Middle Class opposition to "Conspicious Consumption"

[Kano]

From my reading of this thread it seems that 3 questions are being confused.

1. Are people who lament the kind of spending that the Chavs and Manure are doing snobs?

IMO people who think yes are making a few wrong assumptions. The first that its sour grapes to oppose what the oligarchs are doing, and that we would love it if we were in the same position. I don't think that is right at all. No Gooner would turn his/her nose up at silverware - but most people would agree that something 'earnt' rather than just bought is a lot more satisfying. Does the athlete who dopes feel the same satisfaction of winning gold when he knows that he was unfairly stacking the odds in his favour, than one who wins clean?

And that's ignoring the effect that the Chavs'/Citeh's approach is having on the essence of the game. Noone is saying that they are the first to tip the playing field or gain an advantage over other clubs. Its the extent to which they are doing so that is sapping the essence of the game in a way that has not happened before. If we want to see the top football teams as the EPL's version of the Haarlem Globetrotters - where the point is not competition but simply showcasing the world's best talent then fine - but that's not the game that most people know and love.

2. Is it Citeh's/the Chav's fault that we haven't won stuff? No its not, its our's. But referring to our results against the top 4 teams/or highlighting the other reasons why we haven't won trophies is a bit of a sideshow, really. For me there are 2 questions to be asked. Have the mega bucks made it more difficult for us to compete? Of course they have. Have the affected our ability to compete? Well losing our best players year on year to much richer clubs, and having disaffected players because their agents know that they can refer to the nonsensical wages paid by the likes of Citeh/the Chavs has clearly had a prejudicial effect on AFC.

And whatever Montpellier-style anomalies can be teased out the simple fact is that more £ = more titles. It has been the case over the lifetime of the EPL, incuding when we were in the ascendancy - and it will continue self-evidently to be the case - hence the (correct) charge of buying the league.

3. Are we hypocrites in criticising the moneybags?

On the one hand, yes, because when we were one of those with most muscle, no Gooners looked at the likes of Everton; Sunderland or Bolton and felt that we had benefitted from an unfair advantage. But on the other you do have to look at degree and not just principle. We didn't distort the market like the rich clubs are doing now, and we were still subject to the vagaries of injury; loss of form and pure chance in a way that the rich teams have almost eliminated these days. We were the athletes with the state of the art training facilities; the coaching and the psychiatric conditioning - an advantage for sure. But what we didn't do was dope to guarantee success - which is what is happening now.

again, wasn't the market absolute ruined back in the 90s when the italians splurged as much money as possible - wasn't that when transfer fees went out of all proportion?

and i still don't understand this ideal of 'earning' the trophy. the squad at man city have certainly earned their medals, given their effort over the course of a season and are arsenal in any better moral position than city or chelsea really? is it better to 'honestly' market the brand like a whore everywhere possible looking to increase spend per head or 'dishonestly' pump in hundreds of millions - aren't they both horrible means to the same ends?

[Fist of Lehmann]

When considering how money has distorted the player transfer market it's important to bear in mind the one other major contributory factor - the 1995 Bosman Ruling.

Prior to this the movement of players was restricted by owning clubs. Forcing a transfer was impossible, because the owning club could refuse to release a players registration even if the contract had expired.

The Bosman Ruling placed the power, and the money, firmly back in the players hands. So after this, with nothing to limit movement, the most sought after players naturally began ending up at the richest clubs. The super rich clubs of the late 90's and noughties are really the first to capitalise on this unrestricted polarisation.

With players now controlling the market, and money now controlling the players, the significance of being able to pay higher wages than anyone else has only been exaggerated.

We're now in something of a vicious circle. The greed of players and their parasitic agents drive up wages, and 'ambitious' clubs willing to pay the premium drive up greed.

[Kano]

When considering how money has distorted the player transfer market it's important to bear in mind the one other major contributory factor - the 1995 Bosman Ruling.

Prior to this the movement of players was restricted by owning clubs. Forcing a transfer was impossible, because the owning club could refuse to release a players registration even if the contract had expired.

The Bosman Ruling placed the power, and the money, firmly back in the players hands. So after this, with nothing to limit movement, the most sought after players naturally began ending up at the richest clubs. The super rich clubs of the late 90's and noughties are really the first to capitalise on this unrestricted polarisation.

With players now controlling the market, and money now controlling the players, the significance of being able to pay higher wages than anyone else has only been exaggerated.

We're now in something of a vicious circle. The greed of players and their parasitic agents drive up wages, and 'ambitious' clubs willing to pay the premium drive up greed.

I wouldn't isolate it to only players and agents, as they are more opportunists making the most of an affluent industry. bankers were doing the same not too long ago, so the greed is a reflection of society at large, not something born and breed within the game.

you are right about bosman as it 'freed' up transfer money that didn't need to spent on fees, to be put onto wages. by the late 90s the top players were probably on 40/50k a week, which is what a squad player in the prem may earn now. its hard to find a middle ground for clubs and players to feel they have a level of control, the nature of the business almost makes that impossible, thus we get these swings between the two.

whether hazard (as an example) is on 100k after tax or 20k, the amount doesn't really matter. big clubs will always be able to pay more than anyone else and he would always have ended up at one of the biggest payers.

