Premiership: The season in statistics The Money League .........................Premiership (£) Europe ...Cups ...Total Manchester Utd ...30.58m ...........28.9m ...2.95m ..62.92m** Chelsea ..............30.97m ...........26.4m ...3.27m ..60.15m** Liverpool .............28.44m ...........26.0m ...0.27m ..54.71m* Arsenal ...............28.60m ...........13.90m .1.63m ...44.14m Tottenham ...........27.21m ...........2.0m ....1.34m ..30.55m Everton ...............25.55m .............xx ......0.12m ..25.67m Bolton ................ 24.63m .............xx ......0.48m ..25.11m Reading ...............23.64m .............xx ......0.78m ..24.42m Portsmouth ..........23.15m .............xx .......0.33m ..23.47m Blackburn .............22.24m ...........0.8m .....1.64m ..24.68m Aston Villa ............22.23m ............xx .......0.27m ...22.20m Middlesbrough .......20.77m ............xx ........1.07m ..21.84m Newcastle ............21.21m ...........1.0m .....0.27m ...22.48m Man City ..............21.37m ............xx ........1.02m ..22.39m West Ham ............20.71m ............0.1m .....0.18m ..20.99m Fulham ................20.26m ............xx .........0.52m ..20.78m Wigan .................18.58m ............xx .........0.12m ..18.70m Sheff Utd ............18.00m ............xx ..........0.12m ..18.12m Charlton ..............18.00m ............xx .........0.12m ..18.12m Watford ..............17.02m ............xx ..........0.96m ..17.98m The formatting is a real pain But it shows how necessary Champions League football is!!
That is a ginormous disparity in money between Champions League and UEFA Cup. (Now they all got a lot more for getting to the knockout stages, but still.) I wonder why Man U gets more than Liverpool, even if Liverpool win the whole thing. This disparity suggests to me that the Premier League would be well served by flattening the prize money at the top at least somewhat. If a fourth place finish gets you an additional 10 million + in European money versus a fifth place finish, then why should they get an extra million more on top of that? (Maybe the difference had more to do with TV money, though.) I'm definitely not trying to create American style parity. It just seems that the prize here is getting a Champions League spot, then the Premier League can flatten the prize money difference, which is an order of magnitude smaller, but still significant.
The reason Spurs got more than the other English sides for UEFA Cup games is partially because we got further than them, but also because Spurs had an exclusive deal with ITV. My guess for why Man Utd earn more than Liverpool through TV would be international rights. Countries where only 1 game from the two days is available might, perhaps, choose the Man Utd game. When I was in Canada we got Benfica-Man Utd one week and Levski-Chelsea another week. But not Liverpool or Arsenal. Interesting you mention the parity of the American system, last night on an awful new show called 'Inside Sport' on BBC1 (i'll explain why i find it awful in a sec..) they had 2 celebrity journalists talking about the MLS after a big feature on the LA Galaxy/Beckham. One was enthusiastic because the league is fairly competitive, the other was very condescending about the MLS and said "it is only competitive because they are all as bad as each other". Surely that also means they are all as good as each other, roughly anyway? In England there are 2 teams that can win the league, in the MLS there must be a slightly larger group? One of the guys was trying to compare the MLS to the NASL. Might as well compare the Premiership to the Ryman Premier. The worst team gets the most money/best draft pick to drag themselves up to standard. Here the best 4-5 teams get better and the bottom 4-5 teams struggle year after year. That's real competitive! Notice the only difference in the top 5 from this season compared to last is the top 2. Not that it's predictable or anything, oh no. Inside Sport is awful because Gabby Logan reads from an autocue, asks the questions then sits back to let the men discuss it. The first episode had John Terry trying to reform his image on TV and Sepp Blatter showing off his new office by pointing out how successful he's been as president. If that isn't good PR then I don't know what is! Hardly "inside" sport at all, nothing hard hitting or cutting edge at all. Just the same stuff that you really could have read on a club website. Last night's was a bit better though, to be fair to them.
ManU almost certainly gets more TV time for CL. Also, I'd assume they get better global ratings so better ad money flowing in. No comparison between NASL and MLS. Only a couple channels on TV for one, no ESPN, Fox Soccer Channel, etc. to name just one. MLS is much better managed and learned from NASL's mistakes. MLS is nowhere near the Premiership in quality of play, but improves every year and MLS is played in a different style than the Prem. a much slower pace which will suit Beckham quite well btw. There is more to play for in the Prem, top six, bottom three, the domestic and european cups, etc. , that is only just starting to develop in the US, though we will never see relegation. But a salary cap with exceptions is wise for MLS, and while not necessary for the top European leagues, would help cool down ticket prices. Don't you brits pay a tax for owning a television? to help pay for bad BBC journalism and celebrity big brother, which would be tarnished if ads were brought in
Yes we do, a tax is a good way of describing it. They call it a license fee, if you have a colour TV that is capable of receiving a signal then you have to pay. It helps to subsidise their terrible shows and Jonathan Ross/Graham Norton's pay rise! bastards.
