Can you remember the exact moment when football began to lose its soul, dear blog reader? For yer actual Keith Telly Topping it occurred at some point in the mid-afternoon of 12 May 1990, the date of that year's FA Cup Final. For those who don't remember, the final itself was actually a terrific game between The Scum and Crystal Palace which ended in a 3-3 draw, but they day had already been soured by events from an hour or so earlier. (The Scum won the subsequent replay 1-0 a few days later.) In those days the Cup Final was still a jolly big deal and was covered extensively by both BBC1 and ITV. During the course of the BBC's six hour coverage, an interview took place between the late Tony Gubba and Crystal Palace's then owner the, now also late, Ron Noades. I dare say there will be quite a few younger dear blog readers who won't even know who Noades was so, for you, a brief history lesson. Noades was a millionaire had made his money in developing golf courses before getting involved in football and becoming owner, firstly, of Wimbledon and then of the Palace (and, later, Brentford). 
He was, in those days, something of a controversial figure, one of the first of a new breed of maverick, media-savvy, full-of-their-own-importance owner-chairman who seemed to relish the limelight in a way that the dull grey boardroom men of previous generations never had and were to be found getting their boat-races on telly as often, if not more often, than the managers they employed. Of course, these days, where our clubs are often owned by a series of shady figures - floggers of mucky books or dodgy sports gear, or Russian oligarchs who used to be in the KGB, Arab oil billionaires and American absentee landlords - a figure like Ron seems rather tame by comparison. But, nevertheless, in 1990, he was known for his outspoken pontificating on all manner of subjects in front of the cameras and, thus, the Beeb felt an interview with him during the course of Cup Final Grandstand would be value for money. During the interview, Gubba asked Noades a fairly straightforward question about how the Palace owner responded to criticism of the way in which he ran the club from the supporters who, after all, paid their money through the turnstiles. Didn't they deserve a say in the way in which their money was being spent? Noades's reply is etched onto this blogger's memory: 'Gone are the days,' he began, 'where supporters can makes those sort of demands of chairmen because they pay the players' wages.' He went on to explain that match day receipts now only accounted for less than half of the income which a football club depended upon (I believe the figure he actually quoted was forty five per cent, the rest being made up with external merchandising, sponsorship and other commercial activities). Now, remember, this is 1990, two full years before the first Sky TV deal was done which would make that situation a million times worse over the course of the next two decades. 
This blogger can remember being astounded by what Noades was saying; effectively suggesting that paying football supporters were perceived to be less important by those who ran their clubs than the number of replica shirts they could sell in the Far East. You might well be right, Ron, yer actual Keith Telly Topping thought, but I'll tell you what, I'll bet you and all of the other wideboys that run our clubs would, collectively, shite in your own pants and run an effing mile if, next Saturday, no one turned up at any football ground in this country. Of course, that will never happen, our fandom ultimately works against us in this regard. But, that was the first moment where the mask, momentarily, slipped and many football fans realised the true level of utter contempt with which they, as consumers, were held by those in charge of this game we all love.
This blogger mentions all of this because, as you may have read elsewhere, Sky Sports and BT Sport have won the latest batch of television rights for the Premier League from 2016 to 2019. The deal covers the rights to show one hundred and sixty eight games per season and is worth a total of £5.136 billion. Yes, dear blog reader, you read that figure correctly - over five billion smackers which, is the gross national debt of several third countries. Somebody's got their greed right on, good proper. The previous deal had fourteen fewer games, with Sky paying £2.3bn for one hundred and sixteen matches and BT paying seven hundred and thirty eight million knicker for thirty eight games per season. The new contract will see Sky paying £4.176bn, with BT paying nine hundred and sixty million notes. This equals three hundred and twenty million smackers per season for BT, compared to two hundred and forty six million at present. Sky's deal of £1.392bn per year is eighty three per cent up from what they paid for the current deal. 'This outcome provides a degree of certainty so clubs can continue to invest and run themselves in a sustainable manner; it also allows us to start planning how the Premier League can continue to support the rest of the football pyramid from the grassroots upwards,' claimed the Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, as greedy disgusting Capitalist slavver dripped from his lips.
'This structure also allows us to strike a balance between match-attending fans and those who choose to watch on television. Keeping grounds full is a priority for the Premier League and our clubs, and I am sure the flexible ticketing policies that have helped keep attendances so high will continue to develop. Although we have had a successful outcome for this process, following on from the highlights' award, there is still the ongoing Ofcom investigation to be concluded. We remain confident that the Premier League's live UK broadcasting rights are sold in a way that is compatible with both UK and EU competition law as well as being of great benefit to the whole of English football.' Scudamore added that the five billion quid deal is 'not obscene.' Although, some might argued if it isn't then what, exactly, is obscene? Scudamore told BBC Sport that the size of the deal was 'a consequence' of what the fans want. 'it's market forces,' he said like a good Thatcherite when asked how the deal was justifiable in an era of supposed austerity. 'There is a product that people want to watch. First of all, first priority, keep the stadia full. Then make sure people want to watch and people want to view - and you're seeing the product of that today.' But, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised in all this naked greed. After all, football didn't lose it soul just this last week, it's a process which has been ongoing for twenty five years.
