for what it's worth, i think the league is what it is due to speed of play, an image of competitiveness for the title, a clutch of 'top' teams (instead of 2, for e.g.) and a level of unpredictability. I don't think the Premier League is particularly lauded for it's outstanding quality or technical ability (in general, over 25 years).
Therefore you can argue that it is in the Premier League's interest to maintain a level financial playing field regarding the resources it controls, as opposed to a truly meritocratic one, to allow these qualities to flourish. After all, you need the smaller teams to be able to upset the title race, the smaller teams to duke it out with each other with decent players afforded to them by top prize money, and even the odd smaller team to go on and somehow win the bloody thing.... the league's overall marketability is, arguably, it's competitiveness.
Now, unfortunately we're not in a position to be able to tell whether TV deals in the Prem would be higher or lower now, collectively or individually, compared to if we had gone down a individual bargaining route, how La Liga used to be up until 2017, b'cos we've no comparison. We cannot currently tell if strength in league depth is what sells or the top teams blasting their way into the top 6 every year.
And here in lies the thing; do you deserve money just for taking part? aren't you part of the whole process by competing? Surely the top teams with the top players shift the subscriptions here and abroad dont they? Perhaps the top teams wouldn't be what they are without the strength of the league though. And hey, they need 14 or 15 other teams to batter every other week so the fans can enjoy it.
i do believe some meritocracy should remain in the prize money though, but i think it's ok as it is. My personal preference would be for domestic TV deal to have a portion equal share (say 50%), a portion for league position (33%, as current) and some other distributor for the remaining money, for example some sort of entertainment coefficient for the games you played on TV. The foreign TV deal could perhaps be more tailored towards how many games you play on TV, with an 'entertainment' payment, an equal share and a much smaller league prize money portion. I would advocate around 1.33:1 for 1st to last, maybe 1.4:1.
but, with the amount of money sloshing around in the league, this means a relegated team could walk away with well over £100m, maybe £150m. This is, i agree, tough to accept but i dont think it breeds laziness or contempt. Also, if you finish in the Champions League places you then get the added benefit of CL money, further exacerbating the financial disparity. This is surely the main reason for striving to be up there at the top, the extra 50, 60, £70m.
Therefore you can argue that it is in the Premier League's interest to maintain a level financial playing field regarding the resources it controls, as opposed to a truly meritocratic one, to allow these qualities to flourish. After all, you need the smaller teams to be able to upset the title race, the smaller teams to duke it out with each other with decent players afforded to them by top prize money, and even the odd smaller team to go on and somehow win the bloody thing.... the league's overall marketability is, arguably, it's competitiveness.
Now, unfortunately we're not in a position to be able to tell whether TV deals in the Prem would be higher or lower now, collectively or individually, compared to if we had gone down a individual bargaining route, how La Liga used to be up until 2017, b'cos we've no comparison. We cannot currently tell if strength in league depth is what sells or the top teams blasting their way into the top 6 every year.
And here in lies the thing; do you deserve money just for taking part? aren't you part of the whole process by competing? Surely the top teams with the top players shift the subscriptions here and abroad dont they? Perhaps the top teams wouldn't be what they are without the strength of the league though. And hey, they need 14 or 15 other teams to batter every other week so the fans can enjoy it.
i do believe some meritocracy should remain in the prize money though, but i think it's ok as it is. My personal preference would be for domestic TV deal to have a portion equal share (say 50%), a portion for league position (33%, as current) and some other distributor for the remaining money, for example some sort of entertainment coefficient for the games you played on TV. The foreign TV deal could perhaps be more tailored towards how many games you play on TV, with an 'entertainment' payment, an equal share and a much smaller league prize money portion. I would advocate around 1.33:1 for 1st to last, maybe 1.4:1.
but, with the amount of money sloshing around in the league, this means a relegated team could walk away with well over £100m, maybe £150m. This is, i agree, tough to accept but i dont think it breeds laziness or contempt. Also, if you finish in the Champions League places you then get the added benefit of CL money, further exacerbating the financial disparity. This is surely the main reason for striving to be up there at the top, the extra 50, 60, £70m.