My main caveat from what I've read/listened to is that it seems to mitigate the impacts of the inequality without especially addressing the inequality itself.
That's not dismissing it at all, it was never going to fix that and what it does is tremendous but we're still dealing with solutions for cliff edge finances as opposed to dealing with the cliff edge.
I'd be naive to imagine that we'd have ended up with a disbanding of the premier league and a return to a collective bargaining of 92 clubs (and maybe a fixed and generous settlement for grassroots/ non league within that) but hey! I am naive!
It's a terrific achievement though and it's strong enough I think that even if it gets diluted as it is applied, it should still have an impact for good.
Agreed. I'm wondering from afar if the strategy is right, without knowing enough to know.
The report makes 47 proposals. The key proposals apparently are:
- a 10% stamp duty style levy on premier League transfers to support smaller clubs. (could raise 160m a year)
- an independent regulator to oversee the english game with oversight of club finances
- and ownership of the directors fit and proper process, with a new integrity test
- a golden share held by clubs' supporters
- a shadow board made up by fans which must be consulted on key decisions
- limits on the amount of money owners can put into a club, to prevent unsustainable practices and stop the distortion of competition
- a reappraisal of parachute payments
- compulsory relegation and promotion clauses in players’ contracts.
- compulsory equality, diversity and inclusion plans for every club, building on the success of the Football Association’s leadership diversity code and the Premier League EDI standard.
- a review into the future of the women’s game.
- trials to allow the consumption of alcohol while watching a match.
And about 40 others.
What has the consumption of alcohol got to do with this? Really?
I'm not even sure about shadow boards. In my experience of negotiation it is better to have a very clear plan of what you really want, and how it will all work, and to stick to a very small number of key changes. Present a clear picture of a different system and why it will work better. Which would then enable other changes to follow, possibly at individual club level. Like the alcohol thing, and shadow boards - let each club's set up work that sort of thing out. Even the clauses in players' contracts. A regulator can't control, all the details, but it can set a framework that reduces the charlatans in the game by actually assessing potential owners rigorously, and create a better distribution of income, and more fan inclusion. As Christine said, we are fortunate to have Sadler but, if things went wrong for him, we'd be at the mercy of the next regime. Possibly back to square one.
Boil it down to the fundamental changes that will produce a more sustainable, fairer system.
1. An independent regulator that oversees the fit and proper person tests and oversees finances
2. A limit on the amount of money owners can put in. Maybe zero.
3. Possibly some form of fan representation, I don't know what
4. A system for distributing money through the game. Again, tricky and I don't know how
That's probably it. I'd be tempted to re-introduce a maximum wage!
At the moment, ridiculous amounts of TV money go into the pockets of players and some owners, that could and should be used for the benefit of many more people.
Just my initial thoughts based on very partial knowledge.