Jolly Red Giant
Well-known member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,615
I agree - and it could potentially rebalance the entire league system. Sky's money set in the rot 25 years ago - this Super League is the culmination of that rotting corpse. the 'Financial Fair Play' stuff is a joke.But the premier league is only the main draw because it is where the world's biggest English teams play. Sky/BT pay a premium because it gives them access to Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Man City. If they spend £10Bs to get the rights for those teams with the ESL, they've got their main draw right there. A premier league full of #teamslike Burnley, Brighton, Barnsley, Fulham, Norwich are not going to draw another £10Bs deal just because it's the biggest domestic league.
It's naive to think sky and BT are paying for it simply because it's the top division. There's a reason for the bias towards the big six in their coverage - it's what the audience want, that is where their audience interest lay. Those of us who want to see more coverage of our own teams are in the minority.
I grew up in an era when a dozen teams had a chance to win the league and there was pretty much a different winner every year - when the FA Cup and the League Cup were big competitions. The year the PL was established players were getting paid £5K a week and full-time players in the Conference were getting paid £200 a week - now a PL player can get £500K a week - but the guys at the bottom are still getting money in the £200s range. £5million would buy you a superstar in 1992, now you need £150m at a minimum.
Hopefully the TV money results in shifting the emphasis of clubs off TV and back to the fans in the stands - hopefully it results in a better distribution of the finances throughout the leagues to level the playing pitch a bit - hopefully it sees the end of the mad transfer fees and wages.
Then again - that may all be a bit of wishful thinking.