Interesting read on PL FFP

rwo power wrote:

Art Morte wrote:You have to offer, that's the rule of the marketplace. That's competition. As long as there's money, it will be spent. In this case on wages and fees to be more competitive at your thing.

Well, the question is - if you pay mediocre players silly wages, does that really make you more competitive?

No, that wouldn't make you more competitive. But the situation you describe rarely happens in football, especially over the long term. There is hard data to prove that the football market in wages is highly efficient, much more so than other professional markets such as banking, its so efficient in fact that wages determine 91% of a clubs final league position in English football. That means that it is extremely likely that you are paid in accordance on how good you are. Even the youngsters you mention operate by the same rules, if they're good they get a bit paycheck to keep them in the club, if they're bad they are quickly thrown away. If you're interested in the topic you should read Soccernomics (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847) which has a simple explanation for this or you could read this excellent piece by Simon Kuper (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HylAxrtD) which goes over similar things.

As far as the debate on what football fans "should" pay i don't think i have a concrete opinion. I just still don't understand what it is about football that has everyone getting their inner Marxist outside. I think the majority of us live in capitalist societies where not only do we expect to purchase goods based on a free market, we actually believe it is the best solution. If say, we like a restaurant, we go to it and pay for the service. Maybe the restaurant wants to cash in on their success and increase prices, and that might drive away some customers. Again, why should football be different?

@chinomaster182

In Germany, the normal tickets for the fans are comparatively cheap as they are subsidized by the business tickets. The business tickets are in fact ridiculously expensive, but companies can afford them, and in exchange the average fan can visit a match for as cheap as 15,30 - 18 Euros in the terraces in Dortmund or 15 Euros in the terraces of the Allianz Arena, to only mention two clubs.

Ticket info BVB: http://www.bvb.de/?%98Y%1B%E7%F4%9D
Ticket info Bayern: http://www.fcbayern.telekom.de/de/ticketing/index2.php

Beer and food are also in comparatively normal ranges:
Beer prices in the German stadiums 2011: http://www.tz-online.de/sport/fussball/prost-bierpreis-tabelle-bundesliga-clubs-1367557.html?popup=media&firstslide=1
(click on the slide show for the prices in the stadiums of the 2011/12 BL clubs)

And mind you, the ticket prices also include free public transport to the stadium and back home.

Here's a recent Guardian article comparing the German football experience with the English one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/german-english-football-recovery

So as a matter of fact, it *is* possible to offer live matches for fans for a comparatively cheap fee.

chinomaster182 wrote:

rwo power wrote:

Art Morte wrote:You have to offer, that's the rule of the marketplace. That's competition. As long as there's money, it will be spent. In this case on wages and fees to be more competitive at your thing.

Well, the question is - if you pay mediocre players silly wages, does that really make you more competitive?

No, that wouldn't make you more competitive. But the situation you describe rarely happens in football, especially over the long term. There is hard data to prove that the football market in wages is highly efficient, much more so than other professional markets such as banking, its so efficient in fact that wages determine 91% of a clubs final league position in English football. That means that it is extremely likely that you are paid in accordance on how good you are. Even the youngsters you mention operate by the same rules, if they're good they get a bit paycheck to keep them in the club, if they're bad they are quickly thrown away. If you're interested in the topic you should read Soccernomics (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847) which has a simple explanation for this or you could read this excellent piece by Simon Kuper (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HylAxrtD) which goes over similar things.

As far as the debate on what football fans "should" pay i don't think i have a concrete opinion. I just still don't understand what it is about football that has everyone getting their inner Marxist outside. I think the majority of us live in capitalist societies where not only do we expect to purchase goods based on a free market, we actually believe it is the best solution. If say, we like a restaurant, we go to it and pay for the service. Maybe the restaurant wants to cash in on their success and increase prices, and that might drive away some customers. Again, why should football be different?

However, that is not the case when looking at it internationally. English clubs have the highest wages per average, but are not the most successful teams in Europe.

Also, in an earlier post, you said that Conte or Klopp should look for jobs that pays them more. Which is bullshit, since you are considering success from a purely materialistic point of view. Many researchers for example choose to remain in their universities rather than accept jobs at the new KAUST University in Saudi Arabia despite promises of ridiculous wage increases and benefits. They cited principle, loyalty, and work conditions as their reasons for refusing. Ethics, morals, loyalty, and other non-materialistic aspects still have a place in the decision taking process. Hell, a purely utilitarian process have been proven not to be the case, and a purely economical one even more so.

