Middle Class opposition to "Conspicious Consumption"

[Power n Glory]

A few things.

The financial gap between the top 36 teams that are not in the champions league places has shrunk considerably.

- The championship is awash with cash
- Within the EPL, and unlike la ligua, revenue is distributed pretty evenly, due to balanced TV rights and parachute payments to relegated EPL clubs.
- The champions league spaces however, distort the balance not just in TV revenue, but in sponsorship deals, prize money and (more games @ class A) ticket revenue.
- People complain about Real and Barca, but they still have dept, and have vastly reduced there yearly spending over the last year or so.

Really, this all began with Chelsea, now we have random teams like Malaga offering £200k per week contracts like candy. EVEN if players choose clubs for footballing reasons, this massive wage inflation will persist and influence clubs at all levels in the EPL and below.

The day Malaga win the Spanish league and Champions League is the day when Fifa and UEFA will clamp down on this. As soon as it starts to effect their beloved institutionalised clubs they'll cry foul because it's effecting the establishment. When in truth, this issue should have been looked into years ago.

[Niall_Quinn]

Don't forget the Russian and Arab big-shots have milked entire nations to bag their loot. Our lot may be robbing one set of fans blind but they have some way to go before they grab the wealth of a nation and call it their own. Our lot are shady money grabbing fucks but if we cut to the chase and gave them all our money, our homes and possessions I don't imagine they'd have a problem giving a bit back in terms of investment so they could pretend they were the good guys.

[Niall_Quinn]

The day Malaga win the Spanish league and Champions League is the day when Fifa and UEFA will clamp down on this. As soon as it starts to effect their beloved institutionalised clubs they'll cry foul because it's effecting the establishment. When in truth, this issue should have been looked into years ago.

The day Man Utd stuck two fingers up to the FA Cup and ran off chasing money is when this should have been clamped down on. That was about as big a signal as you could get to predict what was going to happen next.

You might be surprised at how quickly Malaga could buy legitimacy. City have done it.

[Kano]

You say this has 'always' been the case. To an extent, but the differences between the haves and have nots has grown exponentially. Especially since the advent of the Premier League and the rise and rise of the Champions League.

1965 and 1967, Utd were champions. They won the European Cup in 1968. In 1974 they were relegated.
Utd's final positions in the years from 67 to 74 were:
1st, 2nd, 11th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 18th, 21st.

The champions each year were
67 Utd
68 City
69 Leeds
70 Everton
71 Arsenal
72 Derby County
73 Liverpool
74 Leeds

Note that only Leeds won it twice, every other year there was a different champion. There have always been haves and have nots but the gaps between them were such that it was far easier to better oneself as a club, and possible to fall from grace pretty quickly. These days the only way to do it is to do what Chelsea and now City have done. That isn't those clubs' fault but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. It makes football all too predictable. In the era I'm talking about you didn't know what was going to happen at the start of the season. Now the top 3 for next year is pretty much certain to be the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea. I don't know the order of course but it's a bit sad that before a ball is kicked the top 3 is all but known.

it's interesting that you choose that specific period as a counterpoint example to today's situation. From what I can see 4 teams won in the 80's, 4 in the 90's, 3 in the 00's and 3 so far in this decade - will that mean 8 years of man u, chelsea and city winning the league, before only two win it from 2020 onwards?

there seems to be a trend in those figures but club domination is symptomatic of the competitive nature of sport when given the opportunity to use whatever available legal tools exist. like you said, there have always been haves and have nots and there will always be a cycle where the gap grows to an unsustainable level before it has to regroup and start all over again. the journey on the road to the citys and chelseas started when the leagues were first formed and only when the bubble bursts will there be any degree of across the field parity again.

[Kano]

Don't forget the Russian and Arab big-shots have milked entire nations to bag their loot. Our lot may be robbing one set of fans blind but they have some way to go before they grab the wealth of a nation and call it their own. Our lot are shady money grabbing fucks but if we cut to the chase and gave them all our money, our homes and possessions I don't imagine they'd have a problem giving a bit back in terms of investment so they could pretend they were the good guys.

wouldn't that be worse, smile whilst holding your arm behind your back? i'm sure you'd agree, it's all a level of degrees when it comes to the money hungry, how far they'd be willing to go to make more. yet, is it only legislation that stops not only the brand 'thought leaders' at our club but those across every big team from reaching the esteemed heights these billionaire owners have managed to secure? i can't separate the two, so i have to box them together in a place where i can watch them, aware that their intentions do not match mine when it comes to football so i can concentrate on the game between 22 guys doing all they can to win a very simple game.

[Kano]

That's about right. Each time a new level of elitism has been introduced the competition has declined, the playing field has tipped more in favour of the few. There was nothing wrong with the old 4 division system. It was changed so our game could be gradually brought into line with the European leagues. Then the Champions League replaced the Euro Cup (again there was nothing wrong with the European Cup). Next will be the exclusive and locked down Euro League that finally sees the death of our old Division #1 and English football as we remember it.

Who has benefited?

1. The clubs.
2. The players.
3. The agents.
4. TV companies.
5. Corrupt football authorities.

Who is missing from the list?

