Is increasing money in football improving the game?

[SeanMcPolin1]

For University I'm doing a project on whether the increasing amount of money in football is improving the game?

Please comment any views/opinions.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I support Mansfield Town. What money?

 

[johnnytodd]

For University I'm doing a project on whether the increasing amount of money in football is improving the game?

Please comment any views/opinions.

All you need for your project is the following sentence.

Heysel 1985 and BskyB ruined football, it will never recover domestically or internationally.

 

[Whitechapel]

The money coming into the Premier League is definitely making it better to watch. Teams that used to slip up to smaller teams are struggling more now that those smaller teams are minted. (For example, Chelsea)

 

[silkyman]

The money coming in for the latest Tv deal has brought spending power slightly closer while pushing the PL above other divisions so more clubs can afford top players.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

It depends on what you like about football.

But I think you'll have to write more than this to get an A.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

It could improve the game, because it could allow for vast investment in local, grass roots, kids football that no other nation could match. Yes all the clubs who benefit from the big money do lots of community work (are required to do so) but its hardly a priority for them.

The money could allow for cheaper ticket prices, not just at the top level but if distributed better down the league it could mean cheaper tickets for all.

But then unicorns could play centre back for Chelsea next week.

I don't necessarily buy the argument about attracting better players to the league, because even without vast TV money, the PL would still be a very wealthy league in the world and attract good players just because of the clubs we have in this country, the footballing going population we have, and the wider economy of the country.

There is the argument that smaller clubs are able to compete with the massive clubs because of the huge money on offer. And that is true to an extent, the gap has certainly closed between the big few and those chasing in the last few years. However I'd argue that was an artificial gap in the first place. Before clubs could buy their buy in and out of trouble, a period of good (or bad) management really made a difference regardless of club size. Clough's work with Derby and Forest certainly couldn't happen again now.

And I know this is totally contradicted by the club I support. A historically small club punching above it's weight partly due to the manager but a lot due to funding from foreign owners, now including a multi-billion $ equity group only here for the PL money potentially on offer, and the significant PL money we've received this season.

However I'd argue there were multiple times in my club's past when we could well have gotten up to the upper echelons of the leagues without significant money, because of periods of good management and good players, not particularly well funded. We only mostly stayed down because of unfortunate circumstance, but the opportunities were there before the money came in. So the smaller club benefiting argument doesn't wash with me either.

But we are where we are. As it is, players and agents get wealthier, the Glazier family get's wealthier, and that's about it.

 

[johnnytodd]

It could improve the game, because it could allow for vast investment in local, grass roots, kids football that no other nation could match. Yes all the clubs who benefit from the big money do lots of community work (are required to do so) but its hardly a priority for them.

The money could allow for cheaper ticket prices, not just at the top level but if distributed better down the league it could mean cheaper tickets for all.

But then unicorns could play centre back for Chelsea next week.

I don't necessarily buy the argument about attracting better players to the league, because even without vast TV money, the PL would still be a very wealthy league in the world and attract good players just because of the clubs we have in this country, the footballing going population we have, and the wider economy of the country.

There is the argument that smaller clubs are able to compete with the massive clubs because of the huge money on offer. And that is true to an extent, the gap has certainly closed between the big few and those chasing in the last few years. However I'd argue that was an artificial gap in the first place. Before clubs could buy their buy in and out of trouble, a period of good (or bad) management really made a difference regardless of club size. Clough's work with Derby and Forest certainly couldn't happen again now.

And I know this is totally contradicted by the club I support. A historically small club punching above it's weight partly due to the manager but a lot due to funding from foreign owners, now including a multi-billion $ equity group only here for the PL money potentially on offer, and the significant PL money we've received this season.

However I'd argue there were multiple times in my club's past when we could well have gotten up to the upper echelons of the leagues without significant money, because of periods of good management and good players, not particularly well funded. We only mostly stayed down because of unfortunate circumstance, but the opportunities were there before the money came in. So the smaller club benefiting argument doesn't wash with me either.

But we are where we are. As it is, players and agents get wealthier, the Glazier family get's wealthier, and that's about it.

Didn't Clough break the record transfer fee with Francis?.......just saying

 

[Robbie Garnett]

In college I am currently doing a project based on football.
The topic I am doing is whether rich owners are a luxury or a liability for clubs.
Please comment on whether you think rich owners are a good or bad thing for football clubs.

 

[silkyman]

It depends on the owners. And it ain't a new thing.

Only just catching up with things today.

Blimey.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/dec/01/manchester-city-owners-china-venture-power

And if David Conn is being generally positive, we really are through the looking glass here...

 

[Dazza]

In college I am currently doing a project based on football.
The topic I am doing is whether rich owners are a luxury or a liability for clubs.
Please comment on whether you think rich owners are a good or bad thing for football clubs.

It seems students like doing projects on football. Rich owners can be a good thing but also can be a bad thing. I could give you more but i think you should do your homework yourself.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Orient would be an interesting starting point though.