In 1992, the game we loved changed. The Premier League was formed, Sky took over and English Football has since changed at an unprecedented rate.
When football got glamorous the people in charge never thought about the boring details; like the financial future and how to protect and look after the game we all care about so much. They were swept along in the money, the sponsorship deals and the entertainment. What we are now left with is a game which desperately needs direction and financial regulation.
I want a game that is fair again, that rewards well run and well managed football clubs and I believe that UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations are too little too late for European football and will do nothing to make the premiership fair and competitive.
Call for Financial Fair play is little more than self interest, as usual.
Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre has urged the Premier League to implement UEFA’s strict Financial Fair Play Regulations, according to the Mail online.
Sportsmail’s Martin Samuel revealed this week that Liverpool were among a group of clubs attempting to curb the spending power of Manchester City and Chelsea.
In a letter to Premier League Chief Executive Richard Scudamore, Liverpool, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal proposed that all premier league clubs should strictly comply with UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations and break even over a rolling three year period.
Taken at face value this looks great! All clubs complying with the rules and breaking even financially. But think about which clubs are proposing it. Is it the poorer clubs, the newbies to the premiership that are struggling to balance the books? No, it's clubs with high revenues who cannot compete with the spending of Manchester City or Chelsea and want to see them brought under control. By making Manchester City and Chelsea balance their books they would bring a degree of "fairness" to the top of the league.
That's what gets my goat, the fact that we know each season which teams will be at the top of the league each year and no one seems to care that it's always the same teams.
The secondary motive, of the teams mentioned above, I believe, is to stop teams that are not in Europe (i.e. the rest of the league) benefiting from not being subject to the Financial Fair Play Regulations. I agree that this is fairer but I hate that fair play is only on the agenda because the long established hierarchy of English football is under threat.
It's easy for Manchester United and Arsenal to bleat since they have benefited from the lack of regulation. Admittedly some good management and marketing also played it's part over the last 20 years and they have positioned themselves as the two clubs with the biggest turnovers. UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations would not impact them and they would most likely rise back to the top of English game.
Why Financial Fair Play Regulations are still unfair.
The key component of UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations is that clubs wishing to take part in European competitions, like the Champions League or Europa League, must break even over a rolling 3 year period
For me this should already be a mandatory requirement of all football league clubs with the Premier League being no different. Furthermore, UEFA should impose this to all top division leagues in Europe in order to level the playing field.
Financial fair play is basically a cop out. It's come 20 years too late and does not go far enough. Manchester United's turnover is 6 times that of club's like Wigan and Blackpool. So whilst UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations may level the playing field in European competition, it does nothing to help parity domestically.
Changes I'd like to see to the Premiership.
I believe that salary caps should be introduced to the Premiership and extended as broadly as possible across European football.
How a salary cap would work.
- Pool all Sky TV money and league sponsorship revenues.
- Distribute this money equally across all 20 teams.
- Set the salary cap at £70 million per year or something similar dependent on collective revenue
- The Football League should follow suit with scaled down salary caps.
The implications of a salary cap.
a) Less stockpiling of talent. Below is a team comprised of Manchester City players who have not being starting matches regularly. Manchester City would not be able to afford a back up team this strong. This would benefit the Premier League in two ways 1) These good players would be starting in other teams and 2) The league would be more competitive.
Richard Wright
Maicon Micah Richards Kolo Toure Joleon Lescott Aleksander Kolarov
Scott Sinclair James Millner Jack Rodwell
Mario Balotelli Edin Dzeko
b) Players would get paid less. Good, they are vastly over paid at the moment, which has inflated ticket prices.
c) Player contracts would be shorter and the clubs would have more power to release and trade players. Again, good. Players have far too much power and secure lucrative 5 year deals by playing well for half a season. Under the salary cap system, top players would still get paid top money but you would not get 'also rans' like Paulo Ferreira sitting on Chelsea's bench for 10 years getting paid God knows what!
d) The Premier League would be decided by the quality of management and how well the club was run, rather than just how much money the owner has thrown at it. The likelihood is that the top teams would still be up there because they are run well.
e) The Premier league would be far more competitive which would benefit players, fans and clubs. The table below shows that as the financial discrepancies between the top teams and the rest of the league has grown, the domination by those teams has increased. In the 70's and 80's, Liverpool dominated because of their fans, managers and club philosophy. They were winning about 55% of their matches. In the 2000s, Arsenal were winning 59.63% of their matches, Chelsea 60.73% and Manchester United 66.93%. They all blitzed that 55% mark. In the 2010s Manchester City won 61.21% and Manchester United won 70.43% both smashing that figure again with Chelsea also on 55.26%.
So, let me get this straight.....3 teams have simultaneously dominated the rest of the league more than Liverpool did in the 70s and 80s? It's a joke and I don't understand why people keep believing that it is the best league in the world. You've got a few teams that dominate and the rest make up the numbers and collect their TV money in order to over pay their lesser players.
Clubs' wins by percentage over the decades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s | 2010s | |
(Source: Opta)
| |||||
Arsenal
|
43.51
|
46.96
|
47.73
|
59.63
|
51.30
|
Chelsea
|
30.65
|
36.56
|
38.32
|
60.73
|
55.26
|
Liverpool
|
55.16
|
55.93
|
47.34
|
53.68
|
40.87
|
Man City
|
39.71
|
28.11
|
33.59
|
33.44
|
61.21
|
Man Utd
|
39.20
|
45.50
|
56.96
|
66.93
|
70.43
|
A Commissioner
I strongly believe that the Premier League needs a strong elected commissioner to give it some guidance and to shape our game into a sustainable product. The commissioner's remit should be wide and he should have ultimate power over the league, like Roger Goodell does so successfully in the NFL.
Some of the areas I think he should look at and control are:
- Player behaviour
- Racism
- Diving
- Salary Caps and Club finances
- Enhancing the fans' experience at games
- Upholding the traditions that have made English football great
- The ownership of clubs by appropriate people
English football needs radical change. Unfortunately, I'm certain that it won't be getting meaningful changes any time soon.
Some further info:
Top 20 Richest football clubs 2012 - http://www.therichest.org/sports/richest-football-clubs/
Club finances available at - http://transferleague.co.uk/club-finances/club-finances-201011.html
The basic outline of how a salary cap works - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Salary_cap_in_the_NFL
Related article from the mail online - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2263861/Liverpool-urge-Premier-League-adopt-UEFAs-Financial-Fair-Play-regulations.html
