beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 With all the talk about money in football, it got me thinking. What impact would it have on the finances of the game if sponsorship was completely outlawed i.e No shirt sponsor, no advertising in the ground, no player deals with Nike, Adidas, Gillette etc.. Surely this would result in the less wages and greed? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 most clubs would go bankrupt over night if it happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 most clubs would go bankrupt over night if it happened So if the level of advertising was downgraded over a number of years i.e. Only advertising down one side the pitch for the first year, no shirt sponsor the second year, no short sponsors the third year etc.. It would then give clubs the chance to adjust. I'm thinking this is one way the FA could actually indirectly affect wages rather than using wage caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789000 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 For premier league clubs, about 25% of their revenue comes from sponsorship and commercial, with 50% being broadcast and 25% being match day income. So it would have some effect on wages but it may result in increased ticket prices to account for this. The football league is less dependent on broadcasting income and therefore more dependent on sponsorship so it would if anything only increase the gap between the football league and the premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 For premier league clubs, about 25% of their revenue comes from sponsorship and commercial, with 50% being broadcast and 25% being match day income. So it would have some effect on wages but it may result in increased ticket prices to account for this. The football league is less dependent on broadcasting income and therefore more dependent on sponsorship so it would if anything only increase the gap between the football league and the premier league. Interesting that you've touched upon 50% broadcasting. Without advertising during the games on TV, would the broadcaster be able to make as much money, and therefore not be able to cascade as much money down to the football clubs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789000 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Interesting that you've touched upon 50% broadcasting. Without advertising during the games on TV, would the broadcaster be able to make as much money, and therefore not be able to cascade as much money down to the football clubs? I may have misunderstood but there you're suggesting that sky remove advertising? Remember that advertising done within football grounds, on the boards and stuff goes to the football club and not the broadcaster. Sky isn't like ITV in that its main income is from subscriptions which is driven by the demand to watch top flight football so again I don't think this would make much difference, if you're suggesting merely removing half time adverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I may have misunderstood but there you're suggesting that sky remove advertising? Remember that advertising done within football grounds, on the boards and stuff goes to the football club and not the broadcaster. Sky isn't like ITV in that its main income is from subscriptions which is driven by the demand to watch top flight football so again I don't think this would make much difference, if you're suggesting merely removing half time adverts. No, I'm not on about Sky removing adverts, just the football clubs. The thinking being, that if companies aren't getting the coverage they want during 90minutes of a game, then Sky have less bargaining power to command large TV rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789000 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 No, I'm not on about Sky removing adverts, just the football clubs. The thinking being, that if companies aren't getting the coverage they want during 90minutes of a game, then Sky have less bargaining power to command large TV rights. But I come back to the point that if company's remove their sponsorship from the boards and shirts then this makes no difference to sky. Sky are paying the football clubs to televise the football, using the money that they receive through subscriptions and their own adverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 But I come back to the point that if company's remove their sponsorship from the boards and shirts then this makes no difference to sky. Sky are paying the football clubs to televise the football, using the money that they receive through subscriptions and their own adverts. Not necessarily. Think about Vodafone - they may spend £200million on sponsoring Man Utd shirts. They know that each time Man Utd are on TV, people are viewing their brand for 90+ minutes, and as a result Sky can charge more. However, if Vodafone know their brand will only be seen for 30minutes during half time, theres no way that £200million pounds is entering the game either via Man Utd directly or Sky indirectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 So if the level of advertising was downgraded over a number of years i.e. Only advertising down one side the pitch for the first year, no shirt sponsor the second year, no short sponsors the third year etc.. It would then give clubs the chance to adjust. I'm thinking this is one way the FA could actually indirectly affect wages rather than using wage caps. have a wage cap, not on the players, but on the clubs, you cannot pay more than xyz on Staff wages. If the players want image right agreements and endorsements with companies fair enough, make money that way. but if there was a ceiling imposed by the FA, it would stop the high wages. Of course clubs would try and get around with creative accounting in other areas of the business, but this would have to be scrutinised, and scrutinised well, if the desire to get wages and costs down in football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789000 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Not necessarily. Think about Vodafone - they may spend £200million on sponsoring Man Utd shirts. They know that each time Man Utd are on