Don’t let Project Big Picture distract you from the failure of government and the game’s leaders

In nearly three decades, there have been no solutions to redress football's broken system. Project Big Picture is not the answer, but at least it answers key questions

When the scale of the financial devastation of coronavirus on football became apparent in April as the curtain on the lack of governance in the game was also lifted, experts told The Independent the global pandemic could force the reset the sport so greatly needs.

The problem, as Professor Simon Chadwick, the Global Director of Eurasian Sport put it was: “A reset to what? Who is going to do the resetting?”

While he acknowledged that “football will be sleepwalking into the future” if nothing changed, he warned any path forward would need an alignment of stakeholders as well as support from government, written into policy, to benefit both the strong and the weak.

Chadwick, like several of his peers, did not have any confidence that those with the power to genuinely improve structures for the greater good would act accordingly.

That would then create a landscape where the haves could dictate what happens next to the have-nots.

Dr Rob Wilson, author of Managing Sport Finance, pointed to an “erosion of basic economic principles with many teams going for the winner-takes-all option.

“Everything has been driven by very selfish behaviour and has been very unscrupulous at times, which is a dangerous narrative.

“Football needs a reset, but the realist in me says the teams will only be interested in themselves.”

Dr Daniel Parnell, a Senior Lecturer in Sport Business at the University of Liverpool, predicted “what we’ll see is the difference between those that have and those who do not will grow. Football inequalities will further dictate the future of the game.”

And so, when the details around Project Big Picture emerged, few steeped in the financial knowledge of the game were shocked by an overt power grab meshed with a rescue package for those most in need.

English football has been desperate for change, and in the absence of strong governance from those in charge of the country and those in charge of the game, there was an opportunity for alternate driving forces - Liverpool and Manchester United in this case - to draft a new frontier.

Liverpool owner John W Henry has worked with Manchester United to form a plan that would reset English football (Getty)

Football finance experts have largely been unified in their reaction to Project Big Picture.

The offer for the Premier League to share a net 25 per cent of its upcoming broadcast deals with the EFL as well as the £250m immediate bailout to help the pyramid survive is viewed as essential and the most pivotal plan in nearly three decades to help repair a broken system.

The funding for stadium infrastructure and grassroots, creation of a fan charter, easing of the packed domestic schedule and the £100m given to the FA are celebrated as ways to help safeguard English football.

The end to the “evil” of parachute payments is applauded given the ruinous level to which it fuels inequality.

Many experts even see the benefit in the reduction of the top-flight to just 18 teams, which they believe would enhance competitive balance.

All the pros, however, are undercut by the mammoth issue of ‘special voting rights.’ The consolidation of power to the Premier League's Big Six along with Everton, Southampton and West Ham is incredibly dangerous and the final squeeze on any miracles - already at impossible odds like Leicester's 5000-1 flipping of the status quo in 2015/16.

There is obviously enormous self-interest colouring Project Big Picture, but then again, there always is in football.

It shouldn’t be overlooked that some of the clubs who oppose the proposal do not feel that Premier League teams should be subsidising their EFL counterparts at all.

There are those that were vehemently opposed to Project Restart on account of being in danger of relegation. Project Big Picture will have grand supporters too, see Tottenham Hotspur who would be able to claim back around £125m on their stadium construction.

Every club - big, middle, falling by the wayside will, as Wilson nailed it, “only be interested in themselves.”

As such, the ills of the manifesto cannot erase some of its merits, which is damning on the game’s leadership figures for the past 25-plus years, who have not offered any solutions to the great imbalances.

It is also a slight on a government that snipes about “back-room deals” but are never forthcoming with any sustainable measures as they wait to finger-point and distract from their endless failings.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said Project Big Picture "undermines trust in football’s governance,” but that is wildly inaccurate, if not unsurprising.

If the game was being regulated properly, there would not have been a gap for Liverpool and United to forcefully press ahead with these designs.

Whatever your feelings on its little and large details, Project Big Picture is correct in its assertion that “a reset of the economics and governance of the English pyramid is long overdue.”

Now if only the powers that be would come to the rescue of the “whole football family” they continuously reference instead of simply condemning suggestions and happily welcoming all these sideshows to their own ineptitude.

It was farcical to hear Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, weaponise a “fan-led review of football governance” - a promise in the manifesto they campaigned on - IF the game could not “get together and work this out.”

A fundamental part of the election manifesto, which hasn’t commissioned a review into the sport or drawn up its terms of reference, is now nothing more than a meaningless threat.

That undermines more than just the trust in football’s governance, but the government itself.