Fans chief wants new pricing policy

Ticket prices should be slashed for televised matches to avoid games being played in front of sparse crowds, supporters’ chief Malcolm Clarke has warned.

Charlton chairman Richard Murray yesterday expressed his concerns that the Premier League was in danger of being “over-exposed” by wall-to-wall television coverage and that attendances could plummet as a result.

Clarke, the chairman of the Football Supporters Federation, appreciates nothing can be done about the number of matches on our screens until the current deal expires but believes there are measures which could be taken to head off a slump in popularity.

“Clubs could reduce admission prices for televised games. That might be a kind of sticking-plaster solution for some of the games but I don’t think it’s the long-term answer,” he said.

“But Premiership prices are already way, way above what they are in Europe, so even if they slashed the prices they would only come down to the same kind of level.”

The Premier League agreed with Murray that a balance needed to be struck, but pointed to occupancy rates of 94% at top-flight grounds as shown in their latest figures.

Murray feared fans might also be turned off by what is perceived as the gap opening between the top three or four clubs in the league and the rest, which he feels could be addressed by reviewing the distribution of television money.

“We must implement measures, including greater fairness in the distribution of broadcasting revenues, aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the league. Predictability is the enemy of even our most successful clubs,” the Addicks chief said.

Clarke also believed many fans were losing interest in what he felt was turning into a closed shop for the very top teams.

“The Premier League is losing its attractiveness, it’s now completely uncompetitive. Roman Abramovich’s money has turned a two-horse race (between Arsenal and Manchester United) arguably into a one-horse race. This means that a lot of the games on television are not attractive either to the viewer or the match-going spectator,” he added.

“There are so many games being moved to strange kick-off times, and who wants to go and pay £30 or £40 to watch an uncompetitive game between two mid-table Premiership sides?

“The number of empty seats we see on television is likely to rise unless we do something. A great reduction of the amount of televised live football would help. It would mean less income to the Premier League but what you have to look at is what have they done with the existing income.

“They haven’t invested it in the game, they have just passed it on to ludicrous wages for top players and some fairly average players too.

“It’s not as though they have used that television money to invest in the future of the game.

“That has meant at the next level down clubs have felt they have got to pay very high wages to try to break into the Premiership. That has led to a large number of clubs getting into financial difficulties and that kind of domino effect has worked its way all down the leagues.

“One of the results of the television boom is that we have had 37 clubs in administration since the Premier League came into existence and that is entirely because they have paid money they can’t afford in order to break into this boom land at the top, and none of it has done the game any good.”