I’M glad the ticket protest is over, for now at least, because it was stressful. It’s not what you’re into footie for — I’m goals over walk-outs any day of the week.
It was also a time, all those days ago, that we all fell out a little bit. The Anfield Wrap lost subscribers, which is fine — you take those chances when you come out strongly on divisive issues. And all of us who took part in the protest found ourselves having to justify ourselves, especially on Twitter.
Again, you’d rather be arguing about whether Emre Can is any good or whether Tiago Ilori is made out of crisps.
People on Twitter generally fell into three camps. Those who supported the walk-out, those who supported the reason for the walk-out, but not the method of protest, and those who thought we were all Communist bellends who needed to put down our copies of Das Kapital and pay the market price for match tickets.
I’m exaggerating slightly, obviously. But the message from the third group was clear. Watching live sport is expensive. It’s expensive everywhere. Get over it or watch it on the TV.
A lot of tweets carrying this kind of message came from American Liverpool fans. It would be completely wrong to say it was the view of all US Reds. Supporters groups like the one in San Diego were very clear in their support for the walk-out.
It would also be wrong to say all those who disagreed with the principle of fans paying less were American. It was just a notably disproportionate number among the tweets directed our way.
#WalkOutOn77 #LFCSD #SupportTheSupporters pic.twitter.com/bfQdM2uYpG
— LFC San Diego (@TheLFCSD) February 6, 2016
I’m making no further judgements other than to say it was interesting. I have no idea why it was the case, or if it means anything at all.
I found it interesting because sports in America always seemed such a communal, patriotic activity. I was surprised with the notion that someone should have to miss out because of their income.
I know NFL tickets are very expensive, but baseball and basketball always seemed to have cheap seats available when I looked into going (and didn’t for a variety of boring reasons).
But it also made me think of the almost socialist way in which American sports are run — a method I have always envied and admired.
Salary caps are in place to make it impossible for a team just to blow everyone out of the water on salaries and transfers.
Each year the weakest teams are given the best players in the draft to try to even it up further. Of course, it is socialism as a means to capitalism. They believe a level playing field results in a stronger sport and therefore more interest. But it is still a much fairer way of doing things.
And it works. We’re getting all excited because Leicester City or Tottenham Hotspur — that battling underdog club that is the 12th wealthiest team in world football — might become the sixth team to win the title since the Premier League began in 1992.
The NFL has seen eight different teams win the Superbowl in the last eight years. When the New England Patriots won three Superbowls in four years in the mid noughties they debated whether it was the greatest dynasty of all time.
Around the same period Manchester United won three titles in a row and it’s barely mentioned.
While US soccer fans might have something to learn from us in terms of not accepting ticket price hikes, could we learn from the Americans in how we run our sports?
Salary caps have always been rejected in this country because of the notion that it is a worldwide sport and English teams need to compete with the European elite.
Well, firstly, that isn’t working very well at the moment, is it? But also, with the added TV money flooding into the Premier League, wouldn’t the salaries clubs could pay be perfectly competitive anyway?
And isn’t it possible that by making the Premier League more competitive, by not allowing new owners to come into a club and spend huge amounts, that the competition — which prides itself on the fact that “anyone can beat anyone” — becomes even more popular and therefore the place to play?
If not salary caps then how about caps on the number of senior players registered with a club (including bloody loans)?
Could this be a way of ensuring the talent is more spread out? Clubs having to pick which players they want based on need seems no bad thing to me and would make hoarding talent and working out what to do with them next a thing of the past.
A draft system in the current format seems much more difficult to introduce. But is the current system of developing players in this country working as well as it could be anyway?
I don’t know if you noticed, but England didn’t do very well at the last World Cup. Getting Liverpool John Moores University to run an elite sports programme probably isn’t the best idea, but maybe elite regional academies could be introduced instead.
Currently each football club has their own academy, where hundreds of young footballers turn up day after day in the hope that one of them might break though.
Would a smaller number, training with the best and playing against the best in regional centres be a better development tool? Especially if all the best coaches were there, too, away from the madness and often wildly varying nature of how a football club is run. No politics, just development.
Once “graduated” from the best footballing environment possible they could be assigned to football teams in a similar way to that in America. They wouldn’t have to stay there forever, of course. I’d still like to end up with Steven Gerrard thank you very much. But it seems a much fairer system, not to mention potentially more beneficial to the footballers, than the one where the richest clubs steal the best 14 year olds.
I’m not sure how much of the above we can implement. Hot-shot football lawyers might pick apart the lot. Sounds fun, though. And Liverpool might win a bloody league title.
I’ve always thought that each club having a maximum salary and transfer budget would be much fairer than a salary cap. So for example, each team in the Premier League would have a budget of £150 million per year for transfers and player salaries.
That way, it becomes more about strategy. Do you blow your budget on a number of star players and a squad of below average players including academy lads, or just aim for a team and squad of average and above average players?
The most successful teams would be the ones who get their strategy right, rather than the ones who are the richest.
‘We’re getting all excited because Leicester City or Tottenham Hotspur…’ ‘Excited’? I feel nothing but dread. I’m hearing ‘I hope Leicester do it’ or ‘I hope Arsenal/Tottenham’ do it. What is wrong with everyone? I don’t get these people at all.
A team that isn’t City, United or Chelsea has the greatest opportunity to do it (Guardiola’s winning the next 3 premier league titles after this season unless our manager really is a genius and legend) and to the surprise of no one we’ve been too busy being dickheads to be in the possible shake up. Getting Klopp was a coup of coups but other than that we’re an uncompetitive joke and have been – one exceptional season aside – for nearly 7 years now.
