The money that goes into football comes from rich owners who can afford it

The argument

Football is partly funded by sponsors and the contributions of fans. However, a large portion of funding comes from the owners of clubs, and this argument turns on who those owners are. They are extremely rich people; so rich that they can afford to put millions into their club without the sum registering against what they hold. For example, Sheik Mansour is the owner of Manchester City, and his net worth is around 23 billion euros. Roman Abramovich is another famous owner, of Chelsea, and his net worth is around 10 billion euros. There are plenty of other wealthy owners in football like them, and together they account for much of the money critics point to when they say there is too much of it in the game. That ownership picture changes what the complaint is actually about. If clubs are funded by extremely wealthy people spending their own money, the sums involved are not being taken from anywhere else — not from supporters, not from the public, and not from some competing claim on those funds. It is their choice to put in the amount of money they do, and it is a discretionary choice made against alternatives well within their reach. That is where the argument locates its answer. Why should we take issue with them supporting the sport so lavishly? They could easily put that money into upgrading their mansions or buying jets — private consumption that would benefit nobody but themselves and would leave the game exactly where it was. Instead, they fund an activity that everyone, rich or poor, can enjoy, watched by people who will never come near that kind of wealth. Money spent that way is not a problem to be corrected, and so the amount of money in football is fine.

Premises

Counter-arguments

For some of these owners, owning and funding a club is just a vanity project for them. It's just another side project for them that they do for bragging rights. Or it might just be yet another way to fuel their greed. Rangers F.C. is one example of a club that unfortunately falls under this umbrella; according to its fans, its owner doesn't care as much about the welfare of the club as much as the easy profit it makes. This goes to show how the spending on football isn't really meaningful. And this kind of spending on football clubs by owners represents a sad opportunity cost. The money these owners spend could be going directly to charities, fundraisers, or any number of other good causes. Instead, it goes to entertainment. The fact that football is taking away from charitable causes and instead fueling the vanity of rich businessmen and overpaid athletes is a sad state to behold.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Where the money comes from does not answer whether there is too much of it. The objection concerns the effects of the sums involved — on ticket prices, on wages, on the competitive gap between clubs — none of which is touched by the wealth of the person writing the cheque. [Rejecting P2] Voluntariness is not a defence of an outcome. That an owner chooses the spending says nothing about what it does to the league, and benefactor funding has repeatedly been followed by clubs left carrying debts when the benefactor's interest ends. [Rejecting P3] Universal enjoyment is exactly what is contested. The same money has pushed up the cost of attending matches and moved coverage behind subscription paywalls, which is the ground on which the opposing position says there is too much of it.