Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Sport, regretting the commercialisation of
Section F. Culture, education and sport

The influence of money in sport has long been present, but in recent years, the sums involved have risen exponentially. Gone are the days of local footballers earning small sums of money playing for a local team; in 2009, Real Madrid paid a whopping €98 million to sign Cristiano Ronaldo from Manchester United, while Lionel Messi’s contract at FC Barcelona sees him earning €34 million. Outside football, the money is in fact even bigger; boxers Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao earned US$85 million and US$62 million respectively in 2011. All of this also means that prices rise as well; a season ticket is now beyond the reach of traditional supporters.

Pros

[1] The commercialisation of sport directly harms the sports themselves. The team loyalties that were once a major factor in many sports have been replaced by modern transfers, by which sportsmen and sportswomen move from one team to another in pursuit of a higher salary. Some events are staged for purely commercial purposes, especially in boxing, where ageing fighters are brought out of retirement and mismatched against younger opponents. Other sports are under pressure to alter their rules to make them more ’watchable’. For instance, professional cricket is now dominated by the T20 version of the game, a shorter version for those with poor attention spans or limited time to spare.

[2] Commercialised sport is also bad for the viewer. As covering major events has become more expensive, rights to do so have been bought by subscription and pay-per-view channels; public broadcasting can compete only with the aid of state intervention, which is heavily opposed by sporting bodies greedy for more cash, leaving fans out of pocket. Coverage is in danger of becoming ever more revenue- led — football in particular is under pressure to become a game of four quarters to allow more advertising.

[3] Sportsmen and sportswomen simply do not deserve the inflated salaries they earn. For boxers such as Mayweather to have earned US$85 million in a year for just two fights is obscene when teachers and nurses are paid barely enough to make a living. The market is no longer paying what these people are worth; rather, structural problems in the market mean that sportsmen and sportswomen are systematically overpaid.

[4] The amount of money in sport damages competition, because only teams with enormous sums of money have any meaningful chance of being competitive; for instance, big-money takeovers of Chelsea and Manchester City have unbalanced Premiership football heavily in favour of a small number of wealthy clubs. That group is very hard to break into, and as that will only happen rarely, the sport will become more predictable.

Cons

[1] Far from harming sports, commercialisation aids them. With new money come better facilities and better training for sportsmen and sportswomen, allowing them to perform at their very best and fulfil their potential. Better competitors make for better events; therefore, increasing investment in sport can only be a good thing for the sports themselves. Although there are occasional abuses, the spirit of sport — and the desire to win on the field as well as with the bank balance — is as vibrant as ever.

[2] The extra money in sport is in fact good for the sports fan. Obviously, the more highly trained athletes result in a more exciting spectacle. Also, major sporting fixtures have become national events. For those dedicated enough to attend in person, expensive new stadia provide room for more fans in more comfort and safety than ever before; for others, well thought-out comprehensive coverage is provided on television and radio. Even though rights are increasingly bought up by satellite and cable channels, deregulation of the broadcasting market means that ever more people have access to these. Moreover, national governments can, and do, stop the sale of certain events to pay-per-view channels, to ensure universal access.

[3] Modern sportsmen and sportswomen deserve the money they are paid. Their activities entertain millions worldwide, yet their professional lives are often short. Recognition should be given to those who have given their all in pursuit of a sporting ideal, and who are often heroes to many members of the public. They also train obsessively all year round; it is not as though they are lazy or just lucky.

[4] In fact, large cash injections improve competition because they give previously unsuccessful clubs a means of challenging the dominance of the previous top tier. Chelsea’s takeover allowed the club to buy players who would never previously have joined the club, and so challenge Manchester United’s dominance over the sport.

Possible motions

This House believes that there is too much money in sport.

This House regrets the commercialisation of sport.

This House believes in the ’Olympic Ideal’.

Related topics

Capitalism v. socialism

Salary capping, mandatory

Performance-enhancing drugs in sport