# Money and sport



## Domski (Sep 4, 2008)

You can tell I'm supposed to be cleaning the house this evening as I'm spending far too much time thinking about stuff and generally wasting time doing other things.

In recent days/months/years sport in the UK has more and more been influenced by how many pounds you've got behind you. This has especially manifested itself in football (soccer) where the likes of Roman Abramovich have come in with vast amounts to change the face of the game beyond recognition.

Money in sport is nothing new and in the US American Football, Baseball, Basketball etc have long had superstars earning vast amounts and elsewhere Formula 1 has never exactly been a sport of the pauper.

I just was wondering what other folk here thought about how sport was going, especially when you see some of the recent performances by relatively underpaid sports men and women at the olympics.

Is it ruining sport long term? Can it continue? What incentive does it give to smaller teams who may never see this wealth? Would we be better off without it and going back to the original ideals? Have you turned your back on the big money?

Your thoughts...

Dom


----------



## Norie (Sep 4, 2008)

Dom

Are you sure these footballigarchs/footballsheiks are actually investing pounds?

Romanov (Hearts) - Kopeks

Abromovich (Chelsea) - As Above

Abu Dhabi United Group (Manchester City) - Riyals

The first 2 have caused problems at their particular clubs but we'll need to see about the last - £34m for a player.


----------



## Domski (Sep 4, 2008)

Fair enough Norie but you get my meaning.

I'm not even sure some are investing but rather dishing out loan notes to the clubs. It would be very interesting to see what happened if Abromovich got bored and walked away from Chelsea.

The point I guess I'm making is what effect the availability of this vast wealth is having on sports in general whether they are getting the benefit of it or not.

Dom


----------



## Norie (Sep 4, 2008)

Dom

I'm not really sure what effect it's having, but I don't think it's good for the smaller clubs.

Any money the big clubs doesn't really 'trickle down' to them as far as I know.

And a lot of this financing seems a bit dodgy - Abramovich allegedly just using it to syphon money out of Russia.

The Arabs just seems to be chucking money around left right and centre, not just in football.

And of the top of my head there are least 1 English club where the investor/owner has huge debts.

Also there's another where there's 2 owners/whatever that seem not getting on all that well.

Sorry for just mention football.

But I did notice your comment regarding the Olympics.

The GB Athletics team had a miserable showing, apparently due to lack of funds due to lack of previous formance.

But the Cycling and Swimming teams did very well, because of previous good performance.

Dom

PS You do know that if somebody in the US team gets a medal they actually get some sort of performance bonus.

Probably paid to them by some guy in a trenchcoat handing out thick brown envelopes.


----------



## kgkev (Sep 5, 2008)

I think it only ruins the game if its not your team that gets finacial backing.

Fulham weren't complaining when Alfieds backing got them to the premiership.

and I bet no Man City fans are complaining now.


----------



## Domski (Sep 5, 2008)

True, but there has always been the moderately rich investor that has bank rolled football clubs and most would not survive without them.

The emergence of the super-rich owner is something of a new phenomenon. Without harping on about football too much it's not necessarily a bad thing that the 'big 4' will have someone to challenge them but it's unfortunate to hear the likes of Bill Kenwright saying Everton need a billionaire owner to compete.


----------



## schielrn (Sep 5, 2008)

This whole money issue may move the NBA (basketball) from the US to overseas.  There has already been a couple dozen players opt out of their US contract and go overseas.  Even some of the biggest stars have said if the money was right they would play overseas.  Only time will tell with this, but with the weakening US dollar it may seem logical and more probable that many of these players will leave to play in Europe and other places.


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Sep 5, 2008)

You can't blame the players for accepting huge sums to change loyalty (what is loyalty anyway?) but I think the excess of cash is ruining a number of sports.  We end up with prima donna performers who a) don't want to put their body on the line and / or b) are more interested in the media than the sport.....in short I think it makes sport boring and the club /grouping / franchise concept is contrived.


----------



## Oaktree (Sep 5, 2008)

(sigh) It must be nice to turn down a contract that would pay you $8MM/year to play a game.

