Olympic vs Premier League Value of Money
Did you know the entire TeamGB Olympic team for four years running up to the recent Rio Games cost £274m, for that rather large sum of money 67 medals were won. On a crude calculation, the United Kingdom spent about £4.1m per medal.
But on a more surprising note, the entire cost of TeamGB for four years is similar in cost to the annual wage bill of two Premiership Football teams.
The table below lists out clubs and their turnover and wage bill for 2016 (Source)
| Club | Wages £m |
| Manchester United | 232 |
| Chelsea | 224 |
| Liverpool | 208 |
| Manchester City | 198 |
| Arsenal | 195 |
| Tottenham Hotspur | 100 |
| Aston Villa | 93 |
| Southampton | 85 |
| West Ham United | 85 |
| Everton | 84 |
| Sunderland | 84 |
| Stoke City | 82 |
| Swansea City | 82 |
| Crystal Palace | 81 |
| Leicester City | 80 |
| Newcastle United | 75 |
| West Bromwich Albion | 74 |
| Norwich City | 67 |
| Bournemouth | 60 |
| Watford | 58 |
| Total | 2247 |
The English National football team has come 26th, 13th and 7th place in the last three World Cups. The Scottish , Northern Irish and Welsh National Teams have not qualified for the last four World Cups
It appears to me, we as a nation have invested wisely in our elite Olympic athletes, whereas our mens football has been far more disappointing. I would argue the Olympic Teams success needs to maintain funding and we should encourage our football association to invest in learning from TeamGB
Cross fertilisation of ideas, practice and experience is needed!
Football Wage Bill Averaging
Whilst writing this blog, it occured to me there is a large differential between the wage bills in the premier league, the average wage bill is circa £112m and the most expensive team is over 2 times that figure and the cheapest team is about half that average. This large differential in wage bills does impacts the outcomes, large clubs with large budgets can buy a session, whereas smaller clubs with modest pockets are left at the bottom of the table.
We could, very easily provide fans with an alternative league position, one which takes into account the wage bill. I propose the FA adopt the following formala to generate the Value Added League Table (VALT).
- An average of the last seasons wage bill is calculated (in the season above it would be £112.35m).
- Each teams wage bill is a percentage of the average (e.g. Leicester City is 71% of the average, Manchester United is 206% of the average).
- If the clubs wage bill is over 100% of the average, the percentage is multiplied by -3 and rounded up to the nearest whole number (e.g. Manchester United would be -7)
- If the clubs wage bill is under 100% of the average, the percentage is multiplied by 3 and rounded up to the nearest whole number (e.g. Leicester would be 3)
- The calculated number would be the number of points a team starts with at the begining of the season.
The table below applies this formula to 2015/16, it has a dramatic effect, i.e. as can be seen under this calculation Leicester City, Tottenham and Southampton would have come 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Whereas in reality, Leicester City, Arsenal and Tottenham came 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Chelsea would have moved down six positions in the league table and the bottom of the table would remain the same.
