This can be extended to all other sports. A sport needs to be easy to follow and easy to advertise with to get funding. Being able to practice it cheaply on a grass-roots level helps.
wouldn't have as much funding, sure, but football was massively popular long before they started putting logos on shirts & hoardings.
If there was less money involved in football, then the likes of the free-to-air stations would be in a better position to compete to show more matches, too
The sport, or the franchise?
And that’s bad because… I’m really asking. What’s the good thing about having millionaires running around a field passing a ball to each other, while billionaires are raking in even more cash by manipulating you with adverts? Not to mention all the other issues with the industry (John Oliver has multiple episodes on FIFA).
If the sport wouldn’t be as popular without marketing, maybe it isn’t that interesting to being with.
I mean, you're not really, considering everything that follows that statement.
The money in sports allows for people to focus on it and perform at the highest levels possible and compete against others who also have this same focus. Advertising is what allows for this to happen.
People, in general, enjoy seeing athletes do things that most normal people could not achieve. Watching the Tour de France, reading about ultramarathons, etc is enjoyable. The same thing is true with musicians, actors, artists, etc. I may not be interested in, say, eight string guitars, but I will still find it fascinating to see someone who has mastered the instrument.
The fact that these athletes are paid so well is a good thing. They are getting a significant share of the revenue they generate, at least in American sports where the revenue is more or less split evenly with the teams. That was not the case decades ago.
Erling Haaland gets half a million a week. His contract is worth £260m.
These guys take the money because it's on offer to them, and fair play to them.
But I don't think they'd decide not to play football and go off to do something else if he were to "only" get, say £5.2m over 10 years instead (£10,500 per week).
I am. Everything that follows is merely the negatives I see to provide context as to why I’m asking. It’s there so you can understand my point of view and rebut it. If we don’t know each other’s views, we can’t convince each other.
> The money in sports allows for people to focus on it and perform at the highest levels possible and compete against others who also have this same focus. Advertising is what allows for this to happen.
And my point is that I don’t think the bad of the latter outweighs the good of the former.
> The fact that these athletes are paid so well is a good thing.
That they are paid well, sure. That they are paid so well, I’m not convinced. Either way, the amount of money the industry moves (and how it is spent and acquired) is more problematic than the money individual athletes get.