Explained: United, Liverpool and Parry spark ‘nuclear war’ in English football
English football was plunged into civil war this weekend after the Football League Chairman Rick Parry, in collaboration with leading clubs Manchester United and Liverpool, presented an extraordinary proposal to reimagine the sport in this country.
Under a string of radical proposals that the Premier League warned could have a “damaging impact” on the national game, a leaked document entitled “Project Big Picture” suggested reducing the number of top-flight clubs from 20 to 18, ditching the Community Shield and Carabao Cup, reinventing the Championship play-off system and removing equal voting rights in the top-flight.
On the flip side, the proposal, described by EFL Chairman Parry as “the right way forward”, would also immediately hand Football League clubs a £250 million bailout to cover lost matchday income, hand £10 million grants to the Women’s Super League and Championship, and provide a £35 million grant to the FA for the National League and the grassroots game, and £55 million to cover the governing body’s operational losses.
However, the idea has immediately provoked fury from the Premier League and the British government, who have both negotiated with the Football League in recent weeks to secure a bailout. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a scathing attack on the proposal, saying it was “surprised and disappointed” to hear about a “backroom deal cooked up” by the respective parties.
It is understood Manchester United’s owners, the Glazer family, have been in talks with Parry, and the same is true of Liverpool’s lead owner John W Henry, as well as shareholder Mike Gordon. The talks have been ongoing for three years between the parties, and Parry claimed on Sunday that Chelsea have also been involved in talks for some time. Liverpool and United fully informed their top-six rivals Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Manchester City of the proposals last week and on Sunday, the news of the groundbreaking plan broke in the Daily Telegraph.
As things stand, any change to Premier League regulations requires fourteen votes or more under a one member, one vote system. Yet Premier League clubs were further incensed by suggestions that Parry had encouraged leading top-flight clubs to simply resign from the top-flight and join the Football League in the event they lost the vote.
Parry, remarkably, refused to comment on this allegation during a hastily-organised press conference on Sunday and several sources admitted that the nuclear option of breaking away from the Premier League is possible in “extraordinary times”. Due to ongoing contractual obligations, this would leave leading clubs such as Liverpool and United open to legal action from their Premier League rivals. Neither club were prepared to comment on Sunday. Sources close to the top six insisted there have been no threats at all to break away.
At the heart of the issue is that the leading six clubs believe they deserve more power at the table because they generate the majority of revenue and interest in the English game. The fundamental obstacle is the bottom 14 clubs and persuading them to vote for something that appears counter to their own interests.
Premier League clubs below the top six were said to have considered this plan a “hostile takeover” rather than a proposal, as they were kept out of the loop. One source close to the big six conceded it should be seen either as a “coup or a revolution”. The big fear among opponents is that the concentrating of voting power in the hands of a select group of clubs could see them renege on promises of solidarity made within these proposals.
Those are not the only objections, though. One source described the Premier League, its leading clubs, the Football League and the government as being in “nuclear warfare” on Sunday evening, while there were also question marks over what the proposals mean for the women’s game. As English football licks its wounds, The Athletic sets out the proposals, who is in favour and who is steadfastly opposed to the game-changing plans.
What is Project Big Picture?
On Sunday morning, the Daily Telegraph published details of an 18-page document that set out a new vision for football in England.
English football is currently beset by an economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and negotiations between the Premier League, Football League and government have been rumbling on for several months as lower league clubs, shorn of matchday income and reduced sponsorship income, are threatened with extinction.
On the face of it, Project Big Picture includes several encouraging proposals. Most crucially, it would immediately present £250 million to the Football League, as well as a cumulative £100 million fund to the FA to cover losses and provide investment for the women’s game, the National League and grassroots football. This would provide a short-term cash injection to resuscitate an ailing sport. On a long-term level, EFL finances would be boosted by a new way of sharing the Premier League’s vast income.
Premier League clubs currently receive 92 per cent of distributable revenues but this would be reduced to 75 per cent under the proposals, as 25 per cent would instead go to the EFL. This would raise Championship income per club by £15.5 million, League One income by £3.5 million and League Two income by £2.3 million. While handing such a large share to the EFL would be a historic move there is no guarantee that finances would remain as appealing as they are at present, given an 18-team Premier League would have fewer of its own games to sell.
For supporters, away tickets would be capped at £20, away travel would be subsidised and there would be further exploration of safe standing.
