The Times - UK (2020-10-14)

(Antfer) #1

the times | Wednesday October 14 2020 2GM 65


Sport


The problem is that the meaning of football is
about far more than its commercial bottom line.
There is a community dimension or, to use the
terminology with which the economists may be
familiar, a positive externality.
This is why the clash can be seen as one of
liberalism versus communitarianism, the
disruptive power of global markets versus the
preserving ideals of national community. Most
English fans, who love the complex ecosystem
of the domestic game, are horrified by the plans.
But most global fans would welcome a Super
League with all that it entails.
This is the tension that has existed within
football for almost two decades, and has yet to
be resolved.
How it plays out will depend on the lobbying
power of English fans, the growing impatience
of Henry and his ilk, and the possible
intervention of government. The stakes are high
and the future as yet unclear. The only certainty
is that it isn’t just a game whose future is in the
balance, but one of the most cherished aspects
of British culture.

the world’s super-rich, where they could rub
shoulders with the second tier of tech
entrepreneurs.
Billionaires are as competitive as the rest of us
— they just compete on the number of zeroes in
their bank accounts.
The Americans are not embarrassed by their
vision, by the way. They believe that the
European game contains dormant value. They
wish to free football from what they see as its
claustrophobic constraints, to capture the
enthusiasm for the game around the world.
They believe that if people are willing to pay for
their vision, they will be contributing to global
welfare.
Why, then, don’t they just break away now?
Why bother with Project Grand Plan at all? The
reason is that if they move too abruptly to the
European model, they risk alienating the game
and its stakeholders, a danger they are not yet
willing to encompass. They prefer a gradual
erosion of the domestic leagues, and a transition
to their financial utopia by stealth and
increment.

A European Super League would bring the prospect of Liverpool taking on Barcelona more regularly


European league


is endgame of the


American owners


Matthew Syed


A

spectre is haunting Europe. These
are the opening words of the
Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels, published in
1848, and the spectre they were

referring to was that of communism. Today,


there is a rather different spectre haunting


football: namely, the vision held by the


American capitalists who own Liverpool and


Manchester United, as well as many of their rich


peers.


This vision is rather different from that of


Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain, by


the way. The latter clubs are effectively owned


by nation states and are seen as vehicles for soft


power and the pursuit of strategic defence


alliances. The Americans, on the other hand, are


interested in profits, not politics. They want to


use these clubs to enhance their personal


balance sheets and they come from a nation


with a specific understanding of how this can be


achieved.


For in the American sports leagues, they have


found a clever (if rather Marxist) way of limiting


the principal cost. Salary caps of various kinds


ensure that new revenues are not competed


away in the rush to sign new players, which has


long been the Achilles’ heel of football. As Dan


Jones of Deloitte put it: “Wage inflation at a


pace to match, or even exceed, revenue growth


has been the key financial feature of the first 25


years of the Premier League and top-level


European football.”


The new proposals for English football —


known as Project Big Picture — should be seen


through this lens. The specifics are not terribly


significant beyond the quid pro quo of the


Premier League donating 25 per cent of


revenues to the rest of the league pyramid in


exchange for the top six clubs securing more


power. At first they will take a larger share of TV


cash and sell some of their own matches, but


these revenues won’t be of much use to the


owners if they simply drive up wages. Similarly,


a salary cap for the Premier League as a whole


isn’t of much use, as top players could escape to


clubs in Spain or Germany.


No, the only way to fully realise their vision is


with a European Super League. The threat of


breaking away to such a league has been used


by top clubs in the past to secure financial


benefits, such as the expansion of the
Champions League from 16 to 32 clubs, a
distribution model that favours the elite, and the
nobbling of the original Financial Fair Play plan
by Uefa. You may remember that the initial
concept was for limits on debt, but this morphed
into a limit on revenues, locking in advantages
for the aristocratic clubs with old money. More
recent changes include top clubs securing more
TV income in the Premier League, and
“heritage payments” in the Champions League.
These changes have only ever been regarded
by the American capitalists as staging posts
along the road to the financial utopia they crave.
What they need is the power to shape the
future. This is why the logical sequencing of
Project Big Picture is clear, if not yet explicitly
stated: a culling of domestic competitions in
favour of European games — a few more in
2025, perhaps, then more in 2026. They believe
that global fans will warm to more big clashes
and start to ask the question that John W Henry
has been posing since he arrived on Merseyside
in 2010: why watch Liverpool play West
Bromwich Albion on a Saturday when we could
be watching blockbuster contests between
Liverpool and Barcelona or Real Madrid? This
would mark the beginning of the end of the
Premier League as we know it.
A European Super League isn’t just about
revenue, of course. No, it is the only way to
secure the pan-European salary cap that would
transform the equity value of elite clubs,
denying players the opportunity to capture the
proceeds — although, by then, the salaries
would probably be so high that they wouldn’t
complain. Nor would players be troubled if Fifa
outlawed the new league, for the only sanction
the governing body could meaningfully impose
would be banning them from the World Cup,
but why would they care if they are earning
twice as much as in affiliated leagues?
This, then, is the ultimate vision: a globally
televised extravaganza pitting the biggest
“franchises” against each other on a pan-
European basis, with multinational sponsors,
vast audiences and TV auctions involving the
tech giants. One analyst told me that the value
of top clubs could triple, propelling the likes of
Joe Lewis, majority owner of Tottenham
Hotspur, and Henry into a much higher band of

MATT WEST/BPI/REX

How to improve the game? Our writers have their say


MATT DICKINSON
Even in the age of Financial Fair
Play and salary-cap controls, we
should have a system that
permits new money coming
into the game. The age-old
problem is when owners
overreach through vanity,
stupidity or ambition running
ahead of resources.
Back in 2014, and other
occasions, the idea has been
mooted that owners must lodge
a bond of funds to cover
running costs and contracts
over a set period. It never

passed, presumably because
clubs fear it may deter too
many potential suitors, but we
know from painful experience
that fit and proper tests do not
ward off the chancers.
It does not begin to correct
the game’s broader imbalances
but it would stop the worst
financial car crashes.

HENRY WINTER
The Premier League needs to
address its spending habits,
namely on transfers, salaries
and agents. Premier League

clubs get too regularly
outwitted on the price of
transfers, paying over the odds
for average players. Stand up to
agents and the PFA when they
object. And, finally, tackle the
ridiculously excessive sums
lavished on agents, who should
also be allowed to work for only
one party.

GREGOR ROBERTSON
The proposal at the heart of
Project Big Picture to share 25
per cent of the Premier
League’s net income with the

EFL — forgetting for a moment
at what cost — would be a game
changer. The gulf between the
top flight and Championship
would narrow. Parachute
payments, which inflate wages
and losses in the second tier,
could be abolished.

JAMES GHEERBRANT
The most effective solution
would be a more equitable
distribution of TV revenue.
Premier League prize money is
allocated based on raw position:
the champions get the biggest

chunk, the runners-up get the
second-biggest chunk, and so
on.
I would change that so 50 per
cent of the prize money fund
(which totalled £668 million last
season) is weighted like that,
but the other 50 per cent is
weighted based on an adjusted
measure like points per wage
pound. Last season’s ranking
would have had Sheffield
United top and Manchester
United 20th. That would reward
teams which overperform,
develop players and generally

act sustainably over those clubs
that do not.

PAUL HIRST
League One and League Two
have taken the sensible step of
introducing a wage cap and
now the Championship must
follow suit otherwise, many
clubs will go out of business.

MARTIN HARDY
Clubs who benefit financially
from those late fixture changes
caused by TV should pay for
away fans to get to the game.
Free download pdf