Since Match of the
Day first aired on BBC2 on 22nd August 1964, football has appeared
regularly on our television screens. But it was not until the late
eighties, when the Football League signed a deal with ITV, that
league football was televised live. It seems unbelievable that the
only live football matches we saw on TV before that deal were FA
Cup Finals and major internationals.
It was a deal that football needed desperately. The eighties were
a dreadful decade for football with hooliganism, Heysel, Bradford
and Hillsborough all hitting football hard during those ten years,
the ITV football deal brought some much needed cash into the game
and paved the way for BSkyB.
That deal in 1992 changed football in England completely. The FA
Premier League was formed by the former First Division clubs leaving
the Football League without their most valuable assets, and league
football was live on television every week. Today there are well
over a hundred live Premiership games each season on Sky, together
with Football League and Champions League games, and the money that
Sky pump into the game is astronomical.
On the whole, these changes have made the game stronger, but parts
of it are suffering because the football authorities, the FA, UEFA
and FIFA, have failed to react sufficiently to keep the game healthy
at all levels.
I believe there are a number of things that should be done to correct
the inequalities that have emerged in the past ten or so years.
With the amount of money in the game in this country, there should
be no financial problems, but over the past few years, there are
numerous examples of clubs in dire financial straits with Leeds
United as the most recent high profile example.
The core reasons are twofold.
The first and most obvious reason was the formation of the Premier
League in 1992. By separating the top division from the rest of
the Football League for the purposes of television rights, it was
obvious that the money was always going to stay with the top flight
clubs. They have the most valuable product and they are keeping
the money. Some money does filter down to the lower league clubs
and some is given over to grass roots football, but the fact remains
that Premiership clubs receive ten or fifteen times as much money
from television than Championship clubs.
It was expected that the top clubs would recruit players from lower
league clubs in England thereby distributing money through transfer
fees. A certain Jean-Marc Bosman put an end to that idea.
The Bosman ruling in December 1995 meant that the FA could no longer
restrict the number of non-English EU players in squads and it also
gave players out of contract freedom of movement between clubs.
This has probably contributed to the financial problems in the game
to a greater extent that the formation of the Premier League. Clubs
could sign players from other EU countries without restriction and
they were generally cheaper than those in the UK meaning that the
level of transfer funds passing to lower league clubs was dramatically
reduced. Additionally, the freedom of movement ruling gave players
the ultimate power. The vast majority of money that clubs receive
from Sky goes directly to players - the clubs are forced to pay
higher and higher wages to attract and keep their best players,
and many, like Leeds United, Bradford City, Coventry City, Nottingham
Forest and Sheffield Wednesday, have over committed leaving themselves
with crippling debts when they got relegated, although Leeds managed
to do it before being relegated(!).
So what can be done? Two things would solve the situation very easily
- bring the Premiership back into the Football League and overturn
the Bosman ruling. The former is no more than a faint hope, the
latter will never happen as long as Britain remains in the EU (ah,
now there's an idea…). Having said that, UEFA have proposed plans
to force teams to have a certain number of homegrown players in
their squads for UEFA club competitions which could open up the
old "restriction of trade" arguments once again.
One could argue that a strong FA could bring about the reconciliation
of the Premiership and Football League, but the main problem is
that the top clubs are greedy. If their share of the pie was seen
to be reduced, they can always repeat the threat to quit the English
league and form a European League with the other G14 clubs. The
FA will never run that risk. Unfortunately, this is why I can never
see too much changing in terms of the distribution of funds to the
lower leagues - I'd like to see a gradual increase in the proportion
of TV money passed down the tree, as this would help to close the
gap between the Premiership and the rest and generally improve the
English game as a whole, but from the Premiership clubs' point of
view, it could be seen as a similar to turkeys electing Bernard
Matthews as president.
The only viable solution to the overall financial instability in
the game that I see at present is one that has been mooted in several
quarters, that is, some sort of salary cap. In fact, in 2002, the
G14 clubs agreed in principle to implement a self-imposed salary
cap of 70% of a club's turnover starting from next season (2005/2006).
This was followed by a similar result in a vote amongst Football
League chairmen, but there were strong objections from certain clubs.
Of course, it was Jimmy Hill who started all this with his successful
campaign to remove the maximum wage, and while I wouldn't advocate
a return to those days, something needs to be done not only to prevent
clubs from financial ruin, but also to make football more competitive.
English league football was always competitive when other leagues
in the world were not. The Old Firm always dominated in Scotland
and history shows that France, Holland, Italy, Spain and others
all have a handful of dominant teams. Since the advent of the Premiership,
Manchester United and Arsenal have dominated and Chelsea have only
been able to challenge that domination thanks to a billionaire benefactor.
A salary cap based on a percentage of turnover will not break that
domination as the top clubs have a huge turnover, so how can the
league be made more competitive?
One answer is to have a fixed amount of money as a salary cap, coupled
with a cap on transfer fees which would at least mean that the top
clubs would be limited on what they could spend, although the smaller
clubs may still have a problem in being able to get anywhere near
the cap. In my view, there is another option.
I believe that football could do a lot worse than look at the experience
of arguably the most competitive league competition in the world
- the NFL. Since the introduction of the salary cap in American
Football in 1994, there have been eight different winners of the
eleven Superbowls. The Patriots have won three of the last four,
but that has bucked the trend of the past decade.
It is not just the salary cap that has helped American Football.
All income from television rights, ticket sales and merchandise
(the Defined Gross Revenue or DGR) from NFL clubs is split equally
amongst all 32 participants, and teams that finished bottom of their
respective conferences get first picks from the college draft for
new players.
The rules on draft picks would be next to impossible to implement
in football as the college sport structure that exists in the US
is fairly unique, but the financial rules could work.
Because TV income is at least partially based on how many times
a club's games are covered, the better clubs will invariably get
more money as more viewers are interested in seeing them. Splitting
the TV income equally amongst all clubs irrespective of how many
games are covered live would certainly help, and I'm sure all other
Premiership clubs would welcome a share of Man Utd's ticket and
merchandise revenue!
Of course, as football clubs are individual companies, forcing them
to share their revenue would be impossible - the only way such a
radical change could work would be to implement a franchise system
similar to the NFL. For it to work properly, that franchise system
would have to be implemented across Europe so that all participants
in UEFA club competitions would be starting from the same base.
The top flight clubs in each European country would potentially
get an equal share of UEFA DGR (Defined Gross Revenue) which would
help to promote football in the "smaller" nations, and then clubs
in each lower league would get a share proportionate to which league
they are in.
Such a change would be a huge upheaval for the world of football,
but other than the benefits regarding competitiveness, it could
also help to protect the future of some of our smaller clubs. There
will be inevitable problems in implementing such a system, but I
believe that it is at least worth looking into. The current situation
whereby success brings additional finance which brings additional
success is a vicious circle that will simply continue to increase
the financial gap between the top clubs and the rest.
There is no doubt that football is a very saleable product, and
the money that Sky and others have brought to the game is, on the
whole, a good thing. But if the current split of that money continues,
league competitions will become ever more predictable and ultimately
less attractive. As it becomes less attractive, advertisers will
lose interest and the money will dry up.
The idea of franchises may prove to be a step too far, but unless
something radical changes in the near future, football could ultimately
be the final casualty.
|
