The richest Premier League clubs are at it again.

In October last year (see below) the ‘big six’ tried to force through a proposal that would mean even more money for the ones at the top.

With the UK TV rights appearing to be reaching a plateau, that top half dozen attempted to grab a larger share of the overseas cash.

They wanted 35% of the overseas TV cash to be shared out based on where you finish in the league, so if you are pretty much always in the top six, you would then be the ones to benefit the most from such a change.

The cash share out from last season sums up how much overseas rights puts in every club’s pockets and that figure is set to rise even further once all deals have been agreed for the three years starting with season 2019/20.

Last season every Premier League club banked just under £41m via overseas rights, so West Brom who finished bottom of the league and got just under £95m in total from TV/PL finish, it meant well over 40% of their money came from the overseas TV payout.

Premier League Chairman Richard Scudamore recently said the clubs are still determined to one day force through the proposal to play Premier League matches abroad to bring in more cash…and it was he who tried to persuade the poorer clubs to agree to a change last October.

He met the 14 clubs outside the top six and put forward the idea of sharing 35% of overseas income based on league position, only for 11 to indicate they wouldn’t support it.

For such changes to be made, 14 of the 20 PL clubs need to agree.

A formal vote was then agreed to be held at the next meeting of all 20 PL clubs and Scudamore and others set about trying to persuade clubs to change their mind. However, before the meeting was even held, the PL Chairman revealed there wouldn’t be a vote, as it was accepted there was no chance of success.

Move forward eight months and they are having another go.

Liverpool owner John Henry has let the cat out of the bag, saying the change in overseas TV cash distribution is top of the agenda when all 20 PL clubs meet this Thursday.

Henry says how unfair it is that the overseas TV money is shared equally…and that this can’t be allowed to continue.

The thing is though, how could a yes vote ever happen?

The majority of those outside the top six elite would be effectively voting for their club to receive less money.

So surely, the only possible way is if those top six threatened the rest of the clubs with the possibility of doing something else that would be far worse for the rest of the clubs.

The default setting always used to be the threat of a breakaway European superleague but they effectively already have that with the rigged Champions League set-up, which is all aimed at keeping the same elite clubs succeeding.

So who knows what tactics/threats the likes of Liverpool and the rest are going to use this time.

John Henry talking to The Associated Press.

“It’s a disagreement based entirely on governance.

“Everyone in the league knows what the large clubs bring to the value of foreign rights, but the large clubs do not have the votes to change something that should have changed as media rights changed over the past 25 years.

“You cannot stick with the same media strategy forever any more than you can stick with the same football tactics forever.

“Because of this arrangement (the distribution of overseas revenue) and due to parachute payments to relegated clubs, the top three clubs each year in the Premier League receive less overall TV monies than the bottom three clubs when you include parachute payments.

“It’s hard to imagine this continuing much longer.

“In America, where we have closed leagues, you can argue for these types of arrangements, but it’s much more difficult to ask independent clubs to subsidise their competitors beyond a certain point when you have relegation and especially with the way media is rapidly changing and being consumed today.”

The Mag – 4 October 2017:

Last Wednesday (27 September) we brought you news of a meeting of 14 Premier League clubs.

Those 14 met with Premier League Chairman Richard Scudamore, in order for him to present a plan put forward by the missing six clubs (read below), that could potentially lead to a change in the way that overseas TV cash is shared out.

The six missing were Manchester City and Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Spurs.

At the minute the overseas TV deals see the money shared out evenly, with each PL club receiving around £39m per season. However, this amount is set to massively climb again, once the new deals come into effect for the 2019/20 season.

The proposal from the top/greedy six is that 35% of the total cash should be decided by league position, with obviously those six fancying that in the years to come they will be nearer the top than the bottom.

Premier League rules mean that 14 clubs would need to agree to any change and the good news from last week’s meeting was that 11 of the 14 who met, indicated they weren’t convinced about making the change.

All 20 Premier League clubs meet today, with a vote said to be due to be made, which will decide whether a change will be made starting with the 2019/20 season.

Difficult to see how it could get a majority, as for a club to benefit, they would have to fancy being at least top 10 in a majority of the seasons in order to better off than the current arrangements.

My guess would be that of the three who indicated they were in favour of the change last Wednesday, the likes of West Ham and Everton could be two of them. Both I think fancying themselves as clubs on the up, despite their current early season woes.

Happily, it is widely reported that Newcastle United are against any changes, and surely the only way those looking to move the goalposts could win, is if they exert some kind of pressure on the less well off.