[Fist of Lehmann]

big clubs will always be able to pay more than anyone else and he would always have ended up at one of the biggest payers.

Well this is the point I was making, and the real effect of the Bosman Ruling. Rich clubs have always been able to afford the best players, but haven't always been able procure them, because the system precluded it.

Now the richest most unscupulous clubs can acquire or cynically unsettle any player anywhere simply by waving a giant cheque. The selling club must eventually accept it because the power of free movement, to move when and where they want, is now firmly in the hands of the players. And what does anyone do with power? Most often, they use it to feather their own nests.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think we have a leg to stand on with this argument. We do exactly the same with young players or the kids that still hadn't signed a professional contract with their home clubs. We pay higher wages and fees for these kids because we can and it's what convinces them to move.

[Coney]

Up till the Bosman ruling, the price of players was pretty well in the hands of the clubs and they naturally didn't fall over themselves to put the price up. Once Bosman had happened, then top flight football became more obviously a part of the entertainment business. It always was - at least it was for the best part of the last 100 years. So the stars of the entertainment business were freed from the shackles of the club owners and were able to get loadsamoney. In this day and age, 'stars' earnings are massive thanks to agents leaning on employers. As long as audiences turn up and pay for the performances, the stars will continue to be able to claim what they do. It is basic market forces. I don't blame players for accepting what the agents negotiate - would anyone on GW turn down the offer of a pay rise to 100,000 a week? Like hell.

I would like the fair play rule to be workable and be enforced so that at least clubs have to finance themselves by the gate receipts, sponsorship, shirt sales, etc. so that there would be some relation to the level of support. However, with TV distorting the market, we are never going to see what we used to see before. Once upon a time, if you wanted to watch the Arsenal playing a full match (other than a European game or the FA Cup final and semi-final, you had to get off your fat arse and go to the match. Then there was some degree of correlation between the club and the local area - even manu had to work roughly along those lines. Now that the top clubs are more divorced from their local fans than ever before, it is not surprising that the traditional fans are beginning to be priced out of the market and that the clubs are less concerned about pissing off some of the fan base.

[Fist of Lehmann]

I don't think we have a leg to stand on with this argument. We do exactly the same with young players or the kids that still hadn't signed a professional contract with their home clubs. We pay higher wages and fees for these kids because we can and it's what convinces them to move.

Maybe not if I were trying to argue that Arsenal are whiter than white.

But that also is not the point. We are exploiting an entirely different rule, that of the minimum age a young player can sign professional terms. The 30k a week we pay the kid doesn't distort the wage market, all it does is hurt us and our ability to move them on afterwards.

Thankfully there seems to be some admission from Gazelleface this week that we've been doing it wrong.

[Kano]

Well this is the point I was making, and the real effect of the Bosman Ruling. Rich clubs have always been able to afford the best players, but haven't always been able procure them, because the system precluded it.

Now the richest most unscupulous clubs can acquire or cynically unsettle any player anywhere simply by waving a giant cheque. The selling club must eventually accept it because the power of free movement, to move when and where they want, is now firmly in the hands of the players. And what does anyone do with power? Most often, they use it to feather their own nests.

we also need to look back at how clubs would operate pre bosman, at how much unequal power they held over players and their careers. granted the shoe is on the other foot but let’s not kid ourselves that clubs weren't just as unsavoury in how they controlled contracts and minimised wages, so that was always going to change at some point – the problem is no one had enough foresight to provide the new legislation with more balance. looking back at the effect on the power shift in the league, the variance of winners has remained quite static since the 80’s, with four different clubs winning the title in that decade, the nineties and three in the 00’s. already this decade there have been two, so how much difference is all this money really making to the domination of those at the top?

strangely enough, the most important area of a club seems to go completely ungoverned as managers can simply walk out on clubs as and when they want.

[Fist of Lehmann]

we also need to look back at how clubs would operate pre bosman, at how much unequal power they held over players and their careers. granted the shoe is on the other foot but let’s not kid ourselves that clubs weren't just as unsavoury in how they controlled contracts and minimised wages, so that was always going to change at some point – the problem is no one had enough foresight to provide the new legislation with more balance. looking back at the effect on the power shift in the league, the variance of winners has remained quite static since the 80’s, with four different clubs winning the title in that decade, the nineties and three in the 00’s. already this decade there have been two, so how much difference is all this money really making to the domination of those at the top?

strangely enough, the most important area of a club seems to go completely ungoverned as managers can simply walk out on clubs as and when they want.

UEFA are currently looking at rebalancing the legislation.

And are managers the most important area? It's an article of faith, something that's not really questioned. But the correlation between player wage bill and league position suggests a different picture.

[Power n Glory]

Maybe not if I were trying to argue that Arsenal are whiter than white.

But that also is not the point. We are exploiting an entirely different rule, that of the minimum age a young player can sign professional terms. The 30k a week we pay the kid doesn't distort the wage market, all it does is hurt us and our ability to move them on afterwards.

Thankfully there seems to be some admission from Gazelleface this week that we've been doing it wrong.

It would distort the wage market if what we were doing was actually successful.