http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/1331865-spfl-sides-to-share-record-21m-prize-money-payout-in-201516-season/

 

SPFL sides to share record £21m prize money payout in 2015/16 season

By Grant Russell

 

Scottish Professional Football League clubs are set to receive a record payout in prize money in the 2015/16 season.

 

Documents obtained by STV outline a pot of £21,100,000 will be distributed to the nation's 42 senior sides, a rise of around £2.5m on the previous year.

 

The 14% increase in revenue comes in the season the SPFL agreed a £2m per-year deal with Ladbrokes to sponsor all four divisions until the summer of 2017. An extension to the league's broadcast deals with Sky and BT was also signed.

 

Premiership clubs will continue to receive the lion's share of the cash, with 82.25% of the total money available being distributed to the top 12.

 

The biggest chunk will go to the Premiership champions, who are due to receive £2.83m across the course of the season.

 

"While it’s not easy to compare the current position with that pre-merger, it’s fair to say that we believe this season’s revenue distribution by the league to top flight clubs is the highest in the history of the Scottish game," the chief executive of the SPFL, Neil Doncaster, told STV.

 

"Since the SPFL has formed we have seen positive changes such as the introduction of Premiership play-offs, new sponsors and improved TV broadcast deals, which all contribute towards the overall payout to all 42 clubs increasing significantly year-on-year.

 

"The SPFL is committed to making sure that this upward trajectory of income continues for the benefit of all 42 member clubs."

 

Scottish Premiership revenue distribution for 2015/16

 

1 £2,827,400

2 £2,025,600

3 £1,740,750

4 £1,529,750

5 £1,424,250

6 £1,318,750

7 £1,213,250

8 £1,160,500

9 £1,107,750

10 £1,055,000

11 £1,002,250

12 £949,500

 

Premiership prize money is paid out in four chunks across the 2015/16 season.

 

Every team receives a guaranteed amount of £742,500, the vast majority of which was paid at the start of the campaign, with a second payment in December.

 

A further sum is paid in April after the league splits into two groups of six teams. Sides in the top six are given a further £395,000 each, with bottom six clubs getting £157,500.

 

The remainder of balances due based on final league positions is paid in the summer.

 

The team finishing bottom receives an additional £300,000 in their first year outside of the Premiership, with a further £125,000 paid if they spend a second season outside of the top flight.

 

A team relegated through the play-offs would typically receive £500,000 in year one, and a further £250,000 if necessary in year two. This payment had previously been funded by the Scottish FA and it is not yet clear who will find it in 2015/16.

 

Scottish Premiership guaranteed revenues + performance-related payment

 

Position Equal share Top/bottom 6 Position based Total payout

1 £742,500 £395,000 £1,689,900 £2,827,400

2 £742,500 £395,000 £888,100 £2,025,600

3 £742,500 £395,000 £603,250 £1,740,750

4 £742,500 £395,000 £392,250 £1,529,750

5 £742,500 £395,000 £286,750 £1,424,250

6 £742,500 £395,000 £181,250 £1,318,750

7 £742,500 £157,500 £313,250 £1,213,250

8 £742,500 £157,500 £260,500 £1,160,500

9 £742,500 £157,500 £207,750 £1,107,750

10 £742,500 £157,500 £155,000 £1,055,000

11 £742,500 £157,500 £102,250 £1,002,250

12 £742,500 £157,500 £49,500 £949,500

 

 

Scotland versus Europe

 

Where does that money come from? Cash from broadcast deals make up the bulk. And while it pales in comparison to the riches down south, it stacks up favourably compared to other nations of a similar size.

 

Premiership clubs will get around £16.5m of their money from broadcast deals. In comparison, clubs in Austria get £6.5m less, Danish teams get 33% more, while Norwegian sides get roughly the same as us.

 

Best of the rest

 

The remaining £3.75m in the pot is distributed to Scotland's 30 other clubs. The winners of the 2015/16 Championship stand to make nearly £500,000, with a total of £2.5m paid to the 10 teams in the division.

 

A further £727,950 and £474,450 is paid to teams in League One and League Two respectively, using a percentage-based system.

 

 

I didn't bother with the lower leagues.  But septic getting pretty much double what second place is ridiculous (positional prize money).  Albeit is only about £800k more in total.

I've said for years that that cash should be split evenly between everyone in the league so that everyone knows they're budget at the beginning of the season, and everyone gets a good payment. The nonsense that is cash per place is just anti-sport. Only the top 4 would lose out if the cash was split evenly, and only the top 3 significantly.

 

Put another way: given an over-estimate of SPL player's salaries and expenses at £100K p.a., we'd be able to afford 10 more players than the Motherwell team that didn't get relegated in the play-off.

 

These are just prize funds of course. It's safe to say that any increase in player's salaries etc. can be covered by increased attendances that roughly correlate with better performance on the park. If we want a more competitive league then a sporting prize fund is a must. It's not just the gap to the Tims that is the use.

I've said for years that that cash should be split evenly between everyone in the league so that everyone knows they're budget at the beginning of the season, and everyone gets a good payment. The nonsense that is cash per place is just anti-sport. Only the top 4 would lose out if the cash was split evenly, and only the top 3 significantly.

