Corruption in English football?

[spiny]

The presumption is that sport is about competition and assumes anything beyond a level playing field is cheatng. This is what the founders of the Football League sought to address when rules and laws of the game were established.

The fact is in sport some are more equal than others. Football is now big money entertainment where gate receipts and prize money are secondary revenues to commercial exploitation, global media and gambling. Our owners may have a different view for the future of football than the Americans but they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Therein lies the quandary. Management of football is taking place that favours some more than others. We may call it corruption but it is being justified as commercial exploitation to attract even more money into the game. It is the fans who are being cheated the most.

 

[metalblue]

YES as for proof we all saw yet again with our own eyes yesterday. What other explanation can there be ? A slight tangle of legs with the help of VAR saw it as a pen. Since VAR the cheating has become more obvious but no one will speak out because they want jobs within the industry

Before VAR the pen would have been given. I have 2 problems with VAR, it kills half of the fun of going to a game (when that was still a thing) and it basically exonerates the officials form any responsibility.

Watching football on the box like we all are these days is like watching an episode of Silent Witness where that chemist bloke solves the crime in the first 30 seconds whilst it takes dibble a good 55minutes. The ****.

Corruption in various forms is undoubtedly a thing but the worst of it is it is normalised by the media. “Fergie time” is a prime example of how the media made it acceptable and it was only when it was finally properly called out by Mark Hughes did we get some supposedly “independent” time keeping but at least some basis for the decisions.

 

[jacko74]

Here's my take on it.. the Premier League is no different to any other commercial entity in so much as it wants its best selling and most profitable product to be the most successful.

Imagine a commercial record label had 20 bands on their books and 2 of those bands were far more popular on a global level and generated more revenue and profit than the other 18 bands which all had a more limited appeal and smaller fan base.

Would that record label have an even handed approach and insist on giving equal billing to all their bands or would they do their best to promote and keep relevant the 2 bands which were the 2 big global money earners?

 

[Messi38]

Here's my take on it.. the Premier League is no different to any other commercial entity in so much as it wants its best selling and most profitable product to be the most successful.

Imagine a commercial record label had 20 bands on their books and 2 of those bands were far more popular on a global level and generated more revenue and profit than the other 18 bands which all had a more limited appeal and smaller fan base.

Would that record label have an even handed approach and insist on giving equal billing to all their bands or would they do their best to promote and keep relevant the 2 bands which were the 2 big global money earners?

Same goes for la liga with barca and rm for example, and their individual tv deals. Football is a capitalist game now. Its no longer a social or egalitarian sport, if it ever was.

I would like to see more equality but we wouldn't have any exceptional teams anymore, just lots of good ones and far fewer also rans. Its ironic that the USA, maybe the most capitalist country on earth, is pretty socialist with its nfl drafts etc. Or was, I dont follow nfl but I heard the draft is pretty fair.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Here's my take on it.. the Premier League is no different to any other commercial entity in so much as it wants its best selling and most profitable product to be the most successful.

Imagine a commercial record label had 20 bands on their books and 2 of those bands were far more popular on a global level and generated more revenue and profit than the other 18 bands which all had a more limited appeal and smaller fan base.

Would that record label have an even handed approach and insist on giving equal billing to all their bands or would they do their best to promote and keep relevant the 2 bands which were the 2 big global money earners?

I wouldn't disagree with that but, commercially that would be a very short-term view because it would ensure that none of the competing bands would ever become as popular. This would mean lost income in the present and future from the other bands and failure to evolve the product resulting in consumer boredom.

Going back to football, I'd question whether the PL product would generate the income it does without the emergence of Manchester City and its revolution in the way football in this country is played. The Aguero and 100 point goal at Southampton are the iconic moments from the PL era. The investment to make that happen came from outside, not the product owner. Indeed, such investment is now outlawed which is a corruption of sporting values in itself.

A quick look at who would have won the league if we hadn't introduced an element of competition (and I believe we opened the door for Leicester) shows us the stagnation that would have ensued if the PL had its way.

