Quality vs Quantity: Are we watching the Premier League and Formula One reach their limit?

A few months ago, I wondered aloud whether holding major sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup on a more regular basis would be a good idea. I decided that other than it working nicely from a commercial perspective, it was a bad idea. 

News stories floating around during this festive period have pointed towards two of the most talked-about sports in recent weeks - at least in the UK - reaching their limits. What’s going on, what are the potential ramifications, and how do I see it ending?

Good news! COVID-19 might save the Premier League from itself

It’s ironic that in a week that has heard Premier League managers complain of the intense schedule for players, Manchester United played their first game in sixteen days. English football finds itself in a difficult position. Teams are committed to league games, the two domestic cups and European club competitions (between which players might play for their country). Annoyingly, COVID outbreaks mean that clubs cannot play due to a lack of players. 

English football is unusual in Europe’s top leagues in two ways: it has no winter break and still has two domestic cup competitions. Yes, it’s great to watch loads of games, but if the games cannot be played, delaying them will undoubtedly lead to further flooding downstream. Klopp and his Manchester City rival, Pep Guardiola, have used the same word to describe the impact of the high workload players face. Guardiola says it’ll ‘kill the players’, and Klopp says it’ll ’kill the beautiful game’. Either way, the top league in world football is at a crossroads and must make changes to continue its success. 

You may scoff at this. Football players are paid extraordinary amounts and have world-leading medical science on their side. True. But they are human, and we all need breaks. While COVID outbreaks this winter will probably cause issues later in this season’s schedule. Hopefully, the problems will be so much so that it leads to positive change to help sustain the Premier League’s position as number one globally.

It’s not just the superstars that suffer

COVID-19 has meant that F1 has done 39 races in 18 months, which is a lot. Once again, the pandemic has highlighted issues in the sustainability of the sporting setup.

Autosport published a fascinating article last week that gave an insiders’ perspective from an anonymous mechanic in F1, speaking of the mental and physical challenges faced by team members during a gruelling season on the road. F1’s desire to increase the number of races on its calendar and increase competition through cost caps has led to team members with the most demanding jobs working more without getting much more in return. 

The result is that more team members than ever are giving up on the sport that they love. Like the Premier League, F1 is considered the pinnacle of motorsport and thus, attracts the best in the business, leading to more greatness. If the demands of the sport start to drive the best in the world away, these competitions may find themselves in a dangerous and vicious circle. 

Are changes coming?

The first episode of Netflix’s Drive to Survive is named ‘Cash is King’. That might help give us an answer to the above question. The leaders of a sport will make decisions based on money because they are businesses. Call me a pessimist, but it’s true. There must be a way in which positive changes can come. For example, intelligent decision-making could allow for more sporting events to lead to more employment, with greater rotation of people avoiding widespread burnout.

I don’t claim to have all of the answers, but as long as these leagues are considered the best and have the best people involved, they will continue down this path of quantity. As soon as the quality starts walking away, no longer wanting to play, that is when changes will come. But by then, it may be too late. The people that made the league what it was are no longer there. 

The European Super League may not have been as far-fetched as it initially sounded.

Sustainability in sport is vital for a whole host of reasons. It is also crucial that we push the limits and change sports to make them even better - that is what all great entertainment businesses must do. However, if we can learn anything from the last two years, it is this: sports must know their limits or risk losing it all. And that’s easier said than done.

Happy New Year from everyone at AJontheLine.

Should the Olympics and World Cup take place more often?

Gary Lineker recently tweeted an interesting thought that many have probably had a few times during the summer of an even year (unless there's a pandemic). Should the Olympics and Football World Cup take place on a more frequent basis? 

Utilitarianism is the idea that since humans gain happiness from having certain things, increasing that utility would lead to greater happiness. In our case, Lineker seems to apply this logic to say that since we all seem to enjoy World Cups and Olympic Games, we will surely be better off for having more of these events. While one national treasure might think this, I thought I should consider it from a few different perspectives. Here are my results.

Athletes 

Surely, this is a shut and closed case - players want to play. 