If this move went through, it would simply be the thin end of the wedge and the gap between the rich and not so rich would grow ever wider as the years go by.

At a time when the pot of money grows and grows, with no sign of stopping its upward trajectory, it is appalling that some clubs look to grab a bigger share, at the expense of the competition that exists in the Premier League.

English clubs have a far lower gap between top and bottom when it comes to sharing out TV cash, compared to the other major leagues, helping to sell the Premier League around the world. If you had the situation that exits in say Spain, where the TV cash isn’t so fairly split, then that worldwide audience would have nowhere near the same interest.

BBC Sport – Earlier today (4 October 2017):

Club bosses are preparing for one of the most important meetings in the Premier League’s history on Wednesday.

It comes amid a potentially damaging split over the way the next round of multi-billion-pound international broadcasting rights are shared.

Under pressure from the six richest clubs, the league’s executive chairman Richard Scudamore has proposed ending 25 years of the equal sharing of international broadcasting income.

Scudamore presented his plan – which would see 35% of the revenue divided according to league position – to the 14 other clubs last week. But it has been met with resistance and, with a two-thirds majority required to approve any changes, he now faces a major challenge to broker some form of agreement.

The Mag – 27 September 2017:

Newcastle United and 13 other top tier clubs met in London on Wednesday as a handful of clubs made a grab for a bigger share of the Premier League TV money.

The story has been broken by The Guardian, who report that Premier League Chairman Richard Scudamore presented a proposal to the 14 clubs on behalf of the six attempting to move the goalposts.

No surprise that the six clubs putting forward the proposal, are Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham and Liverpool.

They want the Premier League to change the way that the money from overseas TV deals is distributed.

Ever since the Premier League format was introduced in 1992, the cash from overseas TV contracts has been shared equally.

However, recent years have seen that pot of money rapidly increase and it is expected to make another giant leap when the new TV deals kick in as from the start of the 2019/20 season.

At the moment, the domestic TV deals are worth around £5.1bn and the overseas deals approximately £3bn.

The current 3 year deal sees all Premier League clubs receiving £39m per year from the overseas deals, whereas a large proportion of the cash from the UK domestic deals depends on both league position and how often you are shown live.

Under these new proposals presented by Scudamore, 35% of the overseas TV cash would be decided upon league position as from the 2019/20 season.

The six clubs proposing the deal would no doubt argue that it is fair because any club could finish at the top end and get the bigger shares BUT the reality of course is that these clubs know they are all but guaranteed to be within the group who will grab the most money.

Any change in how the PL shares out the cash would need 14 of 20 clubs to support it and the good news is that The Guardian report that at today’s meeting 11 clubs ‘remained firmly opposed’ to changing how overseas TV cash is shared out.

It is shocking the greed of the handful, who already bank more money than the other clubs in all kinds of way, plus invariably they are the ones also banking Champions League money as a massive bonus.

The ‘big six’ are said to argue that because they are the biggest draw overseas then they should be entitled to more money but they miss the point that a league system needs 20 clubs, not just half a dozen.

The Guardian report that there will now be a meeting of all 20 Premier League clubs next Wednesday in London, to then finalise what the sharing arrangements will be.

I think the correct phrase here is ‘trying it on’.

City Hall Gifts -

  • Paul Patterson

    Sadly (whilst I don’t agree with it) the top clubs command the interest from TV audiences and deserve a bigger share. It’s not good for the rest of us, but let’s look at it another way, if Man Utd were playing Chelsea on Sky/BT, you’ll get a much bigger audience than whoever else was playing that weekend. Let’s be fair, who’s going to tune in and watch Stoke v West Brom?
    I don’t condone it and it hampers Newcastle, but it’s the sad way of the game in this day and age.

    • ataturk5

      Perpetuates the top 6 positions for the future though,or ‘helps’ anyway,because more £=more success usually,we know certain teams are the biggest draw,but they’re part of a league,and that league is so successful because even the so called smaller teams can beat the supposed best teams.
      Giving more money to the top 6 to spend on players/wages would likely make those freak results a bit more unlikely,it would be making the top 6 even more of a closed shop.
      Competition is what makes the PL the draw it is imo,it doesn’t need making less competitive.

      • Paul Patterson

        So what is the solution?

        • ataturk5

          Something similar to how many times you’re shown on TV abroad? like Sky pay out the PL money on how many times you’ve been broadcast? i honestly don’t know,i’m a Bricky,ask me one on football?