| 2015/16 Financials | Actual 2015/16 | Revised 2015/16 | Position Diference | ||||||
| Club | Wages | %age of average | Starting Points | Point Scored | Place | Points | Place | ||
| Leicester City | 80 | 71% | 1 | 81 | 1 | 82 | 1 | Same | |
| Tottenham Hotspur | 100 | 89% | 1 | 70 | 3 | 71 | 2 | 1 | |
| Southampton | 85 | 76% | 1 | 63 | 6 | 64 | 3 | 3 | |
| West Ham United | 85 | 76% | 1 | 62 | 7 | 63 | 4 | 3 | |
| Arsenal | 195 | 174% | -6 | 71 | 2 | 65 | 5 | -3 | |
| Manchester City | 198 | 176% | -6 | 66 | 5 | 60 | 6 | -1 | |
| Manchester United | 232 | 206% | -7 | 66 | 4 | 59 | 7 | -3 | |
| Stoke City | 82 | 73% | 1 | 51 | 9 | 52 | 8 | 1 | |
| Liverpool | 208 | 185% | -6 | 60 | 8 | 54 | 9 | -1 | |
| Everton | 84 | 75% | 1 | 47 | 11 | 48 | 10 | 1 | |
| Swansea City | 82 | 73% | 1 | 47 | 12 | 48 | 11 | 1 | |
| Watford | 58 | 52% | 2 | 45 | 13 | 47 | 12 | 1 | |
| West Bromwich Albion | 74 | 66% | 2 | 43 | 14 | 45 | 13 | 1 | |
| Crystal Palace | 81 | 72% | 1 | 42 | 15 | 43 | 14 | 1 | |
| Bournemouth | 60 | 53% | 2 | 42 | 16 | 44 | 15 | 1 | |
| Chelsea | 224 | 199% | -6 | 50 | 10 | 44 | 16 | -6 | |
| Sunderland | 84 | 75% | 1 | 39 | 17 | 40 | 17 | Same | |
| Newcastle United | 75 | 67% | 1 | 37 | 18 | 38 | 18 | Same | |
| Norwich City | 67 | 60% | 2 | 34 | 19 | 36 | 19 | Same | |
| Aston Villa | 93 | 83% | 1 | 17 | 20 | 18 | 20 | Same | |
The table below applies the same formula to 2016/17, it has a far more subtle impact. As can be seen under this calculation it would have made no impact to who won or or was relegated. However the points difference between the winning team and second place reduced from 7 points to 5 which would have made for a more cometitive season.
| 2016/17 Financials | Actual 2016/17 | Revised 2016/17 | Position Diference | ||||||
| Club | Wages | %age of average | Starting Points | Point Scored | Place | Points | Place | ||
| Chelsea | 218 | 194% | -6 | 93 | 1 | 87 | 1 | Same | |
| Tottenham | 121.2 | 108% | -4 | 86 | 2 | 82 | 2 | Same | |
| Manchester City | 225 | 200% | -7 | 78 | 3 | 71 | 3 | Same | |
| Liverpool | 165.6 | 147% | -5 | 76 | 4 | 71 | 4 | Same | |
| Arsenal | 200.5 | 178% | -6 | 75 | 5 | 69 | 5 | Same | |
| Manchester United | 220.8 | 197% | -6 | 69 | 6 | 63 | 6 | Same | |
| Everton | 83 | 74% | 1 | 61 | 7 | 62 | 7 | Same | |
| Bournemouth | 34 | 30% | 3 | 46 | 9 | 49 | 8 | 1 | |
| Southampton | 63.6 | 57% | 2 | 46 | 8 | 48 | 9 | -1 | |
| West Bromwich | 65 | 58% | 2 | 45 | 10 | 47 | 10 | Same | |
| West Ham United | 79.8 | 71% | 1 | 45 | 11 | 46 | 11 | Same | |
| Leicester City | 66 | 59% | 2 | 44 | 12 | 46 | 12 | Same | |
| Stoke City | 75.9 | 68% | 1 | 44 | 13 | 45 | 13 | Same | |
| Swansea City | 59 | 53% | 2 | 41 | 15 | 43 | 14 | 1 | |
| Crystal Palace | 55 | 49% | 2 | 41 | 14 | 43 | 15 | -1 | |
| Burnley | 33 | 29% | 3 | 40 | 16 | 43 | 16 | Same | |
| Watford | 41 | 36% | 2 | 40 | 17 | 42 | 17 | Same | |
| Hull City | 25 | 22% | 3 | 34 | 18 | 37 | 18 | Same | |
| Middlesbrough | 34 | 30% | 3 | 28 | 19 | 31 | 19 | Same | |
| Sunderland | 68.3 | 61% | 2 | 24 | 20 | 26 | 20 | Same | |
I would suggest this type of “alternative” league would encourage larger clubs to be more prudent with their moneys and other clubs to value their relative success. For clarity, I do not propose scrapping the currrent league system, I simply propose adding another measure of success(or otherwise).