Quote Originally Posted by Ollie the Optimist View Post
There are a few things that make me uncomfortable in the reaction to this new super league.

The first is the fact the Government are trying to interfere, not just here but in Spain & France etc. As far as i can see, these private companies (which is what they are) have set up a new competition. There is nothing illegal in that and i don’t see how the Government can change it. In my mind it also sets a worrying precedent where if clubs want to do something but the premier league oppose it for whatever reason, they just go running to the government to change it.

While fully accepting cricket is nowhere near as popular as football but recently they have changed the county cricket structure to create a brand new “100” game with new teams rather then existing counties and effectively paid off the opposition. Now as a cricket fan, i dont like this new league i much prefer watching my county but i don’t remember the governemnt getting involved here at all. Probably because it was the league who wanted it rather then the clubs unlike in this situation. The overall theme is that money talks, fans dont and that still applies here.

The second thing is the way uefa & sky etc are banging on about greed. Yesterday Sky made Monday night football free to air so everyone could see Neville & Carragher accuse the clubs of being greedy and ignoring the fans. As soon as the game kicked off though, they stopped the free to air so that fans could pay to watch the game. Not exactly the best message there!
Uefa yesterday accused the clubs of ignoring the fans and being greedy yet this is the same UEFA that put the Europa League Final in Baku, a place where many fans have to fly via Dubai to get to a European game. Was thinking of the fans? Was it bollocks, it was greed but it was ok greed as it was UEFA. Let’s look at the EUROs, their plan (Covid aside) is to play them all over Europe which only adds to the costs for fans as instead of booking a trip to say France to watch all the games, they have to book several trips.
No Ollie. This "private company" bullshit has to stop being the global excuse for shit heap abusers like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, UEFA and Arsenal Football Club.

A genuinely private company is one that is built from the endeavour of a few, with the risks taken by those few and the products and services they produce being of benefit to the many - all played out on a level playing field where innovation, integrity, quality and a fair exchange of value drive the demand.

This is why monopolies are regulated against. Monopolies do not fulfil the definition of private companies. They are instead socialised organisations in all aspects except for control and revenue share. Added to that, the very second any of these "private" companies help themselves to taxpayer money, in the form of subsidies or a blind eye turned to their shady tax practises, you can strip away that notion of private operation again.

What these companies are doing is leveraging societies rather than customers and then using legal constructs to protect the profits. Who told the BBC to start putting Twitter ads on every news report? That's what it is when a public service favours one service over another, a state sponsored advert. So if Twitter is genuinely private they can pay for the advert right? Like any genuinely private company would have to. And not just the BBC, but every other public facing organisation that suddenly decided Twitter was a thing.

Facebook pages. Same deal, right? Why is Microsoft getting 20+ billion dollars from the U.S. government for kit that could have been produced anywhere? What makes Microsoft, a notorious producer of bug-ridden bloatware, so special?

Why doesn't Alphabet pay its taxes? Who has to pay them instead? Why did hundreds of corporations get favoured status and tax rebates last year while small companies and sole traders were locked down?

How much has Arsenal paid to society for the 100+ years of history it has just used to board the ESL gravy train? Or has it been a simple matter of the Kroenkes leeching up that generational capital and converting it from a social endeavour into a privately owned profit stream? Where's the "private" part of that beyond the profits? Where's the consideration of the fans' equity on this balance sheet, because that's the major part of what actually built the business from the ground up, match by match, over decades. The original proposition was not the same as a setting up a shop to sell widgets. Football clubs are part of the society, made by the society, originally funded by the society through participation and that strange word that will never be understood by vulture capitalists - loyalty.

These days there's a big industry in intellectual property and ownership of innovation. Patents and trademarks are often valued above the entire worth of the bricks, mortar and stock. Why can a "private" company place value on these intangible assets when football fans can't? Why can these assets be passed to the likes of Kroenke, free of charge? Do you see what he gets for free, beyond the bricks and mortar and grass he bought?

These are private companies on paper, but they milk every benefit society and the state have to offer. That makes society and the state shareholders in these companies.

Don't confuse vulture capitalism with the ideal of a free market.