I don't think so. In today's market I think this is a fair price. Crazy is what Chelsea paid for Torres and Liverpool paid for Carrol a few years ago. They didn't pan out and moved on. What RM are rumored to be paying for Mbappe is crazy but only because he's 18 and has only really played half a season. Now, Neymar to PSG money is fecking batshit crazy.
Is the bubble about to burst? (all doomsday scenario posts here please)
- Thread starter GlastonSpur
- Start date
I don't think so. In today's market I think this is a fair price. Crazy is what Chelsea paid for Torres and Liverpool paid for Carrol a few years ago. They didn't pan out and moved on. What RM are rumored to be paying for Mbappe is crazy but only because he's 18 and has only really played half a season. Now, Neymar to PSG money is fecking batshit crazy.
Because spurs cant buy anyone.
Absolutely. The situation is incredible and it stems from Premier League greed. It is all well and good that you criticize the folks using the illegal streams, but then for goodness sake provide a good product that is actually worth paying for. Why pay the ridiculous sums necessary to obtain the maximum number of football matches only to discover that your team's match isn't among the selected matches chosen to be broadcast?
It won't burst although I assume that is what you hope? And who are these clubs if I may ask?
This. I'm not shocked to open this thread and see it's Levy saying it and spurs fans agreeing with it.
They have for years.
The TV money can't keep going up indefinitely. Things will stabilise.
I don't think it will effect the big clubs much though.
I don't think it will effect the big clubs much though.
Aren't clubs spending actually spending less money on transfer fees (reported transfer fees anyway) compared to their revenues 15-20 years ago?
Yeah, this is a phenomenon that goes beyond sports too. Used to be you could walk into a video store and rent any movie you want and every tv subscription got you every channel. Now that Netflix and Amazon and other video streaming services are trying to win customers with unique offerings and there's a zillion different tv channels you may or may not be subscribed to. Then you need different apps/subscriptions to watch stuff on your iPad or phone vs your set top box. It's such an unwieldy pain in the arse, there's a huge temptation to download everything you watch as torrents. And that's ignoring the fact it costs nothing vs costing a lot. Piracy may be screwing the content providers but the "competition is best" mentality is accelerating that decline.
Just looking at Leeds and Portsmouth should be enough of a hint that a couple of failed gambles at a mid table football club can be disastrous. The gulf in money between PL and Championship is widening and clubs will risk more of their revenue to remain in the top league.
I'm not sure the "bubble" is going to burst, but think we might be nearing a decline in domestic markets
Attendances are down. TV Viewing figures are down (yay netflix). The amount people are willing to pay for sports is down (yay Netflix and BT Sport).
The untapped markets have been tapped. I wouldn't be surprised if we see greater globalization of the game in pursuit of more coin.
£75-100m for Lukaku is insane, but it's important to remember that money hasn't left football. Everton aren't £75m richer now. They've bought:
Attendances are down. TV Viewing figures are down (yay netflix). The amount people are willing to pay for sports is down (yay Netflix and BT Sport).
The untapped markets have been tapped. I wouldn't be surprised if we see greater globalization of the game in pursuit of more coin.
£75-100m for Lukaku is insane, but it's important to remember that money hasn't left football. Everton aren't £75m richer now. They've bought:
But it's true that Premier League teams are net spenders, and that money does leave the Premier League. Of Everton's spending alone, £36m of it left the Premier League. Then there is agent's fees and player wages which leave the game altogether.
tbf that's bloody horseshite, City paying obscene fee's? and yet united aren't, what fantasy world are you living in when United have paid £90m for Pogba, £75m for Lakaku and £60m for Di Maria, Madrid have paid £40m for a 16 year old and all clubs are paying obscene fee's, palace paid £30m for Benteke ffs and City aren't burning off the competition considering they haven't won the league in 3 seasons and PSG have never got past the QF in the CL, both clubs have miles to go to catch up with Barca, Madrid and Bayern.
The simple job of TV companies invested in football is to make more people watch football so they can increase their revenues through advertising and subscription fees.
Still millions and millions of non-football fans in USA, China and India and so still plenty of growth potential for football revenues and EPL in particular.
So I think this will carry on for at least a few more years.
Still millions and millions of non-football fans in USA, China and India and so still plenty of growth potential for football revenues and EPL in particular.
So I think this will carry on for at least a few more years.
Last edited:
This. I consider myself technically literate and able to work out how to use any streaming service, but I know folks that learnt how to torrent and do it because it is the way they know how and consider it too much of a mental hurdle to learn the UI and interface of every single differing streaming service out there. It isn't like the days of the TV where you could turn it on and press +/- to cycle through the channels. For some folks all these options are truly overwhelming.
Fundamentally though folks nowadays want the choice and the option to watch what they want when they want it. Netflix has proven that if you put a great service together people will pay for it. The same needs to happen with Sports.