The big six clubs, however, will be getting plenty in return. The Community Shield and the Carabao Cup, often seen as a burden to leading sides, will be axed altogether. In addition, the number of Premier League fixtures will be reduced from 38 to 34 in an 18-team division. The revised Premier League relegation system would see the bottom two clubs automatically relegated and the top two clubs in the Championship promoted. The third bottom Premier League side would then enter a four-way play-off with the third, fourth and fifth-placed Championship sides to secure a place in the top-flight the following season.
Parry speculated on Sunday that there would be a single campaign, ahead of the proposed 2022-23 start date, where the Premier League would relegate four sides and the Championship would only promote two. “This would be give-and-take from the Premier League and Championship,” he explained.
Controversially, the new proposals would guarantee voting rights to the nine clubs who, at any given moment, have spent the longest extended period in the top-flight. This would currently be the established top six, plus Southampton, West Ham and Everton. The document says that it would take only an agreement of two-thirds of the “long-term stakeholders”, in effect six teams, to legislate over several key issues, including vetoing prospective new owners of other Premier League clubs, the Premier League CEO position itself and how broadcasting income is distributed, as well as competition rules.
The proposal also suggests a hard salary cap for the Championship, League One and League Two, while clubs would also be forced to comply with UEFA-style Financial Fair Play regulations. There are further advantages proposed for top clubs, for instance how a Premier League side would be able to loan out fifteen players at once, including four players to the same club and recall loanees if the manager changes. Clubs would also be allowed to sell exclusive rights to eight of their live matches per season direct to supporters via digital platforms in all international territories.
So who is behind Project Big Picture?
On Sunday, the question of who exactly the authored the document remained in question but it has been worked on for up to three years by Joel Glazer, the co-owner of Manchester United, along with John W Henry, Liverpool’s lead investor. The Athletic also understands that Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck has been heavily involved in discussions for quite some time. Liverpool and United formally presented the proposals to their top-six rivals Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City on Thursday, with a view to continuing discussions over the weekend. Different sources attributed each of Henry, Glazer, Parry and United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward with the credit for writing sections of the document but it was difficult to establish anyone prepared to take ultimate responsibility.
Yet even after the story emerged, infuriating Premier League clubs and the government, sources close to the proposal insisted on Sunday night that its creators are refusing to back down and want to push this through.
They have on their side the EFL chairman Parry, who is formerly the CEO of the Premier League and his backing for this idea stretches back as far as 1995. The key tenet is to bundle together the television rights for the Premier League and Football League and redistribute 25 per cent to the EFL. Indeed, while being interviewed to be EFL chairman ahead of winning the role in 2019, Parry pitched this exact concept and was supported in the room by the current Burton Albion chief executive Jez Moxey.
The plan has been driven by Glazer and Henry, although Parry, the EFL board and the FA Chairman Greg Clarke have all, at different times, been privy to conversations on the issue. The FA, curiously, did not formally comment on Sunday but it was mentioned in the Premier League’s own statement, implying the two bodies are united in opposition.
The Athletic has learnt the proposal was first intended to be launched quite some time ago, indeed the current working document is version 18, and Parry would have liked to begin the campaign in April, only for the pandemic to hold off the discussion.
Cynics will raise their eyebrows but sources close to Liverpool’s Henry and United’s Glazer insisted they see the romance of English football’s pyramid and have regularly, during discussions, spoken of a responsibility to protect lower league clubs. One source said Woodward “is often on the side of the angels” when it comes to supporters’ issues and lower league clubs, and he too has been keen to drive the proposals forward. Critics will certainly point to the Glazer family’s record of alienating United supporters with a leveraged takeover deal.
Who supports the proposal and why?
It is now clear that Liverpool and Manchester United are significant advocates of the deal, along with Chelsea. Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City have all been privy to discussions but their individual positions are unclear. Sources close to the overall project suggested on Sunday that the top six sides are broadly supportive.
Elsewhere, Football League chairman Parry is spearheading the support on behalf of his 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two. It is understood that the vast majority of League One and Two clubs see the benefit of the proposals both in terms of the short-term bailout of £250 million, in addition to a more equitable distribution of television money in the long-term. The government has been considering a £100 million package to bail out matchday losses for League One, League Two and the National League combined but the EFL believes it needs £250 million to complete this’s season’s fixtures and avoid clubs going bust.
