The Price of Football Survey by the BBC

[dejavuatbtn]

There was an interesting article in the Mail on Sunday where it reckoned the Emirates require 3826 support staff to run a match.
I find it really strange that with the amount of money we are all paying to Sky that there isn't enough money in the pot to keep ground ticket prices under better control. Unfortunatley most of the dosh goes out of the game to players and their hangers on - not that players don't deserve to be well paid, but another thread talks about why we love our club. My origins go back to a time when players got the bus to games and they were much more part of the local community. OK, maybe the players weren't as good as today, but the enjoyment I get in watching the Albion hasn't changed in that time. It's all relative. We have seen a lot of good times and bad times - but we all see it through, as evidenced by the struggle to get the Amex.
I would still put a cap on wages and transfer fees. I do fear that the bubble will burst one of these years and the proximate cause will be Murdoch.

 

[Gwylan]

Why should footy be cheaper than opera? They can show Opera every night, no need to rest the staff. And is Opera always cheaper - looks like it's twice as expensive if you want to go to the royal opera house this week.

This is not really a thread about opera but it should be a lot more expensive. Opera singers have to rest - they couldn't perform every night. THere's also an orchestra and chorus to pay for - there are getting on for 200 people performing in an average opera compared to 22 at football.

There is no opera this week but just checked the ROH and ENO sites for September: cheapest ROH tickets are £8 and ENO are £19.

Yes, these are subsidised but opera has made a concerted effort to attract more people, they've been lowering their prices over the last decade or so - the exact opposite approach that has been taken by football.

 

[Badger]

The most expensive day out in Scotland?

Hibernian of course

 

[Brovion]

Yes, mainly because supporters boo and throw their toys out of their prams when their team doesn't win every week, they demand the big signings and the success. How many supporters have turned on managers etc. over the years which has led to the reduced lifespan of managers in their roles. The pressure comes from the stands in the first place.

Indeed. And although it's a bit off the topic for this thread when a club gets into financial trouble people always say "it isn't the fans fault". Well indirectly - yes it is. Not in all cases obviously but the shit doesn't just hit the fan by itself; you look at a lot of the cases of clubs in trouble and it's presaged by clubs 'investing' in players often under pressure from supporters who demand success and a constant upward trajectory. No chairman is ever criticised by the fans for spending too much on the team. Then of course other clubs overspend to keep up and the financial problems are transmitted from club to club like a virus.

 

[yorkshire seagull]

The trouble with that theory is that three of the six most expensive teams (of the ones who have completed their details) are Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool. Two of them have the longest serving managers in the PL and Liverpool fans (Hodgson aside) have traditionally been very loyal to their managers - the other three in the top 6 are the teams who have just gone up and you can't blame them for wanting to cash in a bit.

They're not though, are they? Man U are coming in comfortably mid-table in the expense league, whilst teams like Chelsea are just pandering to the corporate attendees rather than the families.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Not getting into the arguments, but great bit of journalism by the bbc. Kind of thing usually done by 442/When Saturday Comes. Nice to see the license fee being used for something proper and interesting.

 

[piersa]

i pay £20 a match as a sth and i am very happy with that, represents decent value imo.

 

[trueblue]

Not getting into the arguments, but great bit of journalism by the bbc. Kind of thing usually done by 442/When Saturday Comes. Nice to see the license fee being used for something proper and interesting.

It's not a great bit of journalism really though is it? The way it's done is so simplistic that it can be no more than a very rough guide to what people are paying. Presumably if Albion had made 50 £10 seats available we'd be towards the top of the list. Regional variations in prices generally also have a huge effect and in the south only Watford stand out as being priced substantially better than Brighton in these figures.

Neither does it take into account factors such as the very cheap tickets available for young children at The Amex. It would be interesting to know, for instance, how much it would cost a parent to take 3 kids to a game at some of the 'cheaper' clubs. Do they offer the same concessions? Possibly but we don't know from this survey.

