Comments on: Political economy of football http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:29:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144503 Chris Bertram Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:00:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144503 Daniel, they've been relegated (and promoted again) since, and Jack Walker died 5 and half years ago. Daniel, they’ve been relegated (and promoted again) since, and Jack Walker died 5 and half years ago.

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144500 Ray Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:24:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144500 John, people follow a team in sport X because they enjoy sport X. They follow the local team because they're the local team. It's not like picking lottery numbers. John, people follow a team in sport X because they enjoy sport X. They follow the local team because they’re the local team. It’s not like picking lottery numbers.

]]> By: Daniel http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144467 Daniel Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:19:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144467 <i>Blackburn’s injection of Walker millions got them one championship, but that success was short-lived</i> Really? They're still in the Premiership today, which is not bad going for a medium-sized town in Lancashire (which has lots of alternative teams to support; I am always surprised that Yorkshire has so few top-flight teams). Walker actually bought his premiership title incredibly cheaply by the standards of later titles, and I would not at all be surprised if he has ended up making money out of his investment. (note also that IIRC Walker's Blackburn title was pre-Bosman, and this changed the economics of football considerably in terms of the balance between investment in transfers and the ongoing cost of salaries). Blackburn’s injection of Walker millions got them one championship, but that success was short-lived

Really? They’re still in the Premiership today, which is not bad going for a medium-sized town in Lancashire (which has lots of alternative teams to support; I am always surprised that Yorkshire has so few top-flight teams). Walker actually bought his premiership title incredibly cheaply by the standards of later titles, and I would not at all be surprised if he has ended up making money out of his investment.

(note also that IIRC Walker’s Blackburn title was pre-Bosman, and this changed the economics of football considerably in terms of the balance between investment in transfers and the ongoing cost of salaries).

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144459 John Quiggin Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:24:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144459 The difference I see in the English situation is that there is still a chance, even for weaker teams. The Scottish situation seems to be so thoroughly tied up by Rangers/Celtic as to make any change impossible. To push it a bit further, Nick, why don't people in Edinburgh just follow some other sport where their local team might have a chance? The difference I see in the English situation is that there is still a chance, even for weaker teams. The Scottish situation seems to be so thoroughly tied up by Rangers/Celtic as to make any change impossible.

To push it a bit further, Nick, why don’t people in Edinburgh just follow some other sport where their local team might have a chance?

]]> By: nick s http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144437 nick s Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:21:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144437 <i>Who would support a team that hasn’t won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won’t win one in the next 100?</i> Um, me? (Middlesbrough hadn't won a major piece of silverware in a century until grabbing the League cup two years ago.) But, in Scotland, it's local pride, plus a bit of UEFA largesse. The curve of Scottish attendances is much steeper -- the smaller Premier League teams pull in perhaps 4,000 per game -- and for the Falkirks and Livingstons, the contest is in staying up, perhaps getting a cup run and/or a place in Europe. Plus, if you're in Edinburgh, you're not going to support a Glasgow team. Who would support a team that hasn’t won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won’t win one in the next 100?

Um, me? (Middlesbrough hadn’t won a major piece of silverware in a century until grabbing the League cup two years ago.)

But, in Scotland, it’s local pride, plus a bit of UEFA largesse. The curve of Scottish attendances is much steeper—the smaller Premier League teams pull in perhaps 4,000 per game—and for the Falkirks and Livingstons, the contest is in staying up, perhaps getting a cup run and/or a place in Europe. Plus, if you’re in Edinburgh, you’re not going to support a Glasgow team.

]]> By: reuben http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144406 reuben Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:27:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144406 Neil, I just want to say that I disagreed with your original point, but I think Carlos is being sophmoric. Blog comment sections can be conversations; they don't have to be arguments or pissing contests. If aggro kicks off when talking about politics, well that's probably inevitable. But on this topic, is it really worth it? Sigh. Neil, I just want to say that I disagreed with your original point, but I think Carlos is being sophmoric. Blog comment sections can be conversations; they don’t have to be arguments or pissing contests. If aggro kicks off when talking about politics, well that’s probably inevitable. But on this topic, is it really worth it?

Sigh.

]]> By: Neil http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144395 Neil Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:02:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144395 <blockquote> Anyway, you haven’t bothered to inform yourself about several aspects of this discussion, so there’s no point in talking with you further. </blockquote> Though you haven't said what I haven't informed myself of (just after making a vague and unsourced empirical claim which has just enough assessable content to be probably false), I have no choice but to withdraw from all further participation. I haven't done enough research to participate in a comments thread on a blog.
Anyway, you haven’t bothered to inform yourself about several aspects of this discussion, so there’s no point in talking with you further.