‘And Liverpool might win a bloody league title.’ Jesus Christ, we need to be fluking one soon. I’m going mad here.
Soz to post a comment that has largely nothing to do with what you were writing about btw, John. Interesting read and I find the vaguely socialist qualities of their ‘draft’ system oddly counter-intuitive for American sport. Especially when you hear they’ve made an actual talking point out of what adverts are shown during the super bowl.
If we are not winning the league, I couldn’t care less who is. It’s been like that with me since way back when !! Do I care if Leicester win it ? No . It’s not us. I’ll wait, yet again, for next season.
Red til dead.
I wrote a really long comment and then deleted it, but let me summarize.
#1 I’m not sure that you would really want anything that has to do with the way MLS/soccer is run in the US at nearly any level for a number of awful reasons (which requires a long, dull discussion of class, race, finances, distances, the history of the game in the US and who seemingly owns/controls the game in the US)
#2 A salary cap could be interesting theoretical discussion
#3 Fans in the US really don’t like to do anything about ticket prices (seemingly regardless of the sport) when they really, really, really, really should. (My MLS club has a section with a season ticket price of £1397 and that isn’t the most expensive)
#4 I supported the ticket price walkout by LFC fans 100% and hope to see the solidarity continue.
I’m a US LFC supporter and supported the walk out.
The US model isn’t socialism in the way you’re meaning I don’t think. It’s socialism for the owners, crumbs (even less for ‘college athletes) for the players, and crap for the fans.
It’s run more like a cartel than anything. Sure different teams win the Super Bowl but crap teams are never relegated. They’re rewarded even in the next year’s draft. Green Bay Packers is the only team with a model most LFC would support. They’re owned by the fans.
And the franchise system? Forget it. Think of the Wimbeldon FC to Milton Keynes debacle. That shit happens constantly here. Like Dallas Cowboys? They don’t even play in Dallas. They play in Arlington about 25 miles away. Before 2004 they were 18 miles away in Irving.
Think if John Henry moved LFC to Wigan because Liverpool (the city) and Premier League wouldn’t help him build a new/bigger/better stadium in Merseyside.
The craziest thing is that the socialist constructs of a lot of our (American) sports have been put in place mostly to control costs and help the owner profit. In many cases it also insures most teams have a shot at winning, which also helps profitability. But we’re just starting to get to a place where governments are refusing to use taxpayer money to build stadiums and help these owners make money…much less fans revolting over tickets.
Ironically, it’s partially the reason many fans who love the EPL reject MLS. They reject the league’s adherence to the salary structure of wider American sport.
Sorry that you lost subscribers, I think TAW is at its best when it provides a platform to discuss complex issues that in traditional media would be squeezed into 500 words or a couple of soundbites. Its only when you have complex issues fully explained can you form sensible opinions, its a pity TAW did not exist in its present form in the days of H&G. I thought you were all Boss on this
Emphatically yes.
I think the only way that the premier league could introduce a ‘fair’ system that might level the playing field would be to cap how much a club can spend depending on where they finished the previous season i.e if you finish first then the following season you can only spend 10 million net in the summer window, 2nd 12.5 million net, 3rd 15 million net etc. This could provide a graduated system whereby the ‘lesser’ clubs would be able to invest wisely to catch up.
It seems unfair that in theory, City could spend 150 million, win the league, then spend another 150 million to make sure they win it again, even though they already have clearly the best squad.
Even this probably wouldn’t work though, we are probably just stuck
with what we have. Although John has covered this point in the article, I do also believe that if you introduced salary caps here there would be a massive talent drain from the premier league, unless it was a FIFA/UEFA wide thing of course.
Interesting post.
I really enjoy the NFL but agree it is very like a cartel. I know we just had the “fans are not customers” discussion. However, there may be something we could learn about how some US organisations treat their customers. NFL fans do get a great product and there are loads of “off-field” interests to get engaged with such as the Draft, Fantasy Football, web content, off-season updates etc. They even get interviews straight after the game from the locker room. We could learn a lot from them.
On the ticket prices I can only think of Horse, Stable, Shut and Door. The price of going to matches went past obscene a while ago.
I don’t know if this is specifically about the UK but we do seem to have a RIP OFF Britain attitude here. A mate of mine used to buy cars in Europe and drive them back here as they were so much cheaper.
Football is not run by wise modern looking people. It is run by corrupt old crones. Look at how long they took to put a camera on the line in the World Cup. 1966 and all that. How many years later came 2010 and Frank Lampard. These old dinosaurs that run football don’t want change – but just to keep the status quo. Even the lame Financial Fair Play rules are designed to keep the status quo. Totally Lame.
With all the money and cameras in the Premiership I can’t understand how people expect three old middle aged men to officiate a match on their own. It is stupid and barbaric. It’s primitive. Surely we can have another few guys – surely the premiership can afford that?
I think most of the NFL cartel are profitable organisations and if they don’t make money they can just get up and leave their city. The salary cap and draft are designed to maximise profit and maximise competition. Unless you support a totally useless team like the Lions or Browns – you can and will have a winning season and get into the playoffs.
Football has so much money going into it I wonder where it all goes. It certainly does not go towards the fan experience or towards developing young players.
US Liverpool fan here.
A salary cap to increase parity just doesn’t seem necessary for you guys. Gotta keep in mind that over here in the States there is only ONE winner per season, hence why parity is so crucial. There are no league cups or North American competitions for teams to fall back on once they are out of contention in the main comp. The smaller clubs in England may not have any real shot at winning the league but there’s still hope coming from the other cups.