All it actually tells us for a fact is that for a 'casual' adult supporter the prices are higher than all but four clubs.

 

[Drebin]

It's hard to compare prices now to what they were when players were paid less and 'took the bus to the game like the rest of us' because there is so much more prize money and tv revenue to be had.
More players have 'profiles' now which attract tv, and having a slightly better team than other clubs in your league earns you a lot more prize money than clubs maybe only a few places below in the league. This means buying players slightly better than those at similarly placed clubs can pay big dividends and as a result those players are in a position where they can demand a large salary.
This cost goes over to the fans, who want the better players, and therefore pay for them.

The exception to all this is when you get a talented manager who can build a team that is better than the sum of it's parts.

Sorry, i rambled a bit there.

 

[Triggaaar]

This is not really a thread about opera but it should be a lot more expensive.

Well it's a thread about the cost of football, so comparing it to other forms of entertainment is inevitable.

Opera singers have to rest - they couldn't perform every night.

Opera singers rest, but can perform at least as much as football players. Others involved in the opera can perform more frequently.

THere's also an orchestra and chorus to pay for - there are getting on for 200 people performing in an average opera compared to 22 at football.

22 at football? No ref, no linesman, no 4th official, no subs, no managers or assistant managers, no physios, etc etc.

There is no opera this week but just checked the ROH and ENO sites for September: cheapest ROH tickets are £8 and ENO are £19.

There are performances at the roh every night this week, and any half decent seat is twice the price of the Amex (anything under £55 has restricted view etc).

opera has made a concerted effort to attract more people, they've been lowering their prices over the last decade or so - the exact opposite approach that has been taken by football.

Perhaps that's because opera was too expensive to attract enough people, whereas football was cheap and has increased in price to pay for (among other things) the nice stadiums that are now available (you're no onger allowed to pack a standing terrace with fans, which was a cheaper way of doing things).

It's not like football club owners are making a fortune from us poor fans, lots of club owners aren't making anything from their club, instead they're spending their personal money.

 

[Brovion]

Well it's a thread about the cost of football, so comparing it to other forms of entertainment is inevitable.
Opera singers rest, but can perform at least as much as football players. Others involved in the opera can perform more frequently.
22 at football? No ref, no linesman, no 4th official, no subs, no managers or assistant managers, no physios, etc etc.

There are performances at the roh every night this week, and any half decent seat is twice the price of the Amex (anything under £55 has restricted view etc).

Perhaps that's because opera was too expensive to attract enough people, whereas football was cheap and has increased in price to pay for (among other things) the nice stadiums that are now available (you're no onger allowed to pack a standing terrace with fans, which was a cheaper way of doing things).

It's not like football club owners are making a fortune from us poor fans, lots of club owners aren't making anything from their club, instead they're spending their personal money.

Those are all valid points, but I still agree with the essence of Gwylan's argument: if you'd told me thirty years ago that football would be as or more expensive than opera, I'd have laughed in your face. "How will ordinary people be able to afford it?" I would have said.

 

[Drumstick]

In the North Stand I'm paying £17 pound a game to watch Championship football, Now for the stadium and the players we've brought in that to me is pretty good value, Thanks 1901 for subsidising me.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, these are subsidised but opera has made a concerted effort to attract more people, they've been lowering their prices over the last decade or so - the exact opposite approach that has been taken by football.

so where is football to get its subsidy from? no doubt there would be a cry about the Sky money being spread wider, but then there arent 92 professional operas and orchestras, and they dont have to support the costs of stadia either. i would note that northern clubs with low attendences do lower their prices for individual games and kids etc.

 

[Gwylan]

22 at football? No ref, no linesman, no 4th official, no subs, no managers or assistant managers, no physios, etc etc.

