I have regular arguments with my mates about the adverse effects of sky/premier league/champs league - the whole football gravy train - just wondering what other people's thoughts are on the latest topic of discussion - the spreading out of the champs league knock-out phase over 4 weeks rather than 2 (I think it was like this last year too)...I mean, could they milk this anymore?!
It's not surprising as obviously the tournament was designed for tv, & pretty embarrassing for UEFA in my opinion as much of the integrity of the competition is somewhat undermined by the spreading of "a round" over such a long period of time. But more importantly this can't be good for pretty much all other football.
e.g. no doubt the prospect of Arsenal - Barca helped Wigan to achieve an even less healthy than usual attendance with Bolton tonight (7,515), and I'm sure the effects trickle all the way down the leagues.
There's no doubt that the entertainment at the Emirates was top drawer...but surely this is just another contributory factor to the spiraling difference in resources of top teams (more tv revenue for Champs league teams no doubt) vs everyone else (lower ticket revenues etc).
So do you agree/disagree, & does this bother you as well? or is it just me being bitter about our relatively recent descent from the heady heights of the Prem...
0
Comments
The paper then argued that the Champions' League should subsidise the lower divisions for the 'lost revenue' based on a complicated calculation. The numbers weren't huge, but said that was never going to happen.
I think the impact was less than the impact of having two or more home matches in the same week. To give an example, the paper says that, all other things being equal, we should expect attendance lower than normal when we host Tranmere and Brentford, because a lot of non-season-ticket-holders will only be able to afford one or two of Carlisle/Tranmere/Brentford in that two week period
If I remember correctly, the paper was written by Forrest and Simmons. There may be a more recent version.
As for Wigan's attendance, you could argue the town has more in common with Peterborough, Hartlepool, Colchester and Stevenage (all of which are at least as big as Wigan, according to Wiki) than it does with their Premier League rivals, or you could just accept that their attendances are always going to be relatively poor.
Which leaves Blackpool, Burnley, Stoke, WBA and Wolves. Between them, in total, they have about 10 years in the Premier League. Of course you could add Barnsley and Palace, but you'd be chipping at the edges. I don't think you could go further back to Oldham and Swindon and in all honesty claim that era was the same as now
I also think you'll find that the huge levels of debt that teams take on make it likely that relegation from the Premier League will result in a prolonged period of rebuilding (Sheff Wed, Leeds, Man City - dare I include us?). This leads to short term openings in the Premier League for teams that are not traditionally big clubs.
Interestingly I suspect that most of those 'small' teams have been promoted via the playoffs. Blackpool, for example, only finished 6th in the Championship, and I doubt (with no real evidence, clearly) that they would have finished 6th or higher the following season.
What keeps teams like Wigan in the Premier League is that there are at least three that finish below them (obvious I know) but of those three, one or two will be clubs hat have just spent too much and can no longer afford to service their debts, like Hull and Portsmouth last season.
As for the Champions League restricting match day attendances. I can only assume that the report that suggested it doesn’t was ordered by the Champions League clubs or organisers.
Anyone that really believes that Arsenal v Barcelona on ITV won’t reduce attendances at Wigan v Bolton needs their head examining. Even if Wigan gave their tickets away for free there would be those that would prefer to avoid the cost and time of travelling and the weather conditions if Arsenal v Barcelona is on TV.
Sadly those ‘Big’ clubs don’t care about the rest of the Football League, and in all honestly they no longer need them. If the Premier League were to split off from the Football League and promotion and relegation was stopped I don’t think the top six/seven/eight (which make up the top four) would notice it at all.
Frankly I’m surprised that we still have two Champions League games on at the same time. Surely it can only be a matter if time before all eight of the first knock-out rounds are played in a unique time slot. I read that the FA are considering moving the FA Cup fixtures to increase the TV exposure. In the end you will be able to watch just about all of the Man Utd (et.al.) games on TV live.
The clubs in the lower divisions will just become poorer and poorer – a trend that has been here, and unavoidable, for well over ten years.
I don't need my head examining, thanks. If the 'local rivals' match was Newcastle-Sunderland or Forest-Derby, I doubt Arsenal would be all that appealing for fans of the clubs involved. The fact is that Wigan would not look out of place in League 1, and probably wouldn't even be one of the bigger clubs in this division. Their attendance will always be poor relative to other Premier League clubs, no matter when they play their matches and who they play against. To be honest, I'm surprised there were even 7,000 people at it - they had around 5,000 at their Cup matches last season.
For what it's worth, the attendance at Scunthorpe's match against Forest last night was higher than the last time they played at home midweek (against Middlesbrough on 9th November) and over 1000 higher than their home match against Burnley on Saturday 22nd January.
This... except for the bit about it not bothering me.
Accept the 'cities' argument, but i also feel its probably down to prem / championship clubs having a higher proportion of ST holders who will either be counted in the attendance numbers whether they go or not, or more inclined to go because they have already paid for their ticket.
I'd be interested in a comparison on match ticket sales rather than attendences.
I'm not sure the percentage of season ticket holders is higher in the Championship. In the PL, yes, but the Championhip rarely sells out, so the reasons for buying season tickets are the same for Coventry as they are for Hartlepool or Macclesfield - if you have the money, want to guarantee the seat and want to make a saving over the season.
I've gone extremely rusty on this, but my gut reaction is that it wouldn't make a big difference to the findings to rule out season ticket holders. It would make a difference would be if you also excluded away attendance, but then you would be skewing the data to 'prove a point'.
Those two derbies are big games. I wouldn't expect a Charlton v Palace or Millwall game to be affected by Arsenal v Barcelona, but if we were playing three quarters of the Championship I would expect there to be a reduction in numbers.
I accept that the Premier League are, in most cases, immune from this as they play Arsenal every season, and play big clubs on a regular basis. I suspect that the percentage of attendance is what determines the impact of European games. In the Premier League most clubs sell out 90% plus of their ground so, as AFKA says they have many season ticket holders who are counted if they are at home in front of the tele.
I suspect that the impact is greater in the Championship, but not as significant as the lower leagues.
My deduction that the report was put together by the CL sides was merely a guess. I cannot see why an organisation that is against the CL would bother to produce it. The findings will always be ignored and no 'compensation' paid from the arrogant big clubs.
I'm very confident that the real reason behind Wigan's attendance is the same as the reason why their attendances are always poor, added to the fact that it as a cup replay.
As said, Scunthorpe v Nottingham Forest (a right old trip) last night had a higher attendance than comparable games against Middlesbrough (on a Tuesday) or Burnley (Saturday).
It was an academic paper, written to investigate a phenomenon, and they would've written it regardless of findings once they'd collected the data. It's a waste of time if you only publish findings or tweak the data to verify whatever existing opinions you might have, regardless of how far from the truth they are. Didn't say they were against the Champions' League, just that the authors seemed relatively hostile and surprised that the Championship wasn't affected. As already said, the effect of poor fixture scheduling (having two or three home matches in a short space of time) was bigger than that of the Champions' League
Papers are commissioned for this very purpose all the time. It's big business, and is used by most industries. This is why we have research papers that come up with the completely opposite opinion using the exact same data, or rather a selected set of items from the same pool of data.
This is why the mobile phone operators claim that there is absolutely no evidence that using their products caused any adverse health problems.
This does, however, pale into significance when compared with the tobacco industry that still seem to be able to produce evidence that claims that smoking does not cause heart disease or cancer.
In my experience, all papers of this nature are started with the intention of proving something, and normally those paying for the report find that their beliefs are proved to be right.
Where?