Tonight:
5°c
Ever since the banking crisis struck last autumn there have been faint but persistent mutterings, in dread or hope according to political perspective, about a socialist renaissance.
But who'd have guessed that, some six months on, our leading standard bearer of the new Red Flag would be the über-Blairite Andy Burnham, and that the unwilling object of his Kibbutznik dreamings would be football's Premier League?
The Cabinet minister responsible for sport has launched his drive for wealth redistribution with a masterplan to finesse the Big Four - Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool - into sharing their treasure with poorer rivals.
He is disturbed, with good reason, at how the quartet have cocooned themselves in a circle as virtuous for them as it is vicious for the rest.
Every season they take the four available Champions' League spots, thus guaranteeing themselves the colossal revenue that ensures they alone can afford the depth and quality of squad required to guarantee that they alone can qualify for the Champions' League next season.
Only once in recent years has the circle been broken, by Mr Burnham's beloved Everton, and there is no hint yet of that anomaly reccuring.
The minister has other ideas to level the playing field (I make no apology for the cliché - this is football), such as a quota on foreign players and smaller squads.
But his primary tactic, bless him, is to persuade the Premier League to oblige the Big Four to share their television revenue from the Champions League, and a greater proportion of their domestic TV income, with the 18 no-hopers below.
What this boils down to is a struggle between Labour and capital, and we know which side the odds favour there. Put another way, it is a six-pointer between rival ideologies.
When Francis Fukuyama declared an end to history, he inexplicably failed to foresee that from the rubble of the Soviet Union would emerge Roman Abramovich, whose entrenchment of the absolute dominance of money over football would one day cause us to ask again, as we often did before history's death was greatly exaggerated, whether it is fair that some are vastly richer and more powerful than others.
As the catalyst for the revival of this ancient debate, Mr Burnham cuts a curious figure.
The Blair regime so seriously relaxed about those at the top becoming fllthy rich, despite the growing disparity in wealth with those below, knew no keener apparatchik than him.
The unshackled free market he worshipped then is directly responsible for the Premier League plutocracy he seeks to dismantle now.
But heaven loveth a sinner that repenteth and all that, so let's ignore that paradox and examine his case. And writing as both a lover of football and old liberal Leftie, I think he is spot on with both diagnosis and proposed treatment.
For all the technical brilliance of its stars, regardless of the unrelenting "world's best" hype in which the public by and large believes, the Premier League has succumbed to the sort of stasis that will develop, if unchecked, into a coma.
The cloying inevitability that the Big Four will always remain the Big Four prevents the air circulating so that it becomes more and more foetid and a harbinger of suffocation.
Thirty years ago, the then First Division was home to a dash of unpredictability and a pinch of ersatz socialism, the two neatly combined in the singular person of Brian Clough.
That self-styled red firebrand, who spoke of his ambition to become a Left-wing Labour MP from the driver's seat of his gold Rolls Royce, took Nottingham Forest from the nadir of the second division to the zenith of the European game at lightning pace.
Rampant genius though he was, he couldn't conceivably repeat that miracle today, or come close, because without Champions' League revenue no one can afford to build a squad capable of reaching, let alone winning, the Champions' League. Which is pretty much what I said above, only in a more Catch 22 sort of way.
Before the flawless recreation of the pale ale First Division into the Kristal-glugging Prem, Wimbledon rose swiftly from the fourth division to the upper tier of the first in which homely Watford finished second, and cosy little Norwich mounted a serious title challenge, while middle-ranking Aston Villa and Everton became champions.
Given a smart manager and a couple of shrewd transfer moves, every David had a shot at giving the Goliaths a run for their money.
Much was horribly wrong with English football, of course, but absolutely right was the sense of hope, spread thin but wide and born of an egalitarian spirit long vanished, that is the lifeblood of any healthy sport.
Then the money flowed as Sky injected its riches on a pro rata scale, with more going to the already rich, whose games it broadcast most.
When Mr Abramovich landed at Chelsea, the entity formally known as the Premier League became, at heart, the debt-collecting front for a four-strong cartel.