          • Paul Patterson

            Me neither. But the top clubs command the audience. I’ve got an idea, but it would take a major overhaul of the league and a lot of money.

          • ataturk5

            I know they do mate,and Man Utd V Lpool might command a massive global audience,but they still get a big audience v the so called lesser clubs.
            It’s my clubs owner in the article,so it popped up on a LIverpool fc news feed,anyway,i’ll leave yerz to it! tara

          • Paul Patterson

            No problem. Never had any gripes with LFC. A decent club and one with many historical links with us. Genuinely disappointed to see you lose the CL final.

          • mactoon

            I always loved going away to a Liverpool or Everton game, there was a pub just outside the train station where all the fans could mix. Happy days

          • ataturk5

            Cheers lads,i’m off,i’ll leave you to it,slating us and the other 5 that is ha ha ;)
            You’ve got a good man in charge(as you know),enjoy him,’proper’ man he is,comes across as hard/cold hearted i know,but the money+work him and his wife Montse have put in to charities up here is unbelievable,he’s not as hard nosed as he tries to make out Rafa,big heart!
            Tara lads

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            What historical links to us?

          • Mark Potter

            But Fox Sport don’t sell packages to watch Liverpool. They sell Premier League packages. And because they screen their main games on a Saturday at 15:00 UK time (Saturday morning for them), it might be the case that mid-table clubs appear more often because the top clubs are more likely to change the times of their matches to appear on Sky, or because of postponements from appearing in European games.

          • Mark Potter

            Sky pay SOME of the money that way. The overseas TV money relates to matches played on 50-100 different channels across the world. Collecting that information and deciding which countries’ coverage is more important would be very complex. If Newcastle are covered more often in France than Stoke, but Stoke are played more often in Egypt, how should that be dealt with? Do you treat US coverage the same as in Iceland?

          • ataturk5

            I never said it would be easy to collate all the data tbf,but it wouldn’t shock me if they had the means to do all that,but my main point is the same,the PL should distribute the £ as evenly as possible,or the PL becomes even more of a fixed top 6 and the rest

        • mactoon

          Stop paying parachute payments to clubs who get relegated and pool all the money into teams who finish in the Premiership. The higher you finish, the more you get percentage wise. Also cap the amount of times a club can be televised so that golden egg is spread down amongst the lower clubs and not monopolised by the top teams.

        • Ram Kishore

          Paul..l this Liverpool fan knows that PL won’t be an attraction if they don’t have 14 teams who can beat them..Or PL would be another La liga or Serie A…

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      You are right, reality is the top teams are the big draw. Ok Chelsea and even Spurs are phoney big teams but that’s what people want to watch.

  • Steve Smith

    ““In America, where we have closed leagues, you can argue for these types of arrangements, but it’s much more difficult to ask independent clubs to subsidise their competitors beyond a certain point when you have relegation and especially with the way media is rapidly changing and being consumed today”

    Thick yank.

    They also have the drafting system in the USA so little to be gained in having a bigger bank balance than your rival.

  • glassjawsh-got-banned

    just break away already and go fail in a pan European league…

  • JonMag

    [email protected]@king greed, footballs infested with scum like Fatso who are money mad.
    one day it`ll all go down the toilet & i`ll be over the moon

    • mactoon

      I really can’t wait for that to happen. Imagine a level playing field where there is no Sky money and players can’t command £250 grand a week and it all boils down to the money coming in from normal sponsorship, attendance money and players who just want to play football?

      None of this nonsense where young players are buying mansions and cars when they haven’t even played a first team game.

      • JonMag

        the tv companies are ruining the game, today`s news Ronaldo wants £1.35m a week to sign a new contract, that`s pounds not euro`s

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          How much does Tom Cruise get for doing acting? Ronaldo is the biggest draw in football, he fills stadiums, he attracts the media coverage, he has far more talent than an actor yet he gets less money.

          • Ram Kishore

            But football is still a team game.. not just Ronaldo plays for the whole team..For.being the biggest draw and name…He’s already making more than 200 million euros.. through many revenue streams.. he will be making these sums even after retiring..
            What he was saying is only to cap the wages not the other revenue which is 180 million more than his 20 to 30 million in wages at madrid

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            Tom Cruise has other actors on set but he gets the big money. For the studio, he’s the big attraction which.kakes them millions therefore he gets paid well. Same applies to Ronaldo.

