Over the last few days, this ethos, The Liverpool Way, has been widely considered to be under threat as the Liverpool Managing Director, Ian Ayre, indicated the club's desire to move away from the collective majority of the Premier League, and negotiate it's own overseas television deal.
I don't believe this idea to be quite as "scandalous" as some in the media would make out, and whilst I am not in support of it, I can see the thinking behind it. Of course, it goes against the socialism that Shankly believed in, but sadly and with an air of inevitably, football sold it's soul to the devil long ago and this is just the next stage in it's unstoppable path (to ultimate destruction?).
In a world where Manchester United can sell sponsorship of their training kit for £40m, and Manchester City can sell their stadium naming rights, somewhat coincidentally admittedly, to Etihad for £400m over ten years - it is difficult for anyone to argue that it is still a level playing field, and everyone certainly can't be considered to be "sharing the rewards" as football appears to go from strength to strength.
However, with that said, challenging the issue of overseas television rights is very much frowned upon and equally unlikely to to happen, with 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs needing to sign off on it. But why do Liverpool feel the need to float this idea? The Financial Fair Play rules.
The increasingly influential FFP rules dictate that a club must "compete within their revenues" based upon relevant income and expenses. UEFA states in Article 58 that "relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations."
Broadcasting rights are the only aspect of "relevant income" that are not individual to the club. It would be wrong to share the income of gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial activities between every club in the league, as different clubs receive more, obviously. So in that respect, why is it so out of the question for clubs to be paid their worth in terms of broadcasting. Television rights in the UK, result in each club receiving £17.7m as an equal share, with then the more viewed clubs, i.e. the top 4-6, receiving up to £10m more in TV money. So, to an extent, the bigger clubs already receive a greater slice of the pie. However, even Alex Ferguson has suggested he doesn't think his club "gets enough money" considering the Premier League product, as it were, is sold to over 200 countries.
With that said, why can't the approach taken by Barcelona and Real Madrid be taken, where they rake in £136m per season? PER SEASON. It is clear to see why the Liverpool management feel their is a significantly untapped resource here, the support of the club and a number of others across the world means their hand could be strengthened beyond any happy majority. But is suggesting this idea alone going against the foundations of the club?
Ian Ayre will merely be the mouth piece in this, with FSG, vastly experienced in monster television right deals and 80% owners of a sports network in America. They are doing their job, they are investigating every single possible avenue for increase relevant income, and if that ruffles a few feathers... well it only highlights the state of the game. If you don't play to the current environment and expectations, then someone else will and you will be left behind. It is a sad fact of modern day football, and one that has already cost Liverpool dearly over the last 15 years or so, and its inability to fully realise the potential of its brand, and plan effectively for the future. When football sold out to Sky in 1992, the Liverpool brand was immeasurably stronger than that of Manchester United. Some two decades later and I don't need to tell you who did a better job on the business side of the club, never mind the integral links between on and off the pitch success.
I for one don't have any expectation for FSG and Ayre to get their wish, there are simply too many clubs who rely on the popularity and size of these clubs to bring in a significant proportion of their relevant income to accept any change. I am sure FSG know this is probably the case too, and so, the eventual bottom line of this story is to strengthen the hand of the majority. FSG are far too calculated and experienced as an organisation to not know every eventuality, whether that be going it alone, or achieving a stronger hand for the majority - both will benefit the club. An overseas television deal that includes the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City when they are posturing to go it alone, will be worth a lot more than a happy cast of satisfied clubs.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar suggestions from clubs looking at the possibilities of chasing their own overseas television rights over the next 20 months or so, again strengthening the hand of the majority with the ultimate outcome being an increase in deal that the Premier League receives in 2013, probably even more than the regular doubling of the fee up to now.
Benefiting everyone, sharing the rewards.
No comments:
Post a Comment