One executive at a League One club explains: “The EFL is in such a bad position, something has gone wrong, it can’t continue. Who is coming up with a solution? Nobody, except for Manchester United and Liverpool. There is disagreement on everything in the EFL and we never get a consensus, whether it is resuming the league after lockdown or doing the play-offs. We never get anywhere. Time is not on our side and if stays this way, clubs will go bust.
“So yes, we are at the mercy of really rich guys, but it is good someone is taking initiative, as everything else on the table is so limited.
“Is it a disaster to have more power for top six? Doesn’t every industry have big players? This proposal will make clubs be more stable in lower leagues and now it will make more sense to own a lower league club. This will save many clubs from going bust.
“The government won’t bail us out long term. They are very conscious of the cosmetics of supporting an industry that has a lot of money and spends fortunes on players. They will do a short-term solution to cover matchday losses but the average League One side is still losing £3 million (a season), with or without COVID-19. United’s idea gives us security in the long term.”
Fleetwood Town owner Andy Pilley described it as a “fantastic proposal that will save EFL clubs from oblivion”.
There was also a warning that the alternative options may be far worse. Barnsley co-chairman Paul Conway told The Athletic: “Project Big Picture would judiciously reallocate more media revenue to the EFL and hopefully reign in the reckless spending which endangers the entire EFL.
“With the planned expansion of UEFA to include a third competition after the Champions League and Europa League, it is conceivable that up to 10 EPL teams could be playing in UEFA competitions during the season totalling 60 group stage matches and then the knockout matches.
“If the smaller Premier League clubs do not accept Project Big Picture it is entirely conceivable that the bigger Premier League clubs go along with the push of other big UEFA clubs to move UEFA matches to the weekend resulting in 60 to 80 Premier League matches forced to be moved to mid-week, which would hurt the smaller Premier League teams as these are typically their biggest grossing match days.
“The bigger Premier League clubs aim to grow their global brand either through Project Big Picture or other alternatives. The global football audience prefers to watch Liverpool play Bayern Munich versus Liverpool play Burnley.”
Parry also insisted on Sunday that he has the support of many of his members, even including some in the Championship who may have been considered sceptics as the number of Premier League places would be reduced.
Parry said: “From the comments from clubs today to me, it is a surprise to them, but it feels like unity and the professional game reuniting for the first time since the formation of the Premier League. It is hard to imagine another proposal coming close.”
Who opposes the proposal and why?
This is where it gets tasty. If the big six are to push these proposals through conventionally, they require 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to vote in favour. Yet, why would they? Many clubs start the season with one eye over their shoulders and are worried, first and foremost, about staying in the top flight. Reducing the numbers to 18 makes this considerably harder.
In addition, there are concerns that parachute payments would stop for those clubs relegated from the top flight, while the changes to Premier League voting rights have raised alarm bells. Currently, any changes to top-flight regulations demand 14 votes in favour and every team has a vote. Yet the United and Liverpool proposal insists that only the nine longest-serving Premier League clubs, at any given time, would be given a vote. This would include matters such as the distribution of television income but also more trivial footballing issues, such as the recently hotly disputed five substitutions rule which was adopted during lockdown but then banished for the new season. This has led to fears from some opposing clubs alleging it is a power grab.
Essentially, therefore, the proposals penalise the clubs who fear Premier League relegation and also ambitious Football League outfits who would like to gamble their way towards the top flight. The Premier League’s central power base was, therefore, left furious after being cut out of the talks.
Parry admitted broadcasters had not been consulted, and said: “The Premier League could have come up with proposals at any stage or solved the short-term issue on rescue funding a lot quicker. For whatever reason, they have not. Am I ashamed to back a bold plan? No. They talk about the need for collaboration. How long has it taken to get short-term rescue package to the starting gate? Months. The government said they needed the Premier League to step up to the plate in May.”
The Premier League, however, approached the Football League during lockdown, warning they would need to finish their own season before organising the terms of the bail-out. This was because the top-flight could have faced its own meltdown if forced to return in excess of £750 million to broadcasters in a hefty rebate. As such, sources say that the Premier League then invited the Football League for talks last month, where they felt the EFL were not overly engaged. Only on Sunday did the Premier League discover that Parry was working with two of their biggest clubs about an extraordinary rebrand.
Indeed, Parry was asked on Sunday if it was true he had invited the big six clubs to quit the Premier League and simply form another league under the Football League banner. He declined to comment.
