Is David James talking sense?

[Guest Texasmag]

He raises some good points in his column in The Observer. Worth a read.

 

I had a bad game: let me give you your money back

 

 

David James

Sunday March 4, 2007

The Observer

 

 

Travelling back from Blackburn last Sunday, I wasn't the only miserable face. Portsmouth had put in a woeful performance - I dropped a couple of clangers - and several of us began a conversation about reimbursing the supporters' club. At first I thought the lads might think: 'Oh that's Jamo being wacky again,' but they agreed with me. It's not often that footballers talk about empathy for the fans and really mean it. We were reflecting on their experience of the day - it was a Sunday evening and to get home that night would have been an early-hours job. Never mind the cost of travel.

 

It's a dangerous subject, reimbursing the fans. Most footballers would be wary of broaching it, worried they'd end up with a postbag asking for cheques every couple of weeks.

It was a dismal 3-0 defeat at Ewood Park, but at least the fans brightened up the day. They make all the difference. At 2-0 down our supporters were singing: 'We're all going on a European tour.' I think I detected a hint of sarcasm. The Blackburn end was quite full and they were giving me grief about my shorts being too tight and all that 'England's No 1' stuff. I saved a penalty, turned round and cheered at them. We may have been three goals down, but I like a bit of banter.

 

You can't have that without fans - and the doomsday prediction is for ever decreasing crowds. TV channels are due to screen live more than a third of all Premiership matches again next season, and ticket prices have reached saturation point. More and more fans are choosing the cheaper, more convenient option of staying at home to watch football on TV. The way things are going, you'll be able to sit at a bus stop and watch your team play 90 minutes live on your phone in a few years.

 

The biggest bone of contention seems to be the rising price of tickets. Last weekend, Manchester United fans were charged £45 for an obstructed view at Fulham. Clubs have spoken out on the subject, but there is a question mark over whether players will follow. Could Ryan Giggs have shown his loyalty to the fans and joined the Man Utd supporters' protest? The old saying 'Don't rain on your own parade' comes to mind. As soon as a player gets involved in the debate, people are likely to say footballers should take a pay cut. Because we're all earning £50,000 a week, right? I wouldn't be so sure.

 

It might be easy for me to say I don't mind a pay cut. I've earned a good living out of football over the years, but what about younger players? And anyway, how many people in other industries would be willing to do the same? Football is entertainment and if a pop star earns £10million a year for singing about shooting people, why should footballers be reproached?

 

Perhaps the solution is performance-related pay. Then at least fans would know they were getting their money's worth. Some players do just play for the money and when it gets a bit windy or a bit tough they can't be arsed. They don't care how much the fans are paying. You get players who refuse to leave a club and spend their time haggling over the bonuses they think they should have. You see them moping about the training ground and you think to yourself: do everyone a favour and go. They are the minority, but if those in that minority are on £2m a year, that's costing the clubs a lot of money. That's my other bugbear: football is one of the worst run businesses in the world. There are shocking deficits, shocking spending - and the fans are paying for it.

 

The price of a ticket isn't the sole reason for falling attendances. Have a look at the fixture list - it's ludicrous. This season we've played Middlesbrough home and away on Monday and Tuesday nights; in total we've played five long-distance non-Saturday Premiership away fixtures. The average fan would end up taking a day off work, maybe a day and a half, for long journeys to a midweek game. You're killing the fan. It's not just the cost of the ticket, it's lost earnings.

 

Then factor in the cost of transport. Why don't we have a better system linking clubs, supporters and rail or coach companies? The fixture list comes out each June, clubs could help supporters to book a train carriage or coach at heavily reduced prices. We had 2,000 unsold tickets for the Man Utd FA Cup game and the cost of travel was no small factor in that. With a bit of cooperation, the rail bosses could make sure no engineering works are carried out and clubs could start selling match tickets with transport included - like they do in Germany. A cost option could be to include discounts on hotels and local attractions so that parents could take the whole family up to the game and make a weekend of it.

 

The other problem is the predictability of the league. Fans have had enough of mediocre teams playing mediocre football with the same old rhetoric about how well they're going to do next season. Manchester City are a prime example. The first season they were in the Premiership, their average gate was 200 fewer than capacity for the whole season. Year after year it has dropped by a thousand or two. Is that because it's on TV, or is it that because people are tired of paying to watch teams in the bottom half of the table?

 

When I was 15 and choosing between a football career or trying to make it in athletics, there were a number of factors in my decision - aside from the previously mentioned £24.50 apprenticeship wage. One of my concerns about football was the violence on the terraces. I kept thinking that football might not survive the decade, it might get banned. But football adapted. Today, we might have reached saturation point when it comes to ticket prices. So let's hope a solution will evolve to the issue of falling attendances, and once more football can adapt and move on.

 

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,,2026271,00.html

[Syrette]

Superb article from a football man I've always had respect for.

[Guest Morph]

He is a canny guy like.  Loved it when we played them this season and he had that stupid fucking hair cut.

 

[pedro111]

Good article, he's always seemed a canny bloke, if a little eccentric.

[Guest anthony118]

Agree - good article, and it would have the added bonus of Michael Ballack never getting paid.

[Guest Saint Andy]

I wonder how Luque would feed himself?

[Guest Knightrider]

He's always struck me as someone with a good attitude, I think he'll get into the business side of the game when he retires, or will one day own a club, I know he thinks footballers should do more for their clubs outside of playing football for it. There was a canny interview with him on John Barnes' Football Show a few months back, seems a canny bloke.

[Guest TheKingOfNewcastle]

Great article, some cracking ideas. Shit keeper.

[Lloydie]

Don't know why but I used to think he was an idiot - must have been the hairdo as I can't remember him saying anything I thought was daft - that, and some of the other stuff he's written for the Guardian has really changed my mind though.

 

Think I'd agree with all of it. Especially this bit...

 

That's my other bugbear: football is one of the worst run businesses in the world. There are shocking deficits, shocking spending - and the fans are paying for it.

[Northern Monkey]

A well written piece, that.

 

Does anyone know who actually wrote it?

 

Fair play to "Jamo" (snigger) for putting his name at the top of it though.