Why the Premier League's Massive Television Deal Feels Backwards
On 10 February, the Premier League announced it extended its television deal with Sky Sports and BT Sport until the 2018/19 season—nothing too shocking there.
Then one saw the record figure attached to the broadcasting rights: £5.14 billion, according to the BBC.
To put that number in perspective: If you were given 5.14 billion pebbles at birth, then sat on a bridge and threw one pebble into a river every second of your life until you turned 100, you would have 2.51 billion stones left over.
TOP NEWS
Madrid Fines Players $590K 😲
'Mbappé Out' Petition Gaining Steam 😳
Star-Studded World Cup Ad 🤩
It is an unfathomable amount of money—an unfathomable amount of anything, really.
One cannot chastise a business for extracting every penny from a potential deal; if, in the capitalistic society we live in, companies are prepared to pay over £10 million per Premier League game, then the price must be honoured. But there is an argument for clubs being treated in the same way.
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) introduced Financial Fair Play Regulations in 2009. These rules—which began effectiveness in 2011/12—were meant to curb the expensive spending habits of European clubs and level the playing field for teams who do not have backing extending into the millions or billions.
Limiting clubs' financial capability, though, instead of levelling the proverbial playing field, UEFA has essentially given established sides an almighty advantage, as no "smaller" team can spend enough money to break the oligarch without facing sanctions.
Traditionally massive clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal plus the nouveau breed who arrived just before—e.g. Chelsea and Manchester City—are now the only English clubs one can expect to challenge for major European honours, as their brands are firmly entrenched.
The issue with the new television deal is it shows the value of football in England is astronomically high, and the teams who have the capacity to spend—and spend freely—must enter transfer windows with crutches.
Even worse, in money-making efforts—to balance books and increase yearly revenue—everyday supporters pay ridiculous prices for season or matchday tickets.
Per BBC Sport's Andy Cryer, the cheapest season ticket in the Premier League is at Manchester City, who charge £299. Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea's lowest option is £700. Arsenal charge the highest season tickets in England, asking £1,014 for their cheapest package. For comparative purposes, Real Madrid and Barcelona charge £175 and £103 respectively.
"Bayern Munich makes €30 to €40 million less in ticket prices than Manchester United," said the Bundesliga's chief executive Christian Seifert, via The Independent's Tom Peck. "[German football has] a holistic approach, based on the financial, the game and society. If we don't have success in all three dimensions we don't consider it a success, at all."
Considering the Bundesliga's television deal is worth £1.1 billion, according to Reuters, which is less than the Premier League's starting next season, Seifert's comments suggest a clear neglect of the British matchday attendee.
It is lunacy that a game on television costs £10 million, but the people expected to fill stadiums on a weekly basis could potentially see no price drop.
The Premier League's chief executive Richard Scudamore told BBC Sport: "Clubs understand that the No. 1 strategic priority is to keep the stadiums full."
This is vital to the league's appeal. When people around the globe are tuning in to watch games, seeing bodies in the crowd is a must. It helps create excitement and enhance the reality atmosphere broadcasters attempt to establish.
Yet the Premier League has been given amounts in the billions for television rights in the past, and prices are still elevating. What Sudamore cannot control is each club's intention. He can set a standard for what he hopes they do, but ultimately he is at the mercy of his division once the money is allocated.
A deal worth £5.1 billion over three years equals £1.7 billion annually; divided by 20 teams, it boils down to £85 million for each club. Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and others expected to remain in the Premier League for the duration of the deal effectively have more than £200 million to spend over the next three seasons.
There would appear an opportunity for the Premier League to take Germany's "holistic approach" and slash prices with their windfall, but invariably the culture surrounding the English game is more ravenous than respectful.
More apt to give players higher wages or spend on facility upgrades than willingly lose money in an attempt to help their matchday customers, Premier League clubs are risking pricing out, even further, the "everyday fan."
Were the EPL's upper echelon less worried about making matchday revenue as a way to balance books to comply with UEFA regulations about spending, there is every possibility English football as a whole would become more user-friendly, as it were.
For example, Chelsea are ubiquitously rumored, as noted by the London Evening Standard's Alex Miller, to be temporarily leaving west London to add capacity to Stamford Bridge. The marketing behind the expansion says: "We wish to expand, so as to house more supporters," but the reality is the Blues' 42,000-seat stadium pales in comparison to the 75,000 Old Trafford or 60,000 Emirates.
In order to compete—despite having one of sport's richest owners, Roman Abramovich—the Blues must generate money via their stadium, licensing deals and in the transfer market to compete on a high level.
Abramovich, who according to Forbes is worth $9/£5.84 billion, said upon his 2003 west London arrival, via BBC Business' Jeff Randall: "The goal is to win. It's not about making money. I have many much less risky ways of making money than this (buying Chelsea Football Club)."
That is no longer the case, it seems. If Chelsea are feeling the burden, it stands to reason every club in the Premier League are—which is not a great indication for England's local match-going supporter.
The notion of fiscal responsibility is important; teams in massive (or any) debt should be more diligent in their dealings. But as top English clubs are handcuffed and subsequently bleed their fanbases to cope when television deals are being struck for ungodly amounts of money, something—if not everything—feels inherently backwards.
Stats via WhoScored.com; transfer fees via Soccerbase.com where not noted.