          • Ram Kishore

            Film industry is different from Football..It is much more bigger and encompasses a lot of other things
            If u say Tom cruise is earning a lot..So is ronaldo earning a lot in the world of football..Ronaldo is already footballs Tom cruise..And vice versa

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            Yes, I’m saying Ronaldo is box office in the same way as Tom Cruise is when it comes to film. If real Madrid aren’t paying him the salary he wants, he will move and fill out other stadiums and the TV and other media companies will want to show him.

            I’d suggest Cruise is over-paid, most people can do a bit of acting, Ronaldo is under paid, nobody can do what Ronaldo or say Messi does.

        • Ram Kishore

          Thats just fake news lol..chill

      • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

        They will just go to play in a better league and we’ll be back to the late 80’s with the dregs of players.

  • Pelican

    Bigger financial gains for finishing higher in the table seems like a fair proposal to me. Why should owners like Mike Ashley – who is happy to do nothing but survive in the PL – get such a large proportion of the profits. Bigger financial rewards for finishing higher would give clubs even more incentive to be competitive. Let’s be honest, Ashley is going to sanction an outlay for a top 6 squad unless he thinks it is worth his time. There are ambitious owners out there that are making the PL as entertaining and as rich as it has become… Ashley isn’t one of them.

    • glassjawsh-got-banned

      more like more incentive to spend even more… which would then cause them to demand more of the profits… and on down the line until the EPL is no better than Spain… it’s a brutal little circle of stupidity right there

      • Pelican

        How would spending more equate to club’s demanding more of the profits; there would be a fixed ratio in place. Clubs will spend a certain amount of GDP on players/wages, that part will ultimately stay the same. The spread of PL money wouldn’t have to be radically changed, but just enough to make an incentive for owners like Ashley to get off his backside and think about doing something more than surviving every season.

        • Paul Patterson

          You’re forgetting that Ashley gambles, hence the two relegations and numerous near misses .

          • Kneebotherm8

            He might be tempted to speculate to accumulate…………gambling man that he is………no incentive at the moment for him..

          • Sickandtired

            Well, he’s done it once here. With – McClaren. Enough said.

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            No, he calculates.

            At the moment, there is a disproportionate incentive to do enough to stay out of trouble. We’ll always be a decent draw for media coverage so our share of the money will he that much higher than others.

            A bit more carrot for a higher finish and Europa spots and the incentive to do better us there.

        • Mal

          Although I have disagreed with my post above this is a fair point. One of the problems I have with this I’ve never seen any analysis of what the impact would be. For example do you know how much more per year City would get and and how much less we would get under the proposal?

        • Sickandtired

          Er, like FFP you mean? That works, eh?

    • Sickandtired

      Because everyone else becomes irrelevant, no matter what the League is called.
      It’s a never ending march towards a top Euro club league and who the F would want to watch that week in and out?

  • gold coast mag

    Plus the mega money that comes from playing annually in European comps-both prize money and TV rights

  • Kneebotherm8

    Part of the problem with our owner is survival in this league earns you nearly as much as teams a lot further up the division……….in a business,financial sense you can see why he doesn’t aspire to be in,or around,the top six……unfortunately for us,the fans…….no ambition in a footballing sense…….a change in the distribution of the riches could change his attitude.

    • JonMag

      no it won`t

      • Kneebotherm8

        I said “could change his attitude”…….not….”will change his attitude”….. Let’s be fair we’re stuck with him for another decade or more by the looks of things…..short of 25-30 thousand chucking their season tickets in…….then it’s gonna be more of the same……….he only sees pound signs ……..nowt else…..

        • TheNutJob

          Jabba must go

          • Kneebotherm8

            Sooner rather than later………..hopefully..

        • Sickandtired

          A 9mm bullet behind his ear wouldn’t change his attitude. It would our’s, mind!

          • Kneebotherm8

            It’s the only way we’re gonna get shot of him…………🔫😂

  • Andy Mac

    I’m not entirely sure it was in this world or a drug/booze fuelled alternative one but I seem to recall that Fatman/NUFC voted for this option ? At the time I thought it was slightly odd ?

    • Jimmy_toons

      Spot on. How popular will he Preeeeeeeeemiership be made up of 6 teams? Just look at Scotland. If they want to go into a European League let them go in there and fuick orf, it’s a boring competition how it’s been made for the richest clubs, and league winners from smaller nations don’t have a chance. They’ve ruined that competition like they’re looking to ruin our league. When they’ve ruined it like they did in Italy, and people start turning off, those rich fuickers will leave the game for it to be picked up by the supporters of all clubs.
      Can’t wait 😀

      • Sickandtired

        More 2nd hand shirts for starving Africans. They only want the top / winning club ones.

