Football as entertainment

[Cornish Steve]

Here in the US, the NFL is defined as entertainment, not sport. This is very important because it means that they can change rules, make biased decisions, and even rig games in the name of entertainment - little different from WWE wrestling (or the wrestling we used to watch on World of Sport in the 60s and 70s, which was clearly rigged). "Look on the back of your ticket", a friend explained to me this week. "It says 'entertainment'". Our concern with apparent bias in favour of wealthy teams in the Prem would carry no sway in the US. Of course VAR would be used to achieve a desired outcome. If that's what generates the most money and entertains the most people and pulls in the most advertisers, then that's the way it should be.

Which gets to the reason for writing this: If someone took the Premier League to court for bias - for allowing ridiculous marketing deals from family of the owners of City while penalizing Everton after changing the rules on how stadium interest payments are accounted for, or for allowing Newcastle to trade players at a discount with other teams in the owner's farm while requiring Everton to run every deal past their auditors and even then penalizing them ten points - how would the judge rule? Is it allowed because the Premier League is entertainment and the free market means it's all about the league's manipulators making the most money? Or is it defined as sport where fair play and rules matter and corporations making big money is a secondary consideration?

Maybe others from the US can clarify rulings and decisions from the past about the NFL being entertainment and therefore being allowed to stack the dice as ever they wish. And does anyone know what the Prem's legal defence would be if charged with bias? Is the Premier League sport or entertainment? Are Everton fans no different from WWE wrestling watchers?