind of climate you're used to, and if your family already speaks Spanish, but I think there are easily as many draws in London (if not more) though, and I seriously that that having to live in London would put players off. It sounds like it could be a major factor in which Premier League team Pep chooses too.

I understand what you mean about Edinburgh being a beautiful city, and you can lump Bath/Oxford/Cambridge in there too, but there's really nothing to do there. It's no where near as vibrant as Manchester or Liverpool, never mind London.

 

[Morten]

Not so sure how much this financial advantage helps PL. Well, sure, in some way it does i guess, but the downside is that inflation run rampant, as if it didnt already.

 

[Jenks]

It helps them primarily when they're in a bidding war with their European equivalents, a war they should win easily. There's only going to be a handful of clubs in Europe that can offer more than the top four in England.

 

[Jair Ventura]

It helps them primarily when they're in a bidding war with their European equivalents, a war they should win easily. There's only going to be a handful of clubs in Europe that can offer more than the top four in England.

The top clubs(s) in Spain, Germany, and France all have better players than the EPL's top 4 though. Same was true of the top club of Italy prior to last season as well.

In any case, a counter to the obscene TV money the EPL is getting would be to nix FFP completely, thereby allowing investors to put whatever amount of money they wish into their clubs. Only then will the artificial ceiling allowing the EPL to spend huge quantities of money where there peers are prohibited be removed.

Or beIN could push the television rights for Ligue 1 to heights they otherwise would not reach when bidding starts again in a couple years.

 

[S7_MUFC]

The top clubs(s) in Spain, Germany, and France all have better players than the EPL's top 4 though. Same was true of the top club of Italy prior to last season as well.

In any case, a counter to the obscene TV money the EPL is getting would be to nix FFP completely, thereby allowing investors to put whatever amount of money they wish into their clubs. Only then will the artificial ceiling allowing the EPL to spend huge quantities of money where there peers are prohibited be removed.

Or beIN could push the television rights for Ligue 1 to heights they otherwise would not reach when bidding starts again in a couple years.

Artificial ceiling? , How many billionaires are there lining up to spend billions on football clubs? PSG and City are one off because they are essentially funded by sovereign wealth funds.

 

[Jair Ventura]

Artificial ceiling? , How many billionaires are there lining up to spend billions on football clubs? PSG and City are one off because they are essentially funded by sovereign wealth funds.

An artificial ceiling. One created by the threat of punishment within a context that preserves the status quo while effectively killing those clubs and leagues who've not benefitted from the globalization of football. One that allows United to carry hundreds of millions in debt for a decade but disallows Monaco's ownership group from investing in their project, contradicting fundamental principles of capitalism in an effort to keep the Giants of yesterday fat and happy.

As for your question of the number of potential investors? There's plenty, as is the case with any industry carrying the value of modern football. But investors won't come when you punish them for investing. When you cap their growth with arbitrary stipulations and restrictions that apply only to those clubs that need investment the most.

And so, the French and German leagues, and soon the Spanish and Italians, are forced to become feeder leagues for the EPL because the latter experienced their growth before FFP became a factor.

All in all, it's a sad joke. Good on PSG and City for throwing a wrench in the dynamic. In any industry but football they'd be considered success stories.

 

[Morten]

It helps them primarily when they're in a bidding war with their European equivalents, a war they should win easily. There's only going to be a handful of clubs in Europe that can offer more than the top four in England.

That might be so, but the inflation in Premier League is getting more and more absurd by the minute. When PL-clubs buy from other PL-clubs, they often have to spend ridiculous amounts for mediocrity. There is a downside to all this money.

 

[S7_MUFC]

An artificial ceiling. One created by the threat of punishment within a context that preserves the status quo while effectively killing those clubs and leagues who've not benefitted from the globalization of football. One that allows United to carry hundreds of millions in debt for a decade but disallows Monaco's ownership group from investing in their project, contradicting fundamental principles of capitalism in an effort to keep the Giants of yesterday fat and happy.

