Project Big Picture | Vital Football

Project Big Picture

mao tse tung

mao tse tung

Vital Champions League
As far as Project titles go, this one sucks; nevertheless, the alterations being proposed could effect the single largest change to the game since some bright spark thought kicking a bag of wind around would be great craic.

The manner in which the changes have been broadcast leaves a lot to be desired, with an initial reaction of widespread condemnation throughout the game and media; there has, however, been a few voices arguing to the contrary, one of which has been The Guardian's David Conn.

People like Pope and Plummer need no introduction to Mr Conn; we have all been reading his wise words for some while; others will be far less aware though.

Conn, despite his name, has been a torch bearer for injustice in the game for a while now; he has the ability to dissect complex issues and explain them in layman's terminology.

He has been arguing that the changes are necessary but rails against the power grab.

But what are the changes?

Most of us have been speculating about the proposals without full knowledge of what they entail.

Please find below an article from the marvellous Athletic, together with the link.

Before anyone mentions copyright, I will mention two things:

1. The Athletic is by far and away the best publication for Football out there; anyone who professes to love the beautiful game and can afford it should be subscribing, like I do; reproducing their articles is merely showcasing how good they actually are.

2. This issue is far bigger than the Athletic.
 
https://theathletic.com/2132829/2020/10/...ed_article

Frankenstein and Project Big Picture: two works of disputed authorship. One is a terrifying tale about the battle between good and evil, hubris and blind faith in modernity, and the other is a book about a man and his monster.

And while the creation at the heart of one of these tales ends up destroying all that its creator loves, the other… you get the idea.

A secretive back-room deal, the reset football has been crying out for, the death of ambition, rare leadership, an American coup, the pyramid’s saviour — English football’s most radical manifesto in 30 years has divided opinion and sparked a frenzied debate.

Those at clubs spoken to by The Athletic have described it as “unthinkable”, a “power and money grab” and a “screen to allow the top six to waltz off into Europe” while others, particularly at EFL sides, want more time to digest the proposals or are (quietly) largely supportive. Even among the 14 Premier League sides outside the “big six” you might think would be worst affected by these ideas, opinions vary: seven clubs have indicated they would reject the deal outright but the rest want to examine the detail further.

The version that lurched into life this weekend is its 18th draft, which is almost one version for each of its suggested authors, and it will need several more edits if this vision is to ever get off the page. But what’s actually in it and why is it so controversial?

To answer those questions, let us explore the key points, one by one, setting out who likes and who loathes each idea.

The COVID-19 Financial Rescue Fund

Proposal: A £250 million “prepayment” to the EFL to cover lost revenues for 2019-20 and 2020-21, and £100 million for the FA, of which £25 million is for National League clubs, £10 million for grassroots, £10 million for the women’s professional game and the rest for the FA itself. The Premier League will borrow this money and make it available as soon as the plan is approved.

Winners: Everyone. All clubs playing at closed stadiums will get their missing match-day income, saving some from bankruptcy. The government will also be off the hook for funding the National League, whose season only started earlier this month when it received a promise that public money will cover its costs, and the Premier League will get to look like heroes.

Losers: Insolvency practitioners, property developers — nobody for whom football fans will have much sympathy.

League structure

Proposal: Starting from 2022-23, the pyramid will be comprised of an 18-team Premier League, with 24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two.

Winners: The Premier League’s biggest clubs are desperate to create more space to play in expanded European competitions from 2024-25 onwards and they also want more time to play pre-season friendlies in Asia, North America and other growth markets. In fact, clubs would be required to play in league-run summer tournaments at least once every five years.

By reducing the top flight by two, you shave four games from the calendar, allowing a later start in August, while retaining the winter break. Of course, the Premier League was always meant to be an 18-team league but the promised reduction from 22 stalled at 20, and no amount of lethargic England performances at summer tournaments has changed that. Whether the move to 18 teams in 2022 would be a win for the England boss is debatable, as the best players will no doubt end up playing more games in Europe.

