Reports suggest that Liverpool FC is preparing a challenge to the current system of how overseas television revenue is distributed between Premier League teams. There is a sense of inevitability in the news that one of the ‘big clubs’ want a thicker slice of the pie. But is the ambition justified, or short sighted?

The twenty top flight sides in the Premier League each receive around £18million from the overseas TV contract, which is due to end in 2013. The current deal, which runs from 2010 to 2013 is worth £1.4billion. Ian Ayre, Liverpool’s commercial manager is putting forward the argument (and one that may well be echoed by some of their illustrious rivals) that they could be making far more if they were to negotiate their own deals.

There is surely some truth to this. Along with Manchester United, Liverpool is the most famous English football team. They sell more merchandise for Adidas than any other club (including Real Madrid), they’re still arguably the most popular club side in Africa, and have recently begun making in-roads into the Asian market; and one of the reasons Standard Charter are parting with £20million a year to sponsor them is due to the club’s estimated fan-base of 130million. .

When I mentioned the inevitability of teams wanting to negotiate their own deals, I did so because of UEFA’s FFP (Financial Fair Play ) rules. These are the rules that the governing body believe will halt (or at the very least slow) football’s descent into the chasm of debt. In its most simplistic form it implores club’s to ‘make’ the money before they spend it, putting a halt to the sugar-daddy’s who fund clubs with their own cash, but also leave them completely reliant on the said individual.

With regards to these rules, it seems only fair to allow Liverpool, and others to negotiate their own TV deals (overseas, and ultimately domestic). If the mandate from UEFA is for club’s to make as much as they legitimately can, television is the single biggest way of doing this. It wouldn’t be fair to handicap the ability of ‘big clubs’ to increase their own revenues, which will then allow them to spend more, be it on transfers or wages.

To not allow this would also severely restrict our top clubs’ ability to compete in Europe. The likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona already negotiate their own TV deals, allowing them to make double what Premier League clubs manage.

But there is another argument to this debate and Spain is a good place to begin. Specifically, Barcelona makes £156million a year from their current TV contract, whilst Real Madrid earns slightly less with £139million. One can imagine the big boys in England trembling at this type of income (for example: this year Premier League teams received approx £14million – domestic, and £18million – overseas: totalling around £22million).

Stats like these illustrate the immediate disadvantage even clubs of the stature of Man Utd have in competing with the two Spanish behemoths. But there is also a salient point when considering other examples. Sporting Gijon, at the other end of the table receive a paltry £2.2million from TV revenue. The Spanish league boasts arguably the two most glamorous football teams in the world, but the competition as a whole is suffering: six teams out of the twenty that began this year’s La Liga did so whilst in administration. Even Atletico Madrid had to sell Aguero and Forlan to balance the books. And going further back, one of the reasons for Benitez departing Valencia was the financial restrictions.

Going back to the Premier League clubs like Everton, West Brom and Bolton are already swimming against the monetary current. Sanctioning clubs to pursue their own TV deals would send them sinking at a quicker rate. Of course, some fans would offer the Darwinian argument of ‘survival of the fittest’, but I would ask: do we really want the Premier League to become even less competitive? Spurs breaking into the top four and Man City ’s arrival have been vital for the competition and, despite the reams that have been written about City’s cash it would be great if they could add their name to the list of Premier League champions.

[ad_pod id=’unruly-2′ align=’left’]

Blackburn Rovers aside, only three clubs (Man Utd , Chelsea and Arsenal ) have ever been perennial contenders for the title, with Liverpool seemingly permanently positioned in fourth. The rest of the top half were left to fight for the dubious honour of competing in the Europa League.

Individual TV rights will hinder competition even more than the Champions League did; as this will cut off, once and for all, the challenge of clubs like Everton. Liverpool’s commercial director Ian Ayre had this to say regarding the debate: “…with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it’s a very small number.

Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal…” This boast certainly sounds presumptive but there are probably official figures that can validate the claim. I know Sky themselves have often promoted Liverpool vs. Man Utd as the most watched game on Earth. However, many clubs rely on the TV revenue to break even (or in many cases just to reduce the accumulation of annual debt). The loss of this income could push many to the brink. They would need to sell players to reduce wage bills, which in turn destroys the quality they have making them less competitive and further cutting off the ‘elite’ from the rest.

In my mind there would be a top six of: Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs who command the highest TV money and also swap Champions League placements season by season separate from the other fourteen clubs who are left to ‘fight amongst themselves’.

The other issue is that the money clubs get for their finishing places in the league is taken from the TV revenue pot. There is a possibility that this money would be taken away as well, thus leaving clubs with only the TV money they can generate themselves (as well as season tickets and commercial endeavours) at the beginning of a season.

If the issue does go to a vote then fourteen of the twenty Premier League clubs need to vote yes for it to go ahead. I’d be very surprised if many clubs, besides the six listed above would go for this deal. However, as stated at the beginning of the article there is an air of the inevitable about the big clubs trying to garner more control over how much they’re paid. Ian Ayre has stated they’re only looking into the overseas contract and distribution. But we all know that if they’re successful in changing this it will only be a matter of time until they start on the domestic rights too.

The Premier League is the product and, whilst Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea may be amongst the most glamorous players they are by no means the only ones. West Brom vs. Stoke is just as capable of producing the excitement and controversy and theatre as any ‘top four clash’ and as such, all clubs should be entitled to their fair share of the cash the product creates.

Article courtesy of Alan Bradburne from This is Futbol

[divider]

FREE football ad that pays you to view ads

[ad_pod id=’qs-2′ align=’left’]