The Premier League have released an official statement on Thursday morning.

This follows the 20 clubs getting together this morning in Harrogate (Lee Charnley spotted hitching a ride at Washington services at 5am this morning….) for the latest AGM of the Premier League.

In Autumn 2017, the ‘big six’ tried to force through a plan which would have meant 35% of the money from international revenue (chiefly broadcast deals) would be decided on where you finished in the league.

Basically meaning that the ‘big six’ would be guaranteed a lot more money than the rest, rather than the current equal share of international revenue as it is now.

Needing 14 clubs in total to support it, including eight of the 14 clubs who aren’t part of that top half dozen, not surprisingly it was thrown out. As the bottom line is that most clubs would have been voting to receive less (lower proportion of) money in the future.

Ahead of today’s meeting, it was ominous when Liverpool owner John Henry went public, saying that the rich clubs were determined to make sure they would get richer, questioning why they should ‘subsidise’ other poorer clubs.

Sure enough, the official Premier League statement now published, says that the turkeys have indeed voted for Christmas, no doubt with a shotgun to their heads, as there is no reason as to why the clubs almost guaranteed to lose out, would have supported the plan. So we are left to wonder exactly the turkeys were threatened with if they didn’t agree?

Interesting to see the Chronicle reporting that they understand Newcastle were intending to vote for the change.

The plan that was voted through, means that as from the next TV deals starting in 2019/20, any additional international revenue above what is currently received by the Premier League, will be shared out on a sliding scale, depending on your league finish.

As from two seasons time, the team that finishes top of the Premier League is set to receive 1.8 times what the bottom club gets, from the international revenue increase on the current deal.

With UK TV rights deals not rising this time around, it is obvious that the rich clubs clearly see that any extra big money is almost sure to come from deals made abroad.

With almost all of the international TV deals sorted for the three years starting 2019/20, clearly all the Premier League clubs will know just how much has been agreed so far.

It appears obvious that there must be some serious increase in the revenues from abroad, for the big six to pursue this so ferociously.

This is a disaster for the vast majority of clubs, as this guarantees that year on year it is set to get harder and harder for you to compete, unless of course you show now the ambition to try and work towards breaking into that top group of clubs.

Over to Mike Ashley to start and back & treat Rafa Benitez in a proper manner.

Premier League Official Statement:

From 2019/20, increases in international broadcast income to be distributed based on where clubs finish in League

Premier League clubs have agreed a new formula for sharing any future increase in international broadcast revenue from season 2019/20 onwards.

The League currently distributes all international broadcast revenue equally between the clubs.

From season 2019/20, clubs will continue to share current levels of international revenue equally, but any increase will be distributed based on where they finish in the League.

When total central revenues were distributed in 2017/18, the ratio between the maximum and minimum a club received was 1.6:1 – the highest-earning club received 1.6 times the amount received by the lowest-earning club.

The new formula for sharing any future increase in international revenues caps the ratio at 1.8:1.

This means the maximum that a club can receive in total central revenue payments is 1.8 times the amount received by the lowest-earning club.

Should future revenues rise to the point where the cap is reached, any additional income will be distributed so the 1.8:1 ratio is maintained.

“When the Premier League was formed in 1992 nobody could have envisaged the scale of international growth in the competition which exists now,” Premier League Executive Chairman Richard Scudamore said.

“Back then the clubs put in place a revenue sharing system that was right for the time and has served the League well, enabling them to invest and improve in all areas.

“This new agreement will continue that trend with a subtle change that further incentivises on-pitch achievement and maintains the Premier League’s position as the most equitable in Europe in terms of sharing central revenues.

“By coming together and agreeing this change, the clubs have provided a platform for the future success of the League for many years ahead.”

In the Premier League’s inaugural season, 1992/93, the ratio between the maximum and minimum a club received from central revenues was 2.1:1

This new agreement will maintain the Premier League’s position as the most equitable in Europe in terms of distributing central revenues.

The ratio in 2017/18 was 1.6:1 and under the new system from 2019/20 could rise to a maximum of 1.8:1

The League’s UK broadcast revenue, 50 per cent of which is shared equally between clubs and 25 per cent each of prize money and broadcast facility fees, will continue to be distributed in the same way it always has been, as will central commercial revenues which are shared equally.



  • JonMag

    Look who owns the top six, 5 of them are [email protected]@king foreigners the other Jewish heritage registered in the Bahamas, greedy [email protected]

    • Ram Kishore

      So foreigners are greedy?
      😂😂😂

    • Sickandtired

      As opposed to the home grown fat greedy [email protected] multi billionaire who owns us?

    • glassjawsh-got-banned

      and up until now I usually agreed with you. keep your anti semitic filth to yourself you moron.

  • NUFC9

    Why is this reported as an issue of the top 6 getting richer at the expense of the other 14? If money is allocated on league position, the top ten would be better off and the bottom 10 worse off compared with if the money was shared equally.

    This means any team aiming/expecting to finish in the top half would have good reason to vote for it. We finished 10th this year with the same points as a couple of teams below us. Most teams (with us as a possible exception) have ambitions to improve and move up the league each year.