 

Put another way: given an over-estimate of SPL player's salaries and expenses at £100K p.a., we'd be able to afford 10 more players than the Motherwell team that didn't get relegated in the play-off.

 

These are just prize funds of course. It's safe to say that any increase in player's salaries etc. can be covered by increased attendances that roughly correlate with better performance on the park. If we want a more competitive league then a sporting prize fund is a must. It's not just the gap to the Tims that is the use.

 

Agreed and if you think about it, the bonus for anyone finishing as high up as they can should be the lure of European football.  The Tims could make plenty of money from finishing top if they actually successfully qualified for the champions league, they just fail to do it Would an even financial playing board make some more boring to watch? I'm not sure.

I've said for years that that cash should be split evenly between everyone in the league so that everyone knows they're budget at the beginning of the season, and everyone gets a good payment. The nonsense that is cash per place is just anti-sport. Only the top 4 would lose out if the cash was split evenly, and only the top 3 significantly.

 

Put another way: given an over-estimate of SPL player's salaries and expenses at £100K p.a., we'd be able to afford 10 more players than the Motherwell team that didn't get relegated in the play-off.

 

These are just prize funds of course. It's safe to say that any increase in player's salaries etc. can be covered by increased attendances that roughly correlate with better performance on the park. If we want a more competitive league then a sporting prize fund is a must. It's not just the gap to the Tims that is the use.

 

Wheres the fairness in a team finishing first getting the same prize money as a team finishing in 11th or 12th?

Wheres the fairness in a team finishing first getting the same prize money as a team finishing in 11th or 12th?

 

Quite simple really. Just remove the phrase "prize money", and replace it with "distribution payment". In a team sport where money can make a team exponentially better over time, the notion of prize money is absurd. You're suggesting that fairness in sport isn't measured on performance of two teams with a similar sporting chance, but on one team's ability to overcome a severe initial handicap. In fact the fairness you're referring to is just perceived entitlement - the exact opposite of fairness. It's about as fair as the fat lazy cunt with wealthy parents fa's just benefited from an increase in inheritance tax.

Quite simple really. Just remove the phrase "prize money", and replace it with "distribution payment". In a team sport where money can make a team exponentially better over time, the notion of prize money is absurd. You're suggesting that fairness in sport isn't measured on performance of two teams with a similar sporting chance, but on one team's ability to overcome a severe initial handicap. In fact the fairness you're referring to is just perceived entitlement - the exact opposite of fairness. It's about as fair as the fat lazy cunt with wealthy parents fa's just benefited from an increase in inheritance tax.

 

I totally agree that all sponsorship money is split evenly between all parties, there's no reason for it not to be and it means everyone benefits equally from the annual sponsorship.

 

Saying that what's the point in finishing as high up the league as possible if there's nothing to reward that performance? It's nothing to do with perceived entitlement it's just about competition. What's the point in a prize if there's no difference in whether you win or not? It's just backwards.

 

Out of interest can you name one sport that has the same prize for finishing second as it does for winning?...

 

As for your last point, I've no idea what the hell that has to do with it...  (also unless I'm very much mistaken an increase in inheritance tax would mean the fat lazy cunt loses out on money doesn't it?)

I totally agree that all sponsorship money is split evenly between all parties, there's no reason for it not to be and it means everyone benefits equally from the annual sponsorship.

 

Saying that what's the point in finishing as high up the league as possible if there's nothing to reward that performance? It's nothing to do with perceived entitlement it's just about competition. What's the point in a prize if there's no difference in whether you win or not? It's just backwards.

 

Out of interest can you name one sport that has the same prize for finishing second as it does for winning?...

 

As for your last point, I've no idea what the hell that has to do with it...  (also unless I'm very much mistaken an increase in inheritance tax would mean the fat lazy cunt loses out on money doesn't it?)

 

Stupid cunt - me - I meant tax threshold. Even then, it's not a great analogy!

 

Why do you need monetary reward for performance? Especially as a team. It's absurd. It has absolutely nothing to do with competition, and it is entitlement. I pay money to play in a football league every week, and try and win every single game. The prize is winning, beating your opponent. Footballers expect a good wage (rightly so) and will often be seen as money-grabbing and so on, but that takes place off the pitch. There's not one player in a dons shirt of a weekend playing his arse off so that his parent club can make £100,000 extra for finishing above the club below them. They just want to beat Hertz, the Jutes or whoever. The prize is finishing above them; winning. Just as I don't turn up at work to increase the oil company I'm working for's share price.

 

As for other sports, most are irrelevant. Individual sports aren't - for the most part - dominated by wealthy players winning everything. Andy Murray can't buy better tennis bats than Marin Cilic because he won more money at the previous tournament. But then I don't believe he still plays tennis for the money either. The US entry draft system is probably the only example I can think of where last season's poorer teams are given first pick. I have no idea what their prize structure is like. Not that it's relevant what every other league or sport does. I'd rather Scotland broke the mould, and tried something new. Given we're in our most sustained period of two team domination in the history of our game, we'd certainly do well to try something meaningful.