On the one hand, yes. These major sporting events are the most significant moments in athletes' careers. To have more opportunities to compete on the world stage is certainly an attractive opportunity. If an athlete doesn't win or has an injury one year, they don't have to wait as long to have another bite of the cherry. It also means that there is a higher chance of seeing a team or individual at their peak. Many athletes in the Olympics make most of their money through the Olympics, meaning that more Games will likely increase athletes' income.

On the other hand, you have to consider the well-being of athletes. They'll be knackered if they compete throughout the year for their clubs and then for their countries in the summer. Yes, I know it's their job, and they get paid well to be trained for these events, but everyone needs a break and some time with their family.

I sense then that opinions of athletes will be divided. If that is the case, you may have a situation where some athletes don't compete in certain years. Would that take away from the majesty of the events? Potentially. 

Clubs

This is an easier one. We learned more about what clubs really wanted when some of the biggest ones tried to break away with the European Super League. The players they employ are their assets; why would they want them to risk injury while playing for their country in major tournaments? They wouldn’t. I suspect it would be a similar situation for most sports clubs. 

I imagine, also, that for sports without clubs, other competitions, such as the Athletics world championships, will likely oppose the idea that the Olympics may take priority.

Governments 

Countries host major sporting events to promote the nation in the form of soft diplomacy. More of these events mean that more countries can tell the world how great they are and invite them to visit. Naturally, governments will be onboard. 

Except will they? Major sporting events are costly to put on, and they are not always politically popular within the country. The Olympics cost Japan an estimated $15.4 billion. This sort of spending by hosts often results in taxes increasing alongside debt to compensate. 

Major sports events are therefore controversial from a political perspective. In a world where the narrative is perhaps more important than the numbers, possibly more governments would be up for the idea.

Sports fans

I suppose that the general feeling among sports fans will be that of Gary Lineker’s - the more, the merrier. 

However, we will never know the actual perspective of fans until the frequency of major events is increased, by which point, it’ll probably be too late. The biggest issue will be whether events feel as special as they do now. Fan satisfaction will be directly proportional to athlete involvement. If the superstars don’t turn up, neither will spectators. I can also imagine that, due to the expense, the fans that travel to every tournament will be less able to afford to travel the world as frequently. If the fans don’t go to the stadiums, the profits for the host nation will be less handsome. But does the high interest in Tokyo 2020 on television, despite a lack of capacity crowds, show that fans may still be interested in global sporting events with fewer live fans? Maybe. I think it would be a considerable risk.

Football-wise, I think we are set with a World Cup and then a Continental Cup every two years, but I could see another Olympic Games being a success. A Winter Olympics might be good, where winter sports are competed instead. Oh, wait… 

My Verdict

I believe that the way things are is perfectly fine. These major sporting events are special, and I don’t see a reason to change that. What I do think, though, is that more sports being added to the Olympics and increasing the length of the Games would bring even more interest. Naturally, I am drawn to motorsport being added, with track racing in the summer and rallying in the winter. I also don’t know why Cricket, American Football or Squash aren’t part of the schedule either. What else am I missing?

Also, you’ve got the Commonwealth Games, which are essentially a semi Olympics, so adding more would be frankly mad.

Never mind all of that, though. It’s easy to point out the flaws. The Olympic Games left us wanting more, and that’s a true sign of a successful summer in Tokyo. 

Leave a comment below to let me know what you think - should we have more frequent Olympic Games and World Cups?

I reckon I’ve fixed European football. Here’s how.

Last week, some businessmen that fancied a new yacht and thought that they could help themselves to the soul of the world's biggest sport to pay for it. The football world quite understandably erupted with rage for two days before declaring itself victor. 

The European Super League (ESL) was a PR disaster but the reality is that the problem won't go away. Fear not -  I think I've got the solution to the complicated, controversial and cherished crossword that is European football. Hear me out.

What is the European Super League?

The general premise of the ESL is for the biggest brands in European club football - and Tottenham - to create their own league. Big matches between the world's best every week. As interested as I am in watching West Brom beat Chelsea, I can't deny that Manchester United against Barcelona is a better sell for an increasingly global audience. So from the perspective of a punter in New York or New Delhi, the ESL sounds pretty appealing. The subsequent driving factor for the project is that clubs will make a lot more money each season - some reports say almost double that of the Premier League champions.

