Actually, I've just had a thought: is the reason that US sport is so fair because the fans don't matter? If you don't support your team, you know it'll go, it's a franchise. The league and TV don't pander to the biggest supported sides - it's interest is generating keen competition which comes from an equitable distribution. It's all fans' fault.
The most long term solution will surely be, to try and close the gap between all leagues.
Keep it competitive, but the money floating around is ludicrous, especially given the state of our national team, and national youth setup!
I suspect we all agree, but it 'ain't happening, unfortunately. Right now the game is becoming increasingly uncompetitive with financial advantage ever more important.
The only real answer would be a series of radical measures, including salary caps, maximum wage bills, controls on the length of player contracts or, as a minimum, enforced performance conditions (step downs on relegation, for example), an end to the blatant abuse of the loan system by the big Clubs and so on. The problem though is that the weak and ineffective football authorities have lost control. The big Clubs have the game by the nuts.
All very well to blame the authorities and big clubs but most punters are no less guilty. When we were at the top table there wouldn't have been many on here starting threads hand wringing about the plight of lower league teams when On-Digital went up in a puff of smoke. When the zabeel thing was rumoured to be happening a load of people didn't go down to mill around the ground like Geordies, because they expected owners with a keen interest in the community and running a sound financial business; it was because they hoped for pots of cash to spunk on foreign mercenaries. That's the way of it, I'm afraid. People are selfish. If we were in the prem with a moneybags owner we'd not give half a shit about the inequality of the league. It's only really in a socialist state like America where sport is run on a truly equitable basis. Everywhere else the structure is haves and have nots, or more accurately don't care and care a lots.
Your point about the US is well made and an intriguing irony. But you should except Germany and also Scandinavia from your final point too. The Swedish and Norwegian fans co-ordinated across club lines protests against TV companies buggering around with match schedules, and achieved some success in doing so. Of course if you look at Spain or Italy your point is entirely valid.
Would be interested to know how the Scandics maintain such an even league. In Germany the support seems to be a lot more community based, but they've actually got one of the most uneven leagues in Europe - BM picked up 60% of the titles in the last 15 years. Hoffenheim when from village side to contenders, not through hard work and endeavour but through a large pot of lolly. Still take the point about it being more equitably run than anywhere else
Morts
As I know the situation there (very good friends are a mixed Norwegian/Swedish family, with the son being a living encyclopaedia of football), the evenness comes from the relative lack of money. Gates average 6-7,000 in both top leagues, and the TV money is therefore relatively low key too. Many Scans avidly watch live FAPL on TV on Saturdays as well as the Sky games. However the ability and willingness to organise across tribal lines on an issue such as TV interference is really impressive, especially as in Sweden at least there is trouble with tribal hooligan behaviour. Its a Scan thing. :-)
"Simple maths states we have a 1 in 8 chance of promotion next season (3 in 24)"
Agree with your point, and no good at maths but I don't think you can use these numbers unless every team is exactly equal. If it did work like that wouldn't all horses in a horserace have the same odds?
Clubs are spending money to increase their odds and a parachute payment gives them potentially an advantage. In theory the parachute payment is going to be used to allow them to cover their Premiership level overheads and keep the same squad. In practice they reduce overheads, sell players and distort the market in the lower division using the cash available.
A fairer system might be to simply make sure a club doesn't collapse financially, but it should only be available to cover overheads and not to top up transfer fees.
If you keep your previous squad then none of the parachute payment can be used in the transfer market. The parachute payment then just allows you to maintain infrastructure temporarily, not to buy advantage. If you sell a player for a cheaper one you don't release cash, you are reducing your overheads so the parachute payment would be reduced by the difference in wages.
What if the parachute payments are not enough to cover the overheads - or is the Premier League going to guarantee unlimited parachute payments for ever?
For some clubs selling six players to raise money is necessary. Not being able to replace them is insane! What if all the strikers leave as their contracts come to an end, are they not allowed to have any strikers the following season? What if all the goalkeepers contracts finish at the same time as relegation?
