from TC Lovely geezer What the Mail on Sunday's Patrick Collins wrote... Writing in this week's Mail on Sunday, columnist Patrick Collins makes some interesting, and highly pertinent, observations... When the Premier League revealed that its new television deal was worth £5.5billion over three years, the news was met with a popping of corks and a dropping of jaws. For this was the ultimate proof of English football's ability to accumulate riches beyond reason. So hands were pumped, backs were slapped and, amid the orgy of self-congratulation, a whiff of injustice was largely ignored. Which was a pity. For as the Premier League revels in its extraordinary wealth, the clubs outside that magic circle are increasingly reduced to the status of paupers. Statistics can be tailored to suit any story but the figures which have emerged over the past few days carry an ominous message for the weaker members of football's 'fraternity'. While Premier League clubs have secured £5.5bn from their television contracts, the Football League will be paid just £195m from its three-year deal with Sky. In addition, it will receive £240m per annum in 'solidarity' monies from the Premier League - a yearly increase of £40m or 20 per cent. But - and it is a crucial 'but' - of that £240m, £177m will be reserved for relegated Premier League clubs in the form of 'parachute' payments, up from £144m under the current deal. The outcome of the new agreement is genuinely dramatic and hideously unfair. If you reasonably consider that parachute payments to relegated clubs are, in effect, monies retained by the Premier League, then football's total broadcasting income will be split in the following proportions: Premier League - 93.27 per cent Football League - 6.73 per cent. Now, this column has long argued that the primary purpose of the Premier League is to create a competition in which the rich grow ever richer while the poor are cut adrift. In past seasons, the odd, indiscreet chairman has given the game away by demanding a more exclusive Premier League, by ending the threat of relegation. Although the idea was hastily dismissed, it would represent a logical progression for an institution which was conceived in greed and has grown still more rapacious down the years. But the effect on the weaker, poorer clubs would be calamitous. For the strength of the English game has always been found in its healthy diversity. The giants have always been with us; big-city clubs, well capable of looking after themselves. But the smaller clubs also belonged to the broad family. And they knew that if they organised shrewdly, invested intelligently and involved their players and fans, they could work their way to a higher level. The odds were always stacked against them, even in those distant days when the Football League was a broad co-operative, embracing every club. Television fees were laughably modest by modern standards but they were distributed in a roughly equitable and inclusive fashion. The paupers could indulge in princely dreams. But when the Premier League came sailing in on a sea of satellite television money, those dreams effectively died. Such were the stakes that the clubs were driven by an obsessive desire to thrust their noses in the trough and keep them there. I once asked a chairman why he was prepared to cut so many corners and pull so many strokes in order to win a place among the elite. He reacted with blank incomprehension. It was obvious, wasn't it? I was reminded of the notorious American criminal Willie Sutton, who was asked why he robbed banks. He replied: 'Cos that's where the money is.' Having reached the land of plenty, clubs immediately start to worry about what might happen if they fail to stay there. Their answer is to take out insurance in the form of those parachute payments. The object of these handouts is to ease the pain in the event of relegation. Always shameless, this time the ploy is particularly offensive. The payment is £23m in the first year, £18m in the second and £9m in years three and four; thus the total reward for failure amounts to £59m. Crucially, in the first year after relegation - a club's best chance to muscle their way out of the Championship - that will equate to an increase of almost 44 per cent. Under this formula, Reading, relegated after only a year in the Premier League, will receive £23m next season. While Millwall, say, who have not played in the top division in recent years, will be paid £1.8m from the Football League television deal plus their £2m 'solidarity' payment from the Premier League. So £23m plays £3.8m: the inequity is staggering. I do not suggest that vulgar self-interest is confined to the members of the Premier League. For instance, last week, at the Football League AGM in Portugal, Yeovil Town celebrated their promotion to the Championship by fiercely opposing a move to share extra money with clubs from Leagues One and Two! Nor do I argue for a return to the days when media revenue was shared relatively evenly among the 92 clubs. Desirable though that might be, we have come too far to turn back. But I do believe that avarice is now completely out of hand, and that the disproportionate distribution of income is seriously damaging the health of the game.
Seeing as nobody else has seen fit to reply to your very informative post hawk I will do you the honour of giving my opinion. I posted a thread a few weeks ago that was somewhat on the same lines but nowhere near the depth of your blog and I said that it was becoming increasingly obvious that the top flight teams no longer give a hot about the roots of the game that has now supplied them with untold wealth. As far as they are concerned the rest of us can go to hell over Niagara Falls in a barrel when the chances of reaching the promised land is a low percentage risk fraught with lurking dangers on the rocks. It now seems to be that should you dare to win promotion and rattle their cages they might be prepared to offer you the chance of redemption should you fail, by supporting you to beat up the lower league upstarts who have the nerve to think they should be able to achieve the same. Just in case nobody has noticed that is essentially supporting your failure in order for you to return their midst as soon as possible, and forget helping any other team that might have the temerity to think that perhaps they should get a chance. Elitism doesn't even begin to characterise their single mindedness and for what it's worth it borders on criminal and cartel like thinking, but then if I were to mention the abundance of overseas owners I would probably get panned for my thoughts EH?
