[ad_1]
The leaders of Manchester United and Liverpool proposed the Big Picture Project which is unsustainable and a threat. What does all this mean for Chelsea and the league?
Fans will argue about almost anything. However, at the end of the day, they generally agree that the sport should be as fair as possible to everyone involved. They may object who has how much money to spend, but ultimately they want systems and institutions that make achievements in the field the end of everything.
That is one of the reasons that Project Big Picture, suggested by the leaders of Manchester United and Liverpool, is unsustainable. While he has good ideas for advancing the very fabric of English football, he is also built in a way that would consolidate power in the Premier League to such an extent that it would be almost impossible for an upstart club to gain power on their own. This is done with the very survival of the Football League hanging on a hook.
However, it doesn’t stop there. Behind the proposal is the veiled threat of what will happen if the demands are not met. The FA, which was apparently as in the dark about this as anyone, has claimed that “elite” clubs have threatened to leave the league if their demands are not met. Not make mistakes; this is a bailout as well as a coup led by either the fading star or Manchester United and the recently resurgent Liverpool star. Exactly what the Chelsea hierarchy’s thoughts are is unknown, though they have grouped with those elite clubs independently. The proposal is unsustainable and threatening.
The current procedure for changes in the Premier League requires the approval of 14 clubs. This very well prevents the top six from enacting changes that could harm clubs that are more reflective of the football pyramid. Of course, the argument of the top six would be about how they generate the vast majority of income and that should result in more power.
But the mechanisms proposed in Project Big Picture would further widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The proposal would grant voting rights to the nine longest-serving clubs in the Premier League. Since they want to narrow the league down to 18 teams (in itself not a terrible idea), half the league would have control over the decisions of the entire league rather than the current supermajority.
If it stopped there, it could still be a pill that could be swallowed. It was not so. Those nine teams could even reject the new ownership of a Premier League club. For example, if Newcastle finally had a large owner that would theoretically allow them to make the top nine, all nine could vote against the new owner. Over time, this would increase the gap between the top nine and the rest to a greater degree than the current top six over the rest. There would be virtually no chance of a Wolverhampton or Leicester City gate crashing because it is not based on league position, but longevity in the league. The additional three would be Everton, Southampton and West Ham as they stand.
All this without mentioning that the revenue split in the proposal would favor the top more than now. Sure, it’s framed in a way that shows EFL clubs getting a bigger slice of the pie, but so will the top nine. That would only further widen the gap with the rest and almost guarantee that those nine retain their voting rights and their power to prohibit a true catastrophe.
All of this is painted in a sufficient way for the EFL to join in, as its very existence is threatened by Covid. They would earn more income than before, including a payment contract that would surely save all clubs from the brink. The Community Shield and EFL Cup can be discarded or at least modified to exclude clubs from Europe. That would make them more attractive to clubs that previously thought they had no real chance of winning. Furthermore, cutting the Premier League down to 18 clubs, as well as changing the way the EFL Cup works, would allow for a true winter break that clubs up and down the pyramid have called for. But is it really worth the cost of an unshakable monopoly above them?
Finally, there is the notion raised by the FA that if the plan is not implemented, the first six will be broken. This has been increasingly threatened in recent years with the idea of an increasingly likely European Super League. Simply put, the best clubs are looking to hold the entire English system hostage as they begin their coup. If their demands are not met, they will simply leave the league to starve and die.
It’s unclear where exactly Chelsea fit into all of this. As always, the club keeps its cards close to its chest. It is believed to be one of the top six clubs concerned about the takeover. That may be genuine or it may simply be an effort to avoid being the bad guy in a plan that is sure to fail. It doesn’t really matter as long as they fall on the side of a hard no to Manchester United and Liverpool proposals.
Each of the six major fan clubs has spoken out against the proposal. It is, pure and simple, a takeover of the fading United star and the recently revived Liverpool star. It would save the EFL and guarantee power to its rivals, but at the cost of the integrity of the game itself. The threat of a breakaway isn’t new (in fact, that’s how the Premier League came to be in the first place), but Chelsea have to get on the right side of history here.
[ad_2]
