The Financial Situation (48 Viewers)

[Emmet]

Apparently the league has made it's TV deal, 980m euros per season for 3 years, then if they reach over their targeted 1.040m euros per season, then they will extend the deal for a further 3 years. Pittance compared to what the EPL gets.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Trequartista]

The EPL is always gonna have an advantage due to language.

 

[Emmet]

The new deal is only 80 million more per season than the current deal though

 

[ZoSo]

does juve get more/same/less share?

 

[Zacheryah]

Wouldnt it benefit us if we manage to get the top 10 clubs a significantly better share then the bottom 10, cause 1 money, and cause 2 they'd be very happy to loan out youngsters

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Wouldnt it benefit us if we manage to get the top 10 clubs a significantly better share then the bottom 10, cause 1 money, and cause 2 they'd be very happy to loan out youngsters

No because we'd move closer to another La Liga situation.

Proportional and fair TV revenue sharing is the best way to distribute the money. Gives the lesser clubs more of a chance to compete. Look at the EPL for example.

 

[Vlad]

Wouldnt it benefit us if we manage to get the top 10 clubs a significantly better share then the bottom 10, cause 1 money, and cause 2 they'd be very happy to loan out youngsters

Reduce the league size from 20 to 16 teams; you'll get relatively more quality games and absolutely more money for everyone.

 

[Zacheryah]

But less games played

I would assume they calculate their payment on the number of gamez

 

[Vlad]

You have random product for instance in large quantities, but lousy quality because more garbage materials are being used; what price can you set? Suddenly you decide to produce less products with the same amount of quality materials, but reduce those junky ones. Logically you can expect to achieve higher price and eventually compensate decrease in quantity of goods. So in theory reducing supply (Serie A games), offering spectators less games like Livorno-Chievo might increase anticipation and overall quality, which in the end could lead to higher prices of tickets and TV rights. Well, that's what I tend to believe.

 

[Lion]

who gonna pay more for tickets when over 60% of italian population is unemployed and country is broke?

 

[Fint]

Fint trying to get back on topic.

Haven't you got sandwiches to make?

Yes, the Dow was up 129 points today. Good news for Juventus.

Fantastic, thanks

 

[Buck Fuddy]

You have random product for instance in large quantities, but lousy quality because more garbage materials are being used; what price can you set? Suddenly you decide to produce less products with the same amount of quality materials, but reduce those junky ones. Logically you can expect to achieve higher price and eventually compensate decrease in quantity of goods. So in theory reducing supply (Serie A games), offering spectators less games like Livorno-Chievo might increase anticipation and overall quality, which in the end could lead to higher prices of tickets and TV rights. Well, that's what I tend to believe.

Why would Sky (or any other channel) pay the same amount of money for 30 week(end)s worth of football as they would for 38? 8 weeks of programming less to sell & more importantly, 8 weeks less of advertising revenue.
Sure, you'd have less "Livorno-Chievo" games, but you'd also have less "Livorno-Milan" & "Juve-Chievo" games, which do get the necessary attention, etc.

Higher attendances also remains to be seen. You can't predict it imo. Attendances have more to do with which teams are in a league as opposed to how many teams there are. And while the Belgian league may not be a good example (because there was a major overhaul a few years ago), less teams actually led to a decrease in attendance for all teams (except 2, if I'm not mistaken). A few years ago, basically every big game was sold out, along with quite a few of the other games. Today, a sell out game is an exception.

As for less supply meaning higher prices, that's only theory, isn't it? And it may work for certain products or when you can create a hype, but I don't see it happening in Italian football tbh.

Besides, reducing the league to 16 teams means decreasing the amount of games by about 20%. I don't see how a club like Juve can (short term) increase ticket prices by at least 20% to cover the difference.
Looks to me like we're already at the max, more or less.

Which we saw this season: home against Lazio - not sold out ; home against Milan - took quite a while to sell out. But home against Catania & Genoa (for example) tickets were sold out within hours, if not minutes.
A strange, but important detail if you ask me.

 

[Deep C]

Haven't you got sandwiches to eat?

word

 

[Vlad]

Why would Sky (or any other channel) pay the same amount of money for 30 week(end)s worth of football as they would for 38? 8 weeks of programming less to sell & more importantly, 8 weeks less of advertising revenue.
Sure, you'd have less "Livorno-Chievo" games, but you'd also have less "Livorno-Milan" & "Juve-Chievo" games, which do get the necessary attention, etc.

Higher attendances also remains to be seen. You can't predict it imo. Attendances have more to do with which teams are in a league as opposed to how many teams there are. And while the Belgian league may not be a good example (because there was a major overhaul a few years ago), less teams actually led to a decrease in attendance for all teams (except 2, if I'm not mistaken). A few years ago, basically every big game was sold out, along with quite a few of the other games. Today, a sell out game is an exception.

