I am obviously talking about as a percentage of current/future income (i.e. from the time the spending will actually take place), not past income. Put another way, the spend may be 30% increase, but it is hard to imagine that the increase in income was not far greater than the 30% increase in spend. Therefore the relative investment in the game is diminished, which cannot be a good thing.
Listening write now to the guy from the fa talking about government investment in grass roots football when in fact they are cutting their investment. https://in.news.yahoo.com/fa-hit-1-6-million-funding-cut-grassroots-135015947--sow.html I might be negative, and you might be a ****ing idiot. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Those that turned talksport on following my last post, and heard the very much respected David Conn echo my sentiments might think 'Oh this hudd25 isn't a total knob after all'. He said various things - one, that the additional up to 15 million the fa are putting in is going to come out of redundancies to be announced next week. Two, an industry (English football) that is raking in something around 8 billion should a. put more back, b. be working together (prem league and fa) to deliver that putting back).
The government is reducing grassroots funding, as they think the richest league in the world, in the richest sport in the world, should be funding its own grassroots and they're right. And you still seem to be having an issue distinguishing between the FA and PL, it's the PL who have all the money and it's they who should be contributing more.
A while back weren't the parachute payments absurdly put down by the PL as counting towards money given to grassroots football?