If a restaurant suddenly raises its prices you will simply not go there. With a football club, where loyalty is very important to the fan, no going is not an option. The only other option is a total boycott, which happen in Germany. So now we have Germany, who is competing in the same market as England, with lesser funds. And based on success, Germany is producing more players, having a better National team, having more success. How can you explain this situation where more money =/= more success. Also, is it success brings more money, or money brings more success? It is hard to say which happened first. In some cases it is, but in most cases, it is the most successful clubs that marched into the 90 s that are still successful now. Case in point Torino and Leeds, both unlucky to be at their slumps at the exact moment TV deal started flying all over the place. Chelsea, Man City, and PSG are anomalies that are not even sustainable businesses.

OLpower wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

daneq wrote:Wait, is 62 GBP considered exorbitant to go to a game??

Try going to an nfl game in the states, I spend more than that on beer...

Yes. That's ridiculous. A proper football match costs 20 to 30 Euros, and the train ride to, and from, the stadium is included.

30 euros for an average place. A very good place can cost up to 50 , depending on the quality of the opponent.

In Ligue 1, the cheapest seats are at 10€ typically, in the teams of small cities who are never more than half filled.

Damnit... you euros have no idea how good you have it. That's about what it costs for MLS games.

I spent $150 per ticket to go to one of my alma mater's
college football games a few months back. Multiply it all by 2 because of girlfriend... Then a couple weeks ago, $350 per ticket to go to their bowl game. Ended up being about a thousand dollar day

I kinda resent you guys complaining about those prices

daneq wrote:Damnit... you euros have no idea how good you have it. That's about what it costs for MLS games.

I spent $150 per ticket to go to one of my alma mater's
college football games a few months back. Multiply it all by 2 because of girlfriend... Then a couple weeks ago, $350 per ticket to go to their bowl game. Ended up being about a thousand dollar day

I kinda resent you guys complaining about those prices

*faints*

Well, in Germany, the fans actually boycott games if the prices are too high and it is in fact a mass action then, as we know the power lies in the masses. The clubs are aware of that, and so they actually listen. Add to that that the clubs are mostly fan-owned* (here it is impossible for some rich guy to come and buy a club on a whim as we have the 50+1 rule that enforces the fans always to have a majority in their clubs), the ticket prices stay in a sensible price range.

I guess in the USofA you would probably never find a CEO like Dortmund's Watzke who says about the huge terraces of the Westfalenstadion: "Here, it is our way to have cheap tickets, so young people can come. We would make 5 million Euros more a season if we had seats, but there was no question to do it, because it is our culture. In England it is a lot more expensive. [In Germany,] Football is more than a business."

*) two exceptions: Bayer 04 Leverkusen that was founded more than 100 years ago as factory workers' club of the Bayer-Werke and VfL Wolfsburg that belongs to VW for many decades now.

VivaStPauli wrote:This reminds me of my Political Science lectures - it's just plain interesting, and a bit funny, how most in the forum don't question the free market doctrine at all, harping on about how anything is worth whatever the mosts ridiculous person is willing to pay for it, while RWO and I are just utterly shocked by the idea that the average Joe couldn't afford season tickets anymore

I don't think we'll see eye to eye either, you guys think the free market is a value in of itself, RWO and I happen to think humans matter more, it's not like we'll agree any time soon with that disparity.

I'm just glad I live in a country where the fans have the power to curb-stomp any attempt to raise the prices to bigwig-only levels. Really don't want to have to "enjoy" the athmosphere of 40.000 seated bankers enjoying their chai latte while watching "the football".

So, those bankers are not humans, eh? And why don't we take it a step further and say that clubs should price the tickets so low that even people below poverty lines can attend games. They are humans too. Where do we draw the line so that clubs remain profitable and the "average joes" are still able to attend games?

£62 is worth just getting out of Manchester for the day

kiranr wrote:So, those bankers are not humans, eh?

