Yeah, that line of thinking makes no sense to me.
The Premier League generated a huge amount of extra buzz globally that season because of the extraordinary nature of Leicester somehow winning it.
It didn’t harm the Premier League brand. Quite the opposite.
I think i heard some podcast make the point that the PL made less money when Leicester won it as if to say its reasonable or right to make moves to protect the bigger clubs.
Sure, i understand that commercial realities need to be addressed but i can't get my head around this mindset. whilst there will always be big market strong rich teams and smaller teams the league needs both for this thing to work the clubs themselves need paying fans buying tickets, gear et al, this is done on the assumption that one day it will be their turn to lift trophies but closing shop might look great on the profit and loss but is it the best for the game.
I remember a conversation I had with a mate who supports west ham I asked if it was the only chance to get a trophy and have that day you see the club lifting the trophy and that day of celebration would you accept going down to the championship to do that? Beacuse it is looking like it will be the only chance we'll ever see it.
It goes without saying that money makes the world go around I know this, but I guess the question is how much is enough. It's not like the league is struggling financially. I also understand that rich clubs want to protect their interests and think they should be able to use the resources they have, but to hamstring the smaller clubs even more than they already do is the wrong way.
Taking the purpose of PSR on face value (to protect clubs for going bust) surely the right thing is to is to shift the burden on the owners maybe;
-Guarantees
-Charges
-Escrow deposits
-monitoring and financial performance management if club fall below guidelines (correctly and consistently calculated)
