The Premier League shareholders’ meeting, known for its dramatic nature, may seem dull in comparison. Held in a fancy London hotel’s function suite, the mostly male executives come and go discreetly, making small adjustments to the rulebook. It’s far from the excitement of Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville’s Monday Night Football showdown.
However, the meeting held this week at the Churchill hotel in Marylebone was quite surprising. The outcome of the meeting indicates not only a divided competition, but also a possible struggle in addressing the challenges it is currently facing.
It is rare for Premier League clubs to reject proposed changes, as was the case with the recent vote against a temporary ban on player loans between clubs with shared ownership and stricter regulations on sponsorship deals between linked companies.
The conference concluded without a decision on the proposed New Deal for football. The government has been urging the Premier League to provide more financial support to the EFL for the past two years, as many lower-league teams are struggling financially. However, this support has not yet been provided, as the Premier League is seeking a larger agreement that would involve changes in spending regulations and the format of the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Anticipations were heightened, even by those in the Premier League, that the deal would be completed this week. However, there ended up being a three-hour discussion on the matter, during which each club expressed their views and some stated that the suggestions were not feasible for them. These are the same suggestions that have been suggested, in various versions, for over a year.
The Premier League has faced difficulties in reaching a consensus among its members on two significant matters. While this is not uncommon, it is not ideal for the league to appear divided at this time. On December 21st, a decision is expected from the European court of justice regarding whether the establishment of new competitions, such as the European Super League (ESL), needs to be approved by a governing body. At the same time, a bill for an independent regulator for football is anticipated to be presented in parliament. These developments could greatly affect the operations of the league.
Six teams from the Premier League made a decision to join the European Super League (ESL) two years prior. However, they have now publicly apologized and committed to maintaining the current state of affairs through signing charters. The remaining traces of the ESL project seem to be seen as ridiculous. Yet, there is still a potential risk of a new breakaway competition emerging. If this were to happen, the teams that previously left in 2021 would be given the opportunity to rejoin.
The task of keeping the large six teams satisfied has always been a crucial responsibility for the Premier League’s management. This duty was passed onto Richard Masters in November 2019, just four months before the Covid pandemic caused a halt in the football season. However, Masters not only has to deal with this group, but also with other factions. The vote on related-party loans revealed that eight individuals refused to comply, all sharing the common trait of either being a part of or potentially joining a multi-club ownership group. This trend has become prevalent in European football over the past five years and has gained popularity among American investors, who currently hold stakes in almost half of the league’s clubs.
Ignore the advertisement for the newsletter
after newsletter promotion
Three clubs in the league have owners from the Gulf, with two of them being owned by sovereign wealth funds. Two of these clubs are also part of multi-club groups. There are also smaller clubs that prioritize avoiding relegation. However, there is a growing faction of British entrepreneurial owners, led by Steve Parish of Crystal Palace, who are resisting the influence of the top six clubs and any changes that would result in money flowing from the top league to lower divisions. This group has become more assertive in the last three years.
The way in which the Premier League handles voting, where 14 out of 20 clubs must agree for any decision to be approved, has previously prevented the top six clubs from having too much power. However, this also means that the other 14 clubs must work together. Recent voting results indicate that this structure may no longer be effective. Additionally, the lack of an agreement with the EFL suggests that clubs are not swayed by the league’s leaders or the government’s warnings to involve a regulator if a deal cannot be reached.
EFL teams are observing the division within the league and considering if they should wait for the regulator to resolve the issue (as they are also facing financial difficulties). Government officials are also deciding on the wording of a bill for a regulator. Will it be minimally intrusive or more involved? The Premier League has not been able to convincingly argue for either option. As time ticks away, this could suggest that they are unsure of their preferred course of action.
Source: theguardian.com
