The amount of money in football is proportional to the demand for the sport
Football is the most popular sport in the world. There are clubs and leagues in a plethora of countries on almost every continent. The World Cup is a global sensation; thousands come to see it, and millions watch it on television. Football is a global phenomenon with a huge cultural presence. Since demand for football is so high, but supply - tickets, clubs, tournaments, leagues, etc. - doesn't significantly increase, the law of supply and demand states that the prices must rise. And that is exactly what we see happening in football today. Not only ticket prices, but also contracts and advertising deals, increase because of the higher demand. As the commodity becomes more popular, and more valued, money flows into the system at a higher rate. A problem with football's pricing isn't really a problem with football. It's a problem with a free-market economy. And anyone who does have that problem can only solve it by somehow addressing football's popularity - which seems counter-intuitive to the cause of bettering the game.
This argument basically boils down to "that's just how it is." But it shouldn't be that way. To clarify, this argument is saying that "the people want it, so more money goes into it." But those who oppose the amount of money in football hold that the people shouldn't be content with this situation. Instead, they should hold clubs and organizations accountable for how their money is handled. As this argument says, the people decide where money goes. So if the fans confront organizers about rising prices, gaudy advertising, and inflated contracts, the people in charge have to do something about it. Otherwise - or perhaps regardless - fans will leave the game because it's no longer enjoyable. If the ones in charge try too hard to make money - if they push the image that football is a business, not a sport - they will end up losing the very fans to whom they're trying to appeal.
Rejecting the premises