The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters is said to have been working around the clock to secure a consensus for a Premier League bailout but he wants a deal that protects all the top-flight’s members, rather than placing excessive power into the hands of a select few clubs. Both the Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman and CEO Masters were cut out of the secret talks, angering several clubs.
There are also concerns that the document insists on 34 weekend fixtures for the Premier League, therefore opening the door for an enhanced Champions League, as devised by Juventus’ owner Andrea Agnelli, while some Premier League club executives also fear the FA Cup will become a midweek competition. Parry rejects this view, saying the removal of the Carabao Cup will renew the “lustre” of the competition. Sources close to the proposals also insisted the FA Cup would remain a weekend tournament.
The anger was palpable. The Premier League issued a strongly-worded statement saying discussions “should be carried out through the proper channels” and a number of proposals “could have a damaging impact on the whole game”. “We are disappointed to see that Rick Parry, Chair of the EFL, has given his on-the-record support,” they added.
One Premier League club source described the developments as dispiriting. Another Premier League club executive was furious he had discovered the news on a newspaper website. “It has never been mentioned to us,” they said. “That’s why it’s such a disgrace. Same old thing. Big clubs working out ways where they get to keep the money and the power. The other clubs will come down on Woodward like a ton of bricks.”
A different Premier League source said it was yet another attempt by the big six to create more space in the calendar for European competitions, while other sources said the proposed UEFA-style Financial Fair Play restrictions would make it nigh-on impossible for a new owner to ever spend significantly enough to gatecrash the elite. In addition, the top six clubs alone, under revised governance rules, could themselves veto a takeover from a rich investor they perceive as a threat.
Meanwhile, not all Championship clubs are as united as Parry suggested. Sources close to clubs with immediate ambitions to be promoted to the Premier League described them as “highly unimpressed” on Sunday and hit out at the “greed” of the established elite. Indeed, one club in the lower tiers was actively opposed, with their chairman saying: “Effectively it will crystallise the power of the big six in perpetuity and also lead to the formation of a Premier League 2, with an increased gap between that and League One. The detail is still missing but the timing is classic exploitation of the short-term crisis with a few dog bones to smooth the transition.”
A Championship chief executive cautioned: “It may be easy to get the buy-in from the EFL but I doubt it has enough votes to pass in the Premier League. Fulham, Burnley, West Brom, Sheffield United, Leeds, Palace and Brighton would have no interest in backing this.”
One of his Championship peers added: “But I’ll keep an open mind as we assess it. The clear losers are the lower half of the Premier League, who have got far too big for their boots.”
What happens next?
A battle for public opinion will now play out. The Conservative government has already laid out its opposition in no uncertain terms.
A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: “We are surprised and disappointed that at a time of crisis when we have urged the top tiers of professional football to come together and finalise a deal to help lower league clubs there appear to be backroom deals being cooked up that would create a closed shop at the very top of the game.”
There is also concern in some quarters over the lack of detail in the proposals for the women’s game. The document, seen by The Athletic, says that a working group will be set up to develop and establish a new independent league for women’s professional football in England, not to be owned by the Premier League or the FA. This perhaps opens the door to private equity funding for the women’s game or a sponsor-led initiative but this would seem a high-risk approach when the game requires guaranteed income. The proposals do include a £10 million bailout for the Women’s Super League and Championship, in addition to a pledge of more than £50 million per annum for the WSL, Championship, Women’s FA Cup and women’s grassroots funding.
Over Zoom calls and a private WhatsApp group, the big six clubs remained embroiled in negotiations on Sunday and there was no sign of an immediate climbdown. Attention will turn to The FA, as its chairman Clarke has been aware of these discussions. The FA has a golden share in the Premier League and therefore the ability to veto changes to regulations on promotion or relegation. It could kill the proposals before they are even off the ground. The FA is still to outline a clear position but the Premier League, which mentioned a shared desire between themselves and the FA to find a solution in their statement on Sunday, is hopeful the governing body will fall in line.
The matter will be discussed at a no doubt intense Premier League meeting this week and could, in theory, be put to a vote that requires 14 or more in support to approve. “Even if they don’t get that vote,” one source insisted, “they will keep pushing this. They want this to happen.”
Parry remained confident despite the government knockback. “It does not make it a non-starter. The merits still shine through. Fans have been considered and it is about saving the pyramid. I find it hard to reconcile our thoughts and the government position. It will not deter us. It is hard to imagine another deal coming close.”
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
ska face
Logged