Hopefully FFP will help reduce the problems, but if the Premier League is £60m a season, if the parachute money is less than that (and it's less than half of it at the moment) the relegated teams have to sell players to reduce costs. If they are not allowed to buy new ones then relegation from the Premier League would, almost certainly, mean further relegations and probably administration.
I think the numbers are obscene, but there has to be a fixed figure on the parachute payments, and as it is, it encourages teams to be sensible if they might be relegated.
The biggest problem with all of this is that those that make the decisions are the ones with all the money so they are never going to agree to anything that changes the status quo.
"Simple maths states we have a 1 in 8 chance of promotion next season (3 in 24)"
Agree with your point, and no good at maths but I don't think you can use these numbers unless every team is exactly equal. If it did work like that wouldn't all horses in a horserace have the same odds?
Clubs are spending money to increase their odds and a parachute payment gives them potentially an advantage. In theory the parachute payment is going to be used to allow them to cover their Premiership level overheads and keep the same squad. In practice they reduce overheads, sell players and distort the market in the lower division using the cash available.
A fairer system might be to simply make sure a club doesn't collapse financially, but it should only be available to cover overheads and not to top up transfer fees.
If you keep your previous squad then none of the parachute payment can be used in the transfer market. The parachute payment then just allows you to maintain infrastructure temporarily, not to buy advantage. If you sell a player for a cheaper one you don't release cash, you are reducing your overheads so the parachute payment would be reduced by the difference in wages.
Mine was a very simple explanation and obviously doesn't factor in costs, stability and a fair amount of luck. I think I went on to rule out the bottom 5 but also write off one promotion place so 2 promotion slots for 18 clubs. And I maintain that with the right investment in new players, CAFC has as good a chance as any of promotion via the playoffs.
It is interesting what you are saying because that is exactly what CAFC tried a few years back and it failed... badly! Even with the proceeds from selling Darren Bent. Parachute money is no guarantee that it will be spent well or that the slide will stop as per Wolves and many others over the years. The main issue is that the parachute payments awarded are offering reward/insurance for failure. Until such time as the government carry out their threat to get rid of the football creditors rule and that clubs can reduce or cancel contracts due to failure things won't change.
The irony is that the Premier League might expand to 20 + 6 clubs with some of those queuing up for promotion each and every year... and the rest of the Championship sinking. This is clearly a bastardisation of the vision Richard Murray put forward for a Premier League 2
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, sooner rather than later there will be premier league 2, and it will be a closed shop, they'll be promotion between the 2 divisions and that's it. They might have some sort of system where the bottom club can be voted out and a team from below voted in, but there won't be the usual 3 up/down system.
This would solve all the problems the big clubs face, they can guarantee they'll never get into too much trouble as they'll only be able to fall so far, and only into a still pretty rich league.
There'll be a few dead rubbers at the end of the season, but with only 20 teams likely in prem 2, and still with the play-off system, the vast majority of teams in prem 2 should be in with a shout of the play-offs until very late in the season.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, sooner rather than later there will be premier league 2, and it will be a closed shop, they'll be promotion between the 2 divisions and that's it. They might have some sort of system where the bottom club can be voted out and a team from below voted in, but there won't be the usual 3 up/down system.
This would solve all the problems the big clubs face, they can guarantee they'll never get into too much trouble as they'll only be able to fall so far, and only into a still pretty rich league.
There'll be a few dead rubbers at the end of the season, but with only 20 teams likely in prem 2, and still with the play-off system, the vast majority of teams in prem 2 should be in with a shout of the play-offs until very late in the season.
Well, maybe, but Richard Murray was banging this drum 20 years ago and it hasn't happened yet. I don't think the biggest clubs could care less about the problems of relegated teams and there are enough others that feel secure and don't want to share for it to be kept off the agenda. Would need 14 clubs to vote for change, I think?
