The TV money in English football

[golden_blunder]

would it be better for football if there wasn’t gigantic TV related revenue into PL teams? Would it make the transfer markets settle down again if the money was taken away?

 

[SilentWitness]

For big clubs it would be better as they'd be able to dominate like they can in La Liga and the Bundesliga. For everyone else it would be shite.

In the current model there is a greater chance for anomalies like Leicester to occur while the big clubs still tend to dominate.

 

[Bastian]

I think it would make the mid-table clubs much less competitive as the top clubs would be picking off their players for paltry sums, like before.

As for major transfers, they are independent of TV money in English football. Barca, Real, City and PSG would continue to spend whatever they needed to get the best players regardless.

 

[Lastwolf]

Better for whom?

It works for the betterment of the EPL and apart from Italian clubs crying poverty every 18 seconds, it hasn't seem to effected Bayern or either of the two spanish clubs, who operate almost exactly as they've always done.

PSG's industrial level finacial doping didn't really even make that much of a dent.

 

[Red Dreams]

Genie is out of the bottle.
The huge overseas demands to watch English football has ensured even more money will be coming in.

But to answer the question. Yes. It would be better.

 

[Kostur]

Doesn't really matter when you still have your Aston Villas paying 26 mln quid for your Mings and other shite.

 

[Tom Cato]

would it be better for football if there wasn’t gigantic TV related revenue into PL teams? Would it make the transfer markets settle down again if the money was taken away?

TV money is fantastic for clubs in the markets where TV money is to be had. In local leagues (example Premier League), it allows clubs like West Ham and Leicester become competetive teams in power of not having to sell their young talents to earn money.

Salaries and transfer fees kinda scale along with club incomes at a more or less steady rate, so we're not seeing more transfers in general, just more expensive one.. but expensive is only relative to income, and currently the enormous TV deals dictate that clubs have money to spend. A lot of money.

 

[edcunited1878]

The TV money makes the competition just that, competitive. That's why the Premier League is arguably the most entertaining league in the world. Yes, there are a couple teams or a few teams historically that have the best chance of winning, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as Spain, Germany, France or Italy.

Teams should continue to look around European continent and abroad for talented players who may cost less (i.e. value) if they so choose to (which they should). In terms of domestic transfers, unless that player is a clear upgrade and you really want them, maybe wait until their contract runs out. Players may end up staying through their contract terms more frequently and move on as a free agent.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

That TV money is the reason why a team like Leicester can say "if you want Harry you have to pay 80m". Without the TV money we would likely have him for a fraction of that. So who would it help to get rid of the big TV deals? The small clubs? Definitely not. Getting rid of the TV deal would only benefit the big clubs. I'm just waiting for the next TV deal. Guaranteed it will be some sort of "Netflix like" streaming service. I know there already is DAZN, but they are streaming other companies footage. I won't be surprised to see the EPL start their own streaming service where they take in all the money. I know I would pay $15/month to have any EPL game I want streamed live...

 

[Mb194dc]

The league was far better 10, 20 or even right at the start of the EPL era,before the money got ridiculous, which pretty much gives you the answer.

The real issue in the UK at least is that the cost to watch doubled in last 5 or so years, mainly to fund teams spanking money on average players and huge wages...