Murdoch: how I changed football

[Media Boy UK]

Rupert Murdoch has recorded a 45-minute interview talking for the first time in detail in a TV show about how he has changed the face of British football with his Sky Sports venture.

The media mogul's thoughts will form the centrepiece of an hour long programme called How TV Changed Football Forever, which has been made by Victor Lewis-Smith's independent production company Associated Rediffusion for Sky One.

How TV Changed Football Forever will be "shown in the next couple of weeks" according to a production insider, after Sky decided to "parachute" it into the schedule, having landed the interview with the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation earlier this week.


Mr Murdoch's comments will dominate the hour-long show, which also has contributions from a number of leading media figures such as former BBC director general Greg Dyke, Sky Sports managing director Vic Wakeling, former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie and former Mirror editor Piers Morgan.

It is thought to have been the first time Mr Murdoch has spoken at length about the impact of his Sky empire on UK football, which has been flooded with cash and international stars ever since his TV empire started buying up exclusive live rights.

Sky Sports has held the live rights to the Premiership since its first season, 1992-1993.
For the full story see here: http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...103876,00.html

Info from Media Guardian.

[Stuart]

He did change it. Depending on your point of view, not necessarily for the better, as a lot of die-hard supporters have lost out because they can no longer afford to go to football matches because the increased amount of money available to clubs through sky has led to increased prices and wages for footballers amd therefore increased ticket costs.

Not everyone can afford £30 for 90 minutes of entertainment.

Changed - Yes, Better - No.

[orangebird]

Yeah. It's changed for the worse. It's no longer and beloved sport, but an overpriced business, with over inflated wages and egos to match. It's also priced a huge section of fans out from being able to watch and support their team. Brilliant!

[skyblueheroes]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Changed - Yes, Better - No.

Disagree, better in some ways.

The money had meant that clubs in this country are able to buy the best world players and compete with teams in France, Italy and Spain.

The bad point is that due to the monetary benefits clubs are gambling more and more and also pricing the average joe out of football for a more expensive corporate presence.

Course, the so called benefit of breaking up the Sky monopoly is also a farce. They claimed it would help the consumers, but why am I now having to pay for Sky + Sentanta.

I feel that I fall more out of love with the beautiful game with each season that passes.

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

He did change it. Depending on your point of view, not necessarily for the better, as a lot of die-hard supporters have lost out because they can no longer afford to go to football matches because the increased amount of money available to clubs through sky has led to increased prices and wages for footballers amd therefore increased ticket costs.

Not everyone can afford £30 for 90 minutes of entertainment.

Whilst i agree SKY has changed football in a bad way i dont see how you link this to increased gate prices. Surely if TV generates more cash there is no need to increase gate prices. The reason gate prices have increased is as you say is due to increased wages, however this has only happened because salaries are out of control and in the desire to get the best players the turnstiles have to generate more cash for the clubs. If there was no appetite to pay the ticket prices there would be a loss of support and wages would have to be lower to compensate. The trouble is wages will go up and up until some sort of capping is imposed or the league collapses because the minnows cant afford to survive.

[skyblueheroes]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Not everyone can afford £30 for 90 minutes of entertainment.

True, but its supply and demand. Obviously enough people can - which is why most clubs inflate the prices and sell out every week.

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by skyblueheroes

Disagree, better in some ways.

The money had meant that clubs in this country are able to buy the best world players and compete with teams in France, Italy and Spain.

We used to be able to do that before. The reason we cant any longer is because british players are no longer given the chance to perform week in week out at the highest level and hence why the England performances are consistently poor.

[punky]

TV is a major source of money for smaller clubs and lower leagues. Yeah the money should be issued more equally across the band, but the TV does significantly help clubs.

Football is a business, and will try extract as much money as possible from customers. That's the capitalist way. Its not all down to Murdoch. Issuing a brand new strip every year for no reason with no real changes (yes, Spurs, i'm looking at you), is just another example.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by skyblueheroes

The money had meant that clubs in this country are able to buy the best world players and compete with teams in France, Italy and Spain.

Even that may be a double-edged sword. Because the Premiere League clubs (well, clubs at all levels) are importing players from other countries, there isn't as much chance for the UK's own players to train.

[Acathla]

If the clubs spent half as much money in their academies that they do buying the 'best foreign talent' then they would have better British players, the national teams would be better and we would still compete with the other countries.

Murdoch made it a more of a 'quick fix' culture and less of a 'in it for the long term' culture.

Football and the money involved makes me sick sometimes

It has done me a favour, I no longer have anything to do with a money obsessed 'game' so intent on winning at all costs & completely devoid of anything resembling 'sportsmanship'.

[gazzae]

Due to FA rules clubs can only sign English players as schoolboys if they live in the catchment area round the club.
Players 12 and under must be living within an hours travelling distance from the club and players aged 13-16 must live less than 90 minutes away.

So if Arsene, for example, wanted to sign a 14 year old who lived in Liverpool he wouldn't be allowed but he would have no problems signing a 14 year old from France or Spain.

[skyblueheroes]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Even that may be a double-edged sword. Because the Premiere League clubs (well, clubs at all levels) are importing players from other countries, there isn't as much chance for the UK's own players to train.

Indeed, but the clubs same fans will not accept an underachieving UK dominated team instead of a team made up of foreigners.

Ask Chelsea fans if they would prefer a team full of British players and finish 12th every season.

Fans care less about England now than their clubs teams - thus their own clubs performance comes first - no matter who is playing in their side. This is what is hitting the England team.

Originally Posted by skyblueheroes

The money had meant that clubs in this country are able to buy the best world players and compete with teams in France, Italy and Spain.

That applies to a very small handful of rich clubs, usually backed by a millionaire, and is to the detriment of the vast majority of clubs.

Football in this country is now a joke - only about 3 clubs have a realistic chance of winning the premiership, and only a few have any real chance of winning the FA Cup (Since Wimbledon won in 1988, with two exceptions, all the winners have been either Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal or Chelsea - the exceptions were Everton & Spurs).