A recent calculation by an academic at LSE for BBC 4 suggests that top Premier League football clubs just about break even or make a "small loss" and such is sustainable. Not being an economist nor having financial knowledge, I am not sure how making losses could be viewed as sustainable in the case that they make perennial "small losses".
Their main cost is the players' payroll which accounts for about 40% of all expenditure. Despite their global success, the pricey tickets, the TV rights, merchandise, and other hospitality income, it is a no brainer why they still make a loss considering that an average annual salary for a player is £700k in the Premier League. 30 players in their book and they have to make £50 only to break even. This of course excludes all the buying in of talents (or in some cases, marketing tool) from other clubs for many more millions.
American football leagues have a salary cap and evidence is there that teams still attract players. Is there really that much difference for football (soccer) to reject the same principle?
I cannot imagine myself running a business and making a loss year on year when it is already an established cash-cow business. Perhaps I am wrong.
And then an outcry about and criticism of university vice-chancellors taking £200k per annum pay? These people who are leaders shaping our higher education system. Would there be a need for a research on the impact, social or economic, they have on the society versus that of the footballers'?
Why not start with the University of Manchester's annual income of £787m compared with £300m of Manchester United FC?
No comments:
Post a Comment