The Football Governance Bill has moved onto the committee stage, and it’s clear that we’re now at the moment in the process where those against are throwing every last possible obstruction in the way of its progress.
It is to be expected when the updated bill is more rigorous on certain areas of the game, in particular reference to Parachute Payments, the financial recompense clubs receive when they get relegated from the Premier League. The payments began when the Premier League started and were originally a payment to clubs like Notts County, who voted for the creation of The Premier League, but who were relegated at the end of season 1991-1992, In the distorting form they take now, it was only in 2006 when they became far bigger for a different reason. Yes, you’ve guessed it: as a response to financial problems created by the vast drop-off in income and the slew of bankruptcies that clubs were entering when they were relegated, which was also driving financial failure in the Football League as a whole. The problem for Premier League clubs now that they are baked-into the system is there is a fear of them being removed for the financial risk it would pose to their to member clubs if/when relegated.
What is pretty obvious is that the new government was and remains determined to ensure the bill was updated to tackle all of the major issues in the game, including parachute payments, and they are not going to bend on it. What is ironic is that we’re now seeing arguments dispatched from within and outside the Lords about how these changes to the original Conservative bill were not reached with due ‘consultation’ with the clubs.
Clubs complaining at ‘not being consulted properly’ is indeed incredibly ironic, but maybe this all points to a possible route to compromise on the implementation of any changes to the payments.
As yet again, matchgoing fans are prejudiced by the contracts clubs, via the league, are prepared to sign with broadcasters (the latest, Manchester United fans having to travel to a 7pm kick-off in a ‘Sunday evening contingency slot’ that it seems is becoming rather overused), there might a position from which to negotiate.
Maybe if the clubs, via the Premier League, were prepared to consider offering to fans and their representatives a clause in broadcasting deals that prohibited certain inconvenient kick-off times (maybe attached to the ability of fans to travel via public transport), a conversation about parachute payments might be more favourable to them.
Maybe if the clubs, via the Premier League, were prepared to consider offering to fans and their representatives a clause in broadcasting deals that prohibited certain inconvenient kick-off times (maybe attached to the ability of fans to travel via public transport), a conversation about parachute payments might be more favourable to them. Given the government isn’t moving on the issue, it seems worth a try. I’m also not aware that such a clause has ever been considered, and it would be logical if the Football Supporters Association (FSA) and its members wanted to achieve a step-change in how fans are treated/largely ignored as part of these deals.
Either way, clubs and their supporters in Parliament and the media complaining about a lack of consultation is hardly going to go down well, so why not give it go?
You can subscribe to the regular View on Fan Engagement via this link and read our news via the news section of this site.
More about the Manchester United v Fulham 7pm kick off: https://www.90min.com/man-utd-fixture-change-fan-criticism-premier-league-broadcasters