Football fans tend to be conservative in their outlook and moving stadium is always a risk. Indeed, it is in financial terms, not just sentimental ones. The London Stadium has been a great deal for West Ham financially, but arguably it lacks the atmosphere of Upton Park. Newcastle fans would prefer to stay at St. James’s Park in the city centre: a poll shows that only 19 per cent want to move despite capacity constraints. At a time when the historic appeal of English football combines with the global popularity of the Premier League, when clubs are sports and non-sports businesses and commercialism chimes with heritage and architecture to form a must-see destination, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is the model. It is known for its scale, modernity and clear sightlines that have changed how many see football stadiums. It is, to use a phrase, ground-breaking. Arsenal moved from Highbury in 2006, seven years after the decision to leave was made. One of the main reasons was the club
Should a majority of Premier League clubs vote through the proposed hard spending cap for the 2025-26 season, it would not only aid the competitive nature of what is the world’s strongest domestic league, but also enforce a subtle shift in the perceived power base of English football. The cap idea is based on the concept of “anchoring”, designed to limit the amount of money any club can invest in their squad by tying it to a multiple (probably five) of what the division’s lowest earners get from the league’s centralised broadcast and commercial deals. The Premier League’s broadcast revenue sharing has always been, by European football standards anyway, a relatively noble meritocratic arrangement. It is less that sharing ratio which clubs such as Everton, West Ham and Palace are worried about — and more the consistent advantage clubs such as City, Chelsea and Manchester United have accrued from decades of participation in European football. Not only do the ‘Big Six’ tend to pock