It’s hard to know what to make of The Times story run this week on the alleged intention of Qatar to create a Dream Football League, involving 16 of Europe’s biggest clubs in a summer tournament in exchange for a fee of €200 million per club. The story has now been vigorously denied by the Qataris, and there have been questions about the sources used by Oliver Kay, the journalist responsible for the story. He may have been misled, or he may have got to the story in the early stages of negotiations and thus scuppered the deal.
The outrage expressed in the media, possibly reflective of public opinion, is quite striking. I saw one comment to the effect that “football is not for sale”- one wonders which part of the galaxy this commentator has been living in for the last 30 years. Other comments suggested that this would take football away from its fans- as if only Europe has football fans. An often unspoken element of this analysis is that people who watch football on TV are not “real fans” at all and therefore their interests should be discarded. Presumably people who live outside Europe and watch football on TV are completely unworthy.
If anyone were to suggest that such comments are Eurocentric, xenophobic, Islamaphobic and possibly even racist the denials would be indignant. But what do Europeans expect? What if Qatar were to start their own clubs and just pay the world’s best players to play in Qatar exclusively (much like Messi leaving Argentina to play for a European club)? I think many Europeans would consider that unacceptable too. Effectively Europeans are acting as the same way as the British did until the 1960s- as if they own the game and no one else has a right to play or compete.
The British have struggled to come to terms with the fact that they no longer control a game they invented, I think Europeans more broadly have a similar problem. But there is no doubt that top level sport will migrate away from Europe in decades to come- to the gulf, China and elsewhere. If you doubt this, consider Formula One, which until the turn of the century held more than two thirds of its races in Europe- last year the fraction dropped to nearly one third. Races have migrated because other nations have been prepared to pay more.
As the rest of the world catches up with Europe up in terms of income and wealth (as any humane person must surely hope) it is inevitable that Europe’s grip on elite sport will be loosened. However, Europe has a say in how fast this process occurs. Right now the process is being accelerated by the structure of competition. The reason that the Qatar story resonates so much is that a competition which pitted the best teams against each other on regular basis would be very attractive. The development of the Champions League over the years has been driven by the need to afford more opportunities for top clubs in different countries to play each other. When the best play the best the contest is compelling, as the recent games between Barcelona and AC Milan or Manchester United and Real Madrid have demonstrated. Traditionalists tend to favour local rivalries, and many of these can be exciting, but in the end it’s the quality of play that matters, which is why gates and TV audiences for lower tier football are much lower than for the top tier.
The current system still undersupplies match-ups between the top teams. To take an example, I took the top 16 clubs ranked by their UEFA coefficient and looked at how often they played each other over the last decade or so. League games between these sixteen clubs who are also in the same country amounted to 26 per season. On average about two European games per season are also between top 16 teams from the same country. Then finally there are only about 23 games per season between top 16 clubs from different countries. This gives a total of 51 games per season among top 16 clubs (this is an average). Now, if these top 16 were organized in a league and played each home and away they would play 240 games per season- nearly five times as many games. Even if they played each other only once that would still add up to 120 games, more than double the current number.
As long as there the undersupply of match-ups between top teams persists, there will be pressure to create new competitions to facilitate them. In the past the pressure has come from the clubs themselves in the form of a threat to forma a breakaway league. Even if the Qatari story is a hoax, it’s not impossible that such an idea might come to fruition some day. China is another candidate to take advantage of the opportunity that exists.
“WHAT IF QATAR WERE TO START THEIR OWN CLUBS AND JUST PAY THE WORLD’S BEST PLAYERS TO PLAY IN QATAR EXCLUSIVELY (MUCH LIKE MESSI LEAVING ARGENTINA TO PLAY FOR A EUROPEAN CLUB)?”
Surely if that was possible that would’ve happened already? To me this (amongst other things) shows that it is the clubs that are the true draw not the players. Therefore in answer to your “what if”, European reaction would depend upon how they acquire the services of the players.
“BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT TOP LEVEL SPORT WILL MIGRATE AWAY FROM EUROPE IN DECADES TO COME- TO THE GULF, CHINA AND ELSEWHERE. IF YOU DOUBT THIS, CONSIDER FORMULA ONE, WHICH UNTIL THE TURN OF THE CENTURY HELD MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF ITS RACES IN EUROPE- LAST YEAR THE FRACTION DROPPED TO NEARLY ONE THIRD. RACES HAVE MIGRATED BECAUSE OTHER NATIONS HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO PAY MORE.”
Comparing Football to Formula One is like comparing apples and oranges. F1 is a tour sport where most races are enjoyed afar through television. Britain hasn’t lost its grand prix; in fact because of the increase in total races Europe’s drop is nowhere near as drastic as you claim. Football is set up differently; it would drastically alter its nature and level of interest if clubs migrated away, the players not so much.
“WHEN THE BEST PLAY THE BEST THE CONTEST IS COMPELLING, AS THE RECENT GAMES BETWEEN BARCELONA AND AC MILAN OR MANCHESTER UNITED AND REAL MADRID HAVE DEMONSTRATED.”
No what these recent games demonstrated was that match-ups are compelling when they matter, if these had been friendlies then they wouldn’t have stoked anywhere near as much interest even with the same cast. These matches mattered because, firstly they counted towards something many people care about (the Champions League), secondly they were knockout matches and thirdly these clubs are both the most popular and most unpopular in their respective countries.
“BUT IN THE END IT’S THE QUALITY OF PLAY THAT MATTERS, WHICH IS WHY GATES AND TV AUDIENCES FOR LOWER TIER FOOTBALL ARE MUCH LOWER THAN FOR THE TOP TIER.”
This is misleading as the former is not the reason for the latter. The reason why gates and TV audiences are lower in the lower league is firstly because the clubs at lower levels generally represent less populated areas, secondly because the tiered nature of the competitions implies that a win in the Premier League means more than a win in the Championship and finally because of the disparity in media coverage this brings. As I said to you in your regulation blog it is context and winning that matters. After all if “quality of play” mattered then wouldn’t foreign leagues (La Liga/Serie A/Bundesliga) have higher TV audiences and earn more TV revenue in the UK/Ireland than the Championship?
“AS LONG AS THERE THE UNDERSUPPLY OF MATCH-UPS BETWEEN TOP TEAMS PERSISTS, THERE WILL BE PRESSURE TO CREATE NEW COMPETITIONS TO FACILITATE THEM.”
Whilst I agree that there is scope to increase the number of big match-ups, what you suggest would be an oversupply creating a lot of dead games. Also it shouldn’t be forgotten that the current system also suppresses many opportunities for (current) medium and smaller clubs at the behest of the larger clubs, a situation which surely would raise claims of foul play in any other “industry”.
So in reality the situation is that as long as football is given a free pass to contravene competition law then the big clubs will continue to manipulate it by coercing and suppressing others and threatening to breakaway. And considering that none of this including any breakaway is in the best interests of (European) football consumers it is worrying that you seem to be supporting it.
I think you miss my point. I’m not supporting the migration of top level professional sport away from Europe, I’m simply saying that if the migration happens it won’t be a tragedy for sports fans outside of Europe, even if sports fans in Europe suffer. Europe accounts for less than 10% of the world’s population, so it currently gets more than its “fair share”. My point is that whatever you think is fair, the likelihood is that Europe will obtain a smaller share of top events and top talent in the future as developing countries exercise their economic muscle.
As a side issue, a simple thought experiment should be enough to make you see that you are wrong about quality, population and attendance. what happens when a team gets promoted/relegated? Population doesn’t change, but attendance (almost) always rises/falls. QED.