Is football a ‘public good’? That is the rather surprising claim made by the chief executive of the Bundesliga in an interview with The Guardian’s David Conn.
Is football a ‘public good’? That is the rather surprising claim made by the chief executive of the Bundesliga in an interview with The Guardian’s David Conn.
David Conn has, of course, been a consistent critic of the Barclays Premier League while heaping praise on the Bundesliga for its cheap tickets and democratic ownership structures. He argues that the German clubs have taken advantage of new commercial and television opportunities without selling out to speculative owners.
But a public good? If I remember my Economics 100 correctly, a public good has two distinctive characteristics, non-exclusion and non-rivalry. If a good is made available to one person, then it is available to all the other members of the relevant group. The other feature is that one person’s consumption of the good does not reduce the amount available for consumption by others. National defence and breathable air are classic examples.
I am not sure that football even counts as a ‘merit good’, goods whose merit for their own individual welfare some individuals cannot be assumed to judge when all reasonable information has been provided to them. Health care might be an example, although some find the whole concept elitist and paternalist.
Supporting a football club must surely be classified as a private good (or bad, given the frustration that is often involved). Of course, that does not rule out a regulatory framework, although who should provide it (self-governing bodies, national governments, the EU) remains a contested question.