Latest news with #RickParry
Straits Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Premier League dream turns sour for promoted clubs
Ipswich Town manager Kieran McKenna says that the gap between the Premier League teams and Championship sides is big. Action Images via Reuters LONDON – The riches of the English Premier League are on offer for Sunderland and Sheffield United as they face off in the Championship play-off final on May 24, but the promotion dream could quickly turn sour even for the winners. For the second consecutive season all three promoted sides from the Championship have been swiftly dumped straight back into the second tier at the first time of asking. Before the 2023-24 campaign, that had only happened once in English top-flight history, back in 1997-98. The growing gulf between the two leagues is evidenced by the points tallies of the bottom three in the past two seasons. Luton Town, Burnley and Sheffield United went down 12 months ago with the lowest combined tally (66) of any three relegated teams in a 38-match Premier League season. Leicester City, Ipswich Town and Southampton are on course to smash that unwanted record with just 59 between them heading into the final weekend of the Premier League campaign. The bottom three have won just two games between them in 2025 against the top 17. 'It's clear that the gap is big,' said Ipswich boss Kieran McKenna, who had secured back-to-back promotions prior to this season's reality check. 'When that happens for two seasons in a row, that's 17 teams who have two full seasons of Premier League money and everything that comes with that. And it makes it harder for everyone to catch up.' Sheffield United received £110 million (S$190 million) from the Premier League's television and commercial deals last season for finishing bottom of the table. Once parachute payments, which are dished out to relegated clubs for a period of three years after they go down are factored in, one season in the English top-flight can be worth over £200 million. The growing gulf between the top two divisions is not only a problem for the Premier League. The English Football League (EFL) have grown increasingly concerned over the competitive balance of the Championship due to the impact of parachute payments. Should Sheffield United join Leeds and Burnley in going up, six of the last nine clubs promoted from the Championship would have done so in their first season after being relegated from the Premier League. 'The impact of these payments on the competitive balance of the Championship, and on the sustainability of all other clubs, is a major concern,' said EFL chairman Rick Parry. Parachute payments could be abolished once a new independent regulator for English football is appointed. But that may only exacerbate the growing gulf between the Premier League and Championship. They were initially designed to minimise the gap between the top two leagues by encouraging promoted clubs to invest enough in their squads to make them competitive. Yet, the strength in depth of the Premier League means any newcomer has a mountain to climb just to survive. With just one game of the season to go, Europa League finalists Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United sit 16th and 17th in the table – further demonstrating how competitive the league is. 'The longer the teams stay in the Premier League, the better they get,' said Leicester boss Ruud van Nistelrooy. 'If the same 17 teams stay in they are all going to invest massive amounts of money and get better on top of how good they are. It appears the gap will only get bigger.' AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
France 24
23-05-2025
- Business
- France 24
Premier League dream turns sour for promoted clubs
For the second consecutive season all three promoted sides from the Championship have been swiftly dumped straight back into the second tier at the first time of asking. Before the 2023/24 campaign, that had only happened once in English top-flight history, back in 1997/98. The growing gulf between the two leagues is evidenced by the points tallies of the bottom three in the past two seasons. Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United went down 12 months ago with the lowest combined tally (66) of any three relegated teams in a 38-match Premier League season. Leicester, Ipswich and Southampton are on course to smash that unwanted record with just 59 between them heading into the final weekend of the Premier League campaign. The bottom three have won just two games between them in 2025 against the top 17. "It's clear that the gap is big," said Ipswich boss Kieran McKenna, who had secured back-to-back promotions prior to this season's reality check. "When that happens for two seasons in a row, that's 17 teams who have two full seasons of Premier League money and everything that comes with that. And it makes it harder for everyone to catch up." Sheffield United received £110 million ($148 million) from the Premier League's television and commercial deals last season for finishing bottom of the table. Once parachute payments, which are dished out to relegated clubs for a period of three years after they go down are factored in, one season in the English top-flight can be worth over £200 million. The growing gulf between the top two divisions is not only a problem for the Premier League. The English Football League (EFL) have grown increasingly concerned over the competitive balance of the Championship due to the impact of parachute payments. Should Sheffield United join Leeds and Burnley in going up, six of the last nine clubs promoted from the Championship would have done so in their first season after being relegated from the Premier League. "The impact of these payments on the competitive balance of the Championship, and on the sustainability of all other clubs, is a major concern," said EFL chairman Rick Parry. Parachute payments could be abolished once a new independent regulator for English football is appointed. But that may only exacerbate the growing gulf between the Premier League and Championship. They were initially designed to minimise the gap between the top two leagues by encouraging promoted clubs to invest enough in their squads to make them competitive. Yet, the strength in depth of the Premier League means any newcomer has a mountain to climb just to survive. With just one game of the season to go, Europa League finalists Tottenham and Manchester United sit 16th and 17th in the table. "The longer the teams stay in the Premier League, the better they get," said Leicester boss Ruud van Nistelrooy. "If the same 17 teams stay in they are all going to invest massive amounts of money and get better on top of how good they are. It appears the gap will only get bigger."