Bankers are humans, albeit barely :p - my point was twofold though:
1) Even rich people can afford cheap tickets, so they won't be excluded.
2) I admit I phrased it poorly, but my problem wasn't with bankers going privately, but more with corporate seats. Those are mainly used to grease a deal. Got a foreign investor visiting? Take him to the Chelsea match, he won't have a clue of football, but appreciate that you did something expensive for him. Nobody needs those people in a stadium, and they make up a bigger and bigger segment of spectators the more expensive your tickets get. It becomes less about footballl, and more about status.

And why don't we take it a step further and say that clubs should price the tickets so low that even people below poverty lines can attend games. They are humans too. Where do we draw the line so that clubs remain profitable and the "average joes" are still able to attend games?

Germans below the poverty line, iE those living on welfare, can easily afford to go to one or two football matches per month, if they really want to.
So my answer would be "yes". Take it that step further. Go, do it!

Where we draw the line? We did it. We overprice the VIP seats ridiculously, to subsidize the regular seats, and we accept that we make 2 or 3 million a year less than we possibly could make, so that nobody is excluded from experiencing live football. Because we believe that it's a people's sport, and should stay that way.

kiranr wrote:So, those bankers are not humans, eh? And why don't we take it a step further and say that clubs should price the tickets so low that even people below poverty lines can attend games. They are humans too. Where do we draw the line so that clubs remain profitable and the "average joes" are still able to attend games?

Well, interestingly the English clubs rarely are profitable (one or the other exception excluded) despite the horrendous ticket prices and a TV deal that dwarves that of any of the other leagues. The German Bundesliga clubs usually even chalk up profits despite a much (!) lesser TV deal and low ticket prices for the fans. See the difference?

Ah yes.... Another German Ubernahme of a thread which has little to do with them

How thoughtful.

Well, the thesis is that FFP will ruin the PL and both the clubs and fans will suffer. The antithesis is that FFP actually works nicely in the BL and everybody benefits. So it is logical to put both into contrast.

Arquitecto wrote:Ah yes.... Another German Ubernahme of a thread which has little to do with them

How thoughtful.

Would you like some Beer & Sausage while you're here? I'd recommend some Paulaner or Augustiner with Nürnberger or Landjäger.

rwo power wrote:Well, the thesis is that FFP will ruin the PL and both the clubs and fans will suffer. The antithesis is that FFP actually works nicely in the BL and everybody benefits. So it is logical to put both into contrast.

You've done a fine job on panning the English way of running things in comparison to the BuLi. Have some mercy will you?

Phritz wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:Ah yes.... Another German Ubernahme of a thread which has little to do with them

How thoughtful.

Would you like some Beer & Sausage while you're here? I'd recommend some Paulaner or Augustiner with Nürnberger or Landjäger.

I don't like Beer Although German brew is solid unlike the Western Counterparts.

Sausage? Well I do love a good Weishurst, Leberkase and bierwurst.

Lord Spencer wrote:

chinomaster182 wrote:

rwo power wrote:
Well, the question is - if you pay mediocre players silly wages, does that really make you more competitive?

No, that wouldn't make you more competitive. But the situation you describe rarely happens in football, especially over the long term. There is hard data to prove that the football market in wages is highly efficient, much more so than other professional markets such as banking, its so efficient in fact that wages determine 91% of a clubs final league position in English football. That means that it is extremely likely that you are paid in accordance on how good you are. Even the youngsters you mention operate by the same rules, if they're good they get a bit paycheck to keep them in the club, if they're bad they are quickly thrown away. If you're interested in the topic you should read Soccernomics (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847) which has a simple explanation for this or you could read this excellent piece by Simon Kuper (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HylAxrtD) which goes over similar things.

As far as the debate on what football fans "should" pay i don't think i have a concrete opinion. I just still don't understand what it is about football that has everyone getting their inner Marxist outside. I think the majority of us live in capitalist societies where not only do we expect to purchase goods based on a free market, we actually believe it is the best solution. If say, we like a restaurant, we go to it and pay for the service. Maybe the restaurant wants to cash in on their success and increase prices, and that might drive away some customers. Again, why should football be different?

However, that is not the case when looking at it internationally. English clubs have the highest wages per average, but are not the most successful teams in Europe.

