The most popular sport in the world: football. What else?! Huge games and salaries to match. But is it really as glamorous as we think? We may see some top players receiving a salary per week that most people can’t hope to come close to in a year, but players at Portsmouth have had to go without their wages on three occasions, as the club entered financial strife. It is these high salaries that prevent many clubs from breaking even, let alone making a profit. Whilst a lack of salary to footballers is a rare occurence, the football industry isn’t the money-churning machine that it appears to be.
We’re used to seeing full stadia and fans decked out in their club’s regalia, so surely football clubs are awash with money? But things aren’t so rosy. Research published by the Centre for the International Business of Sport at Coventry University in 2008 revealed that clubs in the top four tiers of English football between the 2001/2 and 2005/6 seasons made an aggregated loss of more than £1bn. In addition, 56 clubs in the English leagues went bankrupt between the Insolvency Act’s introduction in 1986 and June 2008.
We’ve seen a number of buyouts of clubs in recent years by extremely wealthy families. The Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005, yet this buyout and many others are heavily leveraged and servicing their debts is now proving a problem. Whilst some clubs publish annual profits, it doesn’t mean they are without debt. Manchester United, defending champions of the English football league, earned profits of £48.2 million in the 2008/9 season, but its debts are estimated at around £700 million. The club received a loan of £509.5 million and had to pay £41.9 million in interest.
The owners of Chelsea and Manchester City have recently converted £340 million and £304.9 million of loans into equity respectively. Financiers, however, say this is simply “moving money from their left pocket to the right”. Manchester City reported a massive loss of £92.6 million for the 2008/9 financial year. Unfortunately for them, these figures ignore outlays since May 2009 for Carlos Tevez, Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Adebayor. Portsmouth’s £7 million share of TV revenue has been diverted directly to other clubs to whom they owe money for transfers.
So, how much of a money-maker is football? Well stadia are still full and it’s certainly growing in popularity in Asia. Premier teams are now appreciating how much money can be made out there by selling television rights. However, in 2008 the FA chairman Lord Triesman still estimated that English football debts stood at £3bn. With all this debt, are there any positives? Just one – at least it’s less than the UK’s public debt!
Abu-Dhabi family reduce debt for Manchester City Campden FB (7/1/10)
Manchester City post massive loss BBC News (6/1/10)
What a waste of money – the Premier League’s best paid flops Guardian, Jamie Jackson (10/1/10)
Portsmouth players still not paid as Premier League expresses concern at crisis Telegraph, Paul Kelso (6/1/10)
Paying by the rules The Lawyer, Adam Plainer (11/1/10)
Jacob unimpressed by fan protests Press Association (11/1/09)
Cardiff City to face winding up order BBC Sport (8/1/10)
Debt swap is ‘window dressing’ The Independent, Nick Clark (7/1/10)
Manchester United aim to raise £500m in bond sale in bid to reduce mounting debt Telegraph, Mark Ogden (11/1/10)
Chelsea debt wiped off by Roman Abramovich but club still record loss Telegraph (30/12/09)
Manchester United to raise £500m BBC News (11/1/10)
Cristiano Ronaldo saves Man-Utd – Again Sky News (11/1/10)
Tony Fernandes and David Sullivan vie for control of West Ham Telegraph, Jason Burt (16/1/10)
One thing at Manchester United isn’t going downhill – their debt Guardian, David Conn (6/1/10)
Premier League looks to cash in on Asia BBC News, Guy de Launey (29/12/09)
Questions
- Why do footballers receive such high wages? Illustrate why wages in the Premier League are so much higher than those received by players in non-league teams. What’s the key factor?
- What is debt swapping?
- In the Independent article: ‘Dept swap is Window dressing’, what does it mean by (a) window dressing and (b) debt swap is ‘moving money from their left pocket to the right’?
- How can a club such as Manchester United record a profit, but have substantial debts?
- What is leveraging and why is it a problem for some football teams?
- How will an issue of bonds enable a football club to refinance its debt?
- What opportunities does Asia present to English football?
With banks around the world revealing massive profits and huge bonuses, governments are getting increasingly uneasy that their bailouts have lined the pockets of bank executives. Not surprisingly voters are demanding that bankers should not be rewarded for their reckless behaviour. After all, it was taxpayers’ money that prevented many banks going bankrupt during the credit crunch.
Banks, of course, seek to justify the bonuses. If you don’t pay large bonuses, they maintain, then senior staff will leave and profits will suffer. It’s nothing to do with ‘morality’, they claim. It’s the market. ‘If you don’t pay the market rate, then executives will leave and take higher-paid jobs elsewhere.’