I'm pretty sure 14 of the 20 prem teams are at risk of relegation in one way or another. The top 6 are accelerating away, won't be long before the other 14 want a better security blanket then the current parachute payments and hoping you can turn a sinking ship (to mix metaphors) before those payments run out
"Simple maths states we have a 1 in 8 chance of promotion next season (3 in 24)"
Agree with your point, and no good at maths but I don't think you can use these numbers unless every team is exactly equal. If it did work like that wouldn't all horses in a horserace have the same odds?
Clubs are spending money to increase their odds and a parachute payment gives them potentially an advantage. In theory the parachute payment is going to be used to allow them to cover their Premiership level overheads and keep the same squad. In practice they reduce overheads, sell players and distort the market in the lower division using the cash available.
A fairer system might be to simply make sure a club doesn't collapse financially, but it should only be available to cover overheads and not to top up transfer fees.
If you keep your previous squad then none of the parachute payment can be used in the transfer market. The parachute payment then just allows you to maintain infrastructure temporarily, not to buy advantage. If you sell a player for a cheaper one you don't release cash, you are reducing your overheads so the parachute payment would be reduced by the difference in wages.
It's a band aid solution though. The root cause remains the financial disparity between the Premiership and the rest of football that means that to run a squad in the Premiership will lead to insolvency on relegation. Any club that goes beyond the yo-yo situation faces a genuine threat if they are relegated. You can't expect the turkeys to vote for Christmas, but the Premiership 2 solution proposed by Varney was perhaps a compromise that would reduce the risk. It's ironic that in the dawning age of FFP, we have such a financial gulf between two adjacent divisions in our game.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, sooner rather than later there will be premier league 2, and it will be a closed shop, they'll be promotion between the 2 divisions and that's it. They might have some sort of system where the bottom club can be voted out and a team from below voted in, but there won't be the usual 3 up/down system.
This would solve all the problems the big clubs face, they can guarantee they'll never get into too much trouble as they'll only be able to fall so far, and only into a still pretty rich league.
There'll be a few dead rubbers at the end of the season, but with only 20 teams likely in prem 2, and still with the play-off system, the vast majority of teams in prem 2 should be in with a shout of the play-offs until very late in the season.
Are you suggesting that there will be no relegation from the Prem 2? If so I fear it will make those teams that miss out virtually bankrupt. It would certainly destroy the football league and the possibility that any club can make it. It would also make League One and League Two, or what ever they name them, as good as pointless.
If there is going to be a relegation from Prem 2 to the 'football league' there will need to be parachute payments for those teams that are relegated and the problem will just be shifted down a division. On that basis it doesn't really solve the problem it just increases the pool of teams on the inside. As this will reduce the average payment the teams on the inside get I agree with AB and I don't think it will happen.
I think a prem 2 is a certainty at some point. Clubs outside the EPL are slowly being strangled to death anyway and the long term prospect for "small" clubs carrying on as they are, too many years into the future if fanciful. I can see relegation from EPL 2 (one team) to the next division but below that I think we will get a north and south regional league. This could all change if suddenly the money is divided more equally. No. That's what I thought.
I think there will be next to no relegation from prem 2, just an option some where in the rules so that the prem league can relegate a club, probably only to be used if somebody with more money wanted to join.
It would force those not in prem 2 into semi-pro status certainly, and probably kill a dozen clubs or more outright, but the money men won't care, and the clubs fighting for financial survival who make it into prem 2 won't care much either.
"Simple maths states we have a 1 in 8 chance of promotion next season (3 in 24)"
Agree with your point, and no good at maths but I don't think you can use these numbers unless every team is exactly equal. If it did work like that wouldn't all horses in a horserace have the same odds?
Clubs are spending money to increase their odds and a parachute payment gives them potentially an advantage. In theory the parachute payment is going to be used to allow them to cover their Premiership level overheads and keep the same squad. In practice they reduce overheads, sell players and distort the market in the lower division using the cash available.
A fairer system might be to simply make sure a club doesn't collapse financially, but it should only be available to cover overheads and not to top up transfer fees.
