TV was the goose that laid football’s golden egg, but it might also be the one that kills it...

SKY tried to generate excitement for yesterday’s fixture list unveiling by urging viewers to tune in as “we gear up for another bumper season of live football”. But, like the price of Bovril, this once eagerly anticipated pre-season moment long ago ceased to be of much significance. The June fixture list is merely a rough guide, which will be mapped out in finer detail when the TV companies get round to it. And it will be even less relevant when the Premier League sell more than half of its 380 games for live coverage in the next round of talks. At last week’s AGM, club chairmen were told that this could work through new, lucrative, kick-off times, including Saturday nights to hit afternoon audiences in America, and Sunday mornings to pick up peak-time viewers in the Far East. News which will go down like a cup of cold sick among fans, especially those who follow teams away from home. Fans, who, when they complain, are labelled Luddites, halting evolution, and need to accept “progress”. Maybe it works both ways, though. Something else came up, which should concern 14 of the Premier League clubs happy to hang their fans out to dry so long as the cash keeps pouring in. The Big Six once again raised their demands for the overseas rights money to be distributed, not across the board, but on the basis of appearances. The owners of Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool, Manchester United and City hear the Premier League boast that last season “matches were available to watch in one billion homes in 188 countries” and ask: “But who is it they all want to watch?” The issue was first raised in 2011 when Liverpool’s then MD Ian Ayre argued the bulk of the then £1.4billion kitty, should go to the big clubs because: “If you’re in Kuala Lumpur, there isn’t anyone subscribing to ESPN to watch Bolton”. He was rightly shot down, but the subject never went away. Especially when the overseas deals for 2016-19 soared to £3.2bn and the contracts being signed now, such as the £564m one with China, have shot up 12-fold. This proposed change will be voted on in the autumn with the non-big Six clubs able to shoot it down, as a two-thirds majority is needed. But for how long? It is only a matter of time before the big clubs threaten that, if their pulling power is not reflected in their slice, they will do their own deals with foreign markets. Especially when, mainly due to streaming, Sky’s domestic audience fell by 14 per cent last season, meaning their current £11m-a-game model may soon be unsustainable and clubs will need to better “monetise their global brand” to keep up with the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid. Those two clubs dominate the TV money in Spain, hence a league full of weak, underfunded clubs, who rarely beat the big boys, let alone challenge for titles. Such a model would be disastrous for the Premier League and its selling-point as the world’s most competitive league. But that is the model the Big Six aspire to, as the game grows globally and they see a way of catching the Spanish giants. Which means it is lose-lose for all outside the elite because, if they let the richest take the lion’s share of the overseas money, they fall behind and, if they don’t and the rich go their own way, the competitiveness would end. TV was the goose that laid English football’s golden egg, but, if it is not careful, it might also be the one that kills it. Because the majority of Premier League clubs may soon find out, as match-going fans have, that “progress” has a nasty habit of biting you on the backside.

Rich clubs’ TV demands could destroy the Premier League