Want to see professional athletes try harder?  Structure the compensation like a golf tournament, where the winning team gets a disproportionate amount of the league's money paid out in salaries.


----------



## DonkeyOte (Sep 6, 2008)

First off the below relates to Football in European sense... the Worlds favourite game... I like my NFL (How 'bout them Cowboys?!) but that's NFL and most definitely not "Football"... I can't bring myself to say that horrid S word.

It's sad to see what's happening in the UK Premiership at present... and the effect it's having on the players themselves... you only have to look at Robinho leaving Real Madrid for the bright lights of Manchester, but that's City not Utd  ... we all know what's going to happen at City but it's not going to happen for a few years yet and for someone of his stature to go "mercenary" is a little sad... reminiscent of the journeyman Rivaldo.  

What this whole situation does bring up is the issue that ANYONE should be THAT wealthy... We all laughed when Chelsea became Chelski with Abramovich's £10 billion dwarfing the likes of the Glazers at Man Utd with a "mere" £2 billion to play with... but when you think about it should anyone be that rich ?  It's just not cricket.  Then along come the UAE group with a whopping £500 BILLION at their disposal !

Sides like Chelski and even Blackburn with Jack Walker's money in the early 90's devalue the Premiership in my eyes... I see little joy in watching one side or a handful of sides hoard the best players only for them to sit on the bench or whatever whilst the remaining sides play on in perennial mediocrity never able to build a side to challenge as the mega clubs just come in and tempt the best players away with big wages and a warm bench to sit on.

On the matter of the players themselves... assume you were head hunted by a firm offering you 3 times your annual salary - would you stay at your current employers out of loyalty for them giving you your big break...?  The latter is unlikely... and these guys are being offered 3 times their weekly salary not annual... some of these guys are being offered £600k a month... you'd have to pretty pious to be able to turn that down.  

It is let's be frank an absurd amount of money for someone to kick a football around (and sometimes very badly) ... offered by others with absurd amounts of money at their disposal...that's perhaps the greatest travesty of all ?  I'd much rather see these groups putting their obviously disposable income to better uses around the world perhaps feeding the millions and millions living in dire poverty but hey that's just me.  
Perhaps the powers that be should introduce some sort of Gift Aid -- ie for every £10 you pay your players in the Premiership you must donate £1 to charity... ?

C'mon the Spurs !  (& Colchester United of course)


----------



## xyzabc198 (Sep 8, 2008)

OK, I dont know a huge amount about football, but I'll give my opinnion, let's use Leeds Utd as an example, used to be a fantastic team, top of the premiership, had a good manager, then they started losing, got thrown out of the premiership, got a new richer manager, lost even more games.
So clearly the wealth of your manager does not help...also Leeds are now in a low division, and still have a massive stadium that struggles to half fill, meaning they rarely get any money because its all going on the stadium...why don't they just sell?
Anyway, in my oppinion, Manchester dont play Liverpool, Fulham dont play Arsenal, it doesn't work like that anymore, because chelsea for example, only half there team are english...in my oppinion, only people from MANCHESTER should be allowed to play for manchester, and only people from LIVERPOOL play for liverpool, etc etc. This is why, I only ever watch the world cup!


----------



## Domski (Sep 8, 2008)

Liverpool are a distinctly bad example: http://www.premierleague.com/page/liverpool-football-club


----------



## xyzabc198 (Sep 9, 2008)

It may be a bad example, but you understand my point right?

(By the way, I'm visiting leeds in a week...my family lives there )


----------



## Expiry (Sep 9, 2008)

In the news today, it was announced that the average ticket price for a Premiership game in England is now at £106. That's incredible, really.

But, if people keep paying it, along with extortionate Sky and now Setanta subscriptions, then we can't really complain about it.


----------



## RoryA (Sep 9, 2008)

Which all comes back to Roy Keane and his favourite "prawn sandwich" brigade. He was right then, and it will probably only get worse. I think there are probably quite a few people who only pay the "extortionate" Sky subscription because they can no longer afford to go to the games!