I was talking about actual performers - even if you include the officials, there's still a big discrepancy

Perhaps that's because opera was too expensive to attract enough people, whereas football was cheap and has increased in price to pay for (among other things) the nice stadiums that are now available (you're no onger allowed to pack a standing terrace with fans, which was a cheaper way of doing things).

It's not like football club owners are making a fortune from us poor fans, lots of club owners aren't making anything from their club, instead they're spending their personal money.

Yes. If you like, opera gets public subsidy, while (most) clubs are subsidised by their owners.

I don't think it's true to say that opera couldn't attract people in the 70s and 80s - I remember packed auditoriums when I first started going. What has happened though is that there has been a debate as to whether an art form that gathers so much public subsidy should restrict itself to less than 1% of the population. There have been many initiatives to make opera more accessible - wider range of pricing, live relays, Sun promotions etc - football hasn't addressed that at all. Quite the reverse in fact.

There's also the influence of player power - they can demand more and more money - while opera performers have scaled down their demands, the days of the prima donna getting her own way seem to be dead or dying - that's made a difference to pricing too.

I don't want to get bogged down as to whether opera is or isn't more expensive - the average price of an opera ticket is going to be more expensive than the average football ticket (although only just, I reckon) the real issue, as Brovion says, is that 30 or 40 years ago, the idea that you could go to the opera more cheaply than going to the football would have been completely ridiculous. I remember asking to go when I was about 11 and was told that it was something that was not possible for people like us - how times change.

 

[Bold Seagull]

They're not though, are they? Man U are coming in comfortably mid-table in the expense league, whilst teams like Chelsea are just pandering to the corporate attendees rather than the families.

Since the Glazers took over, what is it, 5 or 6 seasons ago, MU have won 4 league titles, a European Cup (got to the final twice more), 3 league cups, and their prices put them among Norwich, West Brom, Sunderland, Everton. Is the Glazer ownership turning into that classic Life of Brian sketch...What have the Glazers ever done for us...

 

[Triggaaar]

if you'd told me thirty years ago that football would be as or more expensive than opera, I'd have laughed in your face. "How will ordinary people be able to afford it?" I would have said.

But I can't see where opera is as cheap as football? Can you post a link to a couple of seats (not a link where it says 'prices from', but actual decent seats, that are cheaper than the Albion.

I was talking about actual performers - even if you include the officials, there's still a big discrepancy

You're looking at 25 players in a squad - you can't argue that the managers etc aren't performing (they're often the highest earners) and you can hardly have a game without all the officials. Not that any of that matters, it's simply about entertainment, supply and demand. How many people are prepared to pay how much to see the show/game. Whether it takes a cast of hundreds or just a few to entertain you doesn't really matter.

There have been many initiatives to make opera more accessible - wider range of pricing, live relays, Sun promotions etc - football hasn't addressed that at all. Quite the reverse in fact.

I don't understand your point. Opera is known to be inaccessible, football is very accessible.

There's also the influence of player power - they can demand more and more money - while opera performers have scaled down their demands, the days of the prima donna getting her own way seem to be dead or dying - that's made a difference to pricing too.

That's because only one team can win the league each year, while there's no reason why all operas can't be successful. Both players and singers will get what they can for performing.

the real issue, as Brovion says, is that 30 or 40 years ago, the idea that you could go to the opera more cheaply than going to the football would have been completely ridiculous.

This thread is about the price of football - is it too expensive to go to a footy game - I don't think so (no worries if you disagree). The fact that opera has become cheaper is good, although (particularly given the subsidies) not that relevant.

 

[Gwylan]

This thread is about the price of football - is it too expensive to go to a footy game - I don't think so (no worries if you disagree). The fact that opera has become cheaper is good, although (particularly given the subsidies) not that relevant.

Is it too expensive to go to a footy game? No. I have my season ticket for the Albion and will go every fortnight. But there are plenty of people on here who do think it's expensive - I didn't go to the Spurs game because I wanted my first experience of the Amex to be a full stadium but there were several people on the thread who said they wouldn't go because of the cost so it is an experience.