So are governments calling this bluff? In his pre-Budget report in December, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, announced a 50% tax on bank bonuses over £25,000. This was followed by an announcement by Nicholas Sarkozy that the French government would impose a similar 50% tax on bonuses over €27,500.
Then in mid January, President Obama proposed a tax on financial institutions with balance sheets above $50 billion. This would be levied at a rate of 0.15 percent of certain assets. But this was not a tax on bank bonuses, as favoured by the British and French governments, nor a tax on financial transactions – a type of Tobin tax – as favoured by Angela Merkel (see Tobin or not Tobin: the tax proposal that keeps reappearing). Nevertheless, it was another way of recouping for the taxpayer some of the money used to rescue banks and prevent a banking collapse.
So is this payback time for bankers, or will it simply be bank shareholders that suffer? And why can banks pay such large bonuses in the face of so much public hostility? The following articles explore the issues.
To leave or not to leave: the supertax question Financial Times, Patrick Jenkins and Kate Burgess (9/1/10)
French tax to raise €360m Financial Times, Scheherazade Daneshkhu and Ben Hall (13/1/10)
Oversized bank bonuses: classic case of overcharging The Business Times (Singapore), Anthony Rowley (15/1/10)
Obama vows to recoup ‘every dime’ taxpayers lent banks Belfast Telegraph (15/1/10)
Obama outlines $117bn bank levy (including video) BBC News (14/1/10)
Obama lays out his proposal to tax big US banks Sydney Morning Herald, Jackie Calmes (16/1/10)
Obama’s bank tax will only work if there’s a master plan in place Telegraph, Tracy Corrigan (14/1/10)
Turning the tables The Economist (14/1/10)
Obama’s bigger rod for banks BBC News, Peston’s Picks, Robert Peston (14/1/10)
Will Obama’s tax go global? BBC News, Peston’s Picks, Robert Peston (15/1/10)
Darling: I won’t do an Obama and tax the banks Scotsman, Eddie Barnes (16/1/10)
Obama tax is only the beginning of the banking Blitz Telegraph, Edmund Conway (15/1/10)
Bank taxes edge closer to the real target Guardian, Dan Roberts (15/1/10)
Questions
- Compare the incentive effects on bankers of the British, French and US measures discussed in the articles.
- Why does the ‘market’ result in high bank bonuses? Where does economic power lie in the market?
- Assume that you hold shares in Bank A. Would you welcome (a) high bonuses for executives of Bank A; (b) a tax on bank bonuses; (c) a ceiling on bank bonuses; (d) a tax on certain bank assets? Explain.
- What insights can game theory provide for the likely success in clawing back bank bonuses without doing damage to the economy?
- Consider whether Obama’s tax will “go global”.
You can hardly have failed to miss the snow! From children sledging to cars skidding and from being snowed in from work to being snowed in at work. In the UK, it only happens once in a while and when it does, life practically comes to a standstill. Why is this not the case in countries such as Norway? Well, one way of looking at it as that they’re used to it and have tried and tested methods of dealing with it and the investment to match. As we suffer from these severe conditions only once in a while, any significant investment in improving our ability to deal with it could be considered a waste of money.
However, many businesses affected by the snowy conditions will certainly not see it this way. Transport links have been disrupted: roads closed; trains stopped; airports closed; tunnels blocked and sports fields unplayable. The worst affected city centres have been deserted and retailers have subsequently suffered. Even if shoppers had made it to the shops, they may have found many of them closed, as staff struggled to make it in to work across the country. Office workers were being advised to work from home where possible and off-duty medical staff that could make it in to work were covering for those that couldn’t. Even emergency services were said to be going out only to life threatening situations.
Small businesses are suffering from declining sales, as deliveries cannot be made. Farmers too are facing major problems. Thousands of livestock are being frozen to death and many animals are without food, as farmers simply can’t get to them, suffering from snow drifts that have been up to 4 feet deep across Scotland. These are the worst conditions that some areas in Scotland have experienced in 50 years and they’re expected to continue for some time. Cattle farmers in the UK are also facing wasting thousands of litres of milk, as lorries find they cannot access the farms. This could simply mean pouring all this milk down the drain.
Estimates suggest that this cold winter could cost the UK economy £14.5bn in total from lost business. Daily costs will be about £690 million – certainly something that we don’t need in the current climate – financial that is! The following articles look at some of the problems faced across the UK. Read them and then think about the questions below.