Losers: All clubs struggling to stay in the top flight and all those fighting to get into it. But the losers here will at least remain in the EFL, with the real chop coming at the bottom of the traditional professional pyramid: the 92 will become a 90. This, however, is not the death penalty it was 20 years ago, as the National League is a professional and well-run division, with two promotion places up for grabs every season. The reduction in the number of Premier League games, however, will also hurt the bottom lines of all those clubs not in Europe, as that is two fewer home games to sell and four fewer appearances on television for their sponsors.

Promotion and relegation

Proposal: No change in the current format for movement between the Championship, League One and League Two, but only two teams will be automatically relegated from the Premier League, with the 16th-placed side joining a play-off with the teams that finish third, fourth and fifth for the third slot in the top flight.

Winners: Broadcasters, neutrals and 16th-placed Premier League teams. This is a system used in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe, where the “second-chance” element does provide another edge to the format. It will feel novel, at least for a while, and broadcasters love that.

Losers: Teams that finish third to fifth in the Championship, as they will have to get past a Premier League side to go up. Evidence from other leagues suggests this is a high barrier. At least they have a ticket for the raffle, though. Sixth-placed teams will just have to try again next season.

Other competition changes

Proposals: The Community Shield and League Cup will be scrapped. FA Cup replays will be retained but will not be played during the winter break. A working group will develop a new league for the women’s game, not run by the FA or Premier League.

Winners: Again, this is about clearing time and space for the likes of Liverpool and Manchester United to play the type of fixtures they want: Barcelona or Bayern, not Blackpool or Bradford. The prospect of a standalone body to run the women’s professional game is interesting, as some believe it will always play second fiddle to the men’s game at the FA or Premier League, so it should be led by someone who will really cherish it. Others, on the other hand, worry that women’s football still needs significant support from men’s football and is better off under the same umbrella.

Losers: This is another blow for anyone not taking part in European competition as it means fewer fixtures in general and fewer potential chances to play against one of the bigger clubs. But this has not gone down as badly as you might have thought, which says a lot about the League Cup’s declining popularity. That said, several EFL clubs have told The Athletic they relish the chance to play Premier League clubs, even if they are often reserve sides these days, and if any competition deserves the chop, it’s the unloved EFL Trophy.

Premier League distribution

Proposals: The total amount the Premier League will distribute to its 18 clubs will fall from 92 per cent of the rights income to 75 per cent, with a big change to the distribution formula. Instead of the sponsorship income and half of the domestic and international media rights being divided evenly, with the rest according to the number of times each club is picked for broadcast in the UK and merit payments related to finishing positions, the whole pot will now be shared on a 50/25/25 basis. Half will be shared equally, with 25 per cent being divided for current season merit payments and the final 25 per cent awarded for a club’s “three-year aggregate” position.

Winners: EFL clubs are the biggest beneficiaries of this financial redistribution, as they now see their share of the total pot grow from eight to 25 per cent. But the Premier League’s best teams also do very well out of the move to sharing more of the income on a merit-basis, with the “three-year aggregate” component, which does not include the season just completed, being a useful hedge against the occasional bad season.

Losers: This is another move away from the relatively equitable distribution of income that has been the Premier League’s hallmark for 20 years. Until recently, the champions only earned 1.6 times more — in central revenue — than the team that finished last. That ratio has edged out to 1.8:1 in the most recent three-year TV rights cycle, as the “big six” were eventually granted a bigger share of the burgeoning international rights income.

Premier League HQ is furious about Project Big Picture in general and really hates this idea. They claim the changes could change the ratio to 4:1, with obvious competitive balance implications. The plan’s advocates deny this, saying the ratio will be more like 2.25:1, which is what it was in 1992, before anyone realised how popular the league would get in Bangalore and Boston.
 
EFL distribution

Proposals: As mentioned above, the EFL will receive 25 per cent of the net income, which is estimated to be £758 million. This will be shared between the divisions on a 75/15/10 basis, with the Championship and League One sharing 85 per cent of their portions equally among their clubs and 15 per cent via merit payments. All of League Two’s money will be shared equally.