EDIT. Just seen this on the plastics thread.
"I do however know an Arsenal fan that watches every game though streams. He knows what he is talking about and can name pretty much any player past or present - and even pops along to youth matches. He hasn't missed one in years and yet can only afford to go to the Emerites 3 or 4 times a year because it's so damn expensive. That's a shame."

When I left college I spent several months on the dole, I still went to football regularly though as it was cheap. I wonder how many unemployed people are prepared to pay £24 to watch the Albion every fortnight. That's the point I'm making: football has got more expensive and I really don't think it's cheap entertainment any more.

It's also worth pointing out that the cheapest ticket at Glyndebourne (which receives zero subsidies) is £20 - cheaper than the cheapest Albion ticket. I'm not quite sure why it's not relevant to compare football with the cost of other entertainment - I'd have thought that it was very relevant.

 

[Triggaaar]

But there are plenty of people on here who do think it's expensive - I didn't go to the Spurs game because I wanted my first experience of the Amex to be a full stadium but there were several people on the thread who said they wouldn't go because of the cost so it is an experience.

Yeah I thought the Spurs game was a bit pricey for a friendly, although it was to open the stadium. I couldn't miss it.

When I left college I spent several months on the dole, I still went to football regularly though as it was cheap. I wonder how many unemployed people are prepared to pay £24 to watch the Albion every fortnight. That's the point I'm making: football has got more expensive and I really don't think it's cheap entertainment any more.

Lol, no, it's not really cheap enough for those on the dole to have a season ticket. But the games you went to when you were on the dole were not in a £100m stadium. I love our new stadium, and I don't mind paying a little extra to be there (of course I loved the Goldstone, it was our home, but the footy experience will be better at the Amex).

It's also worth pointing out that the cheapest ticket at Glyndebourne (which receives zero subsidies) is £20 - cheaper than the cheapest Albion ticket. I'm not quite sure why it's not relevant to compare football with the cost of other entertainment - I'd have thought that it was very relevant.

I agree that it's relevant. I think the fact that opera has got cheaper isn't so relevant, but the current price of different forms of entertainment is relevant. I just looked at the Glyndebourne, and I can get a rubbish seat with high chair and restricted view for £17. Not really comparable. More like £36 for a cheap seat with a view.

 

[Gwylan]

Lol, no, it's not really cheap enough for those on the dole to have a season ticket. But the games you went to when you were on the dole were not in a £100m stadium.

Which is very relevant... and yes, if football had been a bit more expensive then maybe stadiums wouldn't have been so dilapidated.
We might even still have had standing (another factor to bear in mind).

I agree that it's relevant. I think the fact that opera has got cheaper isn't so relevant, but the current price of different forms of entertainment is relevant. I just looked at the Glyndebourne, and I can get a rubbish seat with high chair and restricted view for £17. Not really comparable. More like £36 for a cheap seat with a view.

I was thinking of the £20 standing ticket which I've had before, gives a pretty good view (not sure I'd want to stand through a 5-hour Wagner opera though) and is great value for money. The standing option is not open for football of course but I do feel that football didn't fight hard enough for this. The clubs saw seating = premium pricing and didn't resist at all. Of course, the increased revenues has gone straight to the players so that was useful for them.

I know there are a 1001 factors why opera is different from football but, speaking as someone who has been going to both forms of entertainment for some years, I have seen opera houses make concerted efforts to keep costs down and broaden its appeal. I honestly couldn't say the same about football clubs.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The clubs saw seating = premium pricing and didn't resist at all. Of course, the increased revenues has gone straight to the players so that was useful for them.

Wow, now that is a cynical look at the Taylor Report which gave the clubs little choice to be fair, and published at the start of 1990, was way before the game was awash with money from Sky and the international commercial money that bought in. After the Heysel, Bradford, then Hillsborough, I don't think there was any question that stadiums needed modernising and fast.