----------



## Expiry (Sep 12, 2008)

It is crazy that we ALL, pretty much to a man, think that paying upwards of £40 to watch a football match is a rip-off. And we ALL, pretty much to a man, think that footballers on £60k a week (paid for by our £40+ tickets) is also outrageous.

Ticket prices and player earnings will change, but, as Yazz once said, the only way is up.


----------



## DonkeyOte (Sep 12, 2008)

At the end though, to a man, we still love football so we let them do what they want don't we...  We love it! Love it! Love it! Love it!

(Though at the moment cricket still rules... at least for a few more weeks...and hopefully off to India in Dec for the test matches!!)


----------



## Expiry (Sep 16, 2008)

xyzabc198 said:


> OK, I dont know a huge amount about football, but I'll give my opinnion, let's use Leeds Utd as an example, used to be a fantastic team, top of the premiership, had a good manager, then they started losing, got thrown out of the premiership, got a new richer manager, lost even more games.
> So clearly the wealth of your manager does not help...also Leeds are now in a low division, and still have a massive stadium that struggles to half fill, meaning they rarely get any money because its all going on the stadium...why don't they just sell?
> Anyway, in my oppinion, Manchester dont play Liverpool, Fulham dont play Arsenal, it doesn't work like that anymore, because chelsea for example, only half there team are english...in my oppinion, only people from MANCHESTER should be allowed to play for manchester, and only people from LIVERPOOL play for liverpool, etc etc. This is why, I only ever watch the world cup!



I'm glad you started that with "I don't know a huge amount about football". So are you saying that you think that the World Cup is full of players only playing for their own country? Money talks - even in international football. 

France won the World Cup in 1998, half of their squad were born outside of France: Viera - Senegal, Zidane - Algeria, Thuram, Henry and Wiltord - Guadeloupe, Desailly - Ghana, Djorkaeff and Boghossian - Armenia. 

Most of Ireland's squad for the 1990 World Cup were British with very tenuous links to Ireland and smaller countries, particularly, boost their squad by bending the rules on eligibility through grandparentage or residency (I think you have to live in a country for 5 years to be eligible to represent that country).

Today it still goes on Deco plays for Portugal, but is Brazilian. Commons just got his debut for Scotland, last week, but is English. There are lots and lots of other examples - Gullit and Rijkaard were born in Somalia, but won the European Championship with Holland in 1988.

So the international football is no less of a mix than club football.


----------



## MrKowz (Sep 16, 2008)

First off, I am not a sports buff.  I do not memorize player's names, stats, or even salary.  That being said, there are times when I read somewhere that a person is getting paid large sums of money to _play a game_.  However, I am going to take a step back and redefine what it means to _play a game_.

These people, say Baseball for example, work.  During the offseason, they wake up at the crack of dawn, head out to the fields, and practice.  They practice for hours every day.  Doesn't matter if it is 30° or 100°, they are out there basically rehearsing what they want to re-enact for the fans.  During the regular season, they are barely ever home to see their families for more than a couple of days at a time, then they are right back off to another city for another _game_.  

I feel that a decently large sum of money is worth watching these players give their all 3-4 hours out of a day when in reality they _work_ almost 6 months straight with only three to four days off a month.  However, I do not like the idea that they are getting paid millions upon millions of dollars.  There should be a limit to how much a person can be paid for sports, and when your team wins, there should be a bonus.  A $23 million dollar contract is completely rediculous.  But something under $5 million I would deem acceptable.  In all seriousness, how easy is it to spend $23 million?  Yeah, I could think of a few things I would spend it on, but what about the next $23 mil that comes in, or the next, or the next.  I really don't think I could spend $100,000,000.

Enough rambling of me.  Time for work (aka MrExcel under my real work).


----------



## kgkev (Sep 16, 2008)

You have to remember that these sports are at the top of there game - they are litrally the best in the world at what they do.

If you compare that to any other job I'm sure you'll find that these people earn stupid amounts of money.  