If you keep your previous squad then none of the parachute payment can be used in the transfer market. The parachute payment then just allows you to maintain infrastructure temporarily, not to buy advantage. If you sell a player for a cheaper one you don't release cash, you are reducing your overheads so the parachute payment would be reduced by the difference in wages.
What if the parachute payments are not enough to cover the overheads - or is the Premier League going to guarantee unlimited parachute payments for ever?
For some clubs selling six players to raise money is necessary. Not being able to replace them is insane! What if all the strikers leave as their contracts come to an end, are they not allowed to have any strikers the following season? What if all the goalkeepers contracts finish at the same time as relegation?
Hopefully FFP will help reduce the problems, but if the Premier League is £60m a season, if the parachute money is less than that (and it's less than half of it at the moment) the relegated teams have to sell players to reduce costs. If they are not allowed to buy new ones then relegation from the Premier League would, almost certainly, mean further relegations and probably administration.
I think the numbers are obscene, but there has to be a fixed figure on the parachute payments, and as it is, it encourages teams to be sensible if they might be relegated.
The biggest problem with all of this is that those that make the decisions are the ones with all the money so they are never going to agree to anything that changes the status quo.
I think you have misinterpreted what I was suggesting and it's only a broad principle. Detailed rules would be needed, for example an obvious loophole is that a club could artificially increase the parachute payment as relegation beckoned.
The parachute payments would be linked to their pre relegation overheads rather than a random number, and includes the wages bill. Why should it not be enough? It's a random number that is likely to be too little for some, and worse (for football), too much for others.
"Selling six players to raise money" - Wages and current infrastructure are already covered, so what is money being raised for? To buy new players - fine; That will also probably reduce wages bill. To cover an increase in the total wages bill - wrong; Finance a new stadium - wrong; Finance dividend to shareholders - wrong;
No suggestion that players could not be sold, nor that the proceeds cannot be used to buy a new player. But if the overheads have reduced through lower wages for the new player, then the instalments of parachute payments are reduced. My idea is that clubs are supported, no more or less, than required to run the club until it's had time to adjust its cost base, say three years, not for ever. Idea is simply not allow it to generate cash to bet on the transfer market or allow money to be used to increase the asset value of the club.
Agree turkeys might not vote for Xmas but it there is an alternative that allows clubs to reduce risk by a financial deal matched to say its last three years liabilities, it might have legs. Both big clubs and small clubs know they get a fair number, even if resources are unequally distributed. Big clubs would vote for it because they potentially get more, but it wouldn't be available to extend their transfer budget. Smaller clubs would be the losers on the face of it, but they would not be under as much pressure to sell players to bridge the gap between revenue and outgoings. it would mean that smaller clubs would not have the outrageous sums for transfers in the lower division after relegation, so football is the winner by minimising unfair advantage for relegated teams.
I think a prem 2 is a certainty at some point. Clubs outside the EPL are slowly being strangled to death anyway and the long term prospect for "small" clubs carrying on as they are, too many years into the future if fanciful. I can see relegation from EPL 2 (one team) to the next division but below that I think we will get a north and south regional league. This could all change if suddenly the money is divided more equally. No. That's what I thought.
Buy why not just reduce the relegation from the Prem to one team now and then the big clubs only need to share their money 20 ways.
Or, of course, just leave it as it is. With 14 of the 20 votes needed to change things it only takes 7 to want to keep all the money. There are, I'm sure, always going to be seven teams that don't feel threatened by relegation.
My biggest worry, for teams like us, is if the top clubs manage to get the Premier League to reduce to 18 teams with only one up/down each season. Then we will, really, know what a closed shop is!
I think that football can still accommodate a forty strong professional league but with the money divided as it is now I can't see it sustaining many more. A Prem 2 will allow for clubs that are traditionally second tier much like ourselves to continue and allow the smaller clubs eg Rochdale to carry on albeit in the main as semi pro.
