Is it time to change the game?

As the 'Big Four' clubs dominate yet another finale in the Premier League, <i>The Independent</i> today asks readers if the beautiful game can be made any better.

(GETTY IMAGES)

Today we're asking you for ideas. The subject is something we all like to talk about: football. The question is this: can the beautiful game be made any better, in this country at least?

This may seem like a strange time to be asking. After all, for the fifth consecutive season an English club will be in the Champions League final – what more do we want? Well, for the fourth season running, the "big four" clubs (Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal) will comprise the top four in the Premier League. They will again be England's representatives in the Champions League and, through the riches available in Europe's glittering competition, tighten their grip on the domestic game.

This week, the status quo prompted the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, to meet Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, in an attempt to find ways to share the wealth among other clubs and restore some competitive balance. Early indications are that Burnham received little encouragement. Premier League clubs are private companies who are only likely to share more of their income if forced to, and which they know is very unlikely.

The Premier League rules state that 14 out of 20 clubs have to vote for change. If the big four, plus three well-off clubs who aspire to join them, vote against proposals then nothing happens.

But after Burnham's efforts, the debate is in play. Do we want to create a more competitive league? The "big four" would argue they have invested time and money into competing with similarly rich clubs such as Barcelona and Milan. Diluting their income would weaken English clubs' ability to compete in Europe. Maybe, though, we should have other priorities. In Germany's Bundesliga, fans watch a competitive league drinking beer on the terraces having paid as little as £10 for a ticket. Their teams may not get to the final stages of the Champions League, but domestic honours are spread around.

The other end of the Premier League can seem just as fatalistic. Newly promoted clubs have a mountain to climb. Those who go down are (with honourable exceptions) predictable. Relegation is particularly painful. Looking at what has happened to clubs relegated since 1992 we can see that if clubs do not return within two years they face a 66 per cent chance of never returning. Serious financial troubles loom.

So what should be done? Or do we leave well alone? Burnham wants to see a greater redistribution of wealth. Others have raised the ideas of bringing Glasgow Rangers and Celtic into the "English" league, of splitting the Premier League in two or of limiting squad sizes to reduce the might of the biggest clubs. Some of the ideas that have already been suggested are outlined below.

On this page, three of those with an inside perspective on the game have shared their thoughts.

But we want your ideas, so tell us what you think.

'The Premier League needs a shake-up'

Jeremy Peace, West Bromwich Albion chairman

Jeremy Peace has been the chairman of West Bromwich Albion since 2002 and majority shareholder since 2007. West Bromwich have quite deliberately pursued a prudent spending policy, not "Premier League at any cost". They were relegated from the top flight in 2003, returned in 2004, got relegated in 2006, returned last season and are favourites to be relegated again this year.

In an ideal world, we'd like to see some sort of restructuring of the league [based on an expanded two-division Premier League]. If someone wants to put forward proposals, they'd be knocking at an open door. But I can't see a restructuring happening because of the voting structure of the Premier League.

How do we cope? Since I've been at the club, we've modelled our budgets on the worst-case scenario, of going down, then finishing seventh and seventh [in the Championship] and not coming back up. That policy is predicated on not having a benefactor. The rationale is 'If we go off the edge of the cliff, we have to survive'.

We dovetail our players' contracts to fit that three-year model. We don't want to be liable for contracts we can't pay if the parachute money runs out. We also flex contracts downwards by between 25 and 40 per cent if we go to the Championship.

Within that framework, we've always said to our manager we'll do whatever we can. We've actually spent fully in the Premier League and Championship. Last summer we spent £24m on transfers, a club record, and increased our wage bill to £25m, a club record. And that's on a turnover that will be £47m-£48m this season. We've planned for a wage bill of £13m in the Championship if we go down. If the worst happens and we don't get out, we're cash neutral at the end of year three.

'No one predicted how big the money would be – not even Des'

Graham Kelly, Former FA chief executive

Graham Kelly was the chief executive of the FA from 1989 to 1998,and was one of the architects of the FA Premier League.

I never imagined for a moment that the Premier League would become anything like as big as it has. You've only got to look at the difference between success and failure in the League to see the disparity between clubs involved and those who aren't. There's this talk of a League with two divisions, but go down that route and you'll dilute what you're trying to achieve.

The Premier League is far from perfect, but I'm still of the belief that the differences in income are an inevitable consequence of having the most successful League. There are things the FA should have done differently; it wasn't strong enough over the years and it has not modernised quickly enough but that's happened and we are where we are. I never imagined that TV income would mushroom in the way it has, not commercial income. We were forecasting [in 1991] that the commercial properties of the FA and Premier League, managed centrally, could be worth £112m a year. I remember clearly talking to Des Lynam on Football Focus and Des deriding the figures as fanciful, pie in the sky. And now we talk in billions.

So of course we never imagined the disparity. And we thought we were being generous at the time, agreeing to pay the Football League a £2m 'breakaway' fee per year for the Premier League's first three years. Now, it just seems nothing.