As for less supply meaning higher prices, that's only theory, isn't it? And it may work for certain products or when you can create a hype, but I don't see it happening in Italian football tbh.

Besides, reducing the league to 16 teams means decreasing the amount of games by about 20%. I don't see how a club like Juve can (short term) increase ticket prices by at least 20% to cover the difference.
Looks to me like we're already at the max, more or less.

Which we saw this season: home against Lazio - not sold out ; home against Milan - took quite a while to sell out. But home against Catania & Genoa (for example) tickets were sold out within hours, if not minutes.
A strange, but important detail if you ask me.

Just a theory Buck, and I believe we had similar discussion sometimes before.

Why would sponsors pay more for less weekends of football? Why would anyone in fact pay more for anything in less quantity? Quality is one of the determinants of the price, but along the line I'll mention few others. My assumption is basically that with less teams you would get more quality product, that is certain as I previously explained; then you have fewer games being aired which could mean more competition for that particular advertising space and this might even lead to increase in amount of funds televisions get.

And yes I'm counting on hype as well, media instead of constantly trying to drag calcio through the mud, would need to sacrifice part of journalism, sensationalism specifically, restraining themselves from bombastic headlines which have sole purpose that for an extra few copies diminish calcio's reputation and to work along with the authorities for greater good. Idealistic.

Then you have people's expectations as another factor and very important one, as we have numerous examples in economy when government's actions, more specifically reducing or increasing money supply, send certain signals to the market and people form expectations accordingly.

Now, this is just a theory, calcio part, but they indeed have plans to reduce the league size in the following years, so we'll see how much of an improvement it will bring, but notice how the gap between the teams increased in the last few years. Those bottom table sides have never been weaker, at least since I've been watching calcio.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

But who decides what is or isn't quality? I, for example, think the Italian has been improving over the past 2-3 seasons.

My assumption remains that the teams that make are part of the league (history, fanbase & whatnot) are far more important, than the simple number of teams.
And that has nothing to do with quality. Up until a few years ago, in terms of quality, Napoli was extremely far inferior to Udinese for example. Yet a league of 20 teams including Napoli but not Udinese would draw a lot more interest than a league of 16 with Udinese instead of Napoli would.
And you can come up with many of these examples, both in Italy and abroad.

Personally, I don't really care much about how many teams we have in Serie A. But I am against the idea of change for the sake of change, when there are a shitload of other, far more important issues to deal with in Calcio. Reducing teams also always seems to be something only the big clubs want and I don't know if I should consider that as a good sign.
I've also never seen the quality of a league increase by reducing the number of teams. But that's obviously entirely subjective.

In terms of the financial aspect, who knows? But, as a sidenote, almost all clubs want less teams & less games in the CL. And the powers that be decide against that idea. So either less games, more money/interest doesn't apply to the Champions league, or the people in charge are convinced less games means less money...

As for your point about the media. It's not idealistic, it's flat out impossible

 

[Vlad]

Teams in question would be less prestigious than Napoli or Udinese for instance. I'm talking about 2-3 of those that have very little or no business at all to compete in Serie A, except for filling up the quota, like previously Novara, Lecce, Siena regardless of their history. You can probably make a case for any team out there that they have the rightful claim to compete in Serie A, but what what do they bring from financial point of view? Those teams attract relatively small crowd on a match day, not more than 10k averagely, overall they have small fan base, difficulties to find an adequate sponsor or to meet financial obligations... Let's say Juve were to play 4 games less per season, that is in total 5M euros earned less on a match day, surely we can compensate that amount in some other way, but having more time for players to prepare for the European competition and at the same time reducing the risk of injuries, which by the way is significant one considering some of the venues out there, is beneficial, etc..

I'm not advocating the change for the sake of it, but it is rather that I don't see anything valuable that those teams bring to the table, in fact I can see more positives without them; further more I would reduce the number of professional clubs across Italy, because there simply aren't enough funds for that many of them, market is not big enough to support around 90 professional clubs.

The top 7-8 clubs at the moment in case of this kind of change would hardly have any trouble of confirming their Serie A status. I'd say that Juve, Milan, Inter, Napoli, Lazio, Roma, Fiorentina are absolute pillars of this competition, with Parma, Sampdoria, Genoa and Udinese trailing behind, while the others are simply replaceable and their absence won't be missed.

As for the quality it really is a simple; you remove few lesser teams and relative quality of the competition is increased. You can even calculate that one.

 

[j0ker]

I'd rather watch Juventus - Chievo than no Juve game at all.

 

[Ragazza]

word

So you modified a kitchen joke into a fat joke. I see what you did there.

 

[icemaη]

I'd rather watch Juventus - Chievo than no Juve game at all.

This.

 

[Vialli_92]

Can someone explain where all this debt came from?