Post by QPR Report on May 7, 2009 6:43:47 GMT
Share the goal. But don't see how this is a Government concern. This is a Football Authorities issue.
Independent
From The TimesMay 7, 2009 Share your wealth, Andy Burnham tells Premier League football clubs
Philip Webster and Kevin Eason
The Government is demanding a radical overhaul of English football finances to break the domination of the “big four” clubs.
Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, is calling for Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool to share their winnings in Europe with other Premier League teams.
Mr Burnham, an Everton fan, is pressing for several measures to redistribute the wealth of the richest league in the world to its lower reaches. He wants the league’s £1 billion revenue from television and sponsorship rights to be shared out more evenly among its 20 clubs. He also wants smaller squads and compulsory quotas of English players in team line-ups.
A meeting on Tuesday night between Mr Burnham and Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, broke up with the minister demanding more from the game.
After months of talks between the two sides Mr Burnham clearly believes that the league has failed to take seriously his call for more “competitive balance”. A government source said: “We have to keep the dream in football. At present there are three divisions within the Premier League: the group at the bottom, the group in the middle and the top four.”
The most contentious demand is for the big four to share some of their earnings from Europe’s Champions League — ranging from £15 million to £40 million each. That revenue helps to entrench their dominant position, giving them more to spend on players, usually from overseas. “They are there representing our league; perhaps some of that money should go back to the clubs,” a government source said.
Mr Burnham, whose club Everton are sixth in the league, is acting towards the end of a season that has again marked the big four maintaining their grip on the top of the Premier League. Three were in the semi-finals of the Champions League. Manchester United beat Arsenal on Tuesday; Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona last night.
Ministers have dismissed suggestions that they might legislate. “The Government has a duty to represent the views of football supporters across the country and we believe on these issues we are speaking with the grain of football opinion,” said the source.
Other advisers said that the Government had opposed attempts by the European Commission to extend competition policy to cover transfer fees and, in return, now expected football “to put its own house in order”. In October Mr Burnham asked the Premier League, Football League and Football Association to consider areas such as governance, financial regulation and avoidance of debt.
He suggested limits on the size of squads. Some of the top teams have as many as 60 players and therefore unlimited substitutes to counter injuries.
More controversially, he asked the game to adopt quotas of locally developed talent in each Premier League squad, and similar quotas for players sent out for each match.
Fabio Capello, the Italian manager of the England team, complained last year that only 35 per cent of Premier League players were English; Italy’s Serie A was 72 per cent Italian.
Ministers believe that a call from Fifa, the world governing body, for teams to have no more than six foreigners to every five home-grown players would be unworkable and probably break European law. They believe that the answer is to make developing local talent more attractive and for leagues to impose their own quotas.
Of the £1 billion that comes to the league, 50 per cent is distributed equally between all clubs, 25 per cent is paid out according to the finishing places, and 25 per cent according to the number of television appearances. The result is that there is a 1.6:1 ratio in earnings between the top and bottom clubs. Ministers accept that the figure has improved considerably over the years but believe that more can be done. They argue that if more revenue came from the Champions League it could be used to iron out inequalities. That position is believed to be supported privately by the Premier League.
Manchester United, the champions, received £49.3 million from the Premier League last season. Arsenal got £47 million; Chelsea £45.5 million and Liverpool £45.4 million. The lowest payment in 2007-08 was £30 million to Reading, but even relegated clubs get a golden handshake worth £11.4 million for the two years after they leave the Premiership. The Premier League also hands out more than £128 million a year to charities.
A spokesman for the Premier League said: “Our submission to Andy Burnham’s original seven questions has been well received. We hope to make public our contribution to this debate shortly.”
A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: “We have made it clear that it is not Government’s job to run football but to challenge the game on issues that are in the public interest.”
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6237472.ece
The Times - May 7, 2009 - Why does Andy Burnham want to meddle with the Big Four? - Oliver Kay
It might easily be said that English football has never had it so good. The Premier League boasts sell-out crowds, enormous television contracts and many of the biggest stars in the world game, as well as growing domination of the European Champions League. So why are ministers hellbent on fixing something that isn’t broken?
