By Adrian Musolino
June 17th 2009 @ 4:19am
Sports risking alienation from fans with exorbitant costs
Manchester United's Cristiano Ronaldo, left, is challenged by Barcelona's Yaya Toure during the UEFA Champions League final soccer match between Manchester United and Barcelona in Rome, Wednesday May 27, 2009. AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia
$163 million for the services of one football player is excessive, and while the news of Ronaldo’s exorbitant transfer fee caused a ripple of amazement, there was also a feeling of disgust from many quarters. Is sport risking alienating itself from society due to the gulf in riches between them and us?
It’s a genuine concern as the business of sport further erodes the qualities that make it so appealing.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, but what is becoming clear is the scale of the money floating around the top end of sports and being paid to individuals is becoming so astronomical that it’s causing genuine disgust in society, raising questions about its worthiness and relevance.
Thankfully, there have been some voices of reason following Ronaldo’s deal.
UEFA president Michel Platini said in a statement, “These transfers represent a serious challenge to the idea of fair play and the concept of financial balance in our competitions.
“UEFA are working hard with clubs to establish a new set of rules as soon as it’s possible to clean up the system and give it a more solid and more transparent base.”
But sports are either constrained by free markets or unwilling to make concerted efforts to contain the money being spent. Self-interest will be the most difficult part of creating uniform rules to stop this, see the political bickering in Formula 1 and the damage it’s done as an example.
Considering the EPL has been most guilty of this arms race mentality, it is ironic that some of the most opinionated voices have emerged from the UK, including the following from sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe.
He told PA Sport, “These figures are simply beyond the understanding of most ordinary fans. I am worried that a small group of rich clubs are getting richer and that does affect the balance and the opportunities for the wider game.”
He has a point on both fronts.
The gulf between the haves and have-nots is growing exponentially and fans cannot comprehend such numbers. We cannot relate to our sports stars when they are commanding such astronomical cheques.
If we cannot relate to them, then the bond between us is damaged and we view sports differently.
The money and power in sport is such that those within it are becoming isolated and almost deluded by it.
Sepp Blatter, who helped propagate the Ronaldo as a ‘slave’ comments, stated, “I heard yesterday that you could buy millions of pieces of bread to give to the people for that amount, but entertainment is also food for the people.”
True but can Ronaldo not entertain unless he is paid the equivalent in a day of what your average Joe makes in a year?
This mammoth spending cannot be sustained and the bubble will burst. Clubs and leagues are already in mass debt and if it continues the very foundations of international sport could come crashing down under the weight of this debt.
This also has changed how sports and fans interact.
Fences and walls are being built between sports and fans, sports seeing fans as commercial entities rather than the lifeblood of their existence.
Access is restricted to the rich, the connected and the spoilt. The undeserving.
The increasing amount of suits and ties being worn to sporting events typifies this.
If you have experienced the lack of atmosphere at an AFL Grand Final or seen the undeserving corporate types and connected who float around the inner sanctum of sporting events you’ll appreciate how sports have sold their souls and cater solely for the dollar.
The gulf between the haves and have-nots in sport and society is being matched by the gulf between the economic mentality of the top end of sports and societies view of it.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(24)
Brett McKay said | June 17th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Adrian, this to me is like the idea of capping the salaries and bonuses of company executives. Why do we have to be so appalled at what the “high-flyers” are making??
In the end, both Ronaldo and the CEO of XYZ Ltd negotiate and accept remuneration deals put to them by their current or potential employers. The employers offer what they can afford to pay, and also what they think their employee is worth to them. The employers have expectations of success, and likewise the employee wants a certain portion of the salary guaranteed, to ensure they are still well paid for their services even when success is lessened or not achieved due to things out of their control (such as injury or recession).
It’s like buying a house, where the price is determined not by the buyer or seller, but by the market. If the market says Ronaldo is worth a A$163M transfer fee, then so he is. Man Utd obviously agree he’s worth that amount, otherwise they would’ve rejected the offer. And if Real Madrid can afford to pay A$163M, then what’s the problem??
Finno said | June 17th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
More than actually winning games on the park it winning players and keeping the club solvent whilst remaining in the top flight. Similar to what happend at Leeds and Newcastle heaps o f good players and they still drop. I will watch with interest as Man City try to get to Europe, how long will the new owner keep throwing money at the club? He will get sick of it and eventually pull the funding club goes down.
Rich_daddy said | June 17th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Sure it might be alot of money, but large transfer fees in football are exactly new. I think it has got negative views becuase of the recent economic downturn. Everyone is thinking that communism is the way to go at the moment and anyone who seems to be earning more than average is looked upon with disgust. Ultimately I think a bit a jealousy is at work, I mean who wouldn’t accept millions of dollars if they were offered it? If Ronaldo is being offered it, why not take it?