They won't want to reduce current relegation from the prem as it provides far more entertainment at the end of the season than the top of the table does. With no, or little relegation, there would be a danger of having virtually no games of any interest to show in the last month or two of the season. Having prem 2 allows for all the excitement of relegation and the play-offs, without having to worry about teams tumbling down the leagues and being forced to televise L1/L2 games that I'm sure Sky really don't want to show.
It will gut our game, but it feel inevitable. The only other route I can see is the big 4/5 disappearing off to a European super league, and the remaining domestic game having far less money and therefore being more competitive. But with the super league sucking up the money and the attention crowds would drop to 80s levels I would think.
They won't want to reduce current relegation from the prem as it provides far more entertainment at the end of the season than the top of the table does. With no, or little relegation, there would be a danger of having virtually no games of any interest to show in the last month or two of the season. Having prem 2 allows for all the excitement of relegation and the play-offs, without having to worry about teams tumbling down the leagues and being forced to televise L1/L2 games that I'm sure Sky really don't want to show.
It will gut our game, but it feel inevitable. The only other route I can see is the big 4/5 disappearing off to a European super league, and the remaining domestic game having far less money and therefore being more competitive. But with the super league sucking up the money and the attention crowds would drop to 80s levels I would think.
I think a European Super League would destroy the atmosphere in most stadia. A few times a season is possible but if clubs had 18 long journeys a season the numbers would drop off. Also the Premier League gets more than most other leagues and the top 4 still get the Champions League money so I think they could end up having to share a pot, no bigger than Sky pay now, with the other Super Clubs of Europe.
It isn't Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool that are calling for reform, it's us and Bolton and a few others that are in real trouble. Those that have the power to change it are probably as well off as they are ever going to get, I don't foresee any change at the top of the Premier League anytime soon. Why would those big clubs care how exciting the end of the season is in the Premier League. Sky are never going to turn 'round and refuse to buy the football if they changed to an 18 team division with just one team being relegated.
The only changes I can see coming are those that make the big sides richer and richer and the rest poorer and poorer. And there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Very interesting discussion which raises a number of important questions.
However, one thing I've never understood is the logic of a Premier League Two. How would that work and who would benefit? The key to the Premier League's success is its world leading "product", hungry global audience and, as result, outsized TV revenues. Why would the Clubs in Premier League One share those revenues with those languishing in Premier League Two? Renaming the Championship isn't going to suddenly enable the Clubs involved to conjure their own TV revenue windfall. We've been there, done that and it didn't work.
I'd suggest that it's worth bearing in mind two important points.
First, parachute payments were not designed simply to be nice to relegated Clubs. They benefit all Clubs in the Premier League, especially those that are not relegated. How and why? Because the more aggressive the peripheral Clubs can be in the war for global football talent and, as result, the more exciting the League is, the bigger the TV deal and the more money is made by the big Clubs; Manchester United and Arsenal et al are behaving entirely selfishley and not altruistically. Thats not a criticism, but it means that they would have no interest in a thriving Premier League Two, whatever that might mean. It just wouldn't help them.
Second, the end of relegation from a Premier League Two could be a disaster for a Club like Charlton. Football fans today simply don't do meaningless matches, witness the turn-out for friendlies or even League and FA Cup ties (Huddersfield at home anybody?). I really enjoyed last season, but if every match had been a meaningless stroll I simply wouldn't have bothered. I doubt I'd be alone. Be careful what you wish for.
The parachute payments are a real problem for the Championship. Unfortunately, its not at all obvious what the solution is, but two possibilities come to mind.
First, it's possible that some owners will simply take the parachute money and run, i.e. make no attempt to compete and then either pay £120m in dividends over a five year period or, alternatively, pay, for example, £60m in dividends and attempt to operate a YoYo strategy. Either way this might cause the objective of parachute payments to backfire, undermining the integrity of the Premier League and causing a rethink. I wouldn't rule this out. Moreover, the potential consequences could be very controversial. Again, be careful what you wish for.
