Is there too much money in football?

The money from football trickles down from the league and clubs into communities

Question: Is there too much money in football?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the amount of money in football is fine
Argument‹4 of 4: The money from football trickles down from the league and clubs into communities

The largest football clubs have to spend a portion of their revenue on grassroots funding, while transfer fees also trickle down from larger clubs to smaller ones. This means that the money at the top level of the game eventually reaches local communities where it provides a much-needed resource.

The argument

With great power comes great responsibility. Football clubs and players have been given great rewards for their competition and success. But clubs are not distant champions, removed from the world. They are born, raised, and supported by the communities surrounding them. As such, they are expected to give back; and they do. Almost every elite European club also has a branch dedicated to charity and community work. It provides economic and social resources for members of its surrounding community. It even picks up where other social programs fail or simply can't reach. One example is Liverpool Football Club's LFC Foundation. When a nearby social program froze due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the LFC foundation offered its support to economically deprived communities. COVID-19 has brought the best out of many other clubs and players as well. Clubs like Manchester City and Manchester United put aside their rivalry to help donate to a food bank. Stars like Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have made generous donations to hospitals. Players and clubs throughout the world use the money they've been given to give back and make a positive difference.

Premises

[P1]Football clubs and players, having received great rewards, have a responsibility to give back to the communities that support them. [P2] Elite clubs and players consistently channel their wealth into charitable foundations and community aid, as shown by responses to COVID-19 and ongoing community programs. [C] Therefore, the money in football is fine because it trickles down from clubs and players into the communities around them.

Counter-arguments

As good as these gestures are, COVID-19 is a special case. Besides these initiatives, there isn't very much news about what clubs do for the communities. How was LFC Foundation helping the community before COVID, for example? The article cited doesn't really say. The sad reality is that trickle-down economics just doesn't work. It's just an excuse to put money into big business and corporations, and leave the common people waiting for benefits that never come. Why does money have to take this roundabout path from TV deals to owners to clubs to players to people? Why can't it just... go to the people? Especially the ones who need it most - much more than football players do?

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A duty to give back establishes an obligation, not that the obligation is being discharged at a level that justifies the sums involved. The premise argues from what clubs owe their communities to a conclusion about what they in fact deliver. [Rejecting P2] Nearly all the cited activity clusters around the COVID-19 emergency, an exceptional moment with exceptional publicity. The argument offers no account of what these foundations distribute in ordinary years, which is what a claim about routine trickle-down requires. [Rejecting C] The word 'trickles' concedes the objection. Routing money from broadcast deals through owners, clubs and players before some fraction reaches the surrounding community is an inefficient mechanism, and pointing to charitable offshoots does not show the underlying distribution is sound.