If I wasn't such an optimist I'd say we are delighted with an unbroken string of CL appearances because it's our ticket to the big time, a hateful, hateful Euro league where there's no promotion or relegation. This is what some of the greedy few have already been pressing for isn't it? This was the threat that provoked the thin end of the wedge in the shape of the PL.

Commercialism never improved anything, but it always ends up killing everything. "They" say it's the way it has to be, modern world an all that shit and they present this inevitability as if all of human history beforehand doesn't fly right in the face of their bullshit. The more money you let into the game the worse it will get. Let unlimited cash in and it will be infinitely fucked up in the end.

i'm not convinced a euro league will take place, as the money will always flow to the top, so despite no relegation a disparity between teams in that league will develop over time. money is one thing but ego is another, so why would an owner of a euro league team that finished last want to pitch up at a post season conference with the other 19 other owners in a better position? money and ego go hand in hand, so being part of an exclusive club is nice for a while but if you can be the king of a smaller patch on a big wallet, how many would twist?

from a sponsors perspective i also think there is more incentive to pay more for exclusivity in a particular country, branding across the chest/hoarding/managers jacket of a champion from that league, or with one of the other big teams there. if you are nike for example, you would pay more to the champs of a euro league than you would a team that doesn't win it for a few years. seeing as it would be a league across the europe region, the target audience for the sponsors would have to be more specific, which would be reflected in their payments looking for a return.

[Fist of Lehmann]

There is no natural occurring shape of the wage market. That's determined by whose willing to pay what and the richest clubs set the bar. Real Madrid set the bar a long time ago during their 'Galactico' phase. From then on it got silly and the gap between the rich clubs and poor widened. City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. There is no way for the smaller clubs to compete with the elites because the bigger clubs have always been able to poach their players and set wage fees and transfers way above what they can afford. Where is the sport in that? The system has been unfair for years but we're more vocal now because it feels like we're in a hopeless situation where we can't compete.

By "naturally occurring" I mean the way in which players tend to get paid what they're worth. Considering the correlation between wage bill and final league position the natural conclusion is that overall wage bill is a very good indicator of squad quality, and that squad quality is the deciding factor in where you finish.

This is possible because the conditions for an efficient wage market are all there.

Transparency, i.e. football players conduct their business in full view of millions, everyone can see how good a player you are, and players and agents pretty much know how much their peers earn.

Transferability, i.e. their are lots of buyers and sellers, and players are able to move freely between clubs.

Therefore if a player performs above his wages he will either agitate for a wage increase or agitate for a transfer (on higher wages).
If a player performs at a level below where his wages suggest, he will tend to fall out of the team, be sold or agitate for a move elsewhere.

In this way players "naturally" will tend to gravitate to their proper wage and, we know this happens because otherwise the correlation could not exist.

A distortion then would if you overpaid players relative to their abilities.

Oh what is the point.

[Power n Glory]

By "naturally occurring" I mean the way in which players tend to get paid what they're worth. Considering the correlation between wage bill and final league position the natural conclusion is that overall wage bill is a very good indicator of squad quality, and that squad quality is the deciding factor in where you finish.

This is possible because the conditions for an efficient wage market are all there.

Transparency, i.e. football players conduct their business in full view of millions, everyone can see how good a player you are, and players and agents pretty much know how much their peers earn.

Transferability, i.e. their are lots of buyers and sellers, and players are able to move freely between clubs.

Therefore if a player performs above his wages he will either agitate for a wage increase or agitate for a transfer (on higher wages).
If a player performs at a level below where his wages suggest, he will tend to fall out of the team, be sold or agitate for a move elsewhere.

In this way players "naturally" will tend to gravitate to their proper wage and, we know this happens because otherwise the correlation could not exist.

A distortion then would if you overpaid players relative to their abilities.

Oh what is the point.

But we overpay our young players and it's based on potential while also trying to ward off poachers so I disagree with that. It has nothing to do with our league position, their worth or talent. It's all based on potential and bribery if we can call it that. That's what City are doing now. They pay higher wages because it convinces players that would normally go to Real Madrid to join them. There is nothing natural about the market and you can't blame everything on City for that. Before City and Chelsea came on the scene, we'd get into disputes with our players over our wage structure. Vieira, Pires, Henry and co weren't earning anywhere near as much as their counterparts at Man United and that used to piss them off. The fact that we have a wage structure in place defeats this whole idea of 'natural wage shape' anyway.

[Fist of Lehmann]

But we overpay our young players and it's based on potential while also trying to ward off poachers so I disagree with that. It has nothing to do with our league position, their worth or talent. It's all based on potential and bribery if we can call it that. That's what City are doing now. They pay higher wages because it convinces players that would normally go to Real Madrid to join them. There is nothing natural about the market and you can't blame everything on City for that. Before City and Chelsea came on the scene, we'd get into disputes with our players over our wage structure. Vieira, Pires, Henry and co weren't earning anywhere near as much as their counterparts at Man United and that used to piss them off. The fact that we have a wage structure in place defeats this whole idea of 'natural wage shape' anyway.

Sorry PnG. You're not really getting it and I'm starting to bore even myself so I'm not going to respond to that.