What’s whacky about the conclusions? Do you think it is not inevitable that a free market in sports rights and sports players will end up with most of the money the sport attracts going in wages to the workers?
I was assuming that television revenue is the major source of income.
In fact the whole post and accompanying thought process is based the assumption that the majority of club revenues are from television. Seats in a stadium being not non-rivalous. For the purpose of the analysis I’d mentally excluded all other forms of revenue.
I would suggest that existence for Scottish clubs is marginal precisely because of the market interactions I’ve outlined. Minnow class Scottish clubs don’t have any bargaining power with players. Players have no chance of reputation enhancing trophies or of becoming famous enough to launch their own range of underpants. They don’t have much bargaining power with TV companies. They aren’t part of an exciting or prestigious leagues and the quality of play seems very low. They don’t have much bargaining power with fans. There are probably more Rangers and Celtic fans (i.e. people who would pay to watch the Old Firm play) in the catchment area of every Scottish club than there are actual fans of the local team. So minnow class clubs are reduced to handing over most of their cash to their current crop of players which makes them financially risky ventures if you are a share holder or bond holder.
Sponsorship revenue I suggest is tied more closely to television appearances than anything else. I’d see sponsorship as a special form of TV revenue rather than the other way round.
I’m not for a minute suggesting that the free market will *necessarily* deliver a stable league structure which retains an element of sporting competition over decades and rewards (in competition terms) the ability of an organisation to create a team spirit and a winning ethos. It can do but it’s not automatic. The experience of the NFL is interesting here. Over the last ten years I think all but two of their teams has made the play-offs compared and they’ve had 8 different winning teams and to the finalists. I think this compares well to the English Premiership and the SPL.
My point is that if you have a free market in sporting endeavour it is inevitable that a small number of players will end up with most of the money.
I agree with you on the move to a global set up. There’s already a global market for sporting rights and for players. The old joke about there being more Man U shirts sold in Mumbai than there are in Manchester I think has a grain of truth in it. David Beckham is a global brand.
The Champions League I think will become the dominant competition in Europe with national leagues increasingly relegated to feeder leagues status. I think the best thing the SPL could do would be to take a leaf out of rugby’s book and create a multi-nation league. I’d suggest top teams from Wales, the Irelands, Holland, Belgium perhaps.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-02-21 04:08 pm (UTC)I was assuming that television revenue is the major source of income.
In fact the whole post and accompanying thought process is based the assumption that the majority of club revenues are from television. Seats in a stadium being not non-rivalous. For the purpose of the analysis I’d mentally excluded all other forms of revenue.
I would suggest that existence for Scottish clubs is marginal precisely because of the market interactions I’ve outlined. Minnow class Scottish clubs don’t have any bargaining power with players. Players have no chance of reputation enhancing trophies or of becoming famous enough to launch their own range of underpants. They don’t have much bargaining power with TV companies. They aren’t part of an exciting or prestigious leagues and the quality of play seems very low. They don’t have much bargaining power with fans. There are probably more Rangers and Celtic fans (i.e. people who would pay to watch the Old Firm play) in the catchment area of every Scottish club than there are actual fans of the local team. So minnow class clubs are reduced to handing over most of their cash to their current crop of players which makes them financially risky ventures if you are a share holder or bond holder.
Sponsorship revenue I suggest is tied more closely to television appearances than anything else. I’d see sponsorship as a special form of TV revenue rather than the other way round.
I’m not for a minute suggesting that the free market will *necessarily* deliver a stable league structure which retains an element of sporting competition over decades and rewards (in competition terms) the ability of an organisation to create a team spirit and a winning ethos. It can do but it’s not automatic. The experience of the NFL is interesting here. Over the last ten years I think all but two of their teams has made the play-offs compared and they’ve had 8 different winning teams and to the finalists. I think this compares well to the English Premiership and the SPL.
My point is that if you have a free market in sporting endeavour it is inevitable that a small number of players will end up with most of the money.
I agree with you on the move to a global set up. There’s already a global market for sporting rights and for players. The old joke about there being more Man U shirts sold in Mumbai than there are in Manchester I think has a grain of truth in it. David Beckham is a global brand.
The Champions League I think will become the dominant competition in Europe with national leagues increasingly relegated to feeder leagues status. I think the best thing the SPL could do would be to take a leaf out of rugby’s book and create a multi-nation league. I’d suggest top teams from Wales, the Irelands, Holland, Belgium perhaps.