SoccerShout.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Sky and Setanta announced their fixtures for the first 15 ‘match days’  in the 2008 Premier League calendar (here is a Premier League TV Guide for US television).  What often goes unnoticed by football fans is the power that the television companies have over which clubs their money goes to.

The Premier League clubs decide how to split the money received from television, and due to bullying by the big-4  in their wisom award 25% of the money according to how many times a club is shown on TV.  For the current TV deal, that works out to £460,000 per appearance (with a minimum payment of £4.6million per year).

The fixtures announced today break down as follows:

9 appearances: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United

7 appearances: Manchester City, Newcastle, Spurs

6 appearances: Everton

5 appearances: Aston Villa, West Ham

4 appearances: Sunderland, Bolton, West Brom, Blackburn

3 appearances: Fulham, Wigan, Portsmouth, Stoke, Middlesbrough

2 appearances: Hull

The usual suspects are at the top of course, but it’s also interesting to see the ‘big clubs’ like Newcastle and Spurs getting a lot of games despite disappointing campaigns last year.  The ’small clubs’ like Blackburn and Portsmouth are getting relatively few games despite finishing higher up the league table.

This translates into cold hard cash as follows: If the discrepancy remains over the course of the season, Newcastle will receive over £3.5million more than Portsmouth - at the discretion of Sky/Setana - even though Portsmouth finished 4 places higher last year.

Putting this in real terms, it’s enough to pay two players £35k per week, or it’s like having an extra 7,500 fans at every home game.

SoccerShout posted some more examples of unfair TV money distribution last season.  For example, Newcastle getting £5million more than Middlesbrough, despite finishing only once place higher.

Let me be clear on one thing:  I don’t blame the TV companies for wanting to show more of the big-4, and even teams like Spurs and Newcastle, if that will draw the most viewers.  It’s their prerogative to optimize their offering.

I do have a problem with the Premier League distributing that money according to appearances, which effectively lets the TV companies decide which clubs get the most money.

Robin Van Persie should be congratulated, along with his Arsenal colleagues, for his focus on providing entertainment while he’s on the pitch. A comment he made recently though was a reminder of who the team is really there to entertain.

Just before the recent defeat to Manchester United (another nice dose of entertainment), he spoke these words to the Times:

“For me, the basic of football is to give enjoyment to people buying a ticket. That’s where it starts. We are like 11 actors on a stage, we have to give enjoyment.”

Again, this shows what a great attitude Arsenal have, and it’s entertainment that will drive football’s success in business terms.

But Van Persie - and many others - often forget that the people buying the ticket make up a tiny percentage of the people being entertained. How tiny? Well, for every fan in the Emirates Stadium, there are another 1250 fans watching the game live around the world. So the people in the ground represent less than 0.1% of the live audience (never mind about the people enjoying the game in packaged highlights around the world).

That ratio - 1250 to 1 - should be remembered when the new season ticket prices are being announced. For example, Boro are offering really good value for kids in order to boost their attendance, while leaving the adult prices untouched. But is such tinkering really worth it when there’s a vast worldwide market waiting to be tapped?

–

If you love a good ratio as much as the next man (and perhaps just a little bit more), then subscribe to this blog in order to get regular updates. Together we can make football better. It starts here. You can receive updates by email or RSS. Both are free and spam-free, and you can back-out at any time.

Some telling comments on a Boro message board thread, titled “Are We Stagnating?” on FMTTM.

Benboro kicks the thread off:

This season has been really poor. 15th position in the league, we will do well to reach 40 points and will just stay up as there are many equally poor sides ( many of whom have not spent the money we have )

So once again we re group and go into a new season full of hope and expectations. The season ticket renewal arrives on the door mat promising top players, attacking football and relative success.

Then after another season of ups and mainly downs I will most likely be sat here typing exactly the same stuff in a years time.

Then Parmogus:

i have had 31 years of that mate and thats why i have given it all up i just cannot be arsed with it all .Years ago i used to stand on the holgate with about 22 mates week in and week out the same as when the riverside opened as well there are now 5 left and only 1 is defo renewing next year

Then Diasboro_Dan:

Someone has got to be mid-table and mid-table is the worst place to be nowadays. There’s nothing to compete for but no opportunity to experiment for next season because safety is so much more important now. For example, Adam Johnson can’t be given games but he can’t be loaned out, so they can’t make the most of him. Also, it’s the worst position financially. It costs millions to park the side in mid-table, whereas demoted Watford actually made a profit from last season after selling just one player and still having a team. They are more financially secure than Boro.

I think this could have come from fans of any of about 8 or 9 clubs in the Prem, whose highest aspiration is UEFA Cup qualification or a good run in one of the cups.

It’s that last comment that really resonated with me: “Mid-table is the worst place to be”. It costs millions to maintain that position, but the fans are deserting because it’s so boring.

Ouch.