Winners: This is Christmas every day for owners and finance directors. The percentage of the total income each league gets more than triples, with the average Championship club seeing its income rise by £15.5 million, League One clubs getting £3.5 million more and League Two clubs enjoying a boost of £2.3 million.

Losers: I’m stumped.

Parachute payments

Proposal: The payments former Premier League clubs receive when they are relegated back to the Championship will be phased out from 2022-23 and completely scrapped a year later.

Winners: Very simply, all EFL clubs, because this is where a big chunk of their increased income is coming from. Pre-COVID-19, the Premier League was going to dish out nearly £243 million to clubs recently relegated from the league last season. Why? To encourage clubs to “go for it” when they come up from the Championship, thereby improving its product. The impact big parachute payments have had on the Championship, however, has been disastrous, with a third of clubs propped up by Premier League cash, forcing the others into an arms race most cannot afford. The result was a wage/turnover ratio of 107 per cent in 2018-19 and cumulative losses of £300 million. In an appearance before a committee of MPs at the start of the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, EFL chairman Rick Parry called parachute payments an “evil” he wanted to eradicate. This would be a personal triumph.

Losers: Teams relegated after 2023 will miss them but even they might acknowledge scrapping them should make the Championship a fairer contest.
 
Cost controls

Proposals: Hard salary caps in the EFL, with the Premier League and Championship adopting UEFA’s much stricter financial fair play (FFP) rules, including a £50 million annual cap on “related party transactions”.

Winners: Club shareholders. Particularly those who come from North America, where the idea of professional sport is that everyone makes money, not just the players and their agents. Accountants and lawyers will also enjoy the extra work that stiffer regulations usually bring.

Losers: Owners with big ambitions and deep pockets will not like being told they can only fund annual losses of around £9 million. One of the big criticisms of FFP is that it’s anti-competitive, as it prevents “challenger clubs” from catching up with more established clubs. It is a fair criticism. The line on related party transactions is intriguing, too, as it suggests the leagues should bring in the UK Takeover Panel’s “more stringent” definition of what type of transaction they want to cap. Could it be, perhaps, the generous sponsorship of a club’s shirt, stadium and training ground by an airline linked to the club’s owner? The document does not say.

Media rights

Proposals: In exchange for all the extra money, the EFL “irrevocably grants” its broadcast rights to the Premier League. The FA would have an option to hand over its FA Cup rights, too, should it want the top-flight’s sales team to take the full bundle of English club rights to market. The UK’s Saturday afternoon broadcast blackout would return but Premier League clubs would get eight live matches a season to sell abroad via their digital platforms, while all Premier League and Championship clubs would be able to show in-game highlights. No more than 27 games per club can be shown live in the UK.

Winners: EFL clubs, for the reasons outlined above. At present, they share about £120 million a season from their Sky deal. Everyone The Athletic has spoken to believes the Premier League can beat that number and then some. All top-flight clubs could, theoretically, make more money from being able to sell streams of some games to overseas fans but only the most popular clubs will be able to make serious money. They have been desperate to have more control over their rights for years and the wide take-up of streaming globally is a huge source of potential revenue for them.

Losers: The smaller Premier League clubs are terrified of the “thin end of the wedge” appearance to the carve-out of those eight games for overseas fans. The league’s success has been built on its collective selling of broadcast rights. Everyone knows more people want to watch Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United than Burnley, Fulham and Southampton, but the league has marketed itself as a competition between equals. This chips away at that and will only further entrench the richest clubs’ position.

Academies, loans and contracts

Proposals: The Premier League’s current support for EFL academies, delivered via the Elite Player Performance Plan model, will be included in the much-increased solidarity payments but clubs below the Championship will no longer be required to have academies. The loan market, however, will be greatly expanded. Clubs will be allowed to loan out up to 15 players in total and four to any single club. Loans in will be unlimited and loanee clubs will be incentivised with contingent payments on the performances or sales of loaned players. One-month loans will be allowed for under-23s but loanees can be recalled if there is a change of manager. All contracts should be consistent with the post-Brexit rules on overseas players but force majeure provisions will be added to safeguard against future crises.