The problem, according to Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is a lack of competitiveness within the league, which is dominated by the “big four” of (in purely alphabetical order) Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United). No matter that these clubs carry the English banner in Europe with distinction: their power causes resentment within Uefa, European football’s governing body and, increasingly, within Whitehall.
The trouble with the Premier League and the Champions League model is that it rewards success and the four are run so well that their success tends to be self-perpetuating.
Whereas Real Madrid, the world’s most profitable club, and Bayern Munich, by far the biggest club in Germany, continually underachieve and are characterised by turmoil and constant changes of management, Sir Alex Ferguson is in his 23rd season as manager of United — a club that is the epitome of stability even under the ownership of Malcolm Glazer, the reclusive Florida-based tycoon.
In fact, the playing field is more level than the Premier League’s critics care to acknowledge. Unlike in other leagues, such as those in Italy and Spain, television contracts are negotiated centrally, which prevents clubs such as United or Liverpool from exploiting their global fanbases further by negotiating separate deals.
When Glazer, during his takeover of Old Trafford in 2005, revealed a business plan that involved a breakaway television contract, David Gill, the club’s chief executive, persuaded him to think again, stressing that collective bargaining was central to the fairness and values of the league.
The domination of the four, who will end the season occupying the top four positions for the fourth consecutive year, is a source of frustration for men such as David Moyes and Martin O’Neill, respectively the managers of Everton and Aston Villa — and perhaps even to Mr Burnham, whose beloved Everton were the last to break that stranglehold by finishing fourth in 2004-05. But in the boardrooms of those and the other 14 Premier League clubs, there is rarely — if ever — dissent over the structure of the league, and the monthly meetings of club chairmen are remarkably civilised.
There are certain causes that Mr Burnham and his colleagues on the new All-Party Parliamentary Football Group should be encouraged to fight for, such as the restriction of international transfers for players under 18, which would stop the four plucking talent from Italian and Spanish clubs for minimal fees. But any regulation designed purely to prevent their domination would be an artificial measure.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article6237597.ece
Independent
From The TimesMay 7, 2009 Share your wealth, Andy Burnham tells Premier League football clubs
Philip Webster and Kevin Eason
The Government is demanding a radical overhaul of English football finances to break the domination of the “big four” clubs.
Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, is calling for Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool to share their winnings in Europe with other Premier League teams.
Mr Burnham, an Everton fan, is pressing for several measures to redistribute the wealth of the richest league in the world to its lower reaches. He wants the league’s £1 billion revenue from television and sponsorship rights to be shared out more evenly among its 20 clubs. He also wants smaller squads and compulsory quotas of English players in team line-ups.
A meeting on Tuesday night between Mr Burnham and Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, broke up with the minister demanding more from the game.
After months of talks between the two sides Mr Burnham clearly believes that the league has failed to take seriously his call for more “competitive balance”. A government source said: “We have to keep the dream in football. At present there are three divisions within the Premier League: the group at the bottom, the group in the middle and the top four.”
The most contentious demand is for the big four to share some of their earnings from Europe’s Champions League — ranging from £15 million to £40 million each. That revenue helps to entrench their dominant position, giving them more to spend on players, usually from overseas. “They are there representing our league; perhaps some of that money should go back to the clubs,” a government source said.
Mr Burnham, whose club Everton are sixth in the league, is acting towards the end of a season that has again marked the big four maintaining their grip on the top of the Premier League. Three were in the semi-finals of the Champions League. Manchester United beat Arsenal on Tuesday; Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona last night.
Ministers have dismissed suggestions that they might legislate. “The Government has a duty to represent the views of football supporters across the country and we believe on these issues we are speaking with the grain of football opinion,” said the source.
Other advisers said that the Government had opposed attempts by the European Commission to extend competition policy to cover transfer fees and, in return, now expected football “to put its own house in order”. In October Mr Burnham asked the Premier League, Football League and Football Association to consider areas such as governance, financial regulation and avoidance of debt.
