By Mark Baber
May 17 – Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore (pictured) has prevented Football League clubs from passing measures to create a fairer level of financial competition in the Championship, leading to accusations of high-handedness from the ‘big brother’ league.
With new TV deals bringing in record revenues, the Premier League has proposed increasing parachute payments to clubs which are relegated – Premier League wages bills frequently leave clubs facing fiscal cliff with the lower revenues of the lower division.
Under the new payment schedule, the teams who drop down to the Championship next season will pick up £23m, a 42% rise from previously, followed by £18m two years after relegation, £9m in year three and £6.1m after four years. On top of this the Premier League will be paying solidarity payments of £2.3m a year to each of the Championship clubs.
Due to concerns that the relegated teams would have an unfair advantage, proposals were tabled that relegated Premier League clubs would no longer receive their £2.3m a year solidarity payment. Instead those payments would be redistributed to the other clubs in the Championship (as proposed by Crystal Palace) and/or there would be a salary cap on relegated clubs (as lobbied for by Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans), limiting the clubs to spending £16m on wages for the first year, £10m in 2014-15 and £8m in 2015-16.
Greg Clarke, the Football League chairman, reportedly informed Scudamore of these proposals, asking for his opinion. Scudamore replied, by email, shortly before a Football League meeting held yesterday in Walsall, saying that neither of the proposals was acceptable, and if either was adopted the Football League clubs would get nothing.
The ‘levelling’ proposals were withdrawn and it remains to be seen whether the new arrangements will lead to a yo-yoing between divisions for a small group of clubs.
The Premier League has said that, “A generous solidarity offer has been made to the Football League; however if the basis on which that original offer was made materially changes, then it is reasonable to review it.”
Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1734803476labto1734803476ofdlr1734803476owedi1734803476sni@r1734803476ebab.1734803476kram1734803476