Chief of Staff to the Owners @FC Versailles | Sports Investor & Operator | Ex-McKinsey, Private Equity, Toulouse FC
100% agree with this FT column. Top-class football should be a rare and valued event. Football calendars are already packed, with over 50 games per season for top players. Player injuries are increasing. Yet we keep overcrowding the calendar: ?? The UEFA Euros have expanded from 16 to 24 national teams. ?? UEFA Champions League and Europa League are expanding next season from 32 to 36 clubs. ?? FIFA’s World Cup in 2026 will grow from 32 to 48 teams. ?? And FIFA's Club World Cup will involve 32 teams next year in the US. Great reminder in the column as well: the world's top sports league, the National Football League (NFL), involves 32 teams playing only 17 matches each per season - they latest media rights deal is worth $113 billion over 11 seasons. Value <> Volume. Stop this madness and keep football scarce! Financial Times
Interest points. Would you say the same about NBA (82 regular games), NHL (82 regular games), MLB (162 regular games)? Then NFL is a league, not an international competition. I don’t disagree with you that creating scarcity in football would increase value and revenue. This is likely true. Would the fan be happier though? Would the standard of play increase? Is anyone unhappy with current standards of play in these tournaments? Conversely does the lack of jeapordy in the large majority of MLB, NBA, NHL games render them occasionally less appealing or exciting to watch than their football counterparts? I think potentially so I don’t disagree with your message, I just wonder if the expansion of international tournaments is negative. Clubs could drop their preseason tours to reduce load for example?
But doesn't the volume lend itself to massive monetization in sports betting ? That revenue helps drive those rights value up. I'm not arguing against your point, just thinking through the impact I agree too, but is it possible to scale back without the impact ?
More football games per season mean less time for recovery and practice, which in turn translates into worse performance and more injuries. Also, every high-end clash becomes way more thrilling if it just happens once or twice a year; that is why Bar?a-Madrid friendly matches in summer are not a very good idea in the long run. Scarcity is indeed a virtue!
It's like a Jenga tower. It always seems like you can take one more... :)
Totally agree with your position but worth noting that the NFL (having gone from 16 to 17 games a year ago) is trying to add an 18th regular season game in its next labor deal….and would gladly expand more if not for the devastating impact on player welfare.
Scarcity: I mentioned it to one of the top executives of UEFA back in 2009 at the SPORTEL Monaco and mentioned the same economic rule (tempted to say basic rule) no longer than this week at the FIFA plage to a top football representative at the Cannes Lions festival of creativity.
Leagues and federations should be really careful. Not only are they breaking players, but also jeopardizing the business mode?
Sam Helmy interesting that it’s an expansion of games and not clubs thereby making owners the beneficiary!
Private Equity Principal at Coral Tree Partners
4 个月I’ve felt for a while that the NHL / NBA (and many other leagues) could cut a meaningful portion of its games and it would be better for fans (beyond the most die hard) and players. Scarcity value has a clear benefit to the NFL. While I don’t think any other sport will ever quite benefit from this event-based scheduling dynamic, certainly less games would probably equate to a more meaningful viewing experience and I hypothesize more viewership per game. Unfortunately I don’t think that the media partners would pay similar values for rights to less games unless there was a demonstrated in increase in viewership per game to offset the total volume impact (seems highly unlikely). When you factor in sports betting and other revenue streams that are largely driven by volume, I think crowded / over-extended schedules are here to stay, save for the LIV example where it feels like more of a prestige play than a sound financial decision.