Can anyone make any sense of this?

It is my controversial opinion that the money that has been put into the game by SKY has spoiled it. The game was once entertainment for the working man, but the money introduced by SKY has made it a rich man's game at the top levels. It has brought investment into the game, but once again, that money has gone into the pockets of the few. The best players have undoubtedly benefited and they end their careers as multi-millionaires, but there is now a huge gap beneath the top level of the sport, and it is a gap that is hugely difficult and expensive to bridge. It is this gap that has changed the fans. The business principles used by the owners of BFC were once the principles used at every football club. Every club was funded by it supporters and when that was not sufficient, by player sales. But now there is more pressure from supporters to bridge that gap, to chase that pot of gold, to push FFP to its limits and invest more money than makes financial sense in order to make that step up. That investment will make sense to many, but it comes with risks that I personally find unacceptable. It comes with the risk that if the investment does not bear fruit, and most of it does not, then the football club will be put into Administration, and Administration is a place that is not worth the risks.

Frankly, as an old timer, I preferred the game when it was poorer because it was fairer then and FFP was not needed to ensure owners did not try to nudge the scales of fair competition in their direction through the use of their personal fortunes. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back time, and we have to rely upon a slow and unworkable FFP system to attempt to balance the scales, but frankly, without SKY the game would not have divided into the haves and have nots in the way that it has.

 

I don't think there is anything controversial about that. I think those of us old enough to remember football before 1992 would be mostly in agreement with you that money has ruined a good part of the game.

You still had clubs flexing their muscle, attracting talent due to being successful but that success was earnt and not paid for.

 

completely agree

 

The current environment was created by rich owners to get richer. Was supported by a media wanting similar returns, who pushed the narrative over and over that it would be to the benefit of game and national team. That it would clean up the game, remove racists and hooligans.
The Premier League pushed up wages and transfer fees everywhere. Many well run clubs in Europe who were big names are now insignificant. Many top European leagues can no longer compete. How many Premier League clubs now have feeder clubs? The team top of the Belgian league is a feeder for Brighton. Let that sink in.
UEFA and FIFA don't mind they'll be getting their cut.

 

You'll struggle to find a more corrupt organisation than FIFA.

 

I agree with much of this, but as we all know we have to inhabit the world we live in, not the world as we would like it to be. They do say that many of the big-hitter entrepreneurs went financially bust before achieving their respective breakthroughs. Football is clearly not immune.

The other thing is the chain which traces back through Sky money being accepted to fund a game of all-seater stadiums, which was a response to Hillsborough, which was (as well as being the fault of negligent actors) partly caused by fencing-in supporters, which was a result of football hooliganism across many years. Maybe Sky would have found a way in in any event, but as it was, these factors all played in.

 

Don’t think the principal of what you are saying is wrong, but I would put Alan Sugar right up there to blame.
He was the one who tipped SKY off of ITV bid and told them to ‘blow them away’.
Let’s not forget Sugar also had a huge vested interest in SKY winning.
I’ve no doubt the money would have kept growing, but at least it would have started from a more realistic base.