A lot has been made of West Ham United’s recently announced decision to reassess their season tickets, cutting prices, in particularly for youth age groups, across the board.
Most of it has been praise, from the varied corners of the football world; supporter groups have been particularly vocal in their admiration of the move. Other voices have been more cynical, a great deal more; they have spouted the announcement as a sort of reactionary, tactical counter-move, to stifle the criticism that West Ham is facing over its occupation of the Olympic Stadium, due to take place the season after next, a transition that is landing the taxpayer a considerable fiscal blow. What better way to soften the blow than with a bright, altruistic public relations move such as this?
Of course, neither argument should be the most audible here. What we should be hearing is the deafening sound of every British man, woman and child noting the event, nodding to themselves and saying “very good, and so they should”.
When the brand-spanking new £5.14 billion TV deal was announced in February of this year, immediately the response from the Premier League clubs was one of raucous celebration. Under this new agreement, the team that finishes bottom in 2016/17 will receive around £99 million, with the league champions netting around £156 million. These numbers are astronomical, obscene even.
So, while the clubs were uncorking the bottles of Bollinger, and thinking about what shiny new midfielder they’d impulse buy when the new deal comes in, the football-going public were wondering exactly what they might be lucky enough to scrounge out of the situation. Too many years of trickle-down economic double-talk had, in their minds, soured all hope that they might get a crumb of what was now an almighty pie.
As soon as the new TV deal was announced, a plethora of new tangents sprung off from it. How will this influx of cash affect the chances of home-grown players breaking through into first teams around the country (an argument that has recently been given new vigour, in light of Chelsea’s all-but-secured title, and John Terry as their last academy player to go from bottom to top)? How will this, in turn, affect the future of the English nation team? And why not, now that the coffers have been bolstered so, reshape our views on how to ensure packed stadiums?
Yes, the world’s best players put bums on seats, but discounted season tickets do a better job here. German clubs have acted under this paradigm for decades, and the Bundesliga is one of the best attended in the world. And now, two months after Sky, BT Sport and the BBC opened their wallets, the first mark-down has arrived.
The culture of greed in English football, like all ingrained cultures, is not one that is easily displaced. Manchester City (who, it might be pointed out, also play in a stadium partially subsidised by the public) seem much more concerned with securing new sponsorship deals and purchasing, at mammoth cost, new players every season, than they do the state of their crowds which, even with the second-lowest season ticket prices in the country, dwindle badly every week.
Were they to slash their prices, the atmosphere at the Etihad would be much less shush and more shout. And then there is Arsenal, always a go-to example when the question of money rolls around, whose season tickets burst through the £1000 mark, and who have won exactly one trophy in the last decade (though they may win the FA Cup again this season). This is why Arsenal fans are so quick to revolt when the going gets tough, why they are so quick to question, loudly, exactly what it is they’re paying for.
But back to the Hammers. Of course, Karren Brady and the rest of the West Ham hierarchy have more to gain than just good will from this decision. They need a rocking crowd when they arrive in their new stadium, and lowering ticket prices is the best way to ensure this.
When the club neglected their social obligations by allowing far too little public housing to be built on the site of Upton Park, this move also may be used to ease pain here. Yes, ethical consciences are not advised in the world of football, but West Ham, in this case, is hardly the worst of the worst. What deflates onlookers the most here, is that a simple lowering of tickets prices a few months after a record-breaking bumper TV rights deal should be such a talking point. Praise or cynicism, let alone surprise, should not be the default reactions to this announcement but, unfortunately and inevitably, they are.
What are your thoughts? Let us know by dropping a comment below via our Facebook comment box. Make sure you follow us on Twitter @Outside90 and like us on Facebook.