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      He was in favour of it as NUFC were a bigger draw for mdia coverage than say Bournemouth or Watford so why not get the spoils.

      Personally, I’m for more merit money and less for failure.

      • Ram Kishore

        For what policy did the club vote for?

    • Sickandtired

      Why wouldn’t he vote for it? More reason to make the excuse he / we can’t compete. Because he won’t, no matter what.

  • TheNutJob

    time for a jihad against Fatty, nowt else has worked

    • Kneebotherm8


    • Sickandtired

      Issue a fatwa. Get all those kebab knives from the Bigg Market munchie shops, marching on St James’.

  • Leazes.

    The League definitely needs 20 clubs….6 of them to compete and take the sponsorship and Euro places……..the rest as cannon-fodder.

    Ashley positioned us at tenth for the first decade and has lowered that now, but luckily put in place a ‘trophy manager’ to make up the shortfall, the next decade doesn’t look too promising.

    ….still we can have nice flag displays…. and of course a bus.

    • Ram Kishore

      So bus is your problem these days….I love to see when u take on Ryder

    • Sickandtired

      Lowered it now?

  • Darrenpeacocksuit

    Football has eaten itself.

    My three radical policies to sort it out would be:

    – Abolish transfer fees
    – introduce a cap on total salaries
    – Reinstate policy that X of your starting 11 / matchday squad must be home nation

    I know many smaller teams in lower leagues rely on transfer fees incoming, but just set up a distribution of cash from the massive overall pot to lower league teams and then you don’t need transfer fees anymore.

    If none of this is gonna happen, then just call the bluff of the self-appointed big boys and let them breakaway already. I wouldn’t miss them one bit, then the rest of us could get on with developing young players and maybe seeing footballers actually enjoy playing the game again, rather than seeming so f’ing angry about it all the time…

    • Leazes.

      Not yet Liverpool have just made an offer worth €90million to sign a 25-year-old goalie….. meanwhile Lee Ryder is literally on all fours sorting through bin bags and potato peelings for Lascelles replacement.

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      Don’t you think your radical policy will destroy the attraction of the premier league? All the decent players will go elsewhere and football in England will be back to barebones. That may be great for the rough and ready purist but those top players are why we have 70,000 stadiums, full houses, reletively cheap ticket prices.

      • Darrenpeacocksuit

        Yeah, I don’t care about any of that.

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          You will, if the media aren’t interested, the only way for clubs to get money is from the fans so Merchandise will go up and ticket prices will rise or we’ll see the best players being sold to a Scandanavian league where they can earn more than in England.

          The Premier league is a great spectacle around the world, don’t much it up now.

      • Ram Kishore

        This 35 percent distribution policy is stupid too imho.. what’s ya take bobby

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          I think it should be on position, I’m all for a meritocracy.

          • Ram Kishore

            It should be definitely based on meritocracy but that shouldn’t destroy the (so called) competitive league.
            Other big leagues aren’t attractive only for this reason..
            I never cared the financial aspect though .. no matter what happens I will always be positive but sometimes the financial aspect influences our positive attitude

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            It is a balance, the league is nothing without competition but English football has always been that way. Liverpool weren’t even the biggest club in Merseyside until the late 60’s when they started winning things, Man U weren’t big until the Munich air crash, Chelsea were a little behind Newcastle and of course Blackburn won the league in the 90’s so clubs do advance and decline.

            I’d say the only very big clubs in England are Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal, then we have ourselves, Tottenham, Man City, Leeds U, Sheff Weds and Everton who can be big clubs but only with a certain amount of success to back it up.

            What I’m saying is that although the big 3 will always get the money, there are always clubs that can infiltrate the big 3 with a bit of luck, good set up (currently Tottenham) or a lot of investment (Chelsea / Man C) but these clubs are pretenders and will always fall back.

  • Mal

    The problem is that the strength of the PL lies in its competitiveness and the more money you give to an elite few then the less competitive it will become. We are already seeing this to a certain extent as City are almost in a different league to everyone else and then there is a mini league of 5 others. The top 6 are making a mistake in my opinion if they think that this proposal somehow benefits them – it no doubt would in the short term but I think they need to look at the bigger picture. Hopefully it will be turned down again.

  • nufcslf

    Money, money, money. When will any of this have to do with football and entertainment for fans. What a joke and I simply give in.

  • HarryHype59

    It matters not how much this club earns as Fatty and his dodgy accounting, makes the money disappear into MASH holdings.