Second, whilst its very hard to see how Clubs in the Championship can prevent the Premier League providing parachute payments, perhaps they could argue that the funds don't represent current income and hence shouldn't count towards the FFP calculation? This might force the impacted owners to dividend up £15m per annum, or give them a convenient excuse to do so, but in the process it would help to create a level playing field. Where there's a will there's a way, but are Clubs in the Championship bold enough? Their solidarity payments might be at risk and there's no doubt that's a reason for caution.
Comments
As I know the situation there (very good friends are a mixed Norwegian/Swedish family, with the son being a living encyclopaedia of football), the evenness comes from the relative lack of money. Gates average 6-7,000 in both top leagues, and the TV money is therefore relatively low key too. Many Scans avidly watch live FAPL on TV on Saturdays as well as the Sky games. However the ability and willingness to organise across tribal lines on an issue such as TV interference is really impressive, especially as in Sweden at least there is trouble with tribal hooligan behaviour. Its a Scan thing. :-)
For some clubs selling six players to raise money is necessary. Not being able to replace them is insane! What if all the strikers leave as their contracts come to an end, are they not allowed to have any strikers the following season? What if all the goalkeepers contracts finish at the same time as relegation?
Hopefully FFP will help reduce the problems, but if the Premier League is £60m a season, if the parachute money is less than that (and it's less than half of it at the moment) the relegated teams have to sell players to reduce costs. If they are not allowed to buy new ones then relegation from the Premier League would, almost certainly, mean further relegations and probably administration.
I think the numbers are obscene, but there has to be a fixed figure on the parachute payments, and as it is, it encourages teams to be sensible if they might be relegated.
The biggest problem with all of this is that those that make the decisions are the ones with all the money so they are never going to agree to anything that changes the status quo.
It is interesting what you are saying because that is exactly what CAFC tried a few years back and it failed... badly! Even with the proceeds from selling Darren Bent. Parachute money is no guarantee that it will be spent well or that the slide will stop as per Wolves and many others over the years.
The main issue is that the parachute payments awarded are offering reward/insurance for failure. Until such time as the government carry out their threat to get rid of the football creditors rule and that clubs can reduce or cancel contracts due to failure things won't change.
The irony is that the Premier League might expand to 20 + 6 clubs with some of those queuing up for promotion each and every year... and the rest of the Championship sinking. This is clearly a bastardisation of the vision Richard Murray put forward for a Premier League 2
This would solve all the problems the big clubs face, they can guarantee they'll never get into too much trouble as they'll only be able to fall so far, and only into a still pretty rich league.
There'll be a few dead rubbers at the end of the season, but with only 20 teams likely in prem 2, and still with the play-off system, the vast majority of teams in prem 2 should be in with a shout of the play-offs until very late in the season.
If there is going to be a relegation from Prem 2 to the 'football league' there will need to be parachute payments for those teams that are relegated and the problem will just be shifted down a division. On that basis it doesn't really solve the problem it just increases the pool of teams on the inside. As this will reduce the average payment the teams on the inside get I agree with AB and I don't think it will happen.
It would force those not in prem 2 into semi-pro status certainly, and probably kill a dozen clubs or more outright, but the money men won't care, and the clubs fighting for financial survival who make it into prem 2 won't care much either.
The parachute payments would be linked to their pre relegation overheads rather than a random number, and includes the wages bill. Why should it not be enough? It's a random number that is likely to be too little for some, and worse (for football), too much for others.
"Selling six players to raise money" - Wages and current infrastructure are already covered, so what is money being raised for?
To buy new players - fine; That will also probably reduce wages bill.
To cover an increase in the total wages bill - wrong;
Finance a new stadium - wrong;
Finance dividend to shareholders - wrong;
No suggestion that players could not be sold, nor that the proceeds cannot be used to buy a new player. But if the overheads have reduced through lower wages for the new player, then the instalments of parachute payments are reduced. My idea is that clubs are supported, no more or less, than required to run the club until it's had time to adjust its cost base, say three years, not for ever. Idea is simply not allow it to generate cash to bet on the transfer market or allow money to be used to increase the asset value of the club.
