FSA say Big Picture plan is ‘a disaster for football’
Supporters group is highly critical of ‘greedy’ proposal from Liverpool and United
THE Football Supporters’ Association have said they are strongly against the ‘Big Picture’ proposal drafted by the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United, an idea England’s biggest clubs believe is in the best long-term interests of English football.
EFL chairman Rick Parry pledged his support to the plan, although that has been heavily criticised by the Premier League – and rightly so given Parry appears to have not consulted any of the EFL’s members prior to expressing his view.
The Premier League and even the government condemned the idea on Monday and now, the FSA have given their opinion in which they claim the idea is a ‘disaster for the game’ and nothing more than a ‘sugar coated cyanide pill’ for EFL clubs, whilst questioning the long-term motives of those behind the idea.
In a strongly-worded statement, the FSA said: “Football is in crisis, many clubs desperately need financial support to help them survive, and the game’s wealth has to be shared more fairly – but the ‘Project Big Picture’ plans are not the answer and they would be an absolute disaster for our game.
“The insatiable greed of a small handful of billionaire owners cannot be allowed to determine the structure of football in this country.
“Their desire to stitch things up behind closed doors, without even speaking to their fellow clubs, let alone fans, makes crystal clear the urgent need for the Government’s promised fan-led review of football governance.
“We are not defending the status quo but ‘Project Big Picture’ is not the answer.
“Supporters are open to new ideas to improve football’s governance but we don’t remember any fans making the argument that what football really needs, is for more money and power to be handed to the billionaire owners of our biggest clubs. That trend is already built into the system, and we need to stop it, not accelerate it further.
“Within the proposals there are individual ideas which many fans would back – but in this form it is impossible to disentangle them from outcomes which would be a disaster for the game.”
The statement makes it blatantly clear that these proposals would see the rich getting richer and would ultimately lead to a top flight that is controlled by nine clubs – half of the 18 clubs the proposals want as the Premier League’s future.
Those ruling clubs would be Liverpool, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester City, Tottenham, Southampton and West Ham United, although a Hammers source insisted earlier this week the club were totally unaware of the proposals and were vehemently against them.
The FSA also questioned the longterm viability for EFL clubs adding: “For EFL clubs the impact could be even more drastic. While Project Big Picture dangles an alleged £250m ‘rescue fund’ in front of clubs to cover lost revenues during the 201920 season they might actually be a sugar coated cyanide pill.
“Apparently, ‘money will be advanced to the EFL from increased future revenues.’ Is there a guarantee that the money will even materialise? The entire package is based on projected revenues which are, in turn, based on the current media deal. Where is the guarantee that will happen?
“Under the proposals, top-flight clubs retain eight games per season which they can sell directly via their own platforms, rather than broadcasting in the traditional manner. Would broadcasters pay more money for fewer games? It seems unlikely.
Especially if the clubs chose to keep the rights for the games which are deemed most attractive to a global audience.
“EFL clubs would also lose all League Cup revenue as that competition will be nuked, which in turn will see their own media revenues collapse, as broadcasters will not pay nearly as much for EFL rights, if the League Cup is no longer part of the package. Although maybe that wouldn’t matter as ‘the EFL irrevocably grants its broadcast rights to the EPL!’
“Since six billionaire club owners can change the rules of the game at any time they like, and would control almost all of the revenue, there is no guarantee that they won’t pull up the drawbridge and cut funding entirely to the EFL, as it signed its own death warrant.
“The billionaire owners have created rules they can change at any time. It’s a one way street and there is no way back for domestic football once that power is handed over.”
However, while critical of the ideas in general, the FSA insist there are some they are happy to see.
“We wouldn’t reject all the ideas – a £20 away cap on top-flight tickets and subsidised travel, guaranteed away allocations, and safe standing areas are all things we back – but the reality is that the overall package is not acceptable to supporters,” the statement continued.
“A rescue package for EFL and National League clubs is needed alongside better distribution of football’s wealth across the game to close the gap between the Premier League and the rest of the pyramid.
“As an organisation we’re more than happy to consider changes to football’s structure but the place for that is the Government’s proposed fan-led review and it has to include all interested parties – fans, clubs, leagues, players, match officials, the FA, and so on.
“It is not acceptable for billionaire club owners to hatch a plan in secret and then try and use the fallout from a global pandemic to buy compliance from financially crippled clubs.”