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Premier League dream turns sour for promoted clubs
The riches of the Premier League are on offer for Sunderland and Sheffield United as they face off in Saturday's Championship play-off final, but the promotion dream could quickly turn sour even for the winners. For the second consecutive season all three promoted sides from the Championship have been swiftly dumped straight back into the second tier at the first time of asking. Before the 2023/24 campaign, that had only happened once in English top-flight history, back in 1997/98. The growing gulf between the two leagues is evidenced by the points tallies of the bottom three in the past two seasons. Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United went down 12 months ago with the lowest combined tally of any three relegated teams in a 38-match Premier League season. Leicester, Ipswich and Southampton are on course to smash that unwanted record with just 59 between them heading into the final weekend of the Premier League campaign. The bottom three have won just two games between them in 2025 against the top 17. "It's clear that the gap is big," said Ipswich boss Kieran McKenna, who had secured back-to-back promotions prior to this season's reality check. "When that happens for two seasons in a row, that's 17 teams who have two full seasons of Premier League money and everything that comes with that. And it makes it harder for everyone to catch up." Sheffield United received £110 million from the Premier League's television and commercial deals last season for finishing bottom of the table. Once parachute payments, which are dished out to relegated clubs for a period of three years after they go down are factored in, one season in the English top-flight can be worth over £200 million. The growing gulf between the top two divisions is not only a problem for the Premier League. The English Football League have grown increasingly concerned over the competitive balance of the Championship due to the impact of parachute payments. Should Sheffield United join Leeds and Burnley in going up, six of the last nine clubs promoted from the Championship would have done so in their first season after being relegated from the Premier League. "The impact of these payments on the competitive balance of the Championship, and on the sustainability of all other clubs, is a major concern," said EFL chairman Rick Parry. Parachute payments could be abolished once a new independent regulator for English football is appointed. But that may only exacerbate the growing gulf between the Premier League and Championship. They were initially designed to minimise the gap between the top two leagues by encouraging promoted clubs to invest enough in their squads to make them competitive. Yet, the strength in depth of the Premier League means any newcomer has a mountain to climb just to survive. With just one game of the season to go, Europa League finalists Tottenham and Manchester United sit 16th and 17th in the table. "The longer the teams stay in the Premier League, the better they get," said Leicester boss Ruud van Nistelrooy. "If the same 17 teams stay in they are all going to invest massive amounts of money and get better on top of how good they are. It appears the gap will only get bigger." kca/dmc TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR Manchester United
BBC News
20-03-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Don't fear football regulator, league chief Rick Parry tells rich clubs
Claims an independent football regulator could stifle the growth of the Premier League and foreign investment in it are "complete nonsense", English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry has told the BBC. Under a change to a government bill going through Parliament, the proposed regulator will have a duty to avoid having a negative impact on the financial growth of the English game. But a government source has played down reports No 10 is considering scaling back the regulator's powers as part of a wider move to cut Parry said the changes being put forward would benefit the whole of the men's professional game, but well-off clubs had "nothing to fear" from them. The Football Governance Bill is due to complete its House of Lords stages next week, after which it will be sent to the Commons for MPs to consider. It would establish a regulator which is independent from government and the sport's authorities to oversee the men's game in England's top five regulator would set out mandatory conditions for clubs to meet, relating to corporate governance and financial would also be required to provide "effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices and any proposals to relocate home grounds. Under "backstop powers", the regulator could intervene between the Premier League and the EFL if they fail to agree a deal to redistribute money to EFL clubs, many of which are cash-strapped. Previous rounds of talks have collapsed. The Premier League has repeatedly argued that English football is capable of regulating itself, and said it is critical that any external regulation is "proportionate". It has warned of "unintended consequences of legislation that could weaken the competitiveness and appeal of English football". 