Though you haven’t said what I haven’t informed myself of (just after making a vague and unsourced empirical claim which has just enough assessable content to be probably false), I have no choice but to withdraw from all further participation. I haven’t done enough research to participate in a comments thread on a blog.

]]> By: soru http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144390 soru Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:51:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144390 <i> Who would support a team that hasn’t won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won’t win one in the next 100? </i> One reason is that, because of the random unpredictability of low-scoring football, there is always pretty good chance for most teams to beat one of the big two every few years, and that provides just as much satisfaction as any other sporting success. There's also the chance of winning the cup competion, which is effectively a much shorter season, and so even more random. Of course, the real reason is that they are scottish, not australian. I would barely be surpised to see support for a team drop during a period of good performance, as they would no longer be providing the required dose of gloom. soru Who would support a team that hasn’t won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won’t win one in the next 100?

One reason is that, because of the random unpredictability of low-scoring football, there is always pretty good chance for most teams to beat one of the big two every few years, and that provides just as much satisfaction as any other sporting success.

There’s also the chance of winning the cup competion, which is effectively a much shorter season, and so even more random.

Of course, the real reason is that they are scottish, not australian. I would barely be surpised to see support for a team drop during a period of good performance, as they would no longer be providing the required dose of gloom.

soru

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144389 Ray Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:37:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144389 I think most Scottish football fans either support one of the Glasgow clubs or consider themselves to be competing in a league that doesn't really contain them. In Ireland, afaik, no Ulster team has ever won the Hurling All-Ireland, and there may be counties that have never won the football championship, but it doesn't stop people from supporting their county. Even if you don't think you'll win the big prize, there's always the hope of getting closer than before, of beating the local rivals or a fancied side. I think most Scottish football fans either support one of the Glasgow clubs or consider themselves to be competing in a league that doesn’t really contain them. In Ireland, afaik, no Ulster team has ever won the Hurling All-Ireland, and there may be counties that have never won the football championship, but it doesn’t stop people from supporting their county. Even if you don’t think you’ll win the big prize, there’s always the hope of getting closer than before, of beating the local rivals or a fancied side.

]]> By: reuben http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144387 reuben Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:21:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144387 <em>soccer needs to eliminate its offside rule, as field hockey did some years ago with terrific results</em> [Thinking out loud on your proposal:] I like the idea of shaking football up a bit, but not knowing a lot about field hockey, I'm imagining that you can't go over the top in the same way you can in football, right? Would eliminating the offside rule not encourage teams to leave a striker or two camped near the opponent's goal, with the defenders just trying to boot it long (towards those camping strikers) every chance they got? Or do you think that a decent centreback (eg Anton, not Rio) could handle this sort of thing 99.9% of the time? Perhaps it would be even more likely to encourage loads of potshots from 30 metres, with a striker standing by the post waiting to poach bouncebacks. What do you think? Certainly it would increase the intensity and regularity of goalmouth action (a pair of words that gets my vote for greatest term in sport, by the way). I agree with you 100% about why upsets are more likely in low-scoring sports, by the way - rarity of goals is a different variable than financial capacity. But on that note, it seems that increasing the scoring (which would reduce upsets) might be a terrible thing to do without first decreasing the financial differences between top and bottom. By taking out that low-scoring variable (which makes upsets more likely), we'd have an even more predictable product. soccer needs to eliminate its offside rule, as field hockey did some years ago with terrific results

[Thinking out loud on your proposal:] I like the idea of shaking football up a bit, but not knowing a lot about field hockey, I’m imagining that you can’t go over the top in the same way you can in football, right? Would eliminating the offside rule not encourage teams to leave a striker or two camped near the opponent’s goal, with the defenders just trying to boot it long (towards those camping strikers) every chance they got? Or do you think that a decent centreback (eg Anton, not Rio) could handle this sort of thing 99.9% of the time?

Perhaps it would be even more likely to encourage loads of potshots from 30 metres, with a striker standing by the post waiting to poach bouncebacks. What do you think? Certainly it would increase the intensity and regularity of goalmouth action (a pair of words that gets my vote for greatest term in sport, by the way).

