For a competition defined by its dramatic nature, the events at the Premier League shareholders’ meeting are quite bleak. A function room in a luxury hotel in central London, with a group of executives (mostly men) sneaking in and out, an announcement that may require a slight change to the rulebook. Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville are unlikely to meet on Monday Night Football.
But a meeting at the Churchill hotel in Marylebone this week appeared to have raised eyebrows. It was a meeting whose outcome showed not only a divided competition but one struggling to cope with the challenges it faced.
Relating to: How much longer can the Premier League remain sane? | Jonathan Wilson
Premier League clubs on Tuesday voted against a proposal to temporarily ban the loaning of players between clubs that share the same ownership. They also voted against stricter rules on clubs entering into sponsorship deals with companies with ownership links. Both changes were proposed and rejected by the Premier League. This doesn’t happen very often.
The meeting also ended without a decision on what was called the New Deal for football. For two years the Premier League has been under government pressure to give more money to the EFL to ease the financial strain experienced by many lower league clubs. This money has not yet materialized; The Premier League prefers a wider deal that restructures a number of elements of the English game, from spending controls to the structure of the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Expectations (including from the Premier League) that the offer would be finalized this week had increased. Instead, there was a three-hour debate on the issue, with each club expressing their own views and some saying the proposals were useless to them. The same proposals that have been discussed for more than a year.
On two key issues the Premier League has failed to get its various members to agree. It is possible. But it’s not a good time for the league to look fragmented. The game awaits a decision from the European Court of Justice on December 21 on whether the approval of a governing body is required before new competitions such as the European Super League (ESL) can be established. A bill for an independent regulator for football is expected to come before parliament soon. Both can have a significant impact on how the league operates.
Six members of the Premier League agreed to join the ESL two years ago. They have since publicly apologized and accepted contracts binding them to the status quo. The remnants of the ESL project also look ridiculous. But the threat of a separatist rivalry has somehow not disappeared. If it returns, clubs that opted out in 2021 will be invited to participate again.
Keeping the big six together has always been one of the Premier League management’s most important tasks; This is something Richard Masters took over in November 2019, four months before Covid caused the football season to be suspended. But this isn’t the only group the Masters has to contend with. The vote on related party loans revealed eight objectors with one thing in common: they were either part of a multi-club ownership group or would become part of it. Owning more than one club, a trend that has swept European football in the last five years, is popular with American investors, who own shares in almost half of the league’s clubs.
Meanwhile, three of the league’s clubs have owners from the Gulf, and two of these are owned by sovereign wealth funds (two are also part of multi-club groups). As always, there are many smaller clubs whose priorities are shaped by the possibility of relegation. However, another group of British entrepreneurial owners has also emerged recently. Led by Crystal Palace’s Steve Parish, this team is resistant to the influence of the big six and changes that would see money flowing from the top tier of the pyramid down. This group has become increasingly assertive over the last three years.
The Premier League’s voting structure – which requires the consent of 14 out of 20 clubs for any motion to pass – has in the past allowed the competition to prevent the big six from having their way, but has required the other 14 to act collectively. This week’s votes show that this structure can no longer be trusted. No agreement on a deal with the EFL, Meanwhile, he argues, clubs have not been particularly impressed by directives from league administrators or government guidance, which has long threatened to hand over the redistribution issue to the regulator if an agreement is not reached.
Clubs in the EFL are watching the apparent fractures in the league and wondering whether it might not be better to wait for the regulator to sort things out (they also desperately need the money). Government ministers are also looking at the final text of the regulatory draft while deciding on it. Should it have the gentlest of gentle touches or should it be more intrusive? The Premier League has, quite strikingly, failed to make a convincing case for the previous case up to this point.. As time dwindles, it may be signaling that you don’t know which direction you want to go.