From the Observer:
‘Ten years ago English football was a different game. Fans could pay at the gate, grounds were often only two-thirds full, average attendance was 26,000 and not every Premiership stadium was all-seat. Sky Sports showed 40 live matches per season, and only on Sunday afternoons and Monday nights.
‘Fast-forward a decade. You must buy your ticket in advance, the average crowd is over 35,000, and across the season's 380 Premier League games, grounds are 95 per cent full. This season Sky will screen 138 fixtures live and there are three different kick-off times on Saturdays alone. The top players earn £80,000 to £100,000 a week: that would have been several months wages to most Premier League footballers in 1994.
‘It is in this context of dramatic change in football, lifestyle and technology that Malcolm Glazer's bid to buy Manchester United makes sense, especially given the similarly dizzying upheaval still to come in those areas. When the takeover approach was confirmed last week, most business analysts were sceptical. How, they asked, could the 76-year-old American hope to make a serious profit on an investment of about £800m? Nobody seemed to know.
‘The answer lies in what football and telecommunications might be like in 2014. If the changes over the next 10 years are as significant as they have been since 1994, Glazer's move might make him a fortune. The booming popularity of broadband internet - which lets fans watch TV-quality pictures on a personal computer, and allows every club to act as its own TV station - is the key.
‘Privately, many United insiders are sceptical about Glazer's chances of making even bigger profits. 'How do you sweat what is probably football's dampest asset?' asked one. 'How would you do that except in the ways United are already doing it?' Understandably, the sceptics point to United's status as the world's most profitable football club. Their annual profits may have dropped from £39.35m to £27.91m last year because of their relatively poor performance in both the Premiership and Champions League, but that £27.91m is still far more than any English or top European club made.
‘'Malcolm Glazer and his sons want to own United for a number of reasons,' explains one source close to the American's plans. 'They are genuinely interested in sport; they think they could bring stability to the club; they have very smart marketing skills; they want to make the team even stronger and more successful football-wise, to make it unrivalled; and, yes, they want to make it more successful off the pitch too.'
‘That last reason is the most important. There are plenty of ways in which United under the Glazer family's control could quickly start making even more money. Jacking up ticket prices, while unpopular, would scarcely affect United's drawing power: they were the only Premier League club to record 25 sell-outs from 25 home games last season. More of Old Trafford's 67,900 seats could be sold to corporate visitors willing to pay £100 or more a time, or many of the extra 7,700 new places that will be installed as part of Old Trafford's planned expansion could become 'executive' seats.
‘Selling the stadium naming rights, as Arsenal have just done for their new home, would be easily the biggest money-spinner of that sort in football history. If the airline is prepared to pay £40m-£60m over 15 years to have the Gunners' new home called The Emirates Stadium, how much would Nike or Coca-Cola stump up to have Old Trafford renamed? Gambling would also provide a lucrative new revenue stream. Some football finance analysts believe United could use their worldwide popularity and their manutd.com website to become, in effect, an online global bookie. Their existing arrangement to have Ladbrokes as their 'official gaming partner' has only skimmed the surface of the huge potential there. United's best opportunity to make huge profits, though, is to get control of their own broadcasting rights and then use the ongoing revolution in broadband internet access to fully exploit the club's global popularity by persuading fans to pay to watch Wayne Rooney, Ruud van Nistelrooy and the rest live on a United website.
‘The resulting revenue could reach £100m a year or more, and would destroy the competitiveness of not just the Premier league but the Champions League too - unless, of course, other super-clubs were doing the same. For United, broadband offers the chance to create a massive worldwide network of fans who pay a monthly or annual subscription to watch action from Old Trafford on personal computers or computer-fed TV including, crucially, live Premiership games. And if they can pull off that trick, then Liverpool, Juventus, Real Madrid and other clubs will quickly follow. Initially TV cameras will provide the pictures seen by broadband, but ultimately broadband could replace television altogether. Technological advances will soon end the inferior quality of pictures seen on the internet compared with TV.
‘What will happen if Europe's superclubs succeed in this? The trouble, as Markham and Roberts point out, is that their domestic leagues will become even more uncompetitive. And the on-off idea of creating a European Super League, if not a global league, could finally be realised.’
Do you want to pay £100 to watch United play against Real Madrid for top spot of the European Super League at the Coca Cola Stadium in Manchester? If not