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”.
It’s one of a declining number of UK-owned industries still left in the UK: Cadbury. However, over the past few years, mergers have become the norm and Cadbury looks set to become the next. Kraft, an American food giant, has been interested in taking over Cadbury for some time and this topic was covered on the Sloman Economics News Site at the beginning of September, when we considered Kraft’s bid of £10.2 billion. (see Cadbury: Chocolate all change). Since then Kraft shares have dropped in value and so Kraft’s current bid is now worth less: a hostile bid of £9.8 billion. This has been refused by Cadbury’s Board of Directors, calling it ‘derisory’.
From the time that Kraft’s bid was formally submitted, the stopwatch begins to tick. A 60-day period is allowed under the ‘takeover code’ which is in place to protect shareholders without resorting to a date in court. Following Kraft’s bid, Cadbury share prices immediately fell, but then began to recover as the implications became clearer. Other companies mentioned as potential rivals include Nestlé and Unilever, although, given Cadbury’s recent boost in sales, Unilever has said that it is no longer interested. So, what does the future hold for Cadbury? Will it be the latest in a long line of British companies to leave their UK owners?
Kraft’s Cadbury takeover bid will set 60-day timetabling ticking Guardian, Jill Treanor (9/11/09)
Kraft plays long game in Cadbury pursuit Reuters (9/11/09)
Cadbury rejects hostile Kraft bid BBC News (9/11/09)
Kraft facing 5pm deadline in battle for Cadbury Guardian, Julia Kollewa and Elena Moya (9/11/09)
Strong sales rise boosts Cadbury BBC News (21/10/09)
Cadbury rejects £9.8bn hostile bid from Kraft Guardian, Julia Kollewe (9/11/09)
Kraft may offer more cash in bid for Cadbury Telegraph, Amy Wilson (4/11/09)
Paulson raises Cadbury stake Guardian, Nick Fletcher(11/11/09)
Unilever rule out Cadbury bid as sales beat forecasts Telegraph, Amy Wilson (5/11/09)
Cadbury’s fight for independence BBC News, Edwin Lane (24/12/09)
Questions
- Kraft is looking to expand by taking over Cadbury. What type of takeover would you classify this as and what do you think Kraft’s motives are for this takeover bid?
- If Kraft is successful, what are the likely advantages and disadvantages for (a) consumers of Cadbury chocolate; (b) shareholders of Kraft; (c) shareholders of Cadbury; (d) competitiors?
- Cadbury has said that the £9.8bn bid was ‘derisory’. How will Kraft have decided on the price it’s willing to offer and what factors are likely to influence this?
- John Paulson has raised his stake in Cadbury by purchasing another 6.3m shares. What effect do you think this will have on Cadbury’s share price and why? Does this make the takeover by Kraft more or less likely?
- Is there a role for the Competition Commission in this possible takeover? If so, why; and if not, why not?
- Cadbury has reported a boost in sales. What effect will this have on the takeover bid from Kraft? Why has this sales boost caused Unilever to pull out?
To mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, the BBC World Service commissioned a survey across 27 countries to gather people’s views about capitalism and whether it is working well. The findings are striking. Only 11% felt that it is working well. “Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary. There were also sharp divisions around the world on whether the end of the Soviet Union was a good thing.”
The following articles look at the detailed findings of the poll and consider its implications for the functioning and reform of the world economy.
Global poll: Wide dissatisfaction with capitalism 20 years after fall of Berlin Wall BBC Press Office (9/11/09)
Free market flawed, says survey BBC News, James Robbins (9/11/09)
Wide dissatisfaction with capitalism, years after fall of Berlin Wall Dawn.com (Pakistan) (9/11/09)
Capitalism confronted with growing doubts Global Times (China) (11/11/09)
The fall of the Berlin wall – Pt 1 (video), The fall of the Berlin wall – Pt 2 (video), Al Jazeera (on YouTube), Riz Khan (9/11/09)
Column : Why Berlin was a win for all of us Financial Express (India), Lord Desai (Emeritus Professor, London School of Economics) (9/11/09)
The real lesson of 1989 is that nothing is ever settled Guardian, Seumas Milne (12/11/09)
The Wall fell and hope rose – for a while Otago Times (New Zealand), Andrew Rawnsley (10/11/09)
New name for a new economy? BBC News, Stephanomics (13/11/09)
Questions
- What are the alternatives to free-market capitalism?
- Do you agree that “however flawed free-market capitalism is, it is still the best of all systems”? Explain your answer.
- In what ways does free-market captialism fail to provide the optimum allocation and distribution of resources?
- What forms can government intervention take to influence markets?
Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson shared the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics (and a prize of $1.4m) on Monday for their work on how economic transactions operate outside markets in common spaces and within companies. Their work includes topics such as the free-rider problem and how this can lead to a sub-optimal over-consumption of a resource. Their work also considers economic governance and how this has led to the increasing popularity of outsourcing for companies.
Despite the prestige of a Nobel Prize, there have been suggestions that a Nobel Prize in Economics should not have been awarded this year, given the inability of economists to predict the financial crisis and mixed opinions about how to prevent another one in the future. What do you think?
US duo wins Nobel for economics Financial Times, Chris Giles (12/10/09)
Two Americans win Nobel economics prize MSNBC, Associated Press (14/10/09)
What this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics says about the Nobel Prize in Economics The New York Times, Steven Levitt (12/10/09)
Humbling year for bickering economists Financial Times, Alan Beattie (11/10/09)
Questions
- What is market failure and how does the free-rider problem fit in?
- Do you think economists were at fault for not foreseeing the financial crisis?
- Do you think that the research of Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson was deserving of the Nobel Prize and how important is their research in the context of economic theory?