Project Big Picture: A template for English football or a Trojan horse?

There is a genuine fear that Liverpool and Manchester United have an underlying desire to break the existing structure — and want a bigger share of the revenue and a bigger share of the power as a reward for helping out the EFL

Now there is a genuine fear that Liverpool and Manchester United have an underlying desire to break the existing structure

Crouching tiger, hidden dragon. That’s the phrase which springs to mind when you read through what looks an innovative set of proposals in Liverpool and Manchester United’s Project Big Picture, which are too good to ignore — but too dangerous to examine without a fear of what lurks behind them.

The Chinese proverb gained global attention thanks to Ang Lee’s film adaptation of a book by Wang Dulu in 2000, and reportedly the ‘tiger’ and ‘dragon’ refer just not to hidden danger but to people with hidden strengths, serving as a reminder never to underestimate anybody.

In this case, the strengths of Liverpool and United are not exactly hidden. But there is an uncomfortable nervousness amongst football fans and administrators of what lies behind the proposals and what might emerge when a light is eventually shone into the shadows.

EFL chair Rick Parry, perhaps enjoying a little too much having the two biggest clubs in England sat around his coffee table, has clearly fallen for the rhetoric, describing the proposal as “bold” and “visionary” and insisting Liverpool and United should be given “enormous credit for stepping up to the plate when we actually need some vision and leadership”.

The fact that Parry made those statements, and was involved in the project, without even consulting his own clubs, has only added to concerns around what the ulterior motives are and what lies hidden in the small print.

Is this a generous offer to save the football pyramid or a calculated and cynical power grab?

It’s not surprising that many people fear the latter. Had this proposal come jointly from the Premier League and EFL after full consultation, the reception might well have been different.

Instead the reaction from fans, clubs, and even the British government has been ferocious, with the UK’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport describing it as “backroom deals being cooked up that would create a closed shop at the very top of the game”.

For the Premier League, completely bypassed and side-lined by the announcement, it comes as an even bigger shock.

A direct threat, in fact, to its authority and integrity.

One Premier League source told the BBC this is a “takeover attempt, rather than a rescue package”.

There are positive aspects to the proposal for the future of the football pyramid, however, at a time when so many are suffering, including:

• A £250m rescue fund made immediately available to the EFL
• 25% of all future TV deals to go to the EFL, with TV deals negotiated jointly.
• £100m paid to the FA to make up for lost revenue because of the new set-up.

Even the abolition of the EFL Cup and Community Shield are palatable compromises to make, given what is on offer and the current demands on players at a time when Uefa is about to unveil a third European competition to go alongside the Champions League and Europa League.

The scrapping of parachute payments, the money paid to clubs even after they have been relegated from the Premier League, is more complicated. The loudest voices say this is a ruse to create a closed shop, a way to prevent smaller clubs reaching and staying in the Premier League — because it means any promoted teams cannot effectively offer players long-term contracts when there is such a big reduction income ahead should they be relegated.

But there are also Championship clubs who feel that parachute payments create an unfair and unlevel playing field in the EFL, which makes it hard for clubs who have never been in the top flight ever to get there.

The controversial aspects of the proposal begin further down the list, including:

• The Premier League would be cut from 20 to 18 clubs
• The bottom two teams in the Premier League would be relegated automatically with the 16th-placed team joining the Championship play-offs.
• The EFL would be made up of three divisions of 24, reducing the total number of clubs by two.

But the biggest of all is hidden away in the small print: Nine clubs to be given ‘special voting rights’ on certain issues, based on their extended runs in the Premier League.

That’s the line which should make the whole of football wake up and smell the danger — and spot something lurking in the shadows.

The Premier League has become the world’s greatest football competition because of an ethos of collective television deals, fair distribution of revenues, and equal voting rights.

It is a culture which has allowed small clubs to become big clubs and created a league in which, despite the power of the big six, anyone can beat anyone — or at least dream of doing so.

A world in which Leicester could win the title, in which promoted clubs like Wolves could reach Europe, in which Crystal Palace can go to Manchester United and win at Old Trafford.

Now there is a genuine fear that Liverpool and United have an underlying desire to break that structure — and want a bigger share of the revenue and a bigger share of the power as a reward for helping out the EFL.

Why else would they go behind the Premier League’s back to create Project Big Picture?

For greater voting rights, of course, you might as well read greater control, greater share of revenue, greater power.

Even West Ham, one of the clubs alongside Southampton and Everton added to the ‘big six’ for potential extra voting rights, are said to be against the plan and it seems they were not consulted about their inclusion on the privileged list, even though secret talks, it emerges, have been going on since January. Something here clearly isn’t right.

Not everybody has reacted angrily. Gary Neville spoke more calmly when he tweeted: “There are parts of the proposal that require negotiation but there is too much good in this plan to dismiss it.

“Let’s get round the table, please. If it suits nine Premier League clubs and maybe 72 EFL clubs, then let’s work with the other 11.”

Neville is right in that much of the proposal is positive, but you can’t help feeling it is the wrong people chairing the meeting in the first place.

How can we discuss the ideas on offer without first addressing the ulterior motive behind them and the reason for presenting them in such a cloak and dagger manner?

It’s good news that Liverpool and Manchester United care so much about the EFL and the football pyramid that they want to help.

Not such good news for football as a whole, however, if they want voting rights, greater influence, and a castrated Premier League in return for their money.

In the football jungle, even in this time of great need, the motivation of its biggest predators can still be red in tooth and claw.