SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
Wow! In 28 years in a league that started with 20 clubs a further 30 (in a system where 3 teams swap every year) got In!
How is that a definition of competing? It's a built in mechanism - promotion and relegation!
It's a blatant, obvious fact, as black and white as any you could have that since money has been distributed thus the competition has decreased - there is a verifiable and clear reduction in the number of teams that win things (cups, leagues, champions league places) in the Premier League era compared to what preceded it.
It is true the English league is less sterile than some others. But less sterile is not exactly an advert. I keep hearing it's 'the best' and that to have 'the best' league, we have to have a situation wherein it costs billions (literally) to even consider competing in it. That's insanity.
What you'll note is that my initial post (to Mac) said my main concern was that regulation alone without a change to the financial regulations concerned me - I agree that simply preventing over spending is problematic if you don't deal with the reasons for the over spending. That reason is the cliff edge in finances.
I'm back where I started.
You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that.
There are lots of ways you could ensure football is more competitive. I agree some of them may risk the external investment by billionaires whose sole desire is to create a global brand and thus welcome the advantage to be gained from the current mechanisms whereby it is all but unthinkable that a big 6 club finishes in the bottom half of the table.
We could cap salaries, we could limit the number of players any one team is allowed to employ, we could remove the absurdity of place money, we could seek to reform the European system so it didn't financially reward mediocre performance year on year.
The fan led review doesn't do any of that - but, in appointing a regulator, it at least puts in place a body who could theoretically enforce rules that were positive for competition and gives supporters recourse in other circumstances.
Discussing the above is pointless because we've not got those measures. As I said, initially, what we've got is the prospect of more money for grass roots football really. Which doesn't fix the issues of competition within the league, but is very welcome.
More participatory sport can be achieved with relatively little money. Our league TV deal is way, way, way ahead of that of any other country. That is true. It is a ** nonsense if we're trying to argue that clubs are 'at risk' of not being able to compete in Europe if we divert a small percentage of 'their' money to support football in the wider population.
If these clubs are such wonderful businesses, then they'll operate slightly leaner, with a bit less waste. Are we seriously going to argue that if you look at the way say, Manchester United have operated in the last decade, that they're 'well run' in a sporting sense? Why should the income to the game subsidies mediocre clubs maintaining their status ahead of providing pitches for the wider game?
td53
I have discussed this or similar issues with you in the past and I think it's safe to see that we don't agree.
So without going over old ground, I'm just questioning one of the points you have made.
It's clear you know your onions and always present things well but I've just got a little query regarding one of the points you make:
"You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that"
As you are probably aware, I don't have a problem with bigger clubs having bigger resources although there is no doubt that this makes competition between teams in the EPL less competitive.
I'm assuming that you are suggesting the more of the broadcasting revenues are given to teams outwith the Premier League and to grass roots, etc, etc and that the revised lower total is distributed more evenly to the Premier League teams - perhaps split equally 20 ways and not by a greater amount being awarded based on league position ?
I don't necessarily agree with what I think you are proposing - ditch that for now - but while I can see that it would result in the lower Premier League clubs having less of an advantage over the Championship clubs, I am not sure that the bigger clubs with huge non broadcasting revenues would not still have an advantage over the rest of the Premier League clubs.
To be honest, I actually think that the revised method of distributing the broadcasting revenues would result in the bigger clubs having an even bigger advantage over the smaller clubs in the Premier League and if anything make the Premier League less competitive and the bigger clubs would be even more likely to finish in the European spots - exactly what you were complaining about (see highlighted above).
If you agree with my assumption, am I right in saying that you are not just capping/reducing/taxing broadcasting revenues and that you are suggesting that the non broadcasting revenues of the bigger clubs are also going to be capped/reduced/taxed ?
If so, I think you are asking for a lot and if not then I don't think your proposed solution does make the Premier League - and therefore qualification for Europe - more competitive and arguably it would make it even less competitive ?