Also, in an earlier post, you said that Conte or Klopp should look for jobs that pays them more. Which is bullshit, since you are considering success from a purely materialistic point of view. Many researchers for example choose to remain in their universities rather than accept jobs at the new KAUST University in Saudi Arabia despite promises of ridiculous wage increases and benefits. They cited principle, loyalty, and work conditions as their reasons for refusing. Ethics, morals, loyalty, and other non-materialistic aspects still have a place in the decision taking process. Hell, a purely utilitarian process have been proven not to be the case, and a purely economical one even more so.

If a restaurant suddenly raises its prices you will simply not go there. With a football club, where loyalty is very important to the fan, no going is not an option. The only other option is a total boycott, which happen in Germany. So now we have Germany, who is competing in the same market as England, with lesser funds. And based on success, Germany is producing more players, having a better National team, having more success. How can you explain this situation where more money =/= more success. Also, is it success brings more money, or money brings more success? It is hard to say which happened first. In some cases it is, but in most cases, it is the most successful clubs that marched into the 90 s that are still successful now. Case in point Torino and Leeds, both unlucky to be at their slumps at the exact moment TV deal started flying all over the place. Chelsea, Man City, and PSG are anomalies that are not even sustainable businesses.

I agree with Spencer,if I was a footballer I would rather play for Valencia for 50 grand a week instead of QPR for 95 grand a week.You only have 15 years in football but there will chances to earn more money if you really need more.

worms wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

chinomaster182 wrote:

No, that wouldn't make you more competitive. But the situation you describe rarely happens in football, especially over the long term. There is hard data to prove that the football market in wages is highly efficient, much more so than other professional markets such as banking, its so efficient in fact that wages determine 91% of a clubs final league position in English football. That means that it is extremely likely that you are paid in accordance on how good you are. Even the youngsters you mention operate by the same rules, if they're good they get a bit paycheck to keep them in the club, if they're bad they are quickly thrown away. If you're interested in the topic you should read Soccernomics (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847) which has a simple explanation for this or you could read this excellent piece by Simon Kuper (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HylAxrtD) which goes over similar things.

As far as the debate on what football fans "should" pay i don't think i have a concrete opinion. I just still don't understand what it is about football that has everyone getting their inner Marxist outside. I think the majority of us live in capitalist societies where not only do we expect to purchase goods based on a free market, we actually believe it is the best solution. If say, we like a restaurant, we go to it and pay for the service. Maybe the restaurant wants to cash in on their success and increase prices, and that might drive away some customers. Again, why should football be different?

However, that is not the case when looking at it internationally. English clubs have the highest wages per average, but are not the most successful teams in Europe.

Also, in an earlier post, you said that Conte or Klopp should look for jobs that pays them more. Which is bullshit, since you are considering success from a purely materialistic point of view. Many researchers for example choose to remain in their universities rather than accept jobs at the new KAUST University in Saudi Arabia despite promises of ridiculous wage increases and benefits. They cited principle, loyalty, and work conditions as their reasons for refusing. Ethics, morals, loyalty, and other non-materialistic aspects still have a place in the decision taking process. Hell, a purely utilitarian process have been proven not to be the case, and a purely economical one even more so.

If a restaurant suddenly raises its prices you will simply not go there. With a football club, where loyalty is very important to the fan, no going is not an option. The only other option is a total boycott, which happen in Germany. So now we have Germany, who is competing in the same market as England, with lesser funds. And based on success, Germany is producing more players, having a better National team, having more success. How can you explain this situation where more money =/= more success. Also, is it success brings more money, or money brings more success? It is hard to say which happened first. In some cases it is, but in most cases, it is the most successful clubs that marched into the 90 s that are still successful now. Case in point Torino and Leeds, both unlucky to be at their slumps at the exact moment TV deal started flying all over the place. Chelsea, Man City, and PSG are anomalies that are not even sustainable businesses.

I agree with Spencer,if I was a footballer I would rather play for Valencia for 50 grand a week instead of QPR for 95 grand a week.You only have 15 years in football but there will chances to earn more money if you really need more.

It's cool and good, but you can't really blame anyone, imo, if they just take up the most lucrative offer. Just like in ordinary jobs. Because that's what playing football professionally is in the end. We fans are too quick to think about only the matches and big moments in domestic and European competitions, but for the players it's about almost daily going to training and working your socks off and playing game after game after game. I would imagine it's easy to lose all "prestigious" thinking then, for which club it's the biggest honour to play, and just see them all as jobs which are ranked by the financial compensation.