Sports threaten legal action re threat to Sky's TV dominance

[readingbedding]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/ma ... gal-action

Off the top of me head, it's not a bad thing.

Certainly for football.

[weybridgewanderer]

Furious sports governing bodies are considering legal action against the media regulator Ofcom over its attempts to force Sky to cut the prices at which it sells its sports channels to rivals, arguing that the move will "irreparably damage" investment at grass-roots level.

Is it because so much of SKYs money is going to grass roots football that the clubs in the premiership are all in huge amounts of debt?

[Barry the bird boggler]

Furious sports governing bodies are considering legal action against the media regulator Ofcom over its attempts to force Sky to cut the prices at which it sells its sports channels to rivals, arguing that the move will "irreparably damage" investment at grass-roots level.

[Terminal Boardom]

The sports associations realise that if they get less money from Sky, there will be less for the clubs that benefit big time which means more clubs will suffer and possibly close. What good is a 14 team Premier League to the FA? A number of SKY Subscribers will cancel their subscriptions then the ever decreasing circle begins.

There are times that we should be thankful for what we actually have!

[Dirk Gently]

I went to a seminar on this subject a few months ago, and the two sides are massively entrenched.

Sky (together with the RFU and the ECB) say that exclusive contracts with satellite broadcasters gives them more money that they can invest in the sport (the ECB guy spoke about investment in women's cricket, for instance). Public service and other broadcasters say that the more viewers that a sport gets (i.e. the more available it is to air) then the better for that sport, as more people take up the sport and support it live, even if it does bring in less TV revenue.

This particular question is about the price that Sky sell matches to other broadcasters (e.g. BT, Virgin etc)- Ofcom say it is too high, and that they have a monopoly position now because no other company will be able to compete for the rights because Sky's customer base has grown so much that no-one else could build a base to compete with them quickly enough to compete - Sky also own the delivery platform which gives them monopoly advantage (look at Setanta for instance).

[Barry the bird boggler]

SKY. worst. thing. ever. to. happen. to. football.

[AthleticoSpizz]

SKY. worst. thing. ever. to. happen. to. football.

+1


pay-away you suckers

[Alan Partridge]

Sort this shit out

Salary caps job done.

As long as players are paid obscene money which no properly ran business can sustain then this sort of nonsense will continue.

[Franchise FC]

Sort this shit out

Salary caps job done.

As long as players are paid obscene money which no properly ran business can sustain then this sort of nonsense will continue.

Chicken or egg.

Surely the 'obscene' amounts of money made available by Sky allowed the payment of inflated wages, not the other way round.

Besides, the Clubs didn't have to spend the money that way - it wasn't a condition of the contract with Sky.

I like the salary cap idea, but I would set the cap at, say, £10k per week, with unlimited bonuses IF AND ONLY IF the player plays. That would sort out some of the benchsitters.

[Dirk Gently]

Sort this shit out

Salary caps job done.

As long as players are paid obscene money which no properly ran business can sustain then this sort of nonsense will continue.

Chicken or egg.

Surely the 'obscene' amounts of money made available by Sky allowed the payment of inflated wages, not the other way round.

Besides, the Clubs didn't have to spend the money that way - it wasn't a condition of the contract with Sky.

I like the salary cap idea, but I would set the cap at, say, £10k per week, with unlimited bonuses IF AND ONLY IF the player plays. That would sort out some of the benchsitters.

You can't have a salary cap on individual players for all sorts of reasons - what would be a whole lot better would be to have a cap on total salary for each club, set as a percentage of total income.

[Mr Angry]

The problem with that Dirk, is that it will mean the rich will get richer, and the poor, poorer, as the bigger clubs who can generate more income will then have a bigger salary cap figure than a much smaller club.

Also, what would be the definition of "income" in that scenario?

And would debt be a factor?

The unfortunate truth is, that whilst we are in the EU the current situation will remain re: salary caps, because they will be viewed as a restriction on trade by the European Court if an EU National were to be forced to leave a club as a result of such a salary cap, and you can be sure that a club will ensure that such a court case would occur.

