Manchester United and Liverpool are the driving force behind the biggest changes to English football in a generation and an extraordinary overhaul of the Premier League, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
The two clubs have worked together on a radical set of proposals – called “Project Big Picture” - that will reshape the finances of the game. The Premier League, the most lucrative sports league in the world, would see a reduction to 18 teams, and controlling power in the hands of the biggest clubs.
In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 there will be £250 million rescue package to the Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.
The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the working document “Revitalisation” authored by Liverpool’s American ownership Fenway Sports Group with support from United. It anticipates the backing of the other members of the so-called big six, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.
In a remarkable set of proposals, which will send shockwaves through the game, 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to the EFL clubs with £250 million paid up front to see them through the current crisis. There would also be a gift of £100 million to sustain the Football Association.
However, there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change.
Under the new proposals, the League Cup and the Community Shield would be abolished. There have been additional discussions that the League Cup would survive but without the participation of the clubs in Europe.
There would be two automatic promotion places for Championship clubs, but the third, fourth and fifth placed clubs would be in a play-off tournament with the 16th placed Premier League club.
The nine clubs who have been in the Premier League for the longest - which includes the big six - would dictate its running in every aspect and would be free to play more games in the expanded Champions League that is anticipated from the 2024-2025 season onwards.
As well as the Premier League dropping from 20 clubs to 18, there would be 24 in each of the Championship, League One and League Two making a total of 90.
The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry who has held talks with Liverpool’s principal owner, the American investor John W Henry, and shareholder and director Mike Gordon. In addition, Parry has spoken to the Glazer family, who own United.
The talks began in 2017 but have been accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic has thrust football into the grip of crisis with no fans in stadiums until March at the earliest. Liverpool and United are prepared for a fierce debate over their proposals but they want them implemented as soon as possible.
The Revitalisation document calls for immediate action to cut dramatically what it calls the “revenue chasm” in earnings from television contracts between the Premier League and the EFL. In order to discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion, the parachute payments system would be abolished in favour of the 25 per cent share of Premier League revenue being shared more equitably among EFL clubs.
Under proposals for the new model of distribution of television revenue in the Premier League, Fenway, the driving force behind the document, insist there would be no greater share for the top six. Their stated aim is to eliminate the huge gap in earnings between Premier League and EFL clubs while in return having a greater control of the decisions made by the Premier League.
The document says: “A reset of the economics and governance of the English football pyramid is long overdue”.
The proposals also rewrite the Premier League’s 20-club democracy in favour of placing huge power in the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division. As things stand that is the big six, as well as Everton, Southampton and West Ham. Those nine clubs afforded “long-term shareholder status” would have unprecedented power, with the votes of just six of them required to make sweeping changes. These clubs would even be able to veto a new owner taking over a rival club.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Parry said that he had the support of many of his 72 members, many currently facing financial ruin, to go ahead with the plan. He said: “What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Or do we do something about it? And you can’t do something about it without something changing. And the view of our clubs is if the [big] six get some benefits but the 72 also do, we are up for it.”
He accepted there would be opposition from the Premier League clubs outside the big six who would see it as detrimental to their financial prospects with less money and two fewer places in the top flight.
“It is definitely going to be challenging and it is an enormous change so that won’t be without some pain,” Parry said: “Do I genuinely think it’s for the greater good of the game as a whole? Absolutely. And if the [big] six are deriving some benefit then why shouldn’t they. Why wouldn’t they put their names to this otherwise?”
The proposals include:
Comments
Pretty sweeping changes if adopted. I can see why the EFL are in agreement as it will add greater revenue down the food chain. Not sure the rest of the premiership will agree though as they are basically losing any say in how the league operates and all power hands over to the top 6 clubs plus Everton, Southampton and WHU ? What happens if one of those gets relegated ?
Everyone knows that their needs to be sweeping changes but I'm not sure 6 clubs holding all the power is the right way to go about it. They are basically trying to buy ownership of the premiership
I don't think they've ever wanted the likes of Burnley, Bournemouth or Wigan. Clubs the size of Charlton are welcomed for a year, but they don't want them hanging around.
Dressed up as saving the game but the top 6 are instead taking full control of the game.
It's about greed and pulling up the ladder to stop anyone else trying to get their noses in the trough. "One club one vote you say? Pah, how outdated."
Ultimately I suspect the EFL's hand might be forced in some way. A lot of the member clubs are facing unprecedented financial pressures right now, so taking the money in the short term might be the only option, despite the long-term consequences. A reduction to 90 teams; the "special status" (i.e. removal of one club one vote); the change in financial distribution that screws over the "other" Premier League clubs; FFP that doesn't work; and a later start for friendlies (??!!))... none of that sits well with me.