Winners: The changes to the loan market are a boost for wealthy clubs as they would be able to stockpile even more talented youngsters, knowing they can farm them out on loan, helping their chances of developing into first-team options or sellable assets. This is also potentially good news for young players at leading academies as they could find it easier to get playing time in men’s football. EFL clubs could also benefit as they will be able to take more players from the top sides. Some may even decide there is now no need to spend money on developing their own talent, which is often a risky business, as there will always be a supply of talent coming down the pipeline looking for minutes.

Losers: While some will see the above as nothing to worry about, others are concerned it’s the next step in what they view as the Premier League’s campaign to gain control over youth development. For them, loans are just another form of dependency. There will also be fears that this is getting closer to the feeder-club system seen in other countries.

Infrastructure funds

Proposals: Annual payments of £88 million to support the maintenance of Wembley and club stadiums and training grounds in the EFL. Wembley would get £10 million, Championship clubs £2 million each, League One sides £750,000 and League Two £500,000. On top of this, 4.3 per cent of gross annual revenue, which is forecast to be £150 million, will be made available to clubs that have either built new infrastructure in the last decade or plan to do so.

Winners: Everyone! This is a genuinely transformational approach to bricks and mortar in English football. For the first time since government grants helped clubs transform their stadiums into all-seaters following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, clubs will receive large sums of ring-fenced money for capital expenditure. The idea is to make more comfortable seats, great bars, new floodlights, better training facilities, improved loos and decent food, which will make the entire industry more sustainable.

The “assistance payments” for new builds could total as much as £250 million for clubs that have been in the Premier League for 12 of the last 15 years, such as Everton, falling to £100 million for a more recent arrival. And those who have recently completed projects, such as Brighton, Liverpool, Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur, can claim 50 per cent of what they would have received if the system was in place when they put their first shovel in the ground.

Losers: Apart from masochists who really enjoy bad food, flat beer, awful toilets and hard, plastic seats, the only people who will be really miffed about this will be those who built a new ground 11 years ago.

Grassroots and good causes

Proposals: A total of £205 million a year will be shared between charities chosen by the EFL, FA and Premier League, grassroots football and the women’s game. About £67 million of this is redirected money the FA has been giving to clubs for their grassroots and women’s game initiatives, with another £12 million in compensation to the FA for lost revenue from the League Cup final and Community Shield.

Winners: Again, this looks like an almost universal win. The plan’s backers claim this will result in a 66 per cent increase in the game’s charitable contributions.

Losers: The FA might see this as another example of its role and status being reduced, as this is all “Premier League” money. The loss of those two Wembley occasions might also fuel the debate about the need for a national stadium, or certainly the need for one owned by the national governing body, which, to be fair, is a point the FA’s own management has raised in recent years.

Fans and the match-day experience

Proposals: Premier League away tickets to be capped at £20, with away travel subsidised and a minimum away allocation of 3,000 fans. Subject to government approval, clubs given the choice to introduce safe-standing sections.

Winners: Fans, pubs, train buffet cars, broadcasters, all clubs, anyone who likes football.

Losers: Losers.

Governance

Proposals: Most decisions will continue to be made on a one-club, one-vote basis, with approval requiring a majority of more than two thirds. However, decisions relating to the election or removal of members of the Premier League board, the sale of media rights, changes to the cost-control regime and even the approval of new club owners, will be made by “long-term shareholders” using “special voting rights”. These shareholders will be the nine clubs with the longest continuous presence in the Premier League and only six would have to back a resolution for it to be approved.

Winners: The nine long-term shareholders: the “big six” of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham and Everton, Southampton and West Ham. The fact that Aston Villa and Newcastle United have spent more seasons in the Premier League than Manchester City and Southampton is just bad luck, apparently. Southampton and West Ham are not understood to be in favour of the plans.

Losers: Forget everything you have read. We are all losers if we let them get away with this. This is a sad, unloved Frankenstein’s creature drifting off into the darkness on an ice raft, never to be seen again. Lose the monster, though, and we might be back in business.
 
I think that it has been inevitable that sooner or later the control of the game would switch to the people who were making the most money for it. Just a case of sorting a few details out now.
 