[Dirk Gently]

But the alternative is that you make Manchester Utd operate under the same overall budget as Fulham - Man Utd have a bigger fanbase and a bigger stadium, so it's only fair that they are allowed to spend a bigger sum on their team than Fulham - as long as neither spends more than the same proportion of their total income then that's fine by me. That principle goes back all the way to the birth of professionalism so I can't see any reason to change it to a USA type everyone spends the same system.

As to what is "income", there are definitions already in existence - they need refining, but there is the basic principle that money you earn or are given (not lent!) is allowable, but debt or soft-loan income isn't. So if a sugar-daddy gives you money you can spend it, but if it stays on the balance sheet you can't.

The biggest problem, really, is enforcing it, and stopping cleaver accountants do thins with "image rights" or employing "consultants" who happen to be a player's brother, etc......

[readingbedding]

No salary cap in any guise please.
Won't happen any time soon anyway.

[Dirk Gently]

No salary cap in any guise please.
Won't happen any time soon anyway.

Really? I'd say it's closer now that it has been for years. Even many of the owners want it.

[Wycombe Royal]

As to what is "income", there are definitions already in existence - they need refining, but there is the basic principle that money you earn or are given (not lent!) is allowable, but debt or soft-loan income isn't. So if a sugar-daddy gives you money you can spend it, but if it stays on the balance sheet you can't.

In my view it should only be what is classed as "revenue" under the accounting standards.

Capital investments from sugar daddy's would then be excluded. THe reason I have this view is that cash injections are one off amounts but the players that are bought have long contracts, and therefore the "cap" would have to be based on something more sustainable and reliable.

[Barry the bird boggler]

The unfortunate truth is, that whilst we are in the EU the current situation will remain re: salary caps, because they will be viewed as a restriction on trade by the European Court if an EU National were to be forced to leave a club as a result of such a salary cap, and you can be sure that a club will ensure that such a court case would occur.

The transfer window is a restraint on trade and extremely unhelpful for sides that do find themselves in financial difficulty - don't see any court cases over that.

Therefore I say to employ salary caps as a percentage of the teams income (income being defined as that which clubs make on selling tickets, selling players, merchandising and any other operations associated with assets owned by the club).

[Dirk Gently]

Several countries, including some EEC ones, have laws the recognise the specificity of sport - i.e. that sports clubs are different in law to other types of businesses, and so should have a certain extra leniency. There is a definite move in Europe for a similar sports law - see teh Arnaut Report from 3-4 years ago if you're really an anorak on such things......

In any case, all tis "the EEC will never allow it" is a ludicrous smokescreen and frequently just lazy tabloid journalists. If UEFA (or any national competition organiser) said "legally, of course, you can pay your players whatever you like, but if you want to enter the competitions we run you have to follow our competition regulations, including total spend on salaries" then no-one could ever touch them.

[Terminal Boardom]

It all started going wrong when home clubs were able to keep ALL of the gate receipts. This and the abolition of the maximum wage.

[Dirk Gently]

It all started going wrong when home clubs were able to keep ALL of the gate receipts. This and the abolition of the maximum wage.

Nope, it all went wrong when the FA allowed Tottenham to ignore Rule 34, and promptly removed it completely from the Rulebook.

See here : http://paulrobertlloyd.com/articles/fcplc/the_business_of_football for the full sorry story!

[Mr Angry]

Fair points in shooting my arguments down in flames guys!!



The thing that really bugs me are clubs who pay ridiculous salaries that they can't afford to pay for better players than they would normally get to play for them, thus stuffing up clubs who decide not to do the same and who (cliche alert!!!!!) cut their cloth according to their finances.

Are there any alternatives apart from salary caps, which, as has been noted, can be got around?

I can only think of some sort of Sports Financial Ombudsman to have the right to go into a club, see their books, and set time limits on the repayment of debt or the balancing of the books, and having the teeth to punish clubs that fail to do so in the only way that would really hurt, which is points loss/demotion.