That said, the EFL would welcome the money that would come from this; capping away tickets at £20; getting rid of the League Cup; and the idea to improve stadium infrastructure are all okay ideas.
But ultimately this is a very, very worrying plan.
This would give them total control of rules and regs, so anything good in the plan could be changed by them with ease in future.
The most worrying point is to see Rick Parry supposedly in favour - EFL blinded and crippled by idea of short term bailout.
- £250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League
Sounds good at first glance but it will be deducted from future money so robbing next year's money to pay the bills now.- Special status for the nine longest serving clubs – and the vote of only six of those “long-term shareholders” required to make major changes, including amending rules and regulations, agreeing contracts, removal of the chief executive, and a wide-ranging veto including on club ownership
Why and how is this justified? What club has a rule that longer serving members have more control?- Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20
Frees them up for more overseas games but actually means two fewer league games and the income from them. And means that 92 clubs doesn't work. (see point 10)- £100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots
Not a huge amount when spread so thinly. Window dressing and essentially a bribe- 8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA
How does this compare with the current figures. What is the split between operating costs and good causes?- From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs
Sounds good but again how does this compare to current payments? How much per club?- Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat
£100 a seat is tiny. The actual seat would cost £20 or £30. The actual cost of a new seat ie with the stand etc to put it in would be more like £5 to 10k- New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league
Essentially the higher up the league you finish the even bigger slice of the cake you get and if you've just been promoted, well no three three performance so even if you finish top ten you get a lot less.- The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield
Why get rid of one game that raises money for charity? And the league cup is an ELF trophy anyway. Why are the EPL getting rid of someone else's cup? Basically two trophies the EPL don't control so they can go- 24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90
So we can overload the lower divisions with extra games, as we do now and bye bye two teams. They will go bust anyway so who cares about Bury or Macclesfield or whoever it is? (not my view BTW)- A women's professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA
How is this relevant? Or do they mean a league the EPL clubs control themselves?- Two sides automatically relegated from the Premier League every season and the top two Championship teams promoted. The 16th place Premier League club in a play-off tournament with the Championship’s third, fourth and fifth placed teams.
One Peter Shirtliff! As we know this idea got scrapped pretty quick when they realised that the higher division team always lost - well, nearly always : - )- Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts
This seems reasonable and consistent? What's the catch? Will the same apply to the EFL?- A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity
Was the twenty plenty plan already under way? A "focus" on means what. 8% of a 30k capacity is 2,400 so less that the 3k minimum now- Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament
Late August was what is used to be anyway. And a tournament every fives years will coincide with the Euros or world cup within a decade.- Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England
Surprise, surprise. More opportunities for rich club to hoard young talent and effectively have farm clubs in the lower leagues.But apart from that, all good.
As someone else replied on twitter what the EPL should do rather than what it wants to do
What gives Man City or even Spurs the right to dictate how the League should be structured... The former were a bog standard league team less than two decades ago whilst the latter do nothing major apart from fighting for pointless positions!!
Those six need to learn quickly they're the problem within the game and certainly shouldn't be running it
18 teams, relegation play off etc.
Answered alot of my questions.
It now appears that they haven't listened as they want even more money.
What summed it up for me this week was Arsenal spending £45m on a player yet the next day made the mascot redundant
If voted through, then whats the betting the first thing the '9' do with their new found power is vote to cancel all payments to the EFL for ever more.
This is pure self-interest with the tiniest fig leaf of "concern for the little clubs".
Football League clubs, who don't have the safety net of a massive TV deal, may be interested in the short-term cash injection to overcome their immediate funding concerns but hopefully they'll see through that to look at the "big picture" which is the hijacking and curtailing of the traditional English League structure by a few greedy and arrogant clubs.
How the hell the Spuds still feature in a "big six" is beyond me. Two league titles, the last 60 years ago? Man City and Chelsea only owe their recent successes to incredibly rich owners; prior to that they were pretty ordinary. Arsenal are a busted flush after the glory years of Graham and Wenger.
Why "nine" longest serving clubs? If the additional three means Everton (who at least have some kind of pedigree in the last 40 years), Southampton, and the Hamsters, that's a bit of a slap in the face for Leicester City who won the bloody thing a few years ago!
The Foxes' triumph may have been a one-off and never-to-be-repeated it at least gave some hope to all clubs that anything was possible. The "big six" will do all they can to ensure that a fairy tale story like that can never happen again because they were embarrassed by a "little outsider".
F*** 'em. F*** the lot of them.
More time for those essential pre-season friendlies in China and Dubai? Fuck off and play there instead.