 

[KS55]

I wouldn't disagree with that but, commercially that would be a very short-term view because it would ensure that none of the competing bands would ever become as popular. This would mean lost income in the present and future from the other bands and failure to evolve the product resulting in consumer boredom.

Going back to football, I'd question whether the PL product would generate the income it does without the emergence of Manchester City and its revolution in the way football in this country is played. The Aguero and 100 point goal at Southampton are the iconic moments from the PL era. The investment to make that happen came from outside, not the product owner. Indeed, such investment is now outlawed which is a corruption of sporting values in itself.

A quick look at who would have won the league if we hadn't introduced an element of competition (and I believe we opened the door for Leicester) shows us the stagnation that would have ensued if the PL had its way.

Self finance limited, not outlawed.
City, of course, disguised owner finance as sponsorship. G14 clubs like PSG simply paid off Leterme at Uefa. Liverpool spent £200m on tarmac. Manu do it differently.

 

[M18CTID]

I wouldn't disagree with that but, commercially that would be a very short-term view because it would ensure that none of the competing bands would ever become as popular. This would mean lost income in the present and future from the other bands and failure to evolve the product resulting in consumer boredom.

Going back to football, I'd question whether the PL product would generate the income it does without the emergence of Manchester City and its revolution in the way football in this country is played. The Aguero and 100 point goal at Southampton are the iconic moments from the PL era. The investment to make that happen came from outside, not the product owner. Indeed, such investment is now outlawed which is a corruption of sporting values in itself.

A quick look at who would have won the league if we hadn't introduced an element of competition (and I believe we opened the door for Leicester) shows us the stagnation that would have ensued if the PL had its way.

Funny you should mention that because after the Aguero goal, the new TV rights were up for renewal and the Premier League secured a bumper package that I think was even beyond their expectations. I seem to recall media reports at the time saying that the dramatic end to the 2011/12 was definitely a contributing factor in that, so all these bitter twats moaning about City ruining football ought to remember that we've made a lot of extra money for Premier League clubs.

 

[Vic]

Funny you should mention that because after the Aguero goal, the new TV rights were up for renewal and the Premier League secured a bumper package that I think was even beyond their expectations. I seem to recall media reports at the time saying that the dramatic end to the 2011/12 was definitely a contributing factor in that, so all these bitter twats moaning about City ruining football ought to remember that we've made a lot of extra money for Premier League clubs.

I was looking for an 2016 article in the Guardian about how Guardiola would change English football. His father is much quoted saying it, but I didn't find the article I wanted, but there was this:

Pep Guardiola: English game will 'always be grateful' for Spaniard - Gary Lineker

English football will "always be grateful" for the influence of Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola, ex-England striker Gary Lineker says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Dont think it is brown envelopes, it is for me the American owners looking to establish their own order to keep there pockets lined.

Why do you think it was only liverpool and united that were invited to get the new head of the league, and for what purpose- it stinks to high heaven

And as for the rest of the league they are not arsed about it, and the reason for this is because they are under no illusion that their own money will continue to roll in if both the rags and dippers start to be successful at the top and have more than likely been told this

As we know, there are just a few that can clearly stop this attempted monopolistic idea, but VAR has now been brought in and is being used as a tool to fix what the league want (scudamore even quoted it but in different words)

The league wants more money, and they will see that these 2 clubs can be falsely put into a position if they want

However, other forms of corruption are bound to be in force. Match fixing and the illegal use of peds will be there

Watched a program over the festive period about how easy it is to cycle peds and pass the screening process

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I wouldn't disagree with that but, commercially that would be a very short-term view because it would ensure that none of the competing bands would ever become as popular. This would mean lost income in the present and future from the other bands and failure to evolve the product resulting in consumer boredom.

Going back to football, I'd question whether the PL product would generate the income it does without the emergence of Manchester City and its revolution in the way football in this country is played. The Aguero and 100 point goal at Southampton are the iconic moments from the PL era. The investment to make that happen came from outside, not the product owner. Indeed, such investment is now outlawed which is a corruption of sporting values in itself.

