To pay or not to pay...

  • by Raedwulf
  • Filed: Friday, 11th April 2014

And now for something rather different! Here's an interesting snippet in the BBC's Gossip Column, Thursday 10th.

"The law should be changed to force football clubs to pay the full cost of policing matchdays, according to one of the country's most senior police officials. "

The article linked is subscription only, but it begins thus: "London’s deputy mayor for policing, said it was wrong that Barclays Premier League and Sky Bet Footbal League clubs were able to spend huge transfer fees on star players but baulked at the cost of paying for police officers to control crowds outside their grounds."

And a longer BBC article continues: "Official police policy is to only charge for policing within grounds and the area immediately around it. But ACC Andy Holt told BBC Radio 5 live clubs should pay the full cost of managing games as trouble spreads to other city areas and transport hubs.

The Football League said taxes are paid to cover policing costs. It said football fans should not "pay twice for policing."


My initial reaction was also "Well, it's the police's job to police!", but that was quickly followed by "Hang on a sec..." To the Football League, and by extension the Premier League, it must be answered, "Why should those with no interest in football pay even once?" Football is hugely wealthy, and the whole of the country is paying, directly or indirectly for the associated costs.

From a little research, it seems that the Met Police could recoup only £2.7m out of £7.2m spent in the 12/13 tax year. In 10/11, when there were five Premier League London clubs (no Palace or QPR), the costs for the top flight were estimated at £3.29m; those recovered only £2.3m.

In London as a whole there were, last season, six Prem, three Championship (Watford seem to be just outside the MP area), two League One and three League Two clubs. The costs, as the 10/11 Prem figures would suggest, are proportionately lower as you drop below the top division.

Ultimately, though, who should be paying?

On the face of it, that £4.5m discrepancy between costs and money recouped in 12/13 would pay for a first-choice defender, or a maybe-first choice midfielder for a club like ours. But that £4.5m is spread across 14 clubs & four divisions. (I'm also making the assumption that those 12/13 figures do only cover the top four tiers.)

The 10/11 figures, which come from a Freedom of Information request to the Met, are broken down by club. In our case the Est./Rec. costs are £592k/£436k, over 27 home matches. So the discrepancy amounts to less than £6k per match. The biggest for that season, pro-rata, is Chelsea at a little over £16k per game.

Even if a Tier four club is struggling along, surely a Premier League club can afford to pay its own way? But should it? It's far from a simple question.

Businesses pay for policing through business rates. We all know, at least anecdotally, about trouble outside pubs and nightclubs, especially at the weekend. Should they also pay special rates? What's the difference in rates, in turnover, in profit between a Premier League football club, the nightclub or a pub up the road?

What about the general store owner in Green Street who hates football? He, for sure, doesn't want to pay twice. He doesn't attend matches, he already pays his business rates, his business also suffers from more petty crime, locals might avoid Green St on match days and if there's any REAL trouble, hooliganism...

On the other hand, for 27 matches in 10/11, how many more magazines, packets of fags, bottles of pop, packets of crisps, bars of chocolate and so on does he sell? And for the local football-hating inhabitant? Even if they only indirectly benefit, more money is coming into their locality, and that, in theory at least, will benefit them.

My gut reaction is that the top two tiers, at least, ought to be able to fully pay their own way. I'm sure any astute businessman could get extra mileage out of doing so, too. I've no particular opinion on the matter, but it's an interesting question, don't you think?

* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.

* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.


More Opinion