Professors put case for Premiership balancing act
You may recall that last year The Sports Nexus, an independent pressure group committed to improving the condition of all sports in Britain, released a study that proved what we have all long suspected: the Premiership is becoming increasingly predictable and competitively imbalanced. The research, conducted by Professors Christine Oughton and Jonathan Michie of Birkbeck University, showed how the top five were pulling away from the rest. Top five? I remember thinking how quaint and comforting a concept that seemed when three clubs were manifestly a class apart and one of those, Chelsea, were clearly bent on establishing a superiority over even Manchester United and Arsenal. Yet Liverpool’s extraordinary European triumph appeared to vindicate the researchers’ cut-off point. Their latest findings, however, indicate that the overall state of the nation’s elite football is more perturbing than ever to those who fear that, when the boom ends — and a levelling-off of Premiership attendances suggests the time is nigh — we shall be left with a permanent hierarchy, as is the case in Scotland, Holland, Portugal and elsewhere. In other words, that English football will emerge the worse, rather than the better, for its golden years.
Haven’t we always had a ‘permanent hierarchy’ at the top of the Premiership?
- Posted at 01:58 AM · Permalink · Print · 1094 views · Last indexed by Google on the 13th May 2008
- Tags: Champions League, Premiership
I guess another question that should be answered is what’s more important to English folks - high competition in EPL at the cost of producing teams that will get crushed in europe or producing top 4-5 teams that can equally competive with other top european teams.
After being accused, falsely in my opinion, by jealous fans of other Clubs of buying the league title we now have to endure the jibes by of a high brow think tank. These people probably have never stood/sat with real fans at a football match and discovered the high and lows of supporting your team ,especially if that team is Chelsea.
For years we struggled with debts, self imposed in some cases by the Bates Motel complex, and now just ,when we have the finances and the stadium to enjoy the overdue success, we have carpers coming out of the woodwork and going on about how bad having more money than anybody else is for the game.
My response is pick any word that goes with off. We have paid our dues as fans and we are entitled to enjoy it while we can. While ManUSA were dominating the Premiership for the first 8-10 years nothing was said but as soon as a new kid on the block arrives having money is bad for the game.
Top five? Who are the other two?
A lot of crap…
Where has this study originated from?
The un-informed professors should look at the trend the English league has gone through ie
80’s Loserpool
90’s Manure
Early 90’s Emergence of Airline FC
Now The True Champions - Chelsea
To much crap from a person meant to be knowledgable. I think he was talking about another sport altogether…
In my view a dominant team is always going to be present in any league game.
In the world today - Brazil (even with a crumbling economy) I think the professors study is subjective too many variables ignored. But I do not mind us holding on to the trophy for the next 10 years or so ;)
I have to say unequal distribution of wealth is as much a factor in football as it is in life and let’s face it we are undeniably rich. Perhaps one way to even it our is to impose a salary cap. Even then now that we are in the era of the ‘Blue Dynasty’ do you think top players would prefer to play for us or for Fulham?
salary caps? are you mad? That would instantly destroy the English league as EVERY good player would walk out and go to Europe where they could get a higher wage. It would set English football back by ten years and we would never recover.