TV, people are viewing their brand for 90+ minutes, and as a result Sky can charge more. However, if Vodafone know their brand will only be seen for 30minutes during half time, theres no way that £200million pounds is entering the game either via Man Utd directly or Sky indirectly. I suppose you're right to some extent. I still don't think this would affect how much Sky pay the clubs THAT much. Lets say that is does reduce the amount that sky charge, I think this would only further strengthen my point about the gap between the football league and the premier league being increased because the money that premier league clubs receive from sky accounts for just over half of the money they receive from broadcasting as a whole. The rest comes from TV companies oversees that want to show the premier league in that country. Obviously this doesn't happen for the football league or we'd be able to find streams online every single week. This means that sky paying the clubs less money would have a bigger hit on the football league clubs and hence increase the gap. Furthermore, the Bundesliga and La Liga have revenue streams similar to the football league, in that broadcasting doesn't dominate as much so I think it would also cause the Premier league to once again become the biggest league in the world by quite some margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 most clubs would go bankrupt over night if it happened I'm not sure that the income lower league club get from shirt sponsorship would make that much difference. Every little helps of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I suppose you're right to some extent. I still don't think this would affect how much Sky pay the clubs THAT much. Lets say that is does reduce the amount that sky charge, I think this would only further strengthen my point about the gap between the football league and the premier league being increased because the money that premier league clubs receive from sky accounts for just over half of the money they receive from broadcasting as a whole. The rest comes from TV companies oversees that want to show the premier league in that country. Obviously this doesn't happen for the football league or we'd be able to find streams online every single week. This means that sky paying the clubs less money would have a bigger hit on the football league clubs and hence increase the gap. Furthermore, the Bundesliga and La Liga have revenue streams similar to the football league, in that broadcasting doesn't dominate as much so I think it would also cause the Premier league to once again become the biggest league in the world by quite some margin. Thing is, football clubs at the lower end of the divisions only get one game per season on the box?? Which equates to what, £60,000? The amounts involved at the top end of the games involves hundreds of millions. Removing advertising from football could bring the premier league teams closer to the lower divisions. I can understand how hard it would be for lower league clubs, as they rely on sponsorship money. Alternatively, maybe the lower you go DOWN the leagues, the MORE sponsorship they'd allowed to try and compensate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City1970 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 With all the talk about money in football, it got me thinking. What impact would it have on the finances of the game if sponsorship was completely outlawed i.e No shirt sponsor, no advertising in the ground, no player deals with Nike, Adidas, Gillette etc.. Surely this would result in the less wages and greed? Discuss. Good point. I believe Barcelona do/did sponsor a charity on their shirts and they were/are the best team in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laner Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Good point. I believe Barcelona do/did sponsor a charity on their shirts and they were/are the best team in the world. Didn't they give the shirt sponsorship away for free ? Surely if it was all about helping a charity then selling it to the highest bidder and giving all the money away would have been more beneficial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ferret Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 David Fishwick and his Minibuses would be devestated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 David Fishwick and his Minibuses would be devestated Who? Wasn't that a fifties skiffle group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Who? Wasn't that a fifties skiffle group? Some dead bloke on coronation street isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City1970 Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Some dead bloke on coronation street isn't it? I think he is the bloke who setup his own bank. Not sure if he is a shark though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Until someone decides to take the bull by the horns as far as players wages is concerned, football clubs finances will continue to stagger along as they do know. As another posted said it needs a big club to go bust and players to be out of pocket and out of a job before players and agents might start to get the message. Can't see it happening any day soon, especially not in the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Until someone decides to take the bull by the horns as far as players wages is concerned, football clubs finances will continue to stagger along as they do know. As another posted said it needs a big club to go bust and players to be out of pocket and out of a job before players and agents might start to get the message. Can't see it happening any day soon, especially not in the prem. What is the "bull by the horns" though? Wage capping won't work, as the football club owners will just find ways to pay salaries indirectly. My idea of removing sponsorship means that if the clubs want to continue paying massive wages then the wages are going to HAVE to come from the owners pockets rather than from the Premier league/Sky/Advertising. The FA would find it extremely difficult to monitor a wage cap, whereas monitoring advertising and sponsorship would be a piece of cake in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.