Browse > Home / Uncategorized / Ronnie’s £80m market failure

| Subcribe via RSS



Ronnie’s £80m market failure

June 15th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized by

ronnieBeing entirely obsessed with men kicking balls around a pitch, there is no way I can resist responding to Darrell Goodliffe’s blog post on the Cristiano Ronaldo move. He cites complaints made by Labour MP Gerry Sutcliffe and the allegedly pernicious effects of “the free market” that they both seem to believe Ronaldo’s transfer demonstrates.

I say “seems” as, bluntly, it’s in no way clear what they’re moaning about.

They issue concerns over “sustainability,” without really citing what is not sustainable. Real Madrid’s spending? Who cares?

Money, it is acknowledged, does not necessarily equate to success in football, yet we are then told “there remains an issue around clubs being priced out of being competitive.” Moreover, who is being priced out of being competitive against who and how is the Ronaldo transfer an example of this? Is the concern that ManUtd might struggle to compete when Real Madrid are spending this amount of money? I wouldn’t be surprised if such motivations come from Gerry Sutcliffe – born in Salford and a life-long Man United fan, it’s notable that Sutcliffe’s having a political moan to let off steam over his beloved team losing their best player.

Harsh? Then consider this part of Sutcliffe’s attempts to politically influence the FA:

“…there’s no one player bigger than the club – the club comes first. One thing you don’t do is underestimate Sir Alex Ferguson.”

Right ho, excellent policy analysis there, Gerry. No doubt another example of serving the public, “public sector ethos” and all that.

Yet back to the issues raised in the blog: it mentions “cultural identity washed away by market forces,” again without any context or explanation of how this is so, or how it relates to Real Madrid buying Ronaldo. “Season ticket prices are an issue,” we are told twice. And how does this relate to Real Madrid buying Ronaldo, or anything else? Again, there’s no explanation, just a series of unsubstantiated groans with a reactionary blame placed at the feet of “the free market.”

Yet these muddled anti-market claims are not the worst part of the blog. The worst part is the presumption, as always, that football is a free market, unaffected by interference.

In fact, football is strictly controlled by authorities, who inflict many interventions that impinge on the issues raised.

Let’s take the claim that Real Madrid’s excessive spending is the consequence of crazy speculation based around globalised merchandise sales. History does not back this up. Real Madrid, more than being “almost famous for making transfer decisions based … on how many replica kits they can sell,” rather have a reputation for being the State team, the King’s team (the Royal Madrid) and have consistently been aided by the state. A recent example of this came in 2001 when authorities purchased land from the club for a price considered to be extraordinarily above the market rate (over £200 million). This led to Perez signing the first wave of Galacticos – such as Zidane for £48m. The signing of Ronaldo (and Kaka) is the consequence of Perez’s re-election, after he promised to return to the Galacticos-era policy. Hence this whole affair stems from political and government intervention.

Secondly, let’s not pretend for a minute that Ronaldo moving from one big club to another affects “cultural identity” of the game in England. Sure, the sterilisation of football in recent times has taken something away; atmosphere at games is often not what it used to be. This, however, is largely the consequence of the enforcement of all-seater stadia – due to an extreme interpretation of the Taylor Report by a Tory government that had previously tried to impose ID cards on all football fans. As a consequence, we now have the crazy situation in which tens of thousands of people can legally stand packed into a third division game or a rock concert, but not a second or first division game. Meanwhile in Germany, a country with a near-equally rife culture of football hooliganism, standing areas are used safely in top flight games packed with 60,000+ supporters (see Schalke 04, for example).

Fortunately, our party is enlightened enough to be the only major party supporting the liberalisation of the rules imposed by the previous Conservative administration and propped up by Labour. This is the kind of good, liberal work we should be engaging in. Petulant complaints about Ronaldo’s move away from Manchester should be left to misguided Labour MPs.

4 Responses to “Ronnie’s £80m market failure”

  1. Paul Lockett Says:

    Importing an item for £12.24 million, using it productively for six years and exporting it for £80 million seems like it could be part of a sustainable business model to me. Real Madrid’s approach might not be sustainable, but I don’t see why that should concern anyone in the British government.

    For some, this is a “heads I win, tails you lose” issue. When the big foreign names come into the country, it’s presented as a bad thing, because it makes it harder for British players to come through the ranks. When the big foreign names leave the country, it’s presented as a bad thing, because our domestic teams become less competitive.


  2. Wayne Lawrence Says:

    A nice deconstruction of the free market myth Julian. In fact the issues described are a microcosm of the wider economy. While the socialists crow about the failure of laissez faire economics and the free market, classical liberals and other true free marketeers know that that’s bollocks.

    Von Mises Blog frequently discusses the fallacy that the Anglo-Saxon world is operating in a free market by highlighting the interminable interventions by governments and central banks.

    To remorselessly invoke a snippet of Vince Lombardi out of context – “Football is like life”


  3. Julian Harris Says:

    Thanks for the comment, Wayne – the link is now added.

    The following code should work for all links in comments:

    (TYPE TEXT)


  4. Liberal Vision » Blog Archive » Around the Stonewall Says:

    […] yes, this is another football post. And there will be […]