14 July 2016
The death of football?
Reflections on Euro 2016
by Frank O’Nomics
Dull, dull, dull. The final of Euro 2016 may have won Sunday’s TV ratings battle in the UK (16.3 million viewers vs 13.3 for Wimbledon and just 4 million for the British Grand Prix), but the tournament is more likely to be remembered for the giant killing antics of relative minnows, like Iceland and Wales, than for electric and exciting football. That the ultimate winners, Portugal (for the first time), were able to succeed by drawing all three of their group games and only win one game in the standard 90 minutes is particularly damning. The statistics, especially those regarding goals, are similarly disappointing. The average number of goals per game was a paltry 2.13, fully one third of a goal less than Euro 2012, which itself represented a steady decline from the heady days of 2000, when spectators were rewarded with 2.75 goals per game. There are a number of possible factors behind this decline, but it seems that the principle cause, as ever, is money.
The organisers of Euro 2016 increased the number of teams in the finals to 24 from 16 in 2012, so that an additional knockout round could be played. Adding an extra 8 teams may well be justified by the continuing improvement in global football standards, but it did not necessitate the addition of the extra knockout stage. Introducing that meant that 4 out of the 6 third placed teams from the group stages qualified for the knockout, and this effectively negated the need for teams to attack. One win (or in Portugal’s case 3 draws) meant a strong likelihood of progress so that, until the final match, there was little incentive to play creative football if this meant being left defensively vulnerable. The majority of the 36 group games were then largely irrelevant, and the tentative approach permeated through to the knockout phase whereby, of the 51 matches played, 22 were goal-less at half-time and 20 of the goals scored (over 1/6th) came in the 85th minute or later – hardly justifying the rush home from work.
The addition of the extra 8 teams seems to have been driven by the need to make the tournament as relevant to as much of Europe as possible, and to ensure that it lasted as long as possible, hence maximising the potential for sponsorship and advertising revenue. The result was something anodyne, with the tournament getting the final it deserved – almost 2 hours of dull attrition.
To be fair, the organisers were successful in their aims. More than 130 broadcasters showed matches across 220 nations, with a combined total audience of 2 billion (the live average audience was 130 million per match). Tournament revenues were Eur 1.93 billion, up 34% on Euro 2012, with TV rights of Eur 1.05 billion, sponsorship revenue of Eur 480 million and hospitality of Eur 400 million. The event is costly to stage, but total income after costs was still Eur 830 million.
There are, of course, other possible explanations for the turgid displays. The continual improvement in player’s fitness has meant that the game remains tight for the duration, with few players flagging, thereby limiting the space for star strikers to shine. Similarly there has arguably been an “improvement” in the tactical side of the game, with coaches able to adapt their team’s approach according to the opposition that they face – usually nullifying any flair. This was particularly effective for the likes of Iceland (much to the frustration of a highly vocal Ronaldo). However, if there was any real weight to these arguments we would have a similar fall in entertainment value in both the Premiership and the Champions League, and this does not seem to be the case given the excitements of this season.
Some pundits have suggested reducing the number of players to 10 to counter the improvement in fitness, but that would seem to miss the point. There is greater validity in increasing the value of a win, or in giving additional points once a certain number of goals are scored (along the line of Premiership rugby once 4 tries are scored). But the real need is to reintroduce a proper sense of jeopardy earlier in the proceedings, by having a greater risk of earlier elimination. If this does not happen, the financial success achieved by Euro 2016 could prove to be fleeting. Dull matches will encourage TV stations to put on something actually worth watching (given the huge margin of BBC to ITV viewers for the final there is a solid case for ITV doing this anyway), the bidding for the rights to show matches will fade and overall revenue for the game from sponsorship and advertising will fall.
I may be being a little harsh on the entertainment value of some elements of the tournament – Portugal’s 3-3 draw with Hungary in their final group game and the electric atmosphere of the France versus Germany semi-final were worthy examples, but overall this was a disappointing exhibition of the beautiful game. Maybe not yet the death of football, but its international form does look as if it has been left seriously wounded.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