The US leagues work well only because they are closed systems. The NFL is the only top tier gridiron football league in the world, so they have no outside competition, allowing them to implement a draft, salary cap, and a bunch of other things that help promote parity. Similarly, the NBA has no real competition internationally--100% of the people who can play in the NBA choose to play in the NBA because it makes sooo much more money and the competition is light years ahead of anything else. While Hockey may be better in other countries, the NHL has no real competition either. The only sports in the US that have competition are Major League Baseball (MLB) and Major League Soccer (MLS). While Baseball in the US is clearly the strongest and best league in the world for it, there are actually competitors, with the Japanese league being the most lucrative alternative. Unfortunately, MLS is well behind the international curve as far as fan following and ability to attract top talent. So, while there is a salary cap and a draft, it doesn't do such a great job of creating parity. It's far better than most leagues around the world, and it's a great start, but as long as it's an open system and people can opt out of MLS for better money/exposure/competition, it's not going to be on par with the NFL and the other top leagues as far as parity. Internationally, it's the inverse of parity. The rich get the best players and the best managers, which equates to more wins. More wins means more fans and bigger stadiums and more TV money and more merchandising, which ultimately means ... more money. So, the rich get richer. Unless a club is plain foolish--like Leeds unfortunately--this is a system that rewards success and penalizes failure. Relegation is the polar opposite of the US system of things ... failure is punished severely economically and "the drop" often means catastrophic problems for a team. It's no surprise that the West Ham/Sheffied United situation has occurred ... the penalty for losing is devastating. So, clubs that have a "history" or "tradition" etc. tend to be those clubs that succeeded, and in today's game, success translates directly to money, and lack of money is almost impossible to overcome. This is why a well run team like Reading isn't too upset about missing out on an UEFA spot. Sure, their supporters are, and the players are, but the manager and the directors etc. aren't all that upset. They know that the 2nd season in the Premiership is often far harder than the first, and they've still got one eye on the Relegation spots, despite their grand success. Personally, I like the salary cap and draft, but then again, I like parity. Unfortunately, unless/until the Champions League becomes a static league with no promotion/relegation, I really don't see any chance of real parity options being taken. A real salary cap and draft are only meaningful in a closed system ... MLS is one example of that. DC United added Luciano Emilio and Fred, two very talented Brazilians, outside of the draft. DC United also has last season's MVP, the Argentinian Christian Gomez, and his countryman Facundo Erpen neither of whom were drafted. That's a lot of offensive talent that's outside of the draft. As for the salary cap, look no further than the LA Galaxy with Landon Donovan and now Becks. Or, the New Jersey Red Bulls with Juan Pablo Angel and Claudio Reyna. Salary cap? What salary cap? I'm against the formation of a static Champions League. But, TV money is pushing things in that direction. The more money is poured into TV, the more the biggest of the big clubs (the G-14, errr G18, errr G18+Chelsea, errr ... Geewereallyareelitistandmoneygrubbing) will control FIFA. Eventually, I expect a super league of European teams to be formed. I'm hoping it never happens, but I expect that it will. -Digital
That table, my friends, is why the big 4 is the big 4, and shall stay the big 4. Not being negative about our future, it just shows the odds are stacked against us, and everyone else. The difference is even wider than this, because gate receipts are not included and they have the biggest stadia.
Good points Digital, some quick comments... The NFL will never get big outside the US and Canada, but I watch with interest at the European and Asian basketball and hockey leagues gets bigger and better paid. Its also an interesting thought for soccer dominance in Europe which 20 years ago had almost no rivalry for commerical team sports, cricket and rugby only marginally and only in a few countries. Its my understanding that basketball in places like Italy, Spain, France is pretty damn big and growing. If fans get sick of soccer, they now have a decent choice to turn to, sort of how the NFL took over MLB as the biggest sport. What, Steve Nicols isn't the worlds best football manager? MLS has a limited salary cap which still keeps salaries down pretty low and helps the survival and growth of the league. MLS in all honesty faces competition for eyes and dollars not only from the NFL, NBA, etc. but from Arena Football, Major League Lacrosse, etc. MLS's one saving grace is that soccer is recognized as a world sport and a lot of Americans understand the enormity of the World Cup, etc. I think there will be a Superleague too. With all the American owners moving into England who have come from a static league background (NFL) its only a matter of time. If done right, it might be pretty cool and be in line with Europe being one country, etc. -- I could see a 20ish team European Superleague with 1 club going down every year and then the winner of the UEFA cup getting promoted. The talent base for soccer continues to grow as leagues and youth development in countries like the US and China expands so the Prem. minus the top 4 for 5 clubs could still be a very exciting and talented league.
