Project Big Picture – without any of the negatives: Breaking down Gary Neville and David Bernstein’s new manifesto

The real question is not about the content of the manifesto, bur rather about how you enact it

Gary Neville is involved in the proposal of a radical new manifesto regarding a reform of English football governance (Getty Images)

Gary Neville, in contrast to a lot of people around the Premier League this week, is praising Rick Parry.

“I am actually happy with the storm that has been created. Rick Parry has done an incredible job on behalf of his members. The only way the 72 league clubs are going to get a better deal was for something disruptive to happen. You have to disrupt the norm. So what Rick’s done with the top six is stirred a hornet’s nest, brought a proposal to the table, stirred a debate.”

It is why, Neville believes, the proposal he is a part of now comes at a “perfect time”.

“We’re here to put change in place,” he said. “We’re here to tweak the tail of the tiger. We’re here to cause disruption.”

The Manchester United legend – or broadcaster, or League Two club owner, or PFA advisor, or however you want to describe him – is among eight individuals from various different backgrounds that has for seven months been working on a manifesto that seeks to restructure English football through “essential governance reforms”.

“I’ve been calling for government intervention into football for many years,” Neville says. “I don’t believe football can reform itself.

“Organisations all work for themselves. I believe quite simply that there is enough wealth in the game to create a good deal for fans, for the National League, for the EFL, for the Premier League, for the FA, and for grassroots.”

It is actually very difficult to disagree with anything in the manifesto. One way to describe it is almost “Project Big Picture without any of the negatives”.

“There are large parts of that proposal that I actually support,” Neville added. “However, I don’t want the Glazer family, or John Henry, or Roman Abramovich, or Daniel Levy running football in this country; I don’t want the Community Shield to go, I don’t want the League Cup to be just given away… However, here is great merit in some of the proposals; 72 league clubs would almost become instantly sustainable if Big Picture went through. However, I suspect because it’s been rejected yesterday that we will enter now into a world of chaos for the next 6-12 months and football will have a go at trying to reform itself but would yet again fail, which is why I was keen to join the group that David [Davies] has put together eight months ago, credible people from all different backgrounds, different sorts of sectors – industry, politics – but all actually recognise that there is a deal here to do and the only way to actually achieve that is through someone independent being there to facilitate it.”

Entitled ‘Saving the Beautiful Game: a manifesto for change’, it naturally centres on the creation of an independent regulator for football, as well as essential redistribution of the game’s vast resources in order to create a sustainable future for the entire pyramid.

Through that, it heavily criticises the purported lethargy of the Football Association and how it doesn’t reflect “the true image of the game”, but outlines a space where the national governing body can be a true governing body.

The real question is not about the content of the manifesto, though. It is about how you enact any of it. How, for example, do you persuade the big six to give up significant portions of their broadcasting revenue, at a time when two of them have just made a huge push for greater power?

With involved figures like former FA executive director Davies, former chairman David Bernstein and former sports minister Helen Grant fronting a media call on Thursday, it was put to them by the Guardian’s David Conn why none of this was enacted when they were in the positions of power to do so.

“We all have regrets to some extent,” Bernstein responded. “It’s not easy when you’re there and I’m not going to be defensive; in my time I spent most of my time on diversity and racism issues and on some governance things such as introducing the first female director and independent director of the FA. So we did a bit, but it wasn’t enough.

“The objective we have is to bring these proposals into the public domain, to create momentum for change and then to achieve cross-party support through our parliament for appointing an independent regulator. It is not for government to run football, but what we need is for government and parliament to break a logjam that clearly exists. And we believe this cannot be broken without that help.”

The wonder remains about the roadmap for this, how you get from this starting point to any kind of execution, how you get “buy-in” – to quote one source – from football’s “highly-fragmented stakeholder map”.

Grant says that starts with government, who will be required to bring people around the table, appoint members of the independent regulatory body, and hold them to account.

“We will meet with the sports minister very shortly. He is a sensible fellow and we will put the palace to him. I would be very happy to put a private members bill. There will be a big queue behind me. I don’t think we will be short of colleagues who would wish to do that. I certainly would. The ideal of course would be government bill in government if that was possible. If not, a private members’ bill supported by government.”

“Private members’ bills do succeed on occasions,” Davies added. “The great thing about this is that there would be cross-party support from the start.”

For their part, it is said that even the Premier League realise the need for independent regulation of football. It is one other reason such proposals come at a perfect time.

Another problem, in the words of one involved source, is that “if you put football’s various stakeholders into one room and ask them to come up with a consensus, it’s impossible. They all have to be seen to win. It is why the government was probably clever in describing their own review as ‘fan-led’.”

There is little mention of that forthcoming review in the manifesto. There was also little contact with the Football Supporters’ Association, despite praise for their own work in this area. Many in the game see that fan-led review as the best hope for the restructuring of the game.

The hope from those involved in this manifesto, though, is that it is another spark; that it offers solutions.

Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England and Aston Villa director also involved, had a pointed comment there.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

There is widespread belief in the game that Covid-19 at least offers the time and space for a badly needed reset. This manifesto is valuable as regards what to do. The question is still how it gets done.