There appears to be a fatalism and acceptance concerning our beloved game of football in the sense that the artificially created Top 6 are now cemented in place pretty much for ever. As things stand at the moment, the governance of the game appears to be designed to ensure no one can disturb the Top 6 — or should they be called the Sky 6?
They reached the top being allowed uncontrolled investment and then rules were created to prevent competition. Why did clubs or authorities allow this protectionism? There does not appear to have been any pushback. Where were the FA or the adults in the room?
At the risk of being controversial, are we the fans guilty to a degree of complacency? Why have we not been more vocal and attempted to make our voices heard — that is, if any media channels would be prepared to air our concerns?
There are big clubs in this country that are being prevented from challenging for top places in the Premier League — to name a few: ourselves, Leeds Utd, Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday, Newcastle Utd, West Ham Utd, Derby County and let’s see where Aston Villa (there may be others) finish this season but they are already talking about staying compliant with financial rules.
Last season, Newcastle Utd broke into the Top 6 and Champions League but weren’t allowed to make the investment required to fight on two fronts and this weakened them; they are now gamely fighting for a lowly European place. Is it fair that Chelsea under Abramovich and others were allowed years of unfettered investment to build a power base of almost two teams while Newcastle aren’t?
The clubs I have mentioned and others are in the worst of situations where there is little hope of winning the Premier League or likely gaining a Champions League place on a consistent basis. They are in never-never land, banging their heads against a glass ceiling.
Taking our club as an example — since the beginning of this season, pretty much all media outlets have us selling Branthwaite and Onana and sadly it is likely to happen at the end of the season. Sadly, this is now meekly accepted as the norm for any club outside the Sky 6. Again, how have the football authorities allowed this situation?
In a proper league, a club of our size would keep these players to build around or be adding them to Lukaku, Richarlison, Stones, Barkley, Gordon and we would be in the process of building a team to seriously compete. Clubs outside the Sky 6 are now not allowed to build a team and – I hate to say this – are now just feeder clubs.
I often ask myself what is the point of supporting a game where clubs aren’t allowed to compete because it doesn’t fit the Premier League and Sky business model? We now have many large clubs of potential who are disenfranchised. Again, where is the governance?
This is particularly damaging to many clubs, and I feel the game as a whole, as it is likely to further build the fan base of the Sky 6 to the detriment of a host of formerly big clubs. Youngsters looking to support a team are more likely to choose a team at the top end of the table; but, as this group don’t really change, then clubs like ours will miss out on this potential fan base.
This further builds up the Sky 6. Is it likely fans from abroad would look to support West Ham or Man City? We all know who the majority will gravitate towards…
I am asking who allowed the game to be taken from clubs like ours? I don’t remember being asked if it was okay that my club would not be allowed to compete for honours but be part of a league to fill the coffers of the Sky 6. This was a massive change and is reality but surely there should have been discussion as it is a momentous change to the game in this country.
There are 86 clubs not in the takeover and how many clubs and supporters of clubs outside the Football League? Why no fight from the clubs not in the chosen elite? Where was the Governance, where were the FA, or the Government?
Let’s remember, the Sky 6 are nothing without other teams who can put up some resistance on the field and give the pretence of a competitive league. But be sure: we and others are merely cannon fodder.
In my view, the FA must take much responsibility as their role since 1863 is responsibility for all regulatory aspects of the game of football in England — and it was the FA who handed to the Premier League the control of the top flight of English Football.
I am not going to go into detail about the formation of the Premier League but, for anyone interested, a readable source can be found — The Guardian: Deceit, determination and Murdoch’s millions: how the Premier League was born.
The Premier League is a commercial entity which runs the top flight, making decisions regarding the commercial side of the game, sponsorship, TV rights and distribution of money. Regretfully, it now appears to wield all the power and amasses the colossal revenues and pretty much decides where it is distributed.
The Premier League does stream some monies (grudgingly) to Football League clubs, if the current situation is anything to go by. Why are the FA not at the forefront of these important decisions? Unfortunately, they handed power to the Premier League.
Did they actually have the right to make this decision legally or morally? Well I guess they did… but it beggars belief. The FA have a “Golden Share” which appears to give them some influence and authority but I truthfully don’t know the power of this Share. I think they were going to use it when the proposed Super League was mooted.
A proper Governing body back in the early 1990s would have ensured that the issues in English Football were addressed but they would keep control. What professional organisation would have just handed what is virtually complete control of the top flight to another body who they don’t now appear to have any control over? The Premier League are a commercial entity and bring in £Billions but the FA appear to have no control over how it is distributed. It’s frankly beyond belief.