The price of an elite footballer will always be dictated by the amount of money available to the top clubs. It's not a "bubble" as such because 'bubbles' are usually caused by speculation. Individuals or organisations get themselves into trouble because they believe that the price of an asset will only ever go up. Even the stupidest of football chairmen knows this isn't true of a footballer. Even putting aside injuries and loss of form, footballers have a short window during which they are of value and are rarely bought as investments, certainly not by the top clubs and I don't know of any clubs that specifically set out to borrow money in order to buy up young talent to train and sell on.
If clubs like Utd were borrowing money to sign Lukaku because they believed that even if they can't meet the repayments they would be able to sell him at a profit, that looks like a bubble. If the cost of a player is going up because the selling clubs and buying clubs are richer, that is absolutely normal and makes perfect economic sense
If clubs like Utd were borrowing money to sign Lukaku because they believed that even if they can't meet the repayments they would be able to sell him at a profit, that looks like a bubble. If the cost of a player is going up because the selling clubs and buying clubs are richer, that is absolutely normal and makes perfect economic sense
Read my post again. I'm saying the market is crazy, and Lukaku's fee is in line with the market, but paying £70m for VVD would be beyond even the madness of the market.
Gladstone's talking about footballers as if they are houses, and part of investing large money in them is based on their worth if you need to sell or use them as assets somewhere down the line.
Problem with this idea is that Football clubs do not often buy players as investments or assets...because footballers aren't houses. A house doesn't retire when it gets to 35, or fail to fulfil it's potential and end up sitting on the bench for Fulham. Or decide 2 years after you buy it that it wants to feck off to Spain. Or pick up a long term injury and end up half as good as it used to be. Footballers have a short career and an even shorter span of that where they are of use as a financial asset, and even then they are not in any way reliable as one.
Clubs therefore don't sign footballers for large sums of money based on speculative investment...because doing so would be insanely stupid. Clubs buy footballers because they want them to play for their football team. If the market reaches a point where clubs can't afford to buy players for the asking price, the asking price will come down, because footballers will still want to move clubs, fall out with managers, will still get better, get more rubbish, etc. Rooney for example, was sold by Manchester United for £0.
There is no bubble to burst...the only clubs who'd end up in trouble is ones spending money that they don't have, but that is hard to do with FFP and will result in disaster for that club regardless of the prices players come and go for.
This doesn't however mean it isn't ok to laugh at City for example of they spend £40m on John Stones...but it's not so much base don the fact it's a lot of money...just that it's a lot of money to spend on something that's rubbish.
Problem with this idea is that Football clubs do not often buy players as investments or assets...because footballers aren't houses. A house doesn't retire when it gets to 35, or fail to fulfil it's potential and end up sitting on the bench for Fulham. Or decide 2 years after you buy it that it wants to feck off to Spain. Or pick up a long term injury and end up half as good as it used to be. Footballers have a short career and an even shorter span of that where they are of use as a financial asset, and even then they are not in any way reliable as one.
Clubs therefore don't sign footballers for large sums of money based on speculative investment...because doing so would be insanely stupid. Clubs buy footballers because they want them to play for their football team. If the market reaches a point where clubs can't afford to buy players for the asking price, the asking price will come down, because footballers will still want to move clubs, fall out with managers, will still get better, get more rubbish, etc. Rooney for example, was sold by Manchester United for £0.
There is no bubble to burst...the only clubs who'd end up in trouble is ones spending money that they don't have, but that is hard to do with FFP and will result in disaster for that club regardless of the prices players come and go for.
This doesn't however mean it isn't ok to laugh at City for example of they spend £40m on John Stones...but it's not so much base don the fact it's a lot of money...just that it's a lot of money to spend on something that's rubbish.
You could certainly argue this is happening, if chairman are assuming the tv rights will keep increasing. Then it's a bubble.
I hear what you're saying. For example if you go back 20 years when Alan Shearer joined Newcastle for £15m, there wasn't a defender going for the £10-12m.
However think back to 2002 where we bought Rio for £30m, then a year later Ronney for a similar amount.
That said VVD is no where in the same class as Rio.
There is no bubble.
It's basic economics.
Supply and demand in a very financially healthy industry THAT WILL GROW.
You only have to look at the NFL to see how the PL can keep growing exponentially. And the NFL doesn't have anywhere near the global appeal.
Also, football in the US is absolutely booming. The PL is everything here. That alone will help drive growth for many years to come.
It's basic economics.
Supply and demand in a very financially healthy industry THAT WILL GROW.
You only have to look at the NFL to see how the PL can keep growing exponentially. And the NFL doesn't have anywhere near the global appeal.
Also, football in the US is absolutely booming. The PL is everything here. That alone will help drive growth for many years to come.
Yep.
There is so much room for improvement in how the league is broadcast. Revenues can be increased.
Furthermore, broadcast/cable TV is more reliant than ever on sports.
Without it, they are truly fecked.
