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 pocket extra millions
every season from qualifying for one of the three UEFA competitions, they also
get to strike more lucrative commercial deals each year because of it.
Newcastle and Aston Villa are doing their best to prise open the door
to that clique, but the established gap already seems fairly structural.
A larger Champions League designed to ward off a European
Super League and next summer’s first, much-expanded Club World Cup will only
reinforce the gap between the Premier League’s long-standing haves and
have-nots.
It took an interesting coming-together of not only the top
flight’s minnows and its middle classes — such as Palace, West Ham and Fulham —
but also some of that upper-class elite to get anchoring on the agenda so
firmly.
However, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester
United have already expressed their concerns about the idea, pointing out
it is potentially a breach of UK competition law (and they are probably
right). Arsenal and Liverpool may see
more in it.
If Premier League footballers revolt strongly at the
potential for pay cuts, it could throw the whole deal into doubt. Nobody will
want the potential for U.S.-style sporting strikes, such as the mid-1990s
baseball walkout that saw two major-league seasons left incomplete.
An alternative explanation is that like any industry facing
external regulation, they are looking at a way of fudging the appearance of
self-regulation to ward off anything that the independent regulator might impose.
Knowing the Premier League, loopholes and workarounds will be baked in.
Meanwhile, they are lobbying hard against the regulator,
somewhat incongruously supported by the National League.
Comments
Post a Comment