Rucker Haringey takes a look at how the influx of TV money means smaller clubs don't always have to sell to the perceived "bigger boys."
Is Premier League TV money helping stars stay put?
There has been a growing campaign in recent times led by those against the idea of “modern football” corrupting the game we love. It’s undeniable that the influx of money into the Premier League has changed football in England and made it more commercialized (evil). Yet, the most recent Premier League TV deal and the significant sums of money it has provided all clubs has done something that many anti-modern footballers will love. This injection of cash has made it possible for mid and lower table clubs to keep hold of their young stars.
Just a few short years ago if you were a mid table side who had a talented young player you would pray that none of the world’s wealthiest teams took notice. If they did, the outcome was all but inevitable. Said wealthy club would table a substantial bid, the unsuspecting starlet would become unsettled, perhaps even agitate to leave in the media and ultimately would end up with the wealthier club for a substantial transfer fee.
[linequote]More financially modest clubs are now choosing to hold on to cornerstone talents instead of profiting from their transfers[/linequote]
While this wasn’t always a bad deal for the selling club, it was a raw deal for their fans. It cost Tottenham the likes of Bale, Modric and Berbatov because we felt we could not afford NOT to sell. This helped the Club’s bottom line but ripped the heart from many Spurs fans who had to see their beloved stars move on to literally greener pastures.
This model of wealthy interest and inevitable transfer seems to be disappearing right before our very eyes. Just in this transfer window alone, we see mid table clubs resisting the advances of the wealthy like never before. Everton have stated publicly their intent to hold on to John Stones no matter what fee Chelsea offer and West Brom have rebuked our high dollar bids for Saido Berahino. If neither player is moved this window, it will sound the alarm that things really are changing.
More financially modest clubs are now choosing to hold on to cornerstone talents instead of profiting from their transfers. They are able to do this now because of the additional TV revenue from the Premier League. The new deal beginning in 2016 represents a 71% increase over its predecessor and this cash is empowering all Premier League sides to hold on to their talents in spite of the risk of immediate cash. The very thing that most of us blame for ruining football and modernizing it, is now coming back around to preserve competitive balance. It’s an unintended consequence to be sure, but still one that will weigh heavily in the fight for Premier League table position moving forward.
[linequote]Even Berahino becomes unsettled and agitates they can afford it. This changes the paradigm of player transfer and competitive balance significantly[/linequote]
Fans, ironically, still believe this is the pattern of things. We, sometimes due to defeatist attitudes, hear of rumored interest in one of our stars from a wealthy club and quickly resign ourselves to the fact that he is leaving. How many Tottenham fans are convinced that Hugo Lloris must ultimately end up at Old Trafford in spite of any real evidence of an impending deal?
Many of us (myself included) assumed that we would get Berahino ultimately because of our big club status and ability to pay more than West Brom could refuse. Now that doesn’t look like it is the case and the only logical reason is because they can afford to keep him. Even if he becomes unsettled and agitates they can afford it. This changes the paradigm of player transfer and competitive balance significantly.
Now time will tell whether or not the additional TV revenue will continue to preserve the integrity of our game in terms of player movement. It’s quite likely that the wealthier clubs will catch on, start to increase their bids to even higher levels that will once again force more modest clubs to sell. In the meantime, even if it’s just for one transfer window let’s enjoy this. It’s a throw back to the one club player days. Thank the Premier League and Sky for this happy accident.
All views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of The Fighting Cock. We offer a platform for fans to commit their views to text and voice their thoughts. Football is a passionate game and as long as the views stay within the parameters of what is acceptable, we encourage people to write, get involved and share their thoughts on the mighty Tottenham Hotspur.
2 Comments
Would you like to write for The Fighting Cock?
01/09/2015 @ 9:13 am
It’s not a question that “a club cannot afford not to sell”. It’s a about the player effectively deciding that he is going to throw his toys out of the pram if he does not get what he wants.
Yes the smaller clubs do have more money, but proportionately so do the bigger clubs. Yes you might be able to offer your star player a big pay rise not to go to Manure, but you are still not going to be able to match their offer if it goes to a bidding war. More importantly, you then become the equivalent of a boss dealing with multiple trade unions, knowing that if you offer one worker a 50% rise, all the parasites ( a.k.a. agents) representing other players will be looking to see how much they can squeeze from you.
Today it’s all about the money. The next time you hear someone say “If only we could offer them CL, then they would sign for us”, you can be sure you are talking to someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. When Mancs started their spending spree, they were not able to offer CL, and this season, we have signed two players from teams that are in the CL, and will probably not play their next season also.
The recent Deloitte’s “Rich List”, placed all 20 PL clubs in Europe’s 40 richest. But if you look at Euroclubindex, only seven of those clubs are ranked in the 40 best teams in Europe. Another seven don’t even make the top 100. The recent flood of money coming into the game will make little difference internally, but externally, it means that any team can now afford to spend £10 mill on a foreign player and not raise an eyebrow. Look at Bournemouth! Five years ago, they were in danger of going bust, and now they are being linked with a £15 mill deal for Austin.
There is something eerily reminiscent about 1929 Wall Street in this current market. Much of the recent new TV money that has come in has been from the US, where every match is now being screened live, but last season only 15 out of 380 TV games got more than 1 mill viewers. Clearly they must be losing money on this, and that what is really worrying about the current state of the market. The whole PL might well be facing a “Leeds United” scenario. If you can recall, Leeds had a business model that was reliant on them regularly having a good run in the CL. Once that income was lost, it became “Fire sale” time. Should US TV decide that their investment is not paying off, and they pull the plug, how many clubs are going to follow Leeds U. Yes, we do have a contract in place, but by the time the matter gets to court and is appealed to death, many clubs will be recognising this period as the “Fools Paradise” and will have suffered multiple points deductions.
The current money in the game is a “house of cards”. As soon as the Yanks decide that they have paid too much for it, get ready for the fall-out. Anyone recall what happened when ITV realised that they had paid too much for the rights to the First Div? The Club Chairmen wouldn’t accept a renegotiation so ITV OnDigital.
A lesson from History: http://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/2014/03/12/the-effect-of-the-itv-digital-collapse-on-lower-league-football/
01/09/2015 @ 9:50 am
Just re-read my post. Apologies. The penultimate sentence should have read: The Club Chairmen wouldn’t accept a renegotiation so ITV FOLDED OnDigital.