Lazza said | June 17th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
I guess only American sports stars, Golfers, Tennis Players, brain dead celebrities and evil Executives should be earning that kind of money?
Heaven forbid that a working class boy or impoverished kid from the Third World should get paid that much? Instead of describing their wages as per week we should try per minute instead. That should get an even more emotional response.
Vicentin said | June 17th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Not strictly on topic but this is an interesting development. Apparentely Man United have developed a policy whereby they’ll only purchase players under 26 years of age (for sizeable transfers). The thinking being that there is no net value in spending big money for a an “older” player whose value to likely to decrease significantly by the time they want to sell them on. I can see the business sense, but it is just another example of of clouding the issue over whether football is a business or a sport.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/17/manchester-united-transfer-policy
break over ,,, back to work
Pippinu said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
If the pin heads take over a club, then clearly the Man Utd policy (of buying only younger players) makes commercial sense.
It’s hard to argue with.
Better to pay $60 mill for a 22 year old, who you might have for 5 years and then be able to sell at a tidy profit (maybe even double your money), than pay $30 mill for a 32 year old, who you might have for one or two years (if they don’t break down first) and who will then be worth absolutely nothing.
Lazza said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
It makes good business sense but will Man Utd be able to compete with the big spenders? Probably has more to do with the huge debt the Glazers have burdened the club with.
After spending big on the first galacticos experiment, Real Madrid had a massive increase in revenue as a result. Sport is a business and these huge fees and wages just reflect the enormous worldwide popularity of the sport. When that changes so will the sums being spent on players.
True Tah said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
How much would Ronaldo be on per year, $40m – $50m?
Lazza said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
True Tah,
I read he was on 555,000 pounds per week? Not sure if it’s accurate but would be pretty close. Football players don’t get quoted as per year, per week sounds more evil!
MVDave said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
TT
Ronaldo’s incremental wage contract (not including bonuses/endorsements) reportedly starts at 9.5million pounds per year and by the 6th year is 27.5 million pounds per year.
Pippinu said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
That’s serious coin.
That 9.5 million pounds per annum (which is only a starting point), is more than double the salary cap of your average AFL club.
Pippinu said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
i.e. more than double the annual salaries bill for 44 professional players.
Michael C said | June 17th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
I know this is on the soccer tab – but the generic title explicitly states ’sports’ which more than implies that this is not intended as a soccer specific thread.
I believe there’s a few culture factors -
i.e. cricket – players getting big pay cheques seems fine, until suddenly they’re getting it via the IPL and thus threatening the ’sanctity’ of test cricket………..a bit of dejavu 30 years on from the Kerry Packer WSC days.
However, here, we’re still not in the ball park of many tens of millions of dollars as in the soccer scenario.
those who battle at the coalface of certain sports at the grass roots level must get disappointed sometimes, such as basketball in Australia, seeing that we can’t sustain a decent domestic league, and yet there’s all this money in the ’sport’, but, in a global sense but in that sense it’s highly localised in the top league and ‘trickle down theory’ doesn’t apply to domestic sports in Australia unless a bunch of Aussies who made got come back and buy/own NBL teams. So, they battle on domestically ‘for the love of the game’.
And I find it ironic when myopic folk in Australia lambast NRL and AFL players as over paid and lazy full time pro sports people with too much time on their hands………if only such folk would cast their eyes to the EPL for example for real over paid sports people.
Then there’s the difference between actual ‘pay cheques’ for on field efforts, vs the marketing/promotional pay day. Personally I rebel against shoes promoted by a sportsperson who is being paid $20 million for the job whilst the shoes are fabricated by under paid and over worked ‘cheap’ labour in dubious conditions.
At any rate – - many of us DO hope the bubble bursts – - but will it? The world economic sectors desperately needed a ‘correction’ – - but, thus far, sports has remain pretty imune.
And re the AFL comment – as many times we have said, the best game of the year is so often the week before in the Prelim – example 2007, Geel vs Coll, MCG packed by true fans of both teams and the house rocked to the final siren with less than a kick in it. That is the ‘peoples’ final.
At any rate – that’s why I celebrate that special something about a bunch of sporting misfits who pay their way to the otherside of the world to play a game they barely know – - and no doubt it’s the similar sentiment that soccer fans seek a Cameroon type ‘fairy tale’ each time the World Cup comes around. They may not realise it, but, I reckon they are rebelling against the big dollars as much as the ‘reputations’.
Mushi said | June 17th 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Vicentin I think you are looking at it from a very narrow perspective.
In theory the $ value should have a sizeable correlation to the perceived “football” value at the time of purchase. All the $ amount gives you is a reference point.