Hundreds stranded as Eurostar train breaks down in channel tunnel again Mail Online, Peter Allen (7/1/10)
UK snow freezes transport links and thousands of schools (including video) Guardian, Peter Walker and Steven Morris (6/1/10)
Snowed in, out of pocket. Store staff face a wage freeze Guardian, Caroline Davis and John Stevens (6/1/10)
Livestock being frozen to death in their thousands Scotsman, Frank Urquhart, Alastair Dalton and Mark Smith (7/1/10)
Heavy snow damages business for hospitality industry Big Hospitality, Becky Paskin (6/1/10)
UK’s snowy winter could cost the economy £14.5bn Metro Reporter (7/1/10)
Business leaders criticise school closures BBC News (7/1/10)
Snow puts business continuity plans to the test Computer Weekly, Warwick Ashford (7/1/10)
Freezing weather will cost Welsh economy £25m a day Western Mail, David James (7/1/10)
Snow brings chaos – and beautiful scenes Cotswold Journal (7/1/10)
Local firms count the cost as the big chill continues Belfast Telegraph (7/1/10)
Is snow actually good for the economy? BBC Magazine, Anthony Reuben (15/1/10)
Businesses affected by bad weather BBC News (8/1/10)
Questions
- How have businesses been affected by the snow? Is opportunity cost relevant here?
- How is a cost of £14.5bn calculated? (See the article from Metro Reporter.)
- What are the arguments (a) for and (b) against more investment in techniques and equipment to combat these type of conditions?
- Why are pay freezes a possibility for some staff? Illustrate and explain the likely effects of this policy.
- Some shops have seen record sales in this snowy weather, with their shelves completely empty. Which shops would you expect to be in these circumstances and why? (See news item, A new concept for you – Thermal elasticity of demand)
- Which sector of the economy do you think will be the worst affected and why? Which sector’s losses are likely to have the biggest consequences for the UK economy?
“As snow sweeps the country, the UK has coped in the way it usually does – with surprise, confusion and chaos.” Not only have the transport authorities in many areas struggled to cope, but individuals too have been caught out. Many have rushed to stock up on things such as blankets, fires, de-icing equipment and warming foods.
But why does Britain cope worse than many other countries? Should more resources be diverted into keeping roads, airports and rail lines open? And how have individuals responded? How much have they stocked up on a range of cold-weather items and why? The linked article looks at these issues?
Why can’t the UK deal with snow? EU Infrastructure, Timon Singh (6/1/10)
Questions
- Does it make economic sense for the UK to invest relatively little in snowy-weather infrastructure?
- How should a local authority decide whether or not to (a) buy an additional gritting lorry; (b) increase its stock piles of grit? How would risk attitudes affect the decision?
- Why might a lower proportion of people get to work in the recent snowy weather than in equivalent weather 20 years ago?
- How might you define a ‘thermal elasticity of demand’ for a product, where the determinant of demand is the temperature?
- What factors determine the thermal elasticity of demand for a product? How is the short-term elasticity likely to be different from the longer-term elasticity and why?
- What would you need to include in measuring the full social costs to the economy of the cold spell?
In 2010/11, government funding for UK universities will be 7 per cent less (£518m) than in 2009/10. This has led to calls for substantial increases in student fees in order to stave off a serious funding crisis for many universities. One such call has come from David Blanchflower. As the first article below states:
“A leading economist has called for students from well-off families to be charged the ‘market rate’ of up to £30,000 a year to go to university. David ‘Danny’ Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, said the “poor have been subsidising the rich” for too many years.”
But just what are the arguments for and against a substantial rise in fees and who should pay any rise in fees? Should it be only students of very well-off parents or should it include middle-income parents too? Or if student loans are available to cover higher fees, why should not the same fees apply to all students? Then there is the question of who benefits from a university education? How much should external benefits be taken into account?
Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year Observer, Anushka Asthana and Ian Tucker (27/12/09)
A rise in fees would make university education fairer Observer (27/12/09)
Who wants a two-year degree? Independent on Sunday, Richard Garner (27/12/09)
Briefing: University funding Sunday Times, Georgia Warren (27/12/09)
Universities face £500m cut in funding Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (22/12/09)
The nightmare before Christmas: grant letter announces £135m cut Times Higher Education, John Morgan (27/12/09)
Fast-track degrees proposed to cut higher education costs Guardian, Polly Curtis (22/12/09)
Questions
- Why is the government planning to make substantial cuts to university funding?
- What are the arguments for and against the university sector bearing a larger percentage cut than most other areas of government expenditure?
- Should any rise in fees be born by parents or by students from future income?
- Identify the external benefits from higher education? How does the existence of such externalities affect the arguments about the appropriate charges for higher education?
- What are the economic arguments for and against moving towards more two-year degrees.
- Discuss the case for and against increasing the participation rate in higher education to 50 per cent of young people.
- Is higher education a ‘merit good’ and, if so, what are the implications for charging for higher education?