Why Ian Ayre is wrong

Managing Director of Liverpool FC Ian Ayre has caused controversy and stoked debate in the media and amongst supporters alike after airing his views on how the Premier League negotiates its overseas TV deal. The 47-year old scouse businessman was instrumental in the boardroom coup to oust former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett and also successfully negotiated a shirt sponsorship deal with multinational bank Standard Chartered worth a reported £80 million, significantly more than with previous sponsors Danish brewers Carlsberg.

As a result he has received widespread praise from fans and, after originally arriving as Commercial Director in 2007, new owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG) promoted him to the more prestigious role of Managing Director in March 2011, replacing the departing Christian Purslow who, ousting Hicks and Gillett aside, was widely maligned on Merseyside for taking over on-field affairs when his remit was intended to restrict his role to solely selling the club.

Nevertheless, his recent comments suggesting that clubs should sell TV rights to Premier League matches individually as opposed to the current system of collective bargaining have received a mixed reception from fans. Presently, Premier League clubs sell domestic and international TV rights as a group and distribute the income equally. This results in teams like Wigan Athletic, Norwich City and Swansea, whose fan bases barely extend beyond their geographical area, receiving the same amount of cash as clubs that attract international supporters (or viewers) such as Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal.

Total revenue from international TV deals for 2010-2013 stands at a whopping £1.4 billion and, as the Premier League ‘brand’ continues to expand into over 200 countries that amount appears likely to rise again next time around, possibly even surpassing the value of the domestic TV deal for the first time. Ayre therefore clearly wants to exploit the Reds’ substantial fan base in growing markets such as Asia and claim a larger slice of the pie for Kenny Dalglish and co. to invest in building up a successful squad.

On the surface this appears completely reasonable. The majority of overseas viewers tune in to watch stars such as Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney and Robin Van Persie play for their respective sides so surely those sides should reap the majority of the benefits from these massive TV deals.

An important issue, though, is that football is fundamentally a sport to be enjoyed, not a business to produce profit. As a result it functions differently. There is a desire for fair competition in order to keep the League interesting. Massive income differences and disparities in wage expenditure lead to predictable outcomes as the teams who can afford better players inevitably win and finish in the top positions. The fact that they then gain additional revenue from Champions League qualification and participation perpetuates the problem. To exaggerate this problem further by introducing individual TV arrangements is not a wise move in the long-term, even though the Reds may derive short-term gains from any potential change.

Ayre repeatedly references Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain and claims that in the future we will be unable to compete with them in the Champions League because the fact that they can negotiate their own TV deals and thus generate more income means that they can spend more on transfer fees and wages and therefore remain dominant in European competition.


That assertion is debateable considering the spending power of the big four and the success of English clubs in the Champions League over recent years, however crucially he fails to recognise the lack of competition that damages La Liga dramatically. Astonishingly, Real Madrid and Barcelona have occupied the top two places at the end of six of the last eight La Liga campaigns, with Rafael Benitez’s Valencia side of 2003/2004 the only other team to claim the top prize. As a result La Liga has become a predictable and dull League, with champagne football from Barca and Madrid its only saving grace.

Part of the appeal of the Premier League is the fact that on any given day any club can beat any other. Blackpool can travel to Anfield and claim an historic win. Newcastle can go to the Emirates and emerge victorious. Chelsea can sink to a 3-0 defeat against Sunderland at Stamford Bridge. This unpredictability has led many to label the Premier League as the best league in the world and has kept fans interested on a domestic and international scale. Consequently, TV companies such as Sky have been willing to pay ridiculous figures for the rights to show matches.

Ironically, therefore, a potential result of allowing clubs to negotiate TV deals individually, as Ayre advocates, would be reducing supporter interest through restricting competition and hence lowering the quality of the Premier League’s ‘brand’ and, as a result, reducing income from TV deals in the long run.

Not only are the consequences of Ayre’s proposed reforms undesirable for the League as a whole and for Liverpool in particular long term, their overtly capitalist overtures do not sit comfortably with the legendary Bill Shankly’s infamous socialist views. The 30th anniversary of the Scot’s death was commemorated recently, and Shanks would surely be spinning in his grave in response to the business-like approach that has been imposed on the beautiful game and seemingly incorporated at Anfield.


Although I generally disagree with Shankly’s socialist political beliefs and, on the whole, endorse capitalism, this following quote perfectly summarises why Ian Ayre is, on this issue at least, in the wrong:

“The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It’s the way I see football, the way I see life.”

YNWA