THERE'S nowt so queer as football folk, is there? There they are, screaming like old ladies having their bags snatched just because BSkyB want to become the
owners of Manchester United.
Yet they all know that the
jerseys were sold a long time ago. So how can they complain because they don't like those who want to wear those jerseys?
Yet it is understandable, because it is the clearest and most chilling sign to date that the
People's Game has as much to do with the people as a royal Garden Party.
Once football made its collective decision to sell its soul to television, the certainty was that massive sums of money would be engendered by the top clubs around Europe, pro rata far more than at any time in the game.
Ergo, it was also a certainty that, when the ball-game entered the multi-million pounds arena, the seekers of even greater wealth would be circling like Indians around the wagon.
When this stage is reached, then, it is hardly a surprise when a company as big as BSkyB, especially one with a decidedly vested interest in the TV aspect of football, takes an interest in buying the club that is the biggest attraction in Britain.
Had it been a carpet multi-national or a cognac producer, the outrage would not have been as excessive and no doubt there is also resistance to Sky because it already seems to have come close to monopolising the game in this country.
The Murdoch tentacles stretch out a long way in the media and sport business, with America, Australia, and Europe all impressively covered, and it would be a weird observer, indeed, who did not believe
that a business empire like his would separate its Manchester United interests from its TV ambitions.
In the Murdoch view, the acquisition of Manchester United makes great sense in both aspects of his enterprises and he might feel a bit aggrieved that there is such an outcry
simply because he seizes upon a golden opportunity to secure an entree into both sides of the negotiating table in the TV/
football world.
However, from the sport's standpoint, there has to be a serious concern over the ramifications of any major TV production company gaining complete control of a club as wealthy and influential as United.
Of course it can be argued that there appears to be no problem in the media field itself when a mogul like Murdoch owns so many different influential organs in both press and broadcasting around the world.
That is a reasonable stance, nonetheless, two wrongs etc. Football in this country has every right to question the
validity of take-overs by TV companies who, inevitably, would gain a major advantage in the world of Pay TV, which will certainly consume much of the game's most attractive contests in due course.
All of this is precisely the kind of swamp that many of us envisaged would be reached once the game's rulers in Europe opened the floodgates to massive live TV coverage, knowing full well that the satellite revolution would guarantee all-consuming exposure.
The one and only argument to put up against the BSkyB enterprise is that it will marry two vested interests. Whether that is a strong enough case is debatable.
In fact, it might be said that it is better to open the door to the devil with an interest in the game's success at one level at least, than Old Nick the brazen money-grabber.
What is certain is that, sooner or later, football will be hijacked by people who know little about it and care less about its overall well-being. The God of Greed will take over the asylum.
The original sin by football people in power was committed in embarking upon a love affair with TV's megabucks and, as is the way with original sin, it is the descendants who will suffer the consequences.
Anyone who believes the game is a still a game is either wonderfully naive or is a fully paid up member of the Hitler Was Innocent society.
Roll up, get your jerseys here, get your jerseys here.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article