'We offered lower leagues their cut'

Rick Parry, Liverpool chief executive

Rick Parry was a senior management consultant with Ernst & Young in 1991 when he was recruited to plan the new Premier League, becoming its first chief executive in 1992. He was central to the negotiations that landed the League the TV deals that have continued expanding in value. Those underpin the world's most lucrative league. Parry has been Liverpool's chief executive since 1998.

When we talk about redistribution of wealth it mustn't be forgotten that in 1996 we [the Premier League] approached the Football League and offered them a percentage of our income. We're talking about a fixed per cent of what we would earn from the domestic TV deals going forward, a figure of around 20 per cent if memory serves correctly.

We said, "We'll sell our rights, you sell yours, we'll add it together and then we'll split it along these lines". The clubs voted in favour, but the Football League board said no, and did its own deal with Sky. It was the big story of that summer and even then it seemed obvious that it was a bad decision, let alone now [with Premier League domestic income approaching £2bn over three years]. The proposed deal was recognition and willingness to offer a share of our money.

For clubs contemplating the difference between being in the Premier League and potentially falling out, there are two obvious things to look at. First, to get back up within two years. Second is that your player contracts are structured to provide comfort in the event of relegation.

Clearly there is no magic wand and no easy answer that will change the fact that the Premier League clubs have more money than those outside. Giving money away, however you structure it, is fraught with problems.

Visions for a fairer playing field: A sample of the ideas being discussed already

Create two tiers

Phil Gartside, the Bolton Wanderers chairman, recently suggested the Premier League expand to two divisions of 18 clubs. The 20 Premier League clubs would be supplemented by 14 from the Championship plus Rangers and Celtic. This would narrow the gap between the Premier League and the Championship, which has contributed to the financial problems suffered by clubs like Leeds United, Nottingham Forest, Southampton and Charlton. However, it would reduce the income of current Premier League clubs, which means the big four, plus others unlikely to be relegated, such as Everton and Aston Villa, would vote against. There would also be problems with Uefa, possibly the Scottish Premier League, and probably English police forces, in incorporating the Old Firm.

Cut squad sizes

"Ridiculous," said the Uefa general secretary, David Taylor, last month when informed that Liverpool's squad contained 62 players. "You could have two full-size practice games," he added. "How many do you actually need? Is it 20, 25?" While Liverpool and their big-four rivals can amass enormous squads like these (Arsenal and Manchester United also employ more than 50 professionals) other clubs cannot afford to be quite so lavish – Bolton have just 27 on their books. Uefa limit clubs to 25 for their Champions League squad: a similar rule in the Premier League could help level the playing field, by limiting big clubs' ability to deal with injuries. It could also see talented youngsters currently festering in big clubs' reserve teams looking elsewhere for first-team action.

Cap players' salaries

Last year, the FA chairman, Lord Triesman, floated the idea of a salary cap for the Premier League. "In the current climate it could be that we have to work out [wage] restraints and what they might be," he said. "A sensible form of [wage] restraint would make sense and it is not inconceivable." But how would such a salary cap work? If it were up to the Uefa president, Michel Platini, clubs would be limited to spending a set percentage of their turnover on wages. It is not an idea that appeals to the Premier League, and there are obvious problems. It would affect smaller clubs more, thus further reducing competitiveness – but it may reduce clubs' indebtedness. In reducing clubs' spending power, though, it could also cause players to head to Spain or Italy for better salaries.

Limit foreign player numbers

The Premier League's wealth has enabled it to attract the best players from around the world, a key factor in the English domination of the Champions League. Fifa, with support from Uefa, is seeking to cap the spread of foreign players but have to persuade the European Union to grant an exemption from employment law to allow its 6+5 plan (which requires a minimum of six native players in a starting XI). This, though, would be unlikely to change the domestic status quo. There would be no limit on foreign players in a squad, so the big four could stockpile the best. It would inflate the price of English players, such as Gareth Barry and it would give young English players more opportunity, but at the expense of quality throughout the League.

Premier League: How it works now

Where the TV money goes

The Premier League TV deal brings in £2.7bn over three years. In 2007-08, every club took £22.8m as part of an equal share of revenue. Clubs are then paid prize-money relative to their final position in the League (champions received £14.4m) and earnings from the live matches in which they are featured (Manchester United, with 25 matches, made £12.1m). This may seem skewed in favour of the leading clubs but TV income is shared out more evenly here than in Italy and Spain where the contracts are not negotiated collectively. The Premier League's top club receives 1.7 times as much from central funds as the bottom club: £49.3m versus £29.1m. In Italy that ratio can hit 16 to 1, and Spain 12 to 1.

The 'Big Four'

In the past six seasons, only Everton (in 2006) have broken the grip of the 'big four' clubs (Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal) and qualified for the Champions League.

In the same period, 10 Spanish and eight Italian clubs have qualified. Only once has a 'big four' side not won the Premier League (Blackburn, 1995).