It is to the quadropoly it nominally oversees what the self-allegedly Independent Police Complaints Commission has always been to the Met. Its raison d'être is not to challenge the status quo, however rancid, but to protect it.
Since no cartel voluntarily yields a shred of its wealth and power, the minister has as much chance of realising his ambition as do Fulham of making it the Big Five.
As he must have known even before meeting its placeman chief executive Richard Scudamore on Tuesday, the Premier League hasn't the remotest intention of endangering its overlords' pre-eminence.
Without the legislation required to compel it, what Mr Burnham has is not an effective strategy for economic realignment in the cause of fairness but a touchingly naïve Utopian fantasy.
And if that isn't the mainstream definition of socialism, even in such dark and unsettling financial days, I'd be intrigued to learn what is.
Reader views (14)
Thanks for sharing another great post and I appreciate the way you have covered up different subject like soccer in one of the post.
- online viagra, USA, 17/10/2011 06:22
Report abuse
Typical Labour. Like education, it is easier to level down than try to raise the level. The top football clubs and universities gained their pre-eminence by setting their sights high to start off with. Since Labour started the dumbing down process, giving university status to most large town's colleges, the value of a degree has diminished. The same will happen with football. The "big four" have effectively taken over dominance of Europe because of their ability to attract top players; once this has gone, through dilution of their generated income, a quarter final place in the new Europa league will probably be the best an English club can manage
- Ian, Cranbrook, Kent, 12/05/2009 17:49
Report abuse
The NFl, based in that socialist paradise the USA, has a wealth distribution system in which the TV income and merchandising income is equally distributed to the 32 NFL teams. It seems to work in terms of giving everyone a decent shot at winning the big one, without precluding a team from having a decent run at the top.
LIST OF SUPER BOWL WINNERS AND RUNNERS-UP (LAST 10 YEARS)
St. Louis Rams – Tennessee Titans
Baltimore Ravens – New York Giants
New England Patriots – St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Oakland Raiders
New England Patriots – Carolina Panthers
New England Patriots – Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers – Seattle Seahawks
Indianapolis Colts – Chicago Bears
New York Giants – New England Patriots
Pittsburgh Steelers – Arizona Cardinals
Summary: Champions – Pats 3, Steelers 2, Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts, Giants
Runners-up – Titans, Giants, Rams, Raiders, Panthers, Eagles, Seahawks, Bears, Pats, Cardinals
LIST OF PREMIERSHIP WINNERS AND RUNNERS-UP (LAST 10 YEARS)
Manchester United – Arsenal
Ditto
Ditto
Arsenal – Liverpool
Manchester United – Arsenal
Arsenal – Chelsea
Chelsea – Arsenal
Chelsea – Manchester United
Manchester United – Chelsea
Ditto
Summary: Champions – ManU 6, Arsenal 2, Chelsea 2
Runners-up – Arsenal 5, Chelsea 3, ManU 2, Liverpool
Good news for supports of Ditto FC 
- Fiendishgames, Hertford, 11/05/2009 10:58
Report abuse
Ah - my cynic pills are kicking in.
How to get a lot of political support from the masses - oh yeah, blame the rich teams and say they should support the smaller clubs. More small clubs, presumed more support for the oh so socialist ideal.
Teams get their money primarily from their supporters. If they get enough money from enough supporters they can afford to sign big-money players, which in turn helps them win games. If a team is successful (because primarily their supporters have made them 'rich enough to buy players') then the media are going to pay more attention to THEM (as opposed to the rest of the teams) - more money - again an end result of the primary support for the team.
Why on earth should supporters of one team be made to pay for another team's existence? It's called competition, not a mutual support society.
- Rogan, Irving, 11/05/2009 07:28
Report abuse
For the attention of Matthew Norman.
