BOLTON WANDERERS chairman Phil Gartside recently put forward proposals to radically shake up the format of the English Premier League, which he said would ultimately ensure greater equality between teams.
His contentious proposition was based on an American style setup, restructuring the top tier of English football and creating two divisions; one of 20 clubs, the other 18. Relegation and promotion between the divisions and the rest of the Football League would also be restricted, making the league more stable and allowing the teams to plan long-term in a sustainable way. Two places for Celtic and Rangers from Glasgow in the new league also added more controversy to these ideas.
PHIL GARTSIDE...Hopes for Premier League expansion have been dashed
Mr Gartside’s motivation was to create a level of security that is currently absent for teams in a similar position to his own. The disparity between the money earned by the teams who consistently feature in the Champions League and those lower down the division is massive. Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal all receive greater funds for finishing higher up the league, competing in Europe regularly and resulting in increased ticket and merchandise sales.
These sums of money help them maintain their dominant position at the top, and prevent strong competition from other sides. This position of financial inequality consequently creates a sense of fear, as smaller clubs have to spend beyond their means because, if relegated, they would encounter serious financial difficulties.
The Glaswegian influence in the new league was however, the most discussed part of the plans. Both clubs would accept the offer to join the new league on a purely financial basis as they are currently stagnating in the SPL. Rangers even recorded losses of over £30 million recently and both clubs have serious problems in attracting big name footballers to match their glorious histories.
For their part, fans of other English teams raised issue with the Scottish sides being automatically accepted in the highest tier of the game, without demonstrating that they were in fact any better than those lower down.
Ultimately, Gartside’s proposals were shot down very quickly indeed and were categorically rejected by the other clubs in the league.
However, the current system is unjust due to the enormous difference in resources between the rich and the poor clubs, so changing the system does certainly have its benefits.
The decision that needs to be made is a choice between letting those who have prospered continue to do so, as they have adapted best to the current market conditions, or whether there is a need for a more egalitarian approach so that more clubs have the opportunity to do well.
The Premier League could be seen as a metaphor for the country on a wider level. The ones who do well, do very well indeed, whereas others can just drop off the scale unnoticed. The Premier League does need to make changes in order to keep going, we have lived through the boom and if the status quo continues then the bust could be very worrying.
Something needs to be done. Mr Gartside does not look like he has the answers, but at least he has some different ideas.
Add Your Thoughts