I agree with you 100% about why upsets are more likely in low-scoring sports, by the way – rarity of goals is a different variable than financial capacity. But on that note, it seems that increasing the scoring (which would reduce upsets) might be a terrible thing to do without first decreasing the financial differences between top and bottom. By taking out that low-scoring variable (which makes upsets more likely), we’d have an even more predictable product.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144385 John Quiggin Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:14:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144385 I checked the stats for Scotland, and to a 90 per cent approximation, Celtic/Rangers always win and always have done. The other teams seem to play the role of the Washington Generals/New York Nationals as against the Harlem Globetrotters (they win sometimes, but almost never). How does this work? Who would support a team that hasn't won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won't win one in the next 100? There have been some long droughts in Australian Football, but at least there is some hope for the future. Who would go to watch a game between two such teams? And what's the point of a season-length competition which, at best, produces a runner-up to whichever of Celtic/Rangers wins that year? I checked the stats for Scotland, and to a 90 per cent approximation, Celtic/Rangers always win and always have done. The other teams seem to play the role of the Washington Generals/New York Nationals as against the Harlem Globetrotters (they win sometimes, but almost never).

How does this work? Who would support a team that hasn’t won a premiership in 100 years of participation, and almost certainly won’t win one in the next 100? There have been some long droughts in Australian Football, but at least there is some hope for the future.

Who would go to watch a game between two such teams? And what’s the point of a season-length competition which, at best, produces a runner-up to whichever of Celtic/Rangers wins that year?

]]> By: dr ngo http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144376 dr ngo Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:38:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144376 On the gridiron side of things, perhaps it should be noted that in the interest of "parity" the NFL (as a cartel) not only has salary caps and the draft, but has deliberately arranged that the <i>schedule</i> for the following season will favor teams with losing records this season. (They play fewer opponents with winning records, in effect.) I know of no other sport that has so consciously distorted free competition in favor of balanced competition, and to that extent it is literally incomparable with soccer. On the gridiron side of things, perhaps it should be noted that in the interest of “parity” the NFL (as a cartel) not only has salary caps and the draft, but has deliberately arranged that the schedule for the following season will favor teams with losing records this season. (They play fewer opponents with winning records, in effect.) I know of no other sport that has so consciously distorted free competition in favor of balanced competition, and to that extent it is literally incomparable with soccer.

]]> By: elton http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144368 elton Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:08:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144368 Annual Income 2004/05 1(2) Real Madrid £186.2m 2(1) Man Utd £166.4m 3(3) AC Milan £158m 4(5) Juventus £154.9m 5(4) Chelsea £149.1m 6(7) Barcelona £140.4m 7(9) Bayern Munich £128m 8(10) Liverpool £122.4m 9(8) Inter Milan £119.7m 10(6) Arsenal £115.7m 11(12) Roma £89m 12(11) Newcastle £87.1m 13(14) Spurs £70.6m 14(17) Schalke £65.8m 15(-) Lyon £62.7m 16(13) Celtic £62.6m 17(16) Man City £60.9m 18(-) Everton £60m 19(-) Valencia £57.2m 20(15) Lazio £56.1m Source: Deloitte (Previous season's positions in brackets) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4716174.stm Annual Income 2004/05

1(2) Real Madrid £186.2m
2(1) Man Utd £166.4m
3(3) AC Milan £158m
4(5) Juventus £154.9m
5(4) Chelsea £149.1m
6(7) Barcelona £140.4m
7(9) Bayern Munich £128m
8(10) Liverpool £122.4m
9(8) Inter Milan £119.7m
10(6) Arsenal £115.7m
11(12) Roma £89m
12(11) Newcastle £87.1m
13(14) Spurs £70.6m
14(17) Schalke £65.8m
15(-) Lyon £62.7m
16(13) Celtic £62.6m
17(16) Man City £60.9m
18(-) Everton £60m
19(-) Valencia £57.2m
20(15) Lazio £56.1m

Source: Deloitte (Previous season’s positions in brackets)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4716174.stm

]]> By: Ben P http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144360 Ben P Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:58:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144360 Carlos, this may or may not be true. Football isn't that popular in the US and India, but it has a significant following in both countries. I can't think of many other places where it isn't a major sport. But football ("soccer") is clearly the world's most popular sport. Carlos, this may or may not be true. Football isn’t that popular in the US and India, but it has a significant following in both countries. I can’t think of many other places where it isn’t a major sport.

But football (“soccer”) is clearly the world’s most popular sport.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/comment-page-1/#comment-144359 John Quiggin Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:45:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/15/political-economy-of-football/#comment-144359 The effect of not having salary caps is not to change the frequency of upsets, but to ensure that the same teams are favourites for decades at a stretch. Scotland seems to be an extreme example if this. The effect of not having salary caps is not to change the frequency of upsets, but to ensure that the same teams are favourites for decades at a stretch. Scotland seems to be an extreme example if this.

]]>