He suggested limits on the size of squads. Some of the top teams have as many as 60 players and therefore unlimited substitutes to counter injuries.
More controversially, he asked the game to adopt quotas of locally developed talent in each Premier League squad, and similar quotas for players sent out for each match.
Fabio Capello, the Italian manager of the England team, complained last year that only 35 per cent of Premier League players were English; Italy’s Serie A was 72 per cent Italian.
Ministers believe that a call from Fifa, the world governing body, for teams to have no more than six foreigners to every five home-grown players would be unworkable and probably break European law. They believe that the answer is to make developing local talent more attractive and for leagues to impose their own quotas.
Of the £1 billion that comes to the league, 50 per cent is distributed equally between all clubs, 25 per cent is paid out according to the finishing places, and 25 per cent according to the number of television appearances. The result is that there is a 1.6:1 ratio in earnings between the top and bottom clubs. Ministers accept that the figure has improved considerably over the years but believe that more can be done. They argue that if more revenue came from the Champions League it could be used to iron out inequalities. That position is believed to be supported privately by the Premier League.
Manchester United, the champions, received £49.3 million from the Premier League last season. Arsenal got £47 million; Chelsea £45.5 million and Liverpool £45.4 million. The lowest payment in 2007-08 was £30 million to Reading, but even relegated clubs get a golden handshake worth £11.4 million for the two years after they leave the Premiership. The Premier League also hands out more than £128 million a year to charities.
A spokesman for the Premier League said: “Our submission to Andy Burnham’s original seven questions has been well received. We hope to make public our contribution to this debate shortly.”
A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: “We have made it clear that it is not Government’s job to run football but to challenge the game on issues that are in the public interest.”
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6237472.ece
The Times - May 7, 2009 - Why does Andy Burnham want to meddle with the Big Four? - Oliver Kay
It might easily be said that English football has never had it so good. The Premier League boasts sell-out crowds, enormous television contracts and many of the biggest stars in the world game, as well as growing domination of the European Champions League. So why are ministers hellbent on fixing something that isn’t broken?
The problem, according to Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is a lack of competitiveness within the league, which is dominated by the “big four” of (in purely alphabetical order) Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United). No matter that these clubs carry the English banner in Europe with distinction: their power causes resentment within Uefa, European football’s governing body and, increasingly, within Whitehall.
The trouble with the Premier League and the Champions League model is that it rewards success and the four are run so well that their success tends to be self-perpetuating.
Whereas Real Madrid, the world’s most profitable club, and Bayern Munich, by far the biggest club in Germany, continually underachieve and are characterised by turmoil and constant changes of management, Sir Alex Ferguson is in his 23rd season as manager of United — a club that is the epitome of stability even under the ownership of Malcolm Glazer, the reclusive Florida-based tycoon.
In fact, the playing field is more level than the Premier League’s critics care to acknowledge. Unlike in other leagues, such as those in Italy and Spain, television contracts are negotiated centrally, which prevents clubs such as United or Liverpool from exploiting their global fanbases further by negotiating separate deals.
When Glazer, during his takeover of Old Trafford in 2005, revealed a business plan that involved a breakaway television contract, David Gill, the club’s chief executive, persuaded him to think again, stressing that collective bargaining was central to the fairness and values of the league.
The domination of the four, who will end the season occupying the top four positions for the fourth consecutive year, is a source of frustration for men such as David Moyes and Martin O’Neill, respectively the managers of Everton and Aston Villa — and perhaps even to Mr Burnham, whose beloved Everton were the last to break that stranglehold by finishing fourth in 2004-05. But in the boardrooms of those and the other 14 Premier League clubs, there is rarely — if ever — dissent over the structure of the league, and the monthly meetings of club chairmen are remarkably civilised.
There are certain causes that Mr Burnham and his colleagues on the new All-Party Parliamentary Football Group should be encouraged to fight for, such as the restriction of international transfers for players under 18, which would stop the four plucking talent from Italian and Spanish clubs for minimal fees. But any regulation designed purely to prevent their domination would be an artificial measure.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article6237597.ece