All this talk about the possibility of future TV deals being worth less than the current one, and the imperfections in the way football is currently delivered pushing people towards streams etc... I wonder if, in such a scenario, clubs like Man United might judge the time had come to pull out of their agreement for collective bargaining? I dont know much about the legalities of this, how long we signed up to this arrangement or what the implications would be. But if Man United judged the time had come to show all United games itself, on MUTV, that could be seen as a potential solution to some of these problems, at least from a selfish perspective. If fans dont want to have multiple subscriptions, they wouldnt need them if they only wanted to watch United games. And a well supported club like United would be able to make as much money as before if it controlled its own TV rights.
Obviously you then get into new potential issues, such as the fact it would find itself playing in an increasingly uncompetitive league, which could have its own implications for interest in the sport.
Obviously you then get into new potential issues, such as the fact it would find itself playing in an increasingly uncompetitive league, which could have its own implications for interest in the sport.
You could see more popular clubs pushing to get out of the collective bargaining agreements for TV rights and such. I think that it could also be yet another factor that pushes towards the creation of some sort of European Super League with the big clubs abandoning their home leagues in favor of the added drawing power of every week, every game being against another big European club. The one downside to this could be how the overall scheduling works, and do clubs then end up with fewer games thus lower gate receipts (though possibly that is made up by the huge TV deal a European Super League pulls in).
Expect West Ham to ruin it for everyone else; they're forever blowing bubbles
The NFL also has a salary cap which imo football will also eventually have to implement to prevent bored rich Oligarchs and Sheikhs from simply buying a European club and buying their way to success by outspending other clubs to the best players. There should be a rule in place where clubs only spend x amount relative to their revenues.
I remember Arsenal and Wenger said the same junk when they were skint from paying for a new stadium.
The bubble grew by a pretty silly margin in the meantime.
I cant imagine transfer fees becoming an issue tbh, clubs either have the money or they dont.
Wages could become a problem ... but then its a problem for 2 / 3 years at most with the way contracts work
It only becomes a problem if there is an actual crash too, if its just a slowdown or leveling off the vast majority of clubs will be fine.
No, i think Levy is talking crap and probably know he is too.
The bubble grew by a pretty silly margin in the meantime.
I cant imagine transfer fees becoming an issue tbh, clubs either have the money or they dont.
Wages could become a problem ... but then its a problem for 2 / 3 years at most with the way contracts work
It only becomes a problem if there is an actual crash too, if its just a slowdown or leveling off the vast majority of clubs will be fine.
No, i think Levy is talking crap and probably know he is too.
Touched a nerve there it seems.
I dont think there is bubble worldwide. If we look at transfer fees as a percentage of revenue , there really isnt any crazy increase. Sure some clubs might go above their means and go bust but overall there is no real bubble. Any market saturation in the UK or Europe is offset by growth in NA ,SA amd Asia
Re the chat about streams eating into TV revenues, looks like the PL is trying to fight back.
The issue becomes how you define and legislate what is 'revenue'.
Funny that Levy is complaining when he has done as much as anyone to drive up the cost of players.
Surely it is relative.
If Spurs want lukaku for 70m, they sell Walker for 50m.
They don't sell players at 2005 values do they?
Surely it is relative.
If Spurs want lukaku for 70m, they sell Walker for 50m.
They don't sell players at 2005 values do they?
How can Spurs be exposed to the football bubble when we - unlike several other clubs - are pointedly not engaging with the inflated prices for buying new players?
Also, we don't have to "come up with" money for the new training centre and new stadium: the former has already been paid for (bar the player accommodation lodge now being added into it) and money for the latter is already in place. However, I don't want this thread to get side-tracked onto this issue.
How is it you call the transfer of a future Ballon D'Or winner (Aka Neymar) as batshit crazy but can justify Mbappe's transfer as less crazy "only" because he is 18 years old and only played half a season. I find the post to be very odd.
The football bubble is the TV Deals,Commercial revenue and match day revenue.
Not just transfer fees.
Yet there is no reduction in the amount of streams available. Like other posters have said they would be safer off offering legal streaming options rather than trying to fight an unwinnable fight.
They aren't assuming anything though. The contracts have been signed and the money is guarenteed. Even without it, I would be surprised if many clubs percentage of transfer spending against total profit has gone up if at all. Most clubs are run better now than they were ten years ago after so many clubs chased the dream and fell short
The market is crazy in general especially with the money available to PL clubs now.
A lot of people who watch streams though do because their club hasn't got their match televised.
In this day and age its wrong that British fans cannot watch their team play every game on TV but go to Asia or the USA and you can watch every single match and for a darn sight less than a sky/bt subscription.
British fans have been ripped off for too long now, its about time the PL, Sky and BT stopped being so greedy and gave fans a proper option to watch all games at an affordable price. Then their revenues will increase and the popularity of the game.
Guaranteed is a strong word. There will definitely be break clauses, that's just good business. `
If you had any idea about US sports you would know that the NFL is a bad example to use here. Even the NBA is starting to contract a little bit.
Bubble probably will not burst and if it did transfer fees would not burst it.