As for your question of the number of potential investors? There's plenty, as is the case with any industry carrying the value of modern football. But investors won't come when you punish them for investing. When you cap their growth with arbitrary stipulations and restrictions that apply only to those clubs that need investment the most.

And so, the French and German leagues, and soon the Spanish and Italians, are forced to become feeder leagues for the EPL because the latter experienced their growth before FFP became a factor.

All in all, it's a sad joke. Good on PSG and City for throwing a wrench in the dynamic. In any industry but football they'd be considered success stories.

Just go and look up how United came to accumulate all the debt and how it hindered us in the transfer market. United didn't get into the debt because of spending funds they didn't have in the transfer market(in which case your point would've been relevant) but were somehow allowed to be saddled with debt due to something called leveraged buyout, I'm sure most people are aware of this fact but somehow choose to ignore this because United were allowed to be in debt makes for a sensationalist statement whereas the reality is United were allowed to be put in debt. You're blaming FFP for lack of spending power of other leagues but as far as I know you can circumvent FFP easily(look at the revenue figures of City and PSG) so if you're rich enough you can bend the rules. My issue with blaming FFP for other leagues' lack of spending is that in the past decades we've only seen handful of such sugar-daddy type investors and football clubs' revenues have grown so much that in order to make real difference you have to have net worth north of $10-$15 billion unlike the past where even local owners like Jack Walker could make a telling contribution. You're just venting your anger at FFP(with is about to be scrapped anyway) because you're struggling to come up with a more reasonable argument..

 

[Jenks]

What's interesting is that for all the money swirling around, the net spend for most clubs is really not that high...

 

[S7_MUFC]

What's interesting is that for all the money swirling around, the net spend for most clubs is really not that high...

Yup the FFP is really working it's magic and creating Artificial ceiling there...

 

[Jair Ventura]

Yup the FFP is really working it's magic and creating Artificial ceiling there...

This reply makes no sense?

Just go and look up how United came to accumulate all the debt and how it hindered us in the transfer market. United didn't get into the debt because of spending funds they didn't have in the transfer market(in which case your point would've been relevant) but were somehow allowed to be saddled with debt due to something called leveraged buyout, I'm sure most people are aware of this fact but somehow choose to ignore this because United were allowed to be in debt makes for a sensationalist statement whereas the reality is United were allowed to be put in debt.

How does this explanation contradict my argument?

You're blaming FFP for lack of spending power of other leagues but as far as I know you can circumvent FFP easily(look at the revenue figures of City and PSG) so if you're rich enough you can bend the rules.

How did City and PSG circumvent FFP? As far as I know both clubs were punished for their spending.

My issue with blaming FFP for other leagues' lack of spending is that in the past decades we've only seen handful of such sugar-daddy type investors and football clubs' revenues have grown so much that in order to make real difference you have to have net worth north of $10-$15 billion unlike the past where even local owners like Jack Walker could make a telling contribution. You're just venting your anger at FFP(with is about to be scrapped anyway) because you're struggling to come up with a more reasonable argument..

What the hell are you even saying here?

 

[JamDav1982]

FFP doesnt scare away billionaire owners/investors from clubs.

Spain has seen investment at Valencia and recently at Atletico. While clubs like Sevilla have improved from learning how to live within their means due to FFP rules and similar rules in Spain.

This idea that leagues like Spain (lower league) and France would benefit from billionaire owners if not for FFP is a joke. They had years to buy clubs there and didnt. Owners would look at the investment at PSG and City and realise how much they would need to spend to compete and there is also the huge tv deal in England that puts off owners knowing they would most like have to at least match that.

Germany and France dont have the exposure to attract investors the way England does and to a lesser extent Spain.

 

[S7_MUFC]

This reply makes no sense?