'Light touch' Bloomberg UK has reported that, following lobbying from Premier League owners, No 10 is looking again at some of the bill's measures, to ensure foreign investors are not discouraged from buying English clubs. Both Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have put economic growth and investment at the centre of their programme for government. Last week, the prime minister announced that NHS England would be abolished and brought under "democratic control" to cut bureaucracy. He said for too long politicians had "chosen to hide behind vast arrays of quangos" - organisations funded by taxpayers but not directly controlled by the the source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is piloting the bill through Parliament, indicated to the BBC it was aligned with Downing Street on the need for a "light touch" football regulator. Mr Parry told the BBC different parts of government often had different views. But he said he was encouraged by the way ministers had successfully resisted attempts by Conservative peers to weaken the legislation in the Lords last week, with "an impressive whipping operation". The impetus for an independent regulator has been years in the making, with several lower division clubs subjected to financial mismanagement and. in some cases like Bury and Macclesfield Town, complete collapse. Mr Parry said many MPs, particularly in northern towns, were very aware that lower league football clubs were at "the heart of their communities". 'Unbridgeable chasm' There was "not a shred of evidence" for Premier League clubs' arguments that their financial competitiveness could be undermined by the proposed regulator, he added. "No one wants to kill the golden goose or impose unnecessary bureaucracy", but the Premier League had to "discharge its responsibilities", he argued. Mr Parry pointed to a "growing gulf" between the Premier League and the EFL, saying an £11m gap in finances had soared to £3.3bn since the inception of the top tier in 1992. An increasingly "unbridgeable chasm" was highlighted by the fact that all three clubs promoted from the Championship in 2023 had been immediately relegated the following season - and that was looking likely to happen again this season - he said. The bill was initially introduced in March 2024 by the previous Conservative government, following a fan-led review headed by former sports minister Tracey Crouch. But it ran out of parliamentary time when Rishi Sunak called a general election. When it took office, Labour reintroduced the bill, promising to protect clubs' "financial sustainability". Under Kemi Badenoch, the Tories have shifted their position and now oppose the bill. Badenoch has argued it will be "a waste of money".Mr Parry said he still wanted to engage with the Conservative leadership on the merits of a regulator, adding that he believed many grassroots Tories still backed the idea.
The Independent
10-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
English football nears new dawn under regulator despite Conservate resistance
The Football Governance Bill returns to the House of Lords on Tuesday, with the government privately believing it is in 'a good place'. There's a tentative confidence about a development that is going to mark a historic shift in English football – and maybe world football. While one of the debates driving the bill is about how 'broken' the game is, EFL chairman Rick Parry says: 'The conclusion seems to be there is a problem that needs to be addressed.' It can often be forgotten now, but one of the reasons there was impetus for an independent football regulator was because six of the wealthiest clubs had such issues with the wider system they attempted to form a breakaway European league. The story has moved on, but one of the points of the prospective regulator is to protect core values that should be immutable: the game's cultural heritage and the financial performance of both clubs and the system. That is to be achieved through the issuing of licences subject to financial sustainability and 'backstop' powers to determine how much money the Premier League provides to the pyramid below, with an insistence it will be 'pro-growth and light touch'. The EFL says it should be about the 'right touch'. There is now hope that the regulator is close, despite what many involved have described as an 'onslaught' against the bill, furthering a split that feels such a removal from the spirit that drove the fan-led review in the first place. The Premier League – which has led resistance against the bill – stresses its stance is only about protecting the competition's status as the world's strongest and main funder of the pyramid from unnecessary regulation. Chief executive Richard Masters has said he welcomes certain protections, but has concerns over the effect on competitive balance. The EFL points to the lack of competitive balance between the Premier League and the rest. Insiders have noted how that divide is mirrored in the politics. Sources state that Labour, who essentially adopted the legislation from Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, are increasingly irritated with how the Tories seem to be 'parroting the Premier League line'. Hundreds of amendments have been tabled by the House of Lords, with the vast majority that are perceived as trying to dilute the regulator coming from Conservative peers. Most of the concern has been about a proposal from Lord Parkinson that the bill be changed from 'public' to 'hybrid', which could then require years of consultation. Lisa