Cornish Steve Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2625535/Liverpool-earners-season-99m-bottom-Cardiff-got-64m.html I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowensda Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 They're "fashionable" clubs, we are not. We will get better, but we're not there yet. Plus, don't forget, that both clubs were in the CL last season and television schedules are written in principle with those clubs in mind. Some changes happen, like our games against Southampton being rescheduled for TV. Just the way it is. We don't have a given right to more money because we finished higher, it's taking previous achievements (year prior) into account. We may get more next year? GoodisonRoad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodisonRoad Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2625535/Liverpool-earners-season-99m-bottom-Cardiff-got-64m.html I don't get it. TV money. Explains it right under the table "Manchester United have had a hugely disappointing campaign on the pitch but their appeal to broadcasters is clear, as only the top four earned more over the season" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeQuince Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 All clubs in the league should receive equal sums when it comes to the television contract. It only furthers the economic disparities of the league to give some clubs (already the highest earners with the biggest pocketbooks) more money than the other clubs who struggle to compete for stable mediocrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted May 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 All clubs in the league should receive equal sums when it comes to the television contract. It only furthers the economic disparities of the league to give some clubs (already the highest earners with the biggest pocketbooks) more money than the other clubs who struggle to compete for stable mediocrity. While I'm all for rewarding clubs based on achievement, I do agree with this regarding TV money. It would mean that producers could choose which games to televise without causing a storm over why some clubs are paid more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 It's all too much money full stop. However, I do agree that it should be spread evenly. The way it is now is a downside to Financial Fair Play. 'Big' clubs will just keep getting more. The gap will keep getting wider. On the other hand, while I may not be able to go to many games, I'm glad some of my £800 or so annual sky fee finds it's way to the club!!! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 While I'm all for rewarding clubs based on achievement, I do agree with this regarding TV money. It would mean that producers could choose which games to televise without causing a storm over why some clubs are paid more than others. Agreed Cornish. I believe this is how it's done in American sports where they total the earnings and divide it equally to all teams. And you're right it allows for the big match ups to get airtime but also local rivalries and grudge matches and such. We can't complain too much since we are at the top end of the spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 All clubs in the league should receive equal sums when it comes to the television contract. It only furthers the economic disparities of the league to give some clubs (already the highest earners with the biggest pocketbooks) more money than the other clubs who struggle to compete for stable mediocrity. Don't agree. Imagine having to watch Palace vs Stoke and West Ham vs West Brom as the only televised football of the weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Don't agree. Imagine having to watch Palace vs Stoke and West Ham vs West Brom as the only televised football of the weekend. But that's the point. Pay all teams the same amount in TV money, but give the broadcast companies the freedom to broadcast only the games they choose. If you're Stoke, for example, you receive the same amount of TV money as Chelsea, for example, even if they broadcast all of Chelsea's games and none of Stoke's. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 But that's the point. Pay all teams the same amount in TV money, but give the broadcast companies the freedom to broadcast only the games they choose. If you're Stoke, for example, you receive the same amount of TV money as Chelsea, for example, even if they broadcast all of Chelsea's games and none of Stoke's. Yep. That's the ideal way. Never happen though. The 'big' clubs will whinge. Then the usual threat of making yet another league will happen. Money talks. Too loud. Too often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeQuince Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 But that's the point. Pay all teams the same amount in TV money, but give the broadcast companies the freedom to broadcast only the games they choose. If you're Stoke, for example, you receive the same amount of TV money as Chelsea, for example, even if they broadcast all of Chelsea's games and none of Stoke's. Exactly. It's how the NFL is run, for instance. Also, there should be markets for matches to make sure they are always televised locally, regardless of the big "nationally televised" games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_E Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think in the NBA even merchandise income is distributed equally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 But that's the point. Pay all teams the same amount in TV money, but give the broadcast companies the freedom to broadcast only the games they choose. If you're Stoke, for example, you receive the same amount of TV money as Chelsea, for example, even if they broadcast all of Chelsea's games and none of Stoke's. Why would they ever do that? It's like saying let's split the pay per view money evenly between Mayweather and all the undercards. The money is on merit of good football! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Why would they ever do that? It's like saying let's split the pay per view money evenly between Mayweather and all the undercards. The money is on merit of good football! Because, if you don't, the bigger teams get more and more money, becoming even bigger teams that get even more money - whereas the little teams fail to attract top players, which means they struggle even more and fail even to win average players. We'd end up with three or four megateams and the total inability of others to progress at all. Right now, the cards are stacked to help the big teams, but Everton have just proved that it's possible to make inroads. Without equality of TV revenue, though, it would become very very difficult to overturn the existing hegemony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Because, if you don't, the bigger teams get more and more money, becoming even bigger teams that get even more money - whereas the little teams fail to attract top players, which means they struggle even more and fail even to win average players. We'd end up with three or four megateams and the total inability of others to progress at all. Right now, the cards are stacked to help the big teams, but Everton have just proved that it's possible to make inroads. Without equality of TV revenue, though, it would become very very difficult to overturn the existing hegemony.That's old news mate and that's how it is. End of the day it won't change and at present people only want to pay to watch big players and big games. The likes of Palace v Stoke won't sell,so why should they receive more money if they aren't actually being broadcast? Sky and BT pay to broadcast the most profitable games. If it was to change to equal finances, you bet the top clubs would separate and sell it to a different broadcaster giving them exclusivity to their games. It's all about profits to Sky and BT and if you can make them money, they'll give you a bigger brown envelope. It's the same in all walks of life. Edited May 13, 2014 by MiguelCotto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.