It's pathetic and needs to be sorted. People pay to watch Liverpool and Scum first and foremost, followed by Chelsea, Arse, and recently ManC.I can see the fuss over the overseas payments.
It's pathetic and needs to be sorted. People pay to watch Liverpool and Scum first and foremost, followed by Chelsea, Arse, and recently ManC.
It's ridiculous that all teams get paid equal.
The start of the new TV deal in August will bring in yet more extraordinary amounts of money.
Even clubs such as Norwich, Southampton, Stoke City, West Brom and Fulham, who only appeared in the minimum 10 games stipulated for live match allocations, can expect to pocket around the £60.8m - the highest broadcast payment any winner has received - that Manchester United earned last season.
Next term's champions will be receiving around £100m from TV appearances, merit payments that depend on where each club finishes in the league and facility fees each time a club’s matches are on TV in the UK.
All international broadcast revenue is split equally amongst the 20 clubs.
It's pathetic and needs to be sorted. People pay to watch Liverpool and Scum first and foremost, followed by Chelsea, Arse, and recently ManC.
It's ridiculous that all teams get paid equal.
I cant agree. Without some competition to make at least in the places below those clubs who have billionaire owners as equal as possible the entire league becomes shit.
Personally I think the money should be distributed down the leagues to some degree too. A couple of percent between the lower league clubs could keep 'grass roots' football alive & well.
But that's completely different.The alternative is that you end up with a bankrupt league like they have in Spain with Barca and Madrid thrashing their opponents every weekend.
You could argue however that if we were one of the top two teams it might not be so bad!