Certainly the Premier League has been massively successful in terms of the revenue it has brought into English Football but it has come at a cost and destabilised the game – certainly at the top end. I feel a reset is well overdue.
The trick will be to make changes while maintaining the Premier League’s worldwide popularity and keeping revenues from TV at a high level. Is this possible while making the Premier League more inclusive in terms of broadening the number of clubs who can win the Premier League? For example, a bad season should have the jeopardy of relegation for Manchester United not finishing in 6th position and a European place.
I feel that the time for change is well overdue in the governance of our game and the all powerful Premier League is no longer fit for purpose. It is no longer discharging its duties equitably to its 20 member clubs and is it acting in the best interests of the rest of football? The Premier League and many of its clubs don’t appear to display much responsibility to the greater football family.
For example, do the owners of Manchester City or Arsenal know of the difficulties that Lincoln City or Bristol Rovers face? If they did, would they care? To be frank, on a certain level, I don’t blame them as they are only concerned with the running of their club… but that is why adults in the room are required and a proper governing body looking at the whole picture.
The Premier League were recently voting on whether to allow movement of players between multi-ownership clubs. Obviously clubs voted for self-interest — not what might be right for football.
As a football fan, I want changes to allow more clubs an opportunity to realistically compete — and by this, I mean compete for Champions League, win the Premier League, and have the chance to build a team without the pilfering of talent that is prevalent at present.
Carlisle Utd were in the top flight in 1974-75 and I think in defeating us twice cost us the League Title, if memory serves me. The dream was once there for many clubs in English Football… but not now.
I would like to throw out a few ideas for thought and discussion; anyone reading this article, please understand that I am aware there is the likelihood of employment legislation and other factors that might never be negotiated.
What follows is something of a ”brainstorm” working toward a footballing utopia and a much-needed reset, in my humble view. As always, some readers will completely disagree while some might agree with the occasional point. It’s just great to have ToffeeWeb where views like this can be exchanged.
Changes I would like:
The time has come for changes regarding governance – who is going to run our game?
An equitable distribution of money.
A full investigation into the running of the game by an independent body – possibly the Government.
I would be interested in ideas from our ToffeeWeb group, there are many able people posting on this website.
In terms of Football Governance:
Why do we need 3 organisations- The EFL, the Premier League and the FA? If we need 3 organisations, should we not have a ruling body overseeing them, taking in the whole picture, and acting in the best interests of all football? This body would be to the ultimate authority. I thought we had such an organisation — the FA.
Such a body to conduct a far-reaching review of football and have close detailed consultation with fans, supporters clubs, representatives from all leagues, and not just fans of the Sky 6.
Academies: it appears in the current situation that a club can develop players only for a cash-rich club to prise them away and not necessarily have to pay a large amount of money. The Liverpool team that were lauded for recently winning the League Cup with several youngsters did not find these players but they were in fact signed from other teams, probably from lower Leagues. This needs reviewing.
The Chelsea model (used by other clubs) of hoovering up many young players and loaning them to clubs at a fee… Is this in the spirit of the game? Is it to the possible detriment of players and the game in general?
Finances: Rationale — clubs to be equally valued
The nature of a league requires clubs to be genuinely competitive. At the moment, many clubs can only battle against the odds when playing against the Sky 6, with minimal possession and usually losing in the latter stages. This gives the false impression of competitiveness. In reality, they are cannon fodder.
All TV revenues to be allocated fairly. At the moment, overseas TV money is not a collective distribution as more goes to the Sky 6. Well done, Mr Scudamore.
Follow the American Football model regarding sale of club merchandise. Clubs keep revenue from goods sold within a radius of say 50 miles from their ground. All other sales go into a central fund for distribution where the governing body feels is appropriate and needed. Rationale: the competitiveness of a league requires all clubs to be equally valued.
A salary cap which might help clubs keep players long enough to build a team. Look at what happened to Southampton a few years ago and Brighton last summer, while commendably building competitive teams, their key players were pilfered and this negated any threat to the Sky 6.
Transfer of players: if a club makes a bid for a player and the player’s club say he is not for transfer, then that is the end of the matter. If the player or his agent try to force a move, the bidding club will abide by the selling clubs’ decision. If the player does not accept the decision and becomes disruptive, the governing body intervenes. There may be sanctions by the governing body. No club will be allowed to break this regulation. Contracts become meaningful.
The Champions League: I have to confess I am not sure what is required. It certainly has played a part in destabilising the competitiveness of our top league and the money to be gained. Perhaps clubs involved are awarded less from TV revenues. Any ideas to be gratefully received.
I would like to see a petition of 100,000 signatures handed to the Government and they may just discuss the inequalities of the Premier League model. Possibly the millions of fans not linked to the Sky 6 may at last be granted a voice.