    Any team in the top 13-15 with a bit of ambition would have hopes that they’d finish in the top 10 in the next couple of years so getting 14 votes wouldn’t exactly be turkeys voting for Christmas with a gun to their heads.

    • TheNutJob

      10th with Rafa, 15th to 17th without him

      • NUFC9

        Absolutely – Keep the manager and lose the owner and we could go places. Keep the owner and lose the manager and we’ll be back to where we were for most of Ashley’s 11 years: In danger of relegation each year before eventually going down and being put out of our misery.

      • Billmag

        18th 19th 20th probably.

    • Leazes.

      I think only the top 6 will benefit because of the incremental ratio 1.8:1, it essentially gives the top six a rise and the rest lose out.

      • NUFC9

        1st place receives 1.8x the money 20th gets. I assume the divisions between each place in between are equal as is the case with the domestic tv money. I didn’t see anything in this article to say otherwise.

        • Leazes.

          Its moved from 1.6:1…. a graph wouldn’t go amiss

          • NUFC9

            I get that. at 1.8 to 1 the gap between 1st and 20th is bigger. This gives more incentive to finish higher up but it still means the whole of the top 10 are better off and the whole of the bottom half worse off. It makes sense for any team aiming for the top half to vote yes.

            Also they say currently international tv money is split equally between to 20 clubs so I assume the 1.6 to 1 ratio they mention for comparison is what is already in place for the UK tv money.

          • NUFC9

            …….. and apart from Ashley I doubt many PL owners are aiming for a 17th place finish achieved with as little financial outlay as they dare to risk.

  • TheNutJob

    Amazon has just bought the rights to 20 premiership matches

    • Peaky

      Well they’ll need to sort some of their delivery drivers out or we’ll be watching ‘live’ games three days late….
      😂😂

      • Billmag

        👍😀😀

      • Kneebotherm8

        😂😂….aaaah knaaa wot ya mean….

  • Mal

    It doesn’t seem that much of a disaster to me as it’s only the increase in overseas revenue that is to be distributed according to league position and doesn’t take effect until next season anyway. To a large extent it seems to me that the ‘status quo’ has been protected. Unless I’m missing something this seems to have a limited impact.

    • Virsino

      I thought the same.

    • Lostprofit DBC

      Yes but be mindful that the top 6 are already making astronomical amounts from being in Europe. The gap will get a lot bigger over time.

      • Mal

        Overseas income is only about a third of the total tv income and the total income has been capped at 1.8:1. In the context of the amounts we’re talking about I think it’s a highly misleading headline. Hopefully someone with all the figures will provide a club by club impact which I think will show the impact to be relatively small.

        • Lostprofit DBC

          I agree, it’s just the principle.

  • Sickandtired

    “Liverpool owner John Henry went public, saying that the rich clubs were determined to make sure they would get richer, questioning why they should ‘subsidise’ other poorer clubs.”

    What next then – a league of 6 only?

    • Peaky

      How long before the elite from each country break away and form a European League as opposed to the current Champions League…?

      • Sickandtired

        Well, it’s been touted before. As fans seem irrelevant – other than for ‘atmosphere’ of televised games, then who knows.

        • Peaky

          Would certainly appeal to the ‘football tourist’…..you see it more and more particularly at the London clubs and maybe Man Utd where those cameras are a total giveaway….you can probably buy tickets for some of these games from those booths that sell seats for West End Shows.

    • Dillon Tovak

      John Henry should not be so dumb, if he doesn’t “subsidise” the rest of the league then you end up with La Liga. Which doesn’t have the viewing figures.
      What a twerp.

      Part of me hopes this is a step towards the house of cards crashing down, just to see those greedy owners/tv companies lose millions.

  • Lostprofit DBC

    The rich get rich…..the 14 below the top 6 are only there to make the numbers up. I long for the day when the big 6 head off into a Euro super league and make things competitive again, football is getting boring.

  • Virsino

    Is it just based on incremental revenue, so, in actual fact, nobody loses what they already have, and in future deals anything ‘extra’ to the current revenue will with distributed based on the new ‘greed algorithm’? Or am I missing something here?

    • Albert Stubbins

      its going to allow the top five or six clubs to make even more money thus widening the gap between them and the rest as far as I can make out.

  • TheFatController

    Ashley must be in a bit of a fluster tonight.

    Up to now, he could have the mantra ‘17th is only £20m less revenue than 7th, why buy players for much more than £20m to get you to 7th …?’

    Now, that £20m difference will be much bigger. He’ll be sweating profusely at the thought of having to finish higher than 17th to be financially equal to clubs finishing 16th to 7th year after year…

  • Desree

    Okay. Whatever we are missing out I would not be spent on the club.

  • Down Under Mag

    Totally over football, all about money and the fans of the GAME are just overlooked time and time again so the select few can feather their own nests. Why even bother following the game now if you basically never have a chance to break through into the top (not that we were in danger of that anyway given our owner and the way the club is run…no matter the manager in place), but these decisions are nothign new…it’s always been about th rich clubs making themselves richer and making sure they stayed there. May as well just set up a European superleague and have done with it and just let the rest of us get on with playing football rather than monopoly!!