A quick look at who would have won the league if we hadn't introduced an element of competition (and I believe we opened the door for Leicester) shows us the stagnation that would have ensued if the PL had its way.

Do the PL, the FA or PiGMOL take any other view of the game than short term. To take a leaf out of the football managers and players vision - one game at a time - the PL, FA 'n PiGMOL take one season at a time. They annoint their preferred winners prior to the season starting, the RDAHMeedya jump on board and it's only the variability inherent in a game of football that allows for a Manchester City or Leicester title.

 

[BlueRockape]

It's bent football has always been bent the only difference now it's unashamedly bent

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

It's bent football has always been bent the only difference now it's unashamedly bent

Agree, the only way this corruption will come out is if it gets to a point, sometime in the future and it is so evident that it starts to destroy the league

Then some actual journalist will blow the whole thing open.

At the moment the EPL is such a cash cow, not just for the clubs but as a revenue stream for the media, that it is not in the media interests to bring it down

 

[fulabeer]

From a sporting point of view, what City did in 2008 wasn't fair.
How can one club spend so much, so soon. Scooping up the sports finest players.
I also don't believe all of our sponsors at that time were legit.
It was "the" very idea of buying success.

But

I do believe it was the ONLY way to break the monopoly.
The way the Premier league was set up made it impossible to do it any other way.

The efforts made to stop us actually only added fuel to the fire. The introduction of FFP disguised as rules to stop clubs getting into unmanageable debt, actually accelerated our plans.

The biggest thing they got wrong was thinking our owners had a short term plan just to gain a few trophies. (sugar daddies?)
If they had left us alone, success may have taken much longer. Once they saw what was happening, it started to worry the traditional top clubs around the world.
The academy and infrastructure of the City group terrified them.

My main gripe is that we are not the only ones to have had large investments/help at the start.
They have all had it at some point. Airbrushed out of history to make the masses feel they did it the "right way".
The two Spanish clubs should be held up as what is really wrong with football. Bleating hypocritically to anybody who will listen about our "State funded" success. Like the Scottish league, having just two successful clubs doesn't make for a good product. But nobody cares as long as they are successful.
Chelsea of all clubs moaning about our investment model!

Then we are left with the Rags and Dippers.
The most "self entitled" clubs in the world. They truly believe their own hype. They have both bungled their way through the last three decades, with mismanagement and outrageous spending sprees. Yet somehow it is our fault.
Not a word uttered how unfair this has been on the rest of the league over the years. The media machine around them has been built to protect them.

Even now, BT and SKY reinforce the myth that we buy the most expensive players. That we pay the most wages. That we have the largest squad. These lies go unchallenged by the rest of the media on a daily basis.

However, the cracks are starting to show. The Dippers are just waking up to the reality that they are no longer the favoured ones this year. The help they got last season has been transferred to the Rags.
Suddenly all the Dipper media contingent will be asking the questions nobody would ask before. "Just why DO United get the most penalties?" "Why are United allowed to operate and buy new players with such levels of debt?" "Why are they allowed to operate from dodgy offshore countries?"

It's going to get messy. Sit back, watch and drink it all in folks!

 

[Blue Mist]

I wouldn't disagree with that but, commercially that would be a very short-term view because it would ensure that none of the competing bands would ever become as popular. This would mean lost income in the present and future from the other bands and failure to evolve the product resulting in consumer boredom.

Going back to football, I'd question whether the PL product would generate the income it does without the emergence of Manchester City and its revolution in the way football in this country is played. The Aguero and 100 point goal at Southampton are the iconic moments from the PL era. The investment to make that happen came from outside, not the product owner. Indeed, such investment is now outlawed which is a corruption of sporting values in itself.

A quick look at who would have won the league if we hadn't introduced an element of competition (and I believe we opened the door for Leicester) shows us the stagnation that would have ensued if the PL had its way.