From what I can tell, there are three significant problems with this cunning plan.

Firstly, many football fans live close to their clubs and go to the games when there isn't a pandemic on. As has been said multiple times, the fans make sports what they are. For instance, I couldn't really enjoy the game between Aston Villa and Manchester City as much as the enthralling Australian Rugby game I watched this morning. Why? The atmosphere of a generator reminiscent of a supermarket dairy aisle is incomparable with the roar of a crowd in a caldron of joy. The ESL relies on fans travelling from country to country on a weekly basis to make the spectacle any good. In a time where many are struggling financially, few of the proper can afford to travel to Newcastle away, let alone Turin. 

Secondly, European sports are generally based on the principles of meritocracy. The proposed ESL would see the founding clubs protected from relegation and the remaining slots invitation only. That goes against more than a century of football's pyramid system in which anyone can dream of reaching the top. This notion is essential for our definition of sport and the fans, but also for the government, which deem meritocratic sport as crucial for keeping the public happy.

The final reservation surrounds the funding of smaller football clubs and the grassroots of the sport. Without the interest and money brought to football by the most prominent teams, smaller clubs wouldn't get the funding from the leagues to continue. This wouldn't just make the FA cup a lot shorter; it would erode the community feel that local football clubs can generate all aground Europe. Without sport, we would hardly feel identity, and that’s sad.

Let’s make the Champions League a league

The ESL, in its current format, is clearly unfit for purpose. But the reality is that the problem won't go away - clubs are owned by businesses that want to make money, and the money-making matches are the big team clashes. The football governing body UEFA know this too. Why else would they be trying to reform the champions leagues setup?

If you ask me, though, UEFA's proposed changes to the Champions League are not radical enough.

The Champions League should be a competition for the top two clubs from each European national top league. These top two teams wouldn't get involved in national league competitions but continue competing in national cup competitions such as the FA Cup. This means that the teams would have the time to play every team once. The Champions League finals would then see the top 16 clubs doing a knock-out stage to decide the champions.  

The top club from each nation would stay in the Champions League while the other, irrelevant of their league position, is relegated back to the Premier League (or equivalent top tier national league) with the top national league champions promoted.

To be clear, those in the Champions League would not play in the top national tier because otherwise, the fixtures would be impossible. The financial advantage of the Champions League competitors, as we see today, would also give them an edge over their opponents. So domestic competitions such as the FA Cup would be more competitive.

The Big Picture

Before you become trigger-happy with the keyboard, let's consider the significant concerns and adapt European football to the economic pressures that will continue to push for change.

The priority is the fans. I stand by the issue that fans may have in travelling to various parts of Europe to see their team play. It is undeniably an issue. However, it will only impact two clubs per nation, which will earn more from the Champions League. Surely some of those funds can go into subsidising away fans' ticket prices. Also, half of the games will be at home, hence, accessible to local fans. Sport is nothing without its supporters - there will be a solution to ensure fans remain number one be that through subsidies or other means.

My suggestion does meet the criteria of most of the complaining fans to whom I've spoken. Promotion and relegation maintain a connectedness between the top and bottom of each national pyramid - anyone can still make it to the top, and long may that continue. The relegation of the lowest-performing national team will also generate greater intra-nation competition, adding a new dimension to 'local rivalry'. 

Connectedness between the top and bottom means that the money made from 'big games' in the Champions League can be invested in the grassroots while engaging a more global audience. Doing so will tangibly achieving what the ESL said they would without the need for exclusivity. Uneven finances are probably the biggest issue in football. The Champions League already pays bonuses to more 'historic' clubs, irrelevant of their success. A similar story was the case in F1, with teams like Ferrari receiving loyalty bonuses. Last year, though, F1 tightened its belt and made the prize money distribution fairer. To save football from tripping over its trousers again, it should follow suit, with larger clubs making small sacrifices to help their rivals and the wider sport survive.

Most of the football world agree that changes are required. While the ESL was not the right way to go, the game needs to jump soon or risk being left behind. By no means are my ideas perfect - where there are winners, there are inevitably losers. Of course, the winners should be the fans, and I believe that these changes do exactly that.

Let me know what you think in the comments below.