Bill Gates is? the most succesful software developer in the world. Google says $300 a second?  Should his earnings be capped?  

Who's the most succesful Banker? A google search tells me its roger Jenkins - he earns $148m a year.  because he is the best at what he does.

The difference is sportsman normally only earn such salaries for 2-10 years.  Unlike my 2 examples above who will continue to bring it in for many years.


----------



## Jonmo1 (Sep 16, 2008)

> I read somewhere that a person is getting paid large sums of money to _*play a game*_.


 
They're not _*playing a game*_.

_Professional_ Sports are a business. It is WORK. Professional is the key word.  They are providing a service to the community - Entertainment. And yes, entertainment is an important service. It's not just a game to the athletes/coaches/front office people, It's how they make thier living, provide food and shelter for their families. If they are good at it, sure they should have the right to seek out whatever team (company / employer) will pay them the most. Just like You and I should have the right to seek out other employers that will pay more. And if one team can afford to pay more, so be it.

If all teams were paid equally, therefor equally talented, it would be a little boring. Sure each individual game might be a little more exciting, but in the long run, a little more boring. Because one of the most basic ideas behind why we like to watch sports, is that we like to see the underdog win. Anything can happen. If there is no underdog, it's less exciting.

Like last years NFL Superboal, the MIGHTY New England Patriots Vs. Middle of the road New York Gians. Patriots 18-0, undefeated for the entire season. It would have been extremely historic if the Patriots won. The single greatest season any NFL football team ever had. And then you have the Giants, with a mediocre record (I don't even know what it was). They barely made the playoffs. EVERYONE expected the Patrios to win. And the Giants pulled off probably the best upset ever. It was the BEST Superbowl Ever in my opinion because of the drama unfolding. Watching David beat Goliath.


----------



## xyzabc198 (Sep 16, 2008)

MrKowz said:


> These people, say Baseball for example, work. During the offseason, they wake up at the crack of dawn, head out to the fields, and practice. They practice for hours every day. Doesn't matter if it is 30° or 100°, they are out there basically rehearsing what they want to re-enact for the fans. During the regular season, they are barely ever home to see their families for more than a couple of days at a time, then they are right back off to another city for another _game_.


 
I would still rather see a doctor earn this much than someone who, at the end of the day, is PLAYING a game...I enjoy playing basketball, and I play it everyday before and after work...I wouldn't call that work.


Expiry said:


> I'm glad you started that with "I don't know a huge amount about football". So are you saying that you think that the World Cup is full of players only playing for their own country? Money talks - even in international football.
> 
> France won the World Cup in 1998, half of their squad were born outside of France: Viera - Senegal, Zidane - Algeria, Thuram, Henry and Wiltord - Guadeloupe, Desailly - Ghana, Djorkaeff and Boghossian - Armenia.


 
...ooooooh, well excuuuuse me lol
No but seriously, they lived in there country for 5 years, at least they lived there, what I mean is, you cannot pay $10,000,000 for zinadine zidane to play for america (probably a terible example and pricing probably way off but oh well) but they have to use there own residents, makes it more fair than the rich teams having all the best players and poor teams have nobodies!


----------



## Jonmo1 (Sep 16, 2008)

> I would still rather see a doctor earn this much than someone who, at the end of the day, is PLAYING a game


 
Are you SURE about that???

You have to realize the REASON athletes are paid so much. It's how business works. The public is willing to pay X $$ to go to a sporting event. So the Sporting teams can then charge X $$ for a ticket to that event, and then can afford to pay it's employees (athletes) X $$ per year.

Basically, the more you are willing to pay, the higher the price, the higher the athlete's salary. Some would say it's the reverse, the sporting teams will raise prices until a breaking point is reached where the public isn't willing to pay it anymore.

If a DOCTOR was paid millions of dollars a year, then the price of your medical care would go up just as much...


It's not a matter of who _deserves_ the higher salary, it's a matter of how much companies can afford pay athletes and how much they can charge and how much the public is willing to pay.

