English football is in an ugly civil war after Liverpool and Manchester United proposed a radical plan that would bring about the greatest overhaul of English football in generations.
The controversial “Project Big Picture” has sparked an ugly feud between the Premier League heavyweights and Minnows over claims that the top-tier powerhouses have grabbed a blatant power grab.
It could also cost English Football League (EFL) boss Rick Parry his job for his role in supporting the plan that even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has spoken out against.
Watch European football with beIN SPORTS and ESPN on Kayo. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial and start streaming right away>
WSW separates from the trainer
0:26
Footballer beaten to death by his own teammates after a defensive mistake
‘Blown away’: Jürgen Klopp’s answer to a worried 11-year-old boy who wrote to him is great
‘He had the Arsenal shirt’: the lunch Gunners almost delivered to Ronaldo
At the heart of the plan is a much-needed cash injection for the EFL clubs on the verge of collapse. But it would also give massive boost to the so-called “Big Six” who dominate the Premier League, including concentrating power over future decisions in their hands.
The extensive changes would reduce the number of Premier League clubs from 20 to 18 and abolish the League Cup and Community Shield.
Only two Prem teams would be automatically relegated each season, with a third playing against the championship’s third, fourth and fifth teams for their place in the top division.
One of the most significant changes, however, would be the end of the “one club, one vote” governance structure under which the Premier League has operated since its inception in 1992.
Under the new proposals, only six of the nine longest-serving clubs would have to vote to approve major changes, instead of 14 of the current top 20 teams.
The nine teams include the “Big Six” of Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, while the other three clubs that will receive “long-term stakeholder” status under the new rules are Everton, Southampton and West Ham are.
The other Premier League clubs seriously fear that these clubs could use this power to make even more significant changes in their own interests in the future, for example in connection with TV deals or the veto against a new club owner.
UK Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said he was “skeptical” of the plans, saying they were viewed as a “takeover” by the heavyweight teams The athlete quoted a source describing the move as “nuclear war”.
An official spokesman for UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “It is clear that this proposal does not find support throughout the Premier League and it is precisely this kind of backroom deal that undermines trust in the governance of football.”
The EFL had financial trouble without fans during the hit COVID-19 campaign to be tackled with an immediate £ 250m bailout – something the EFL and the Premier League have been fighting over for months. Given that many EFL clubs are on the verge of financial collapse, the plan has received widespread support from these sites.
The proposal also provides for EFL clubs to receive 25 percent of the Premier League’s broadcast revenue in the future, a massive increase from the current four percent. The EFL currently has its own TV broadcasting contracts, which generate around a quarter of the broadcasting revenue of the Premier League. Linking their financial base with the enormous revenues of the Premier League would likely secure the long-term financial future of the lower divisions.
Fox Sports Sportmail has the latest soccer news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox. Join Now!!!
Haaland missile seals hatty
0:52
There is also an instant payment of £ 100 million to the financially troubled FA to help develop non-league, women’s and grassroots football. The fans will also benefit from it. For away fans there are travel subsidies with tickets capped at £ 20. There will be an increased minimum allocation for away scores and a drive for security.
But of course there are significant drawbacks and many caveats that could further cement power in the hands of the Big Six.
All Premier League clubs could sell eight games a season through their own channels to fans outside the UK, which could be a big win for the big teams. That would mean less income in the PL broadcasting contracts – and thus less money that flows through the football pyramid. Currently, the international broadcasting money is mainly divided between the 20 teams.
And with fewer teams in the top division, the number of games each team plays would go from 38 to 34. Fewer games also mean less money in broadcasting agreements, while two home games would be lost for each club – a huge financial hit for those on tight budgets. For teams outside of the top 6, the financial pain doesn’t stop there, as the increased TV revenue for the EFL is a significant part of its bottom line.
And of course the risk of relegation would be higher if two teams less were in the top division. If they are relegated, there is more pain for these clubs, as the “parachute payments” for relegating clubs are to be canceled. These payments go a long way toward helping teams take the huge financial blow of the second division drop, but are not always popular with second division rivals who see it as an unfair advantage.
There is more in the package for the big teams – with a proposal to change the prize pool structure to increase the percentage given to teams that land higher on the ladder.
There would be new funding modalities for infrastructure work aimed at teams that have spent more time in the top flight.
For example, Tottenham could reclaim £ 125 million of the £ 1 billion for its new £ 62,000 stadium on White Hart Lane. Liverpool could get half of the £ 60million for their new main stand upgrade, with refunds being upgradeable retrospectively.
Such payments would be limited to teams that have spent less time in the top division in recent years – essentially, low-ranking teams could get almost nothing for similar work.
Larger clubs would benefit from fewer fixtures both in the league and when the league cup is set. That would give them more capacity to plan blockbuster games in Europe – an increasing possibility with the long-discussed European “Super League” against teams like Barcelona and Juventus.
Another massive change would include the introduction of stricter financial fair play rules in line with UEFA’s restrictions. The rules would mean clubs could lose £ 35million over a three year period instead of the current £ 105million, effectively ensuring that owners of teams with lower tables cannot throw in more money to become more competitive. Many believe this will result in maintaining the status quo of the Big Six, who dominate the top of the table – and preventing underdogs from ever emulating Leicester’s famous rise and winning the title.
England is fighting for victory
1:55
The unveiling of the proposal sparked outrage in the English football community. Most saw it as a takeover by the big six. No Premier League team has publicly spoken out in favor of the plan – even those who are supposed to benefit from it, like the Big Six and teams like West Ham, which are widely reported to be extremely against the plan.
Particularly annoying for many was the way in which the plans were developed and published – clandestinely falsified by Liverpool, ticked off by Manchester United and only released after being leaked to the media rather than openly discussed among the top clubs .
Even the Premier League itself declined the plans with a statement stating, “According to the Premier League, some of the individual proposals in the plan released today could have detrimental effects on the whole game and we are disappointed to see Rick Parry, EFL chairman , has given his support on record. “
Parry is also a former executive director of Liverpool and CEO of the Premier League when it was founded. He defended the plans across the media, praising Liverpool and United for “showing leadership when it was needed”.
“The proposal is made for the good of English football,” he said.
But he’s now facing a revolt by some struggling Premier League clubs who want his head. Many believe Parry is trying to regain a role as Premier League boss by making himself popular with the competition heavyweights.
Suarez: Barca made me cry
2:00
After the reveal, angry Premier League bosses put an end to negotiations with Parry and the EFL over a possible financial rescue. David Baldwin, CEO of EFL, resigned but claimed this had nothing to do with Project Big Picture and was due to the vastly different operating environment due to COVID-19.
A Premier League shareholders’ meeting is scheduled for this week, and Project Big Picture will now dominate the debate. While it seems unlikely to succeed as 14 of the 20 Premier League teams would have to vote in favor of the proposals, it is more likely that the Premier League, EFL and stakeholders from government to clubs will now start a series of negotiations on the restructuring of the English football pyramid.
If a solution can’t be found soon, many EFL clubs may not be around to witness the brave new dawn.
.
