With the increasing popularity of football as a game, the business aspects of the game have also undergone many changes. Today, the game is dictated by economic compulsions, and money is a dominant factor that has affected the conduct of players and their recruitment. It is only obvious that a game where so much money is involved will also have to bear the brunt of the adverse effects of money affecting game policies and conduct. Further, as most critics opine, money has also destroyed the genuine interest in the game, and players have become mere celebrities in search of money.
The conduct of the game has become much more complex these days, and recruitment processes have been witnessing a sea change in attitude. The most visible effect of money power in the game is how it affects the recruitment processes of the game. In the English league, clubs have been spending millions to sign up a player in the hope that the player will turn the fortunes of the company for the good. This has, in turn, given to many controversies and genuine doubt as to whether so much money that is flowing in the recruitment process is doing any good for the game. The need to know whether recruiting international players after spending so much money assumes importance because of the sheer amount of money that is involved in the game.
Recent newspapers have carried reports of how clubs are spending millions to attract talent into their folds. Often clubs compete among themselves to sign up a player, which in turn gives rise to a price war for a player. For example, It has been reported that West Ham United had spent GBP17 million to win England striker Darren. The club considered the catch as a big one considering the fact that Darren was also being eyed by Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur. It must be noted that in the last season, he was injured and only scored 12 league goals for Charlton. Here it may be seen that the mere celebrity status of a star is being used as the basis for spending huge amounts of money. Similarly, the spendthrift ways of Chelsea are well known. Rumors say that the club has recently signed up players for as much as GBP120,000 as a week. [Beckham Ends Reign in Spain with La Liga Title, 2007]
The involvement of huge sums of money in the game is a direct consequence of the popularity that the game has achieved in recent years. Clubs have been gaining a lot from sharing income from broadcasting rights, and this income has been driving their profits and policies. For example, research shows that the winners of the premiership title will receive GBP50 million in the 2007-08 season. This is a huge increase compared to the GBP30.4 million that was paid to Chelsea in 2005-06. Even smaller clubs will receive GBP10 million more than the GBP17 million that Sunderland received last season [Eason, 2007].
The income generated by the clubs has been increasing. Research shows that general income has increased among clubs in the UK. For example, according to Deloitte and Touche, in the 1999-2000 season, the 92 league clubs of England and Wales generated more than one billion pounds of income, which was an increase of 13% compared to the previous season. The trend had been set at that time, and the incomes of clubs have been steadily increasing thence.
Evidence suggests that those clubs that spend more also get the best talent. It is a common observation that top paying clubs often end up in the top spots of ranking. While this is true of bigger clubs and leagues, the cases of smaller clubs and leagues are different. Here more than money, it is the involvement of coaches and team members that matter. Research shows that in the FA Premier League in 1999/2000, three clubs paid more than GBP40m in wages, and they were Chelsea, Manchester United, and Liverpool. It is generally believed that money has an effect on improving the competitiveness of clubs. Statistics show that spending on transfers within English football has increased by more than 50% over the last five years, mostly because of non-English transfers. [John Williams & Sam Neatrour, 2002]. This shows that clubs are willing to import players at a higher cost to win. Winning has become so much important these days and make or mar the prospects of clubs.
However, there are, of course, exceptions. Statistics also show that there could be a correlation between lowering costs and success. For example, Chelsea’s summer spending was going down from GBP110 million in 2003 to GBP91 million and GBP53 million before rising again to GBP66 million in 2006. However, Manchester United’s costs have been consistently increasing from GBP25m in the 2004-05 period to GBP55 million in the 2007-08 period. However, when we consider the total wins of both the clubs, it may be seen that Manchester United Won 1 premiership 1 and 1 Carling Cup during this period. However, Chelsea Won 2 premierships, 1 FA Cup, and 2 Carling Cups. [Mourinho: Roman can keep his money, Chelsea are no spent force, 2007]
It may also be argued that clubs that spend huge sums of money will not always see success. This is because there are many reasons that a player will not be able to maintain consistent levels of play. For example, Chelsea had to incur a huge loss 12 months ago because of the underperformance of Michael Ballack, who was signed on a free transfer but was paid GBP130,000 a week. Similarly, Andriy Shevchenko, who cost GBP30 million from AC Milan, did not perform well for the team. Chelsea has since then learned reason and has cut its spending spree in order to control costs and boost performance.
Research also shows that the movement of a huge amount of money is not beneficial to the development of the game. Previously, players who had signed up with a club could not leave the club and were under its ruling regarding transfers. This meant that players had to have the approval of a club if they wanted to move from one club to another. This also meant that clubs negotiated the deals for a player and got a share of the fees that it negotiated for the player. With the Bosman ruling coming into effect, players are in a position to keep their wages, and their relation with the club has become more professional than obligatory. While on the positive side, this allows the player to dictate his own terms in business, the flip side is that the club will not receive any money. If, in the previous case, the money would have been used to train younger players, now it means that such money is simply not available. Another drawback of the new system is that players will be hired on a long contract, and if they grow to be promising players, they can be deployed by the clubs in other clubs. In an overall scene, this is bad for the game because it will lead to an uncontrolled flow of money and will lead to players being considered as mere generators of money [James Lowrey, Sam Neatrour and John Williams, 2002].
The influence of money in English football is significant. Research has shown that there is a direct correlation between money spent and success in football.
Works Cited
- Beckham Ends Reign in Spain With La Liga Title. About.com: World Soccer. 2007. Web.
- Lowrey, James., Neatrour, Sam., and Williams, John. The Bosman Ruling, Football Transfers and Foreign Footballers. Centre for the Sociology of Sport. 2002
- Eason, Kevin. Why English elite should soon be right on the money. Times Online. 2007. Web.
- Mourinho: Roman can keep his money, Chelsea are no spent force. Times Online. Web.
- Williams, John., and Neatrour, Sam. Fact Sheet 10: The ‘New’ Football Economics. Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research. University Leicester. 2002. Web.