A country or community of poeple that decides how much different professions are paid....That's called Communism.


----------



## xyzabc198 (Sep 16, 2008)

Yes I understand what you mean with regards to the high NI prices and such like, but at the end of the day, I wouldn't pay so much for ticket prices, some people do, and it's wrong that they should charge so much for them, yes I know if I owned a team I would charge as much as I could, but they could spend that money better on upgrading the grounds, or doing charity events rather than paying players such a large amount of money which is just for entertainment.
Put it this way, would you rather pay £1000 for a football match and then get your medical for £10 which would ultimately lead to rubbish doctors, or pay £10 for a footbal match and £1000 for doctors and know that you and your family would be getting the best doctors, and they would be, because at that sort of wage, everybody would want to be a doctor, resulting in more doctors being available, which means only the best would be employed...which is kinda how football teams work now, only the best fottballers get chosen


----------



## Jonmo1 (Sep 16, 2008)

I disagree completely.

People don't have a God or Country given Right to attend a sporting event.  It is a priveledge and a luxury.  Yes it's great that it is there, but for a price.  And businesses have a right to charge whatever amount they want for their service or product.

And you'll probably think I'm the devil for saying this, but it's the same for medical care.  Just becuase you were born, does not give you an inherent right for medical care.  Yes it's there and available to you, but for a price.  You have to work to earn money to pay for it.  That is how society works, at least for right now.  We haven't evolved to the Star Trek Era yet, where there's no such thing as money. and everything is provided by and for the community.

At least in the U.S.  Our constitution says You have the right to "The persuit of happiness".  You DO NOT have the inerent right to Happiness.  You have the right to PERSUE and SEEK happiness, in whatever way you see fit for yourself.  You have the right to LIVE, free from descrimination(and other things).  But you DO NOT have inherent rights to ANY property, service, even food and water.  It is entirely up to you to provide your own food, shelter, medical care and entertainment.  No one is required to give it to you.  Yes, the government and community DOES provide some of that to those who cannot provide for themselves.  But it is not a REQUIREMENT of the government or community to do so.  It is done because the government and community feels that it is the right thing to do.  We do not have the right to complain that they don't do it in a way that satisfies you.  Well you can complain, but don't expect anything to be done about it.


----------



## Jonmo1 (Sep 16, 2008)

And the Companies (the rich football team owners) have the exact same rights as the average Joe earning $10/hour. They are persuing their own happiness.  And obviously having better success at it.


----------



## Domski (Sep 16, 2008)

> People don't have a God or Country given Right to attend a sporting event.


 
Since I started this thread things have been discussed far and wide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7610137.stm

I do get where you are coming from Jonmo but I feel at the moment that the general feeling in the UK is turning against this tide of people being prepared to pay for the privilege of watching these events. The more money that the sports people are being paid the more the owners of these clubs require in income and the people that eventually pay for all this are the man on the street.


----------



## kgkev (Sep 17, 2008)

you don't have to pay £30,000 for a car. you could pay £500

Its about the quality of the product you wish to buy.  If you feel you don't need the best product to enjoy the experiance you can go for a cheaper alternative.

From Basingstoke I could travel for 2 hours to see chelsea play for around £100

I could travel 20 minutes to see Reading play for around £40

or I could ride my bike for 5 minutes and see Basingstoke town play £10

Even further I could walk to my local sports field and watch a local team play for nothing.

Its about Choice.



To comment on the "only the best footballers get choosen."  this is not true.  An average doctor will earn an average wage but the best doctor in the country will earn big money.

An average footballer (playing in the second division) will earn an average wage. 

Its the same as any profession - If you are the best at it you will be paid more (as long as someone notices that is)


----------



## xyzabc198 (Sep 17, 2008)

What I meant by that remark was that a big team like Chelsea would not pay for an average Joe to play for them, and likewise a person that is a destructive force on the team more than an advantage...no team would want him on their side.
But I have to say, what you said made alot of sense...it is like either shopping at lidle (watching Basingstoke town) or shopping at M&S (Chelsea)


----------