Personally, I think the Power issue has been over blown.

The really big Clubs have all of the real power they need; the ceding of some powers to the other PL Clubs, on a localised basis, is nothing more than patronising them.
 
I am on board with some of that.

The ability of the 9 clubs to veto a new owner has to go. I assume that is only a PL owner. The governance needs to be sustainably addressed, so that these 6 clubs cannot unilaterally just change this deal.

I will never support an 18 team league and I will never, ever support a PL team being in our playoffs. Has to be 3 up 3 down.

I don't understand why the league cup needs to be scrapped? Just make it FL only or make it opt in for PL clubs. For a lot of clubs it's the only trophy they have any chance of winning, and if the big clubs want to opt out that becomes doubly the case.

I would be tempted to scrap FA Cup replays because they are loathed by even SBC clubs. The ideal compromise might be to have replays where a side from league one or below is involved, so they are retained where the money is needed
 
I have no problem with the reduction; its an inevitable move.

I would go further with the play offs, reducing them to the third top team playing the third bottom in the League above, and in doing so, reinstate the true meritocracy of a League position.

I am also in favour of having tighter monetary controls such as wage caps and stricter enforcement of P & S rules; if this results in some owners actually getting a return on their investment all the better; anything but pouring obscene amounts of money into the pockets of moderate players.

The cap on tickets prices and minimum allocation for away supporters is great idea, until you find Clubs like United hiding behind the Police when giving a reduced allocation
 
Cheers Mao, a very good read that puts it all into perspective. It will be interesting to see how much of this remains on the table in the coming weeks.
 
mao tse tung said:
I have no problem with the reduction; its an inevitable move.

I would go further with the play offs, reducing them to the third top team playing the third bottom in the League above, and in doing so, reinstate the true meritocracy of a League position.

I am also in favour of having tighter monetary controls such as wage caps and stricter enforcement of P & S rules; if this results in some owners actually getting a return on their investment all the better; anything but pouring obscene amounts of money into the pockets of moderate players.

The cap on tickets prices and minimum allocation for away supporters is great idea, until you find Clubs like United hiding behind the Police when giving a reduced allocation
Click to expand...
I really don't understand the obsession with "meritocracy".

The game is about excitement.

The playoffs give half the division something to play for. Reduce that to three and football really is quite pointless for the vast majority of clubs.

There is a reason why the lower leagues are so passionate, and it's not because of a large number of meaningless games.

And any serious do or die game between a championship club and a premier League club is going to see the PL club win 8 times out of ten.

Who gives a shit about a playoff final in which a financially vastly superior club stays up?
 
Knowing many teams are under real financial difficulties and some tidying up is required, much of this makes sense. My biggest anxiety is the changes to youth teams and loans. Agree something needs to be done but this would strip clubs like Forest of an income stream. The academy has earned Forest big money over last decade. To strip them of this would put them in more financial difficulties not solve The problem.

Feel Forests response is appropriate.
 
Thanks Mao - A really good article and an interesting read.
A lot of this makes good sense and you can see why the 'smaller' EFL would go for it - it provides them with a secure future.
It is the ambitious Championship clubs - like ourselves - that will potentially lose out as it reduces our opportunity to eat from the top table.
 
Very odd for them to reject it.

I suppose they knew it was for the gutter and wanted to show a united front.

So now what?
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I really don't understand the obsession with "meritocracy".

The game is about excitement.

The playoffs give half the division something to play for. Reduce that to three and football really is quite pointless for the vast majority of clubs.

There is a reason why the lower leagues are so passionate, and it's not because of a large number of meaningless games.

And any serious do or die game between a championship club and a premier League club is going to see the PL club win 8 times out of ten.

Who gives a shit about a playoff final in which a financially vastly superior club stays up?
Click to expand...

Yea exactly, lots of nice little crumbs for everyone else, plenty of window dressing but it doesnt save the pyramid as much as lock in. Its the PL trying to take over football completely. The only reason to listen at all is cos the FA have become their own euphemism but this big picture is being used to distract from a much smaller one where the big six are institutionalised at the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.