Nandy, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, recently attacked what she described as a 'Conservative front bench who are intent on wrecking the bill'. Baroness Brady, who is also the vice-chairman of West Ham United, initially tabled 19 amendments. For some observers, this simply comes down to political ideology. The Conservatives are anti-regulation, while the Premier League has become a model of neoliberalism in sport. One cynical interpretation is that some owners want to keep trying to make money out of the Premier League without interference, and don't want to give money to EFL clubs owned by billionaires to spend on wages. The EFL insist they don't want mere spending on wages either. Most stances are more nuanced. One is that changing the gradient of revenue distribution – especially by diluting parachute payments – could have the effect of widening gaps to clubs who compete in Europe and receive Uefa's huge prize money. That would be an ironic consequence, since it was that gap that initially drove the Super League. Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish meanwhile articulated one of the more common views, that the regulator would 'interfere in all of the things we don't need them to interfere in and help with none of the things we actually need help with'. One executive described it as a 'poor' and 'reactionary' piece of legislation. Echoing Parish, another argument is that football needs help on competition law, in the same way that American sports are exempt. That would mean they couldn't have challenges like Manchester City's associated party transaction case. That stance would of course recognise that sport is different to other industries, but it may play into two pro-regulator positions. For one, those against the bill are constantly stating other businesses wouldn't be regulated like this, and it could inhibit 'growth'. That would appear to inherently contradict the idea that sport is different, however, especially since team competition doesn't happen organically. 'It's really important to remember that football is a sport, not just a market,' Parry says. 'Sport by definition has to have a regulatory framework.' It has to produce a champion. A question often asked is how many Premier League owners would vote for the competition's equal shares of revenue now? Parry meanwhile says 'growth in a football context does need some careful definition', and shouldn't just apply to the top end. Another amendment adds 'financial growth of English football' into the regulator's secondary duties. Similarly, strong regulation hasn't inhibited investment in US sports, and the Premier League already has an almost unsurpassable advantage. The latest Uefa landscape report shows the competition has almost double the revenues of La Liga and Bundesliga, at £5.9bn. Parry made a point of stressing how the German league recently committed to sharing revenues 80-20 with the second tier, with 'no howls of anguish'. Secondly, there's the issue of the Premier League self-regulating. Some critics are just scathing of the idea, pointing to how the City case has taken over five years, the Leicester City case was messed up and two competition law cases have been lost. There is nevertheless a wider principle. The Premier League has become the de facto power in English football through its financial might. Everything it does affects everyone else, right up to potential wage inflation from financial regulations. The Premier League just has little interest in exercising that power over the rest of the game, since every decision just relates to the 20 clubs in the division, at least 40 per cent of whom are statistically likely to be transitory. What that in effect means is that decisions pertaining to the future of English football are based on 20 current ownerships, and their own contemporary concerns. Brighton, say, now have a greater influence than Middlesbrough despite Middlesbrough spending far longer in the Premier League. The issue is maybe best exemplified in the recent APT case, where defeat came on shareholder loans and clubs acting in their own interest. The problem of self-regulation there was obvious. So, the Premier League might not want interference but it unintentionally interferes with everything else. The competition itself would say if you change the landscape the Premier League sits in, you also change the money it can give to the pyramid. This cuts to the core tension underpinning everything. Football is now wrestling with dysfunctions that come from the ad hoc and anachronistic way its power structure developed. You only have to look at the curious place of the Football Association. It should be the independent regulator, and sources state there was initially internal desire to pitch for the role. The Premier League would never have accepted this, however, which emphasises the power imbalance. In any case, the FA is part of that criticised structure led by Fifa and Fifa, who have themselves become players in the process. You only have to look at debates around the congested calendar. Fifa should themselves be the ultimate regulator on such issues. Potentially bringing it all full circle, however, the Club World Cup or expanded Champions League could become de facto Super Leagues. It's why many other countries are watching what happens in England with interest, since the idea may well spread. The bill is expected to come into law by summer. After that, it will be a new future.