He was, in those days, something of a controversial figure, one of the first of a new breed of maverick, media-savvy, full-of-their-own-importance owner-chairman who seemed to relish the limelight in a way that the dull grey boardroom men of previous generations never had and were to be found getting their boat-races on telly as often, if not more often, than the managers they employed. Of course, these days, where our clubs are often owned by a series of shady figures - floggers of mucky books or dodgy sports gear, or Russian oligarchs who used to be in the KGB, Arab oil billionaires and American absentee landlords - a figure like Ron seems rather tame by comparison. But, nevertheless, in 1990, he was known for his outspoken pontificating on all manner of subjects in front of the cameras and, thus, the Beeb felt an interview with him during the course of Cup Final Grandstand would be value for money. During the interview, Gubba asked Noades a fairly straightforward question about how the Palace owner responded to criticism of the way in which he ran the club from the supporters who, after all, paid their money through the turnstiles. Didn't they deserve a say in the way in which their money was being spent? Noades's reply is etched onto this blogger's memory: 'Gone are the days,' he began, 'where supporters can makes those sort of demands of chairmen because they pay the players' wages.' He went on to explain that match day receipts now only accounted for less than half of the income which a football club depended upon (I believe the figure he actually quoted was forty five per cent, the rest being made up with external merchandising, sponsorship and other commercial activities). Now, remember, this is 1990, two full years before the first Sky TV deal was done which would make that situation a million times worse over the course of the next two decades. 
This blogger can remember being astounded by what Noades was saying; effectively suggesting that paying football supporters were perceived to be less important by those who ran their clubs than the number of replica shirts they could sell in the Far East. You might well be right, Ron, yer actual Keith Telly Topping thought, but I'll tell you what, I'll bet you and all of the other wideboys that run our clubs would, collectively, shite in your own pants and run an effing mile if, next Saturday, no one turned up at any football ground in this country. Of course, that will never happen, our fandom ultimately works against us in this regard. But, that was the first moment where the mask, momentarily, slipped and many football fans realised the true level of utter contempt with which they, as consumers, were held by those in charge of this game we all love.This blogger mentions all of this because, as you may have read elsewhere, Sky Sports and BT Sport have won the latest batch of television rights for the Premier League from 2016 to 2019. The deal covers the rights to show one hundred and sixty eight games per season and is worth a total of £5.136 billion. Yes, dear blog reader, you read that figure correctly - over five billion smackers which, is the gross national debt of several third countries. Somebody's got their greed right on, good proper. The previous deal had fourteen fewer games, with Sky paying £2.3bn for one hundred and sixteen matches and BT paying seven hundred and thirty eight million knicker for thirty eight games per season. The new contract will see Sky paying £4.176bn, with BT paying nine hundred and sixty million notes. This equals three hundred and twenty million smackers per season for BT, compared to two hundred and forty six million at present. Sky's deal of £1.392bn per year is eighty three per cent up from what they paid for the current deal. 'This outcome provides a degree of certainty so clubs can continue to invest and run themselves in a sustainable manner; it also allows us to start planning how the Premier League can continue to support the rest of the football pyramid from the grassroots upwards,' claimed the Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, as greedy disgusting Capitalist slavver dripped from his lips.
'This structure also allows us to strike a balance between match-attending fans and those who choose to watch on television. Keeping grounds full is a priority for the Premier League and our clubs, and I am sure the flexible ticketing policies that have helped keep attendances so high will continue to develop. Although we have had a successful outcome for this process, following on from the highlights' award, there is still the ongoing Ofcom investigation to be concluded. We remain confident that the Premier League's live UK broadcasting rights are sold in a way that is compatible with both UK and EU competition law as well as being of great benefit to the whole of English football.' Scudamore added that the five billion quid deal is 'not obscene.' Although, some might argued if it isn't then what, exactly, is obscene? Scudamore told BBC Sport that the size of the deal was 'a consequence' of what the fans want. 'it's market forces,' he said like a good Thatcherite when asked how the deal was justifiable in an era of supposed austerity. 'There is a product that people want to watch. First of all, first priority, keep the stadia full. Then make sure people want to watch and people want to view - and you're seeing the product of that today.' But, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised in all this naked greed. After all, football didn't lose it soul just this last week, it's a process which has been ongoing for twenty five years.