Firstly Mr Norman I am a big fan of your articles. I’m not Jewish but I do like the odd Yiddish words you use. I’m also an avid reader and you remind me of Daniel Silva. I am 72 yrs of age and a life long Arsenal supporter. Which says a lot about my being a fan of yours considering you support the mob up the road and the fact that I cannot ever remember you ever having a decent word to say about the Gunners or Arsene Wenger’s achievements during his time at the club. The reason for this email is your article in the Fridays 8th Standard: Can Soccer go Socialist? How can you put Arsenal up in the Big Four because of wealth? If it hadn’t been for the poor results of Everton and Aston Villa towards the end of this season Arsenal could well have been struggling in joint position with your team Spurs. And as for wealth, it may interest you to note the following list in order of monies spent on players over the past 10 years of the teams in the Premiership, who have spent the most.
1.Chelsea. 2.Liverpool. 3.Man U. 4.Man C. 5.Tottenham. 6.Newcastle. 7.Aston Villa. 8.Sunderland. 9.Middlesborough. 10.Arsenal. 11.Everton. 12.Portsmouth. 13.Blackburn.14.West Ham.
Note Spurs Fifth. Arsenal Tenth.
Arsenal are where they are because of an astute manager, young players and attractive football that attracts both supporters and impartial spectators who like to see the game played well.
Allen Togwell
- Allen Togwell, Blackheath. London SE3, 10/05/2009 11:23
Report abuse
Will Andy Burnham be donating his expenses to his 'wealth-distribution' fund?
- Lickyalips, Richmond, Surrey, 08/05/2009 17:24
Report abuse
Surely, now they own the banks, Labour have enough industries to display their business skills on? Whether or not you like the money-cult football has become, it's certainly a highly successful model - as a business. What's amazing is the fans' eternal passive willingness to be used as till-fodder, to keep international millionaries in luxury, never demanding a say in the proceedings. But judging by the profits, the consumers like the product: would they prefer Mr Burnham managing their local team?
- Mdj E10, london uk, 08/05/2009 17:16
Report abuse
Why should the whole of the UK who pay a large sum to SKY not get a good share of the sums being poured into the Premier League by Sky and others such as BBC and Sentanta.
At least Sentanta try to disperse sum of their income to various areas of the UK football scene . Its even worse that most of the income goes to 4 teams who dont really have that much bigger support than many of the other teams who can only dream of the success of these teams. Their continuous position in the Champions League only make the disparity bigger.
If by the present scenario these 4 teams then form a major European premiership it would be an insult to many of the teams in the UK with far bigger supports than at least two of the present so called top four. If a billionaire is prepared to put money in then so be it but they should not get their hands on a large proportion of the TV finances
There has to be some way of reducing their influence in preventing a fairer dispersal of all the football Sky money.
What really annoys me is that much of that money is disappearing out of our country to other countries via transfer fees and salaries to countries who cannot match our over devotion to the beautiful game
Yes lets get a fairer deal for teams in the upper echelons of UK football.
I will purchase Sky when they look at giving more money to many of our other leagues and that means dispersing some of the money from the premiership
or our overlords bring in a system like USA football
- Andy Skye, kirkintilloch, 08/05/2009 17:09
Report abuse
Big four's "treasures"? HA! the only club there to make profit last year was Arsenal, because they refuse to spend multi millions year on year (the single £15m Arshavin deal excluded) on over-inflated player valuations, and are also the odd-ones out because they have failed to win anything in 5 years. Man United, Chelsea and Liverpool all lost money and only manage to continue to invest hundreds of millions in players because they take bigger loans. These clubs don't have "treasures"!!! The monopoly over CL places was nearly changed this year with Arsenal's struggle, had Aston Villa not thrown away their chance this whole debate would be pointless.
- Matt, northampton, 08/05/2009 16:56
Report abuse
The 'Big four' will at some point break away into some sort of European superleague. Until then, we suffer the boredom of deciding which of those four will win the league next season (with Arsenal currently lagging somewhat behind). The most exciting thing about the Premier League at the moment is who is going to be relegated. How can a League be more interesting about the losers, than the winners?
And what about the clubs? The other 16 Premier League clubs will still need to charge up to £1000 per annum for a season