Well FFP was supposedly creating artificial ceiling and restricting the spending of clubs like city yet City's net spend is miles ahead of other traditional clubs who said are benefiting from FFP and maintaining the status quo..

How does this explanation contradict my argument?

It contradicts your argument because you said FFP allowed United to have debt as if United gained any competitive advantage by being burdened with unprecedented amount of debt and having to service that debt. I believe that there should've been rules in place to avoid such scenario and things could've gone very badly for us if football revenues didn't grow so much in the past decade. I don't think Glazers' plan accounted for such a growth because Arsenal who built the emirates around the same period signed a lot of long term commercial deals at much lower value that what became the norm 2-3 years later so the growth in revenue was not something that was expected by all top clubs.

How did City and PSG circumvent FFP? As far as I know both clubs were punished for their spending.

Just go and look at their revenue figures and especially their commercial revenue and compare that with revenue of clubs with better standing like Arsenal,Liverpool,Chelsea etc.

What the hell are you even saying here?

You argued that if FFP was scrapped and all clubs were allowed to find investors than the financial advantage of premier league clubs could be lowered but with the way football revenues are growing you'd need multi billionaire investors to invest in your club to make you competitive and I don't think there are too many billionaires around dying to spend in football clubs so scrapping FFP won't make any difference to spending power of EPL clubs. Better solution would be to share TV money equally but I already know what people here think about that..

 

[Jair Ventura]

FFP doesnt scare away billionaire owners/investors from clubs.

It's scaring away Monaco's ownership group.

This idea that leagues like Spain (lower league) and France would benefit from billionaire owners if not for FFP is a joke. They had years to buy clubs there and didnt. Owners would look at the investment at PSG and City and realise how much they would need to spend to compete and there is also the huge tv deal in England that puts off owners knowing they would most like have to at least match that.

PSG, in 4 years has grown in value by 600%. The club is operating in the black and is self sustainable. A success story, in any industry, and one that is more likely to attract investors than put them off.

Germany and France dont have the exposure to attract investors the way England does and to a lesser extent Spain.

Yes, they do. The English were the first to benefit from the globalization of football, everyone else is catching up.

 

[Jair Ventura]

Well FFP was supposedly creating artificial ceiling and restricting the spending of clubs like city yet City's net spend is miles ahead of other traditional clubs who said are benefiting from FFP and maintaining the status quo..

FFP did cap the spending of City.

It contradicts your argument because you said FFP allowed United to have debt as if United gained any competitive advantage by being burdened with unprecedented amount of debt and having to service that debt. I believe that there should've been rules in place to avoid such scenario and things could've gone very badly for us if football revenues didn't grow so much in the past decade. I don't think Glazers' plan accounted for such a growth because Arsenal who built the emirates around the same period signed a lot of long term commercial deals at much lower value that what became the norm 2-3 years later so the growth in revenue was not something that was expected by all top clubs.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. FFP dictates to Monaco's ownership group, one that actually possesses the means to carry out their project, what they can and cannot spend while allowing the Glazers to finance 100's of millions of dollars in debt without consequence. Speaking strictly in terms of business, the former is far healthier than the latter but it's Monaco who is punished.

Just go and look at their revenue figures and especially their commercial revenue and compare that with revenue of clubs with better standing like Arsenal,Liverpool,Chelsea etc.

So because they generate healthy revenue that means they've circumvented FFP despite the fact that they were punished?

You argued that if FFP was scrapped and all clubs were allowed to find investors than the financial advantage of premier league clubs could be lowered but with the way football revenues are growing you'd need multi billionaire investors to invest in your club to make you competitive and I don't think there are too many billionaires around dying to spend in football clubs so scrapping FFP won't make any difference to spending power of EPL clubs. Better solution would be to share TV money equally but I already know what people here think about that..

Clubs have been purchased by billionaires at increasing rates over the last decade so I'm not sure where your doubts are coming from. Sharing TV money equally isn't a solution because every leagues tv rights carry differing values.