Historically, the sport of #Football has been regarded has the past-time of the every-man. The rags to riches stories of our greatest heroes have captivated us throughout the ages and made the game an equalizing power in post-war society. Supporters of the game originally came from working class backgrounds. The game's clientele make a significant contrast in class to the upper-middle class supporters of the more physical rugby football union. This twenty-two man sport with grown men on a field chasing a piece of cow skin has captivated millions over the years and does not seem like stopping anytime soon.

Football's humble beginnings make it look like a stranger to it's present form.

Advertisements
Advertisements

The same game, but with different environment, has had money been injected in astronomical amounts over the years. Initially, there were transfer fees being commanded for players being exchanged between clubs. Big-money takeovers have also become the norm in a sport where wealth has become the ulterior motive of many involved. Players, backroom staff and board members are regularly challenged because of the skewed proportion in their salaries to the workload they undertake.

It is fair to say, if there is so much money being spent around the sport, the money going to the players who are carrying out the manual labour of keeping it all runing is either justified or undervalued. Without their input, there would be no fixtures to bet over, no named shirts to buy and definitely no point in going to stadiums because there would be no game.

Advertisements

I am not specifically questioning the players by this article, but the consequences of the "socialist" game's capitalist gains.

Television deals and numerous zeros have become the norm for high caliber teams in today's game. European leagues, in an effort to boost their quality of play, have set up broadcasting deals with large digital broadcasting companies. For example, In the UK, BSkyB hold the lion-share of rights to Premier League games and have done so for the large part of the past 25 years. The remaining sum of games are shared by other digital channels such as ESPN and BT Sport. These gigantic deals have financially made the Premier League the strongest and most competitive in the world but at a price the sport may begin to regret.

Keeping live games on pay-by-subscription television has caused a decline in their viewership. A majority of would-be viewers are put off by Sky's dominance and its exorbitant pricing that they are more likely to only decide to watch major league games outside at a pub or stick to watching weekly 'Match of the Day' highlights via terrestrial television.

Advertisements

So much for a socialist sport.

This attitude is also being seen in other European countries. In Italy, Sky ITALIA, hold rights to each game and just like in the UK, non-satellite viewers can only watch a select few Champions League Games live.

Fans of football teams are no longer as strongly affiliated to their teams. Their teams are no longer tribes that they would fight a trash talking opposing fan for; why would they be? The game is becoming more and more exclusive to those who are willing to pay for overpriced subscription packages and avoid the painstaking experience of ever-buffering online streams.

Would it be a better idea to move some of the live programming back to the broadcast channels?

Would it help the sport in winning over the children of non-current sport fans? #Finance