So all Man U are doing are buying players that their past experience suggests will increase in “football value” rather than decrease. This is just making smart use of their resources and trying to ensure that they use their resources to put the best football team on the pitch over the long term.
Pippinu said | June 17th 2009 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Good point Mushi – the high value is indicative of a top shelf player in the first place – if you’re going to double your money over the voyage – then it’s an equation that is very difficult to argue against.
It’s like the old adage – no one ever went broke selling for a profit.
beaver fever said | June 17th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Lazza said | Today
I guess only American sports stars, Golfers, Tennis Players, brain dead celebrities and evil Executives should be earning that kind of money?
Lazza when those guys earn that sort of money everyone says the same thing ( its way to much), or dont you listen.
Its outrageous and IMO immoral.
I think a salary cap is a good idea.
Lazza said | June 17th 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Beaver,
No, I don’t read or hear these other sports stars and others copping flak for earning all that money except for evil executives? Who’s calling for a Salary Cap in Tennis, Golf and Motor Sports?
onside said | June 17th 2009 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
When people talk of being ripped off, the banks are worth a crack,
potatoes at Woollies maybe, but nobody talks about pizzas. Costs
50cents to make, sells for lots.Huge margins.Try Coca Cola,fizzy
sugared water in a container,prime cost bugger all,sells for plenty.
High profile targets are well just that.Like a handful of elite athletes
who play football.Do they pay tax.Do they invest in projects that
create work and wealth for others.Have readers any idea what
dart champions are paid these days.This article is spot on because
publicans double the price of a pint so people can watch dart
players play darts.I once saw a bloke get two hundred and sixteen
with one throw by using a hedgehog.Inovative really, but he was
thrown out.But there’s always a Sonny Boy Williams fight.And he
got paid for that. Now thats a risk of alienation.
Adrian Musolino said | June 17th 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
A possible salary cap is at the heart of the political bickering in F1 at the moment. It includes a cap on driver salaries – http://in.reuters.com/article/formulaOneNews/idINIndia-37464120090115
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Adrian,
A Salary Cap is fine if the sport is getting into too much debt or some teams just can’t compete any longer and you want an even competition?
Let’s just give the moralising a bit of a rest. These sports stars earn big salaries because their sport generates huge revenues. It’s just business.
True Tah said | June 18th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
A salary cap is impossible in the individual sports.
A salary cap is easiest to enforce where the professional level of the sport is either limited to one competition (i.e. NFL or AFL) or where it is dominated by one competition (such as the NRL).
In the world of futbol, it is only really useful where there are strong competitors to the game of futbol and the game is less entrenched in the country as the other sports, i.e. Australia and the USA, i.e. supporters will get turned off if one team kills the comp and it is not their team.
From what I know best, i.e. rugby, salary caps are enforced in some competitions, and it can be useful, look at England, where futbol dominates, but thanks to a well regulated salary cap, a successful rugby competition can be run.
French rugby does not have a salary cap (however the sport is well entrenched in parts of France), however I understand in order to be in the top competition, each club faces a detailed audit prior to season by the body which runs the competition.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
True Tah,
According to the English press several high profile England players have gone off to France because they don’t have a salary cap?
Having a salary cap in one country only doesn’t make much sense unless you want to lose all your best players.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
and in breaking news :
http://www.theage.com.au/national/sports-stars-richer-after-high-court-ruling-20090618-cis4.html
Funny how in talking about Australias richest sports stars….we’re really only talking a relatively modest number on globally modest pay. Chris Judd at a million, after tax, all spent in Australia is hardly comparable to Australias REAL richest sports stars like Kewell, Webber, Norman etc who pump just how much into Australias tax basket??
Anyway – - proof again that looking only locally is being pretty small minded using this phrasing Australia’s richest sports stars just got richer
Especially when one of the claimants is out of the AFL system, playing for Port Melbourne, and his claim is in relation to a $2100 spend 4 years back when he was on the princely sum of $70,000. Yep, sure – David Spriggs is one of Australias richest sports stars!!!!
Let’s discuss again how much Viduka get’s per week (and how many weeks he’s been unable to take the field with his ‘old man’ achilles).
True Tah said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Lazza
yeah you will find a lot of British players moving to France for the euros, Wilkinson is joining SBW for about 750K euros a season, having said that he is unlikely to play for England again.
It will ultimately stuff up les Bleus, there are a host of Kiwis, Argentinians, South Africans, Georgians and Islanders running around the fields of France. Funnily enough, having their players exposed to a professional setup has benefited the Pumas and Lelos.
Maybe similar to the EPL, and there are always complaints that the preponderence of foreigners in the EPL will hurt England’s chances of winning the FIFA WC ever again.