But it was stagnant for years, whilst we were down amongst the dead men the Rags won the league most years. Sky invented rivalries, Arsenal for one and the obvious, even though they were never real rivals, Liverpool. No one was allowed to win it regularly except the GPC. it suited the brand and kept the money coming in. When it looked like we were joining in they set out to fuck us at every turn as we do not generate the sales figures.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

From a sporting point of view, what City did in 2008 wasn't fair.
How can one club spend so much, so soon. Scooping up the sports finest players.
I also don't believe all of our sponsors at that time were legit.
It was "the" very idea of buying success.

But

I do believe it was the ONLY way to break the monopoly.
The way the Premier league was set up made it impossible to do it any other way.

The efforts made to stop us actually only added fuel to the fire. The introduction of FFP disguised as rules to stop club getting into unmanageable debt, actually accelerated our plans.

The biggest thing they got wrong was thinking our owners had a short term plan just to gain a few trophies. (sugar daddies?)
If they had left us alone, success may have taken much longer. Once they saw what was happening, it started to worry the traditional top clubs around the world.
The academy and infrastructure of the City group terrified them.

My main gripe is that we are not the only ones to have large investments/help at the start.
They have all had it at some point. Airbrushed out of history to make the masses feel they did it the "right way".
The two Spanish clubs should be held up as what is really wrong with football. Bleating hypocritically to anybody who will listen about our "State funded" success. Like the Scottish league, having just two successful clubs doesn't make for a good product. But nobody cares as long as they are successful.
Chelsea of all clubs moaning about our investment model!

Then we are left with the Rags and Dippers.
The most "self entitled" clubs in the world. They truly believe their own hype. They have both bungled their way through the last three decades, with mismanagement and outrageous spending sprees. Yet somehow it is our fault.
Not a word uttered how unfair this has been on the rest of the league over the years. The media machine around them has been built to protect them.

Even now, BT and SKY reinforce the myth that we buy the most expensive players. That we pay the most wages. That we have the largest squad. These lies go unchallenged by the rest of the media on a daily basis.

However, the cracks are starting to show. The Dippers are just waking up to the reality that they are no longer the favoured ones this year. The help they got last season has been transferred to the Rags.
Suddenly all the Dipper media contingent will be asking the questions nobody would ask before. "Just why DO United get the most penalties?" "Why are United allowed to operate and buy new players with such levels of debt?" "Why are they allowed to operate from dodgy offshore countries?"

It's going to get messy. Sit back, watch and drink it all in folks!

Blackburn did it with Jack Walkers money, but that was never going to be sustainable. City have truly crashed the party.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Blackburn did it with Jack Walkers money, but that was never going to be sustainable. City have truly crashed the party.

...and Chelsea pretty much bought every player from a "none-top-5" team who they saw as being able to make the step up when Roman (can't spell his surname) took over the reigns.

How many wingers did they have?

 

[Blue Mist]

Klopp basically said the game was corrupt in his post match interview last night. If he knows it and is prepared to speak out, why are people, some on here, still denying it ?
We have Keys and Gray saying the Rags penalties are bent and now Klopp. That is just one aspect of the corruption but it shows the PL will manipulate anything to get the result they want/need.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

There is huge money involved, therefore it's bent. It's only natural....

 

[Blue Maniac]

They new City were becoming too good and we were going to pull away so they started with the FFP prolonged attacks, they then sneaked VAR in through and ensured it was setup to ensure success to the red cash cow clubs. Absolutely rotten and sadly we are going to have to standby and watch it spun into some miraculous football achievement when the truth is United are shite. Liverpool only slightly better.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

There is huge money involved, therefore it's bent. It's only natural....

Liverpool getting preferential treatment just as the PL are negotiating the Nordic deal. Now the Rags getting the same preference as China (PPTV) renege on their deal, costing the PL £160 mil, having to get a lesser bidder in to try and broach the loss, what could the incentive be?