Agree turkeys might not vote for Xmas but it there is an alternative that allows clubs to reduce risk by a financial deal matched to say its last three years liabilities, it might have legs. Both big clubs and small clubs know they get a fair number, even if resources are unequally distributed. Big clubs would vote for it because they potentially get more, but it wouldn't be available to extend their transfer budget. Smaller clubs would be the losers on the face of it, but they would not be under as much pressure to sell players to bridge the gap between revenue and outgoings. it would mean that smaller clubs would not have the outrageous sums for transfers in the lower division after relegation, so football is the winner by minimising unfair advantage for relegated teams.
Or, of course, just leave it as it is. With 14 of the 20 votes needed to change things it only takes 7 to want to keep all the money. There are, I'm sure, always going to be seven teams that don't feel threatened by relegation.
My biggest worry, for teams like us, is if the top clubs manage to get the Premier League to reduce to 18 teams with only one up/down each season. Then we will, really, know what a closed shop is!
It will gut our game, but it feel inevitable. The only other route I can see is the big 4/5 disappearing off to a European super league, and the remaining domestic game having far less money and therefore being more competitive. But with the super league sucking up the money and the attention crowds would drop to 80s levels I would think.
It isn't Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool that are calling for reform, it's us and Bolton and a few others that are in real trouble. Those that have the power to change it are probably as well off as they are ever going to get, I don't foresee any change at the top of the Premier League anytime soon. Why would those big clubs care how exciting the end of the season is in the Premier League. Sky are never going to turn 'round and refuse to buy the football if they changed to an 18 team division with just one team being relegated.
The only changes I can see coming are those that make the big sides richer and richer and the rest poorer and poorer. And there is nothing we can do to stop it.
However, one thing I've never understood is the logic of a Premier League Two. How would that work and who would benefit? The key to the Premier League's success is its world leading "product", hungry global audience and, as result, outsized TV revenues. Why would the Clubs in Premier League One share those revenues with those languishing in Premier League Two? Renaming the Championship isn't going to suddenly enable the Clubs involved to conjure their own TV revenue windfall. We've been there, done that and it didn't work.
I'd suggest that it's worth bearing in mind two important points.
First, parachute payments were not designed simply to be nice to relegated Clubs. They benefit all Clubs in the Premier League, especially those that are not relegated. How and why? Because the more aggressive the peripheral Clubs can be in the war for global football talent and, as result, the more exciting the League is, the bigger the TV deal and the more money is made by the big Clubs; Manchester United and Arsenal et al are behaving entirely selfishley and not altruistically. Thats not a criticism, but it means that they would have no interest in a thriving Premier League Two, whatever that might mean. It just wouldn't help them.
Second, the end of relegation from a Premier League Two could be a disaster for a Club like Charlton. Football fans today simply don't do meaningless matches, witness the turn-out for friendlies or even League and FA Cup ties (Huddersfield at home anybody?). I really enjoyed last season, but if every match had been a meaningless stroll I simply wouldn't have bothered. I doubt I'd be alone. Be careful what you wish for.
The parachute payments are a real problem for the Championship. Unfortunately, its not at all obvious what the solution is, but two possibilities come to mind.
First, it's possible that some owners will simply take the parachute money and run, i.e. make no attempt to compete and then either pay £120m in dividends over a five year period or, alternatively, pay, for example, £60m in dividends and attempt to operate a YoYo strategy. Either way this might cause the objective of parachute payments to backfire, undermining the integrity of the Premier League and causing a rethink. I wouldn't rule this out. Moreover, the potential consequences could be very controversial. Again, be careful what you wish for.
Second, whilst its very hard to see how Clubs in the Championship can prevent the Premier League providing parachute payments, perhaps they could argue that the funds don't represent current income and hence shouldn't count towards the FFP calculation? This might force the impacted owners to dividend up £15m per annum, or give them a convenient excuse to do so, but in the process it would help to create a level playing field. Where there's a will there's a way, but are Clubs in the Championship bold enough? Their solidarity payments might be at risk and there's no doubt that's a reason for caution.