Only by fans of the Clubs with foreign owners who are afraid they might throw their toys out of the pram and spit the dummy out and leave their clubs up **** creek without even a paper paddle
Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I've only just seen the thread. Many thanks Hawk. Patrick Collins has neatly summarised exactly what we've discussed recently, and what I'm sure a lot of football fans have thought. The Prem is almost a cartel, amassing money and protecting its members whilst the remaining 72 can go hang. The statistics are quite shocking in terms of the money split and what little the PL graciously deigns to share with its poorer, grassroots cousins. And sad to read that now Yeovil have reached the giddy heights of the Championship, they've seemingly forgotten where they've come from and where they could be back to in 12 months time. It would be nice to think that the PL, FA and FL could share money a little more generously so that the lower leagues are protected better (which in turn benefits the health of the WHOLE game), but the rich have no desire to give up any of their wealth. All the more so as more and more of the players in the PL come from outside the UK, so why bother help the lower leagues develop British players when you can just buy abroad? Such short mindedness and greed are killing the domestic game, just look at the effect there has been on the national teams. Very sad to see what our historic game has become. I wish that somehow, football supporters could mobilise together, regardless of who we support, and at least demonstrate the depth of our feelings.
As Prem correctly said "they won't" and that is a sad reflection of what has happened to our game. The dreams of the young kids kicking a ball around the local village green (probably not out in Ashton Vale) hoping one day to play the game at the professional level are being told to b****r off and take your ball home with you. But if you only have dreams of playing for the lower dross then it's O.K. but don't set your sights above that because fair play gives most of those places to foreigners. Cynical old me.
I find it impossible to 'Like' this thread - because it's absolutely 'nail on the head accurate' - and a bit depressing for the 72 clubs not in the EPL.
Don't normally agree with articles in the Mail but this time spot on. Considering the Championship is I believe the fourth or fifth best supported league in Europe it seems unfair that little money (other than parachute payments) comes it's way. Always thought when premier league was started, that football league should have cut all ties and gone it's own way, but hey that's not an option anymore. Just have to look at Rugby league to see what happens, no promotion for lower leagues so no way of reaching the big time!! poor standard, poor crowds! Holland, no of second tier clubs going to the wall whilst two or three clubs have all the money, Scotland!!! need I say more. I know this is unfair to supporters, but it would be nice to see one of the "Big Clubs" go to the wall so that the premier league would get a dose of reality. Hey ho, bet I have more fun supporting BCFC than being a prem follower who is always searching for success?? who needs it? made loads of friends stood in the East end, sat in the Atyeo and selling fanzines over the years and it has certainly enriched my life. Has also taught me that winning is not the be all and end all and that success is not always the ultimate goal (Oh S*** I'm beginning to depress myself now! time for my medication)
I now hope Yeovil get relegated next year despite the fact that I had been pleased for them this year.
You could also chuck in clueless Weak Ignorant Arrogant and I'm going to add ****ers. There, I feel better now...!
wonder what percentage of the premierships tv money ends up abroad,? which i think is the heart of the problem, sooner or later the prem, or a good portion of is gonna go tits up, a top heavy pyramid can"t last, as bob dylan said- you dont need a weather man, to see which way the wind blows. all we can do as a club,is to make sure we are as self reliant as possible, so that when that happens, we are in as strong a position as possible.
You cynical old so and so wings but regrettably you are probably spot on. Why wouldn't the country allow the monies to go overseas when just about everything else British has been sent offshore - OOPS. Probably why I live where I do.
The latest TV deal increased the Premier leagues income. If anything the greed is good leagues gravy train is increasing. A Premier league train crash as it were seems unrealistic.
Only take the recession to bite a bit more and Sky will start losing subscribers soon as that happens the train might well hit the buffers
The latest TV deal for 2013 - 16 increased by billions [2.5 I think]. 50% + is linked to foreign TV deals, in effect the gravy train is recession proof.
But if Sky goes tits up the rest goes as well it is Sky that arranges the foreign tv deals BSkyB is heavily dependant on its subscription channels for its profit margins the advertising doesn't come close to covering their costs and one of the News corps staff has already said they have lost subscribers faster in the last year than ever before, at the moment they are getting new ones slightly faster than losing them what happens if they go over the tipping point? There has to then be a point at which the whole structure becomes unsustainable but when that happens is something you need a crystal ball for.
Football is key to Sky's business plan - they will continue to pay top dollar to keep it. The problem is that Football League fans like us pay our Sky subscriptions and the Premier League clubs just get richer
The Premier league arranges its own deals and income comes from various sources e.g BT[hundreds of millions]. There are now companies competing with sky increasing the value of televised football.
And if Sky were not pumping all the cash into football what do you think would be the value of the next contract remember when it was the terrestrial stations bidding against sky that pushed the price up. In fact Sky only got their first contract because Alan Sugar (Amstrad who made sky boxes) the then Spurs chairman left the supposedly secret meeting to allocate the contracts to phone Sky and tell them they needed to increase their bid as ITV were about to get the contract. There have been fiddles going on ever since it won't be long before the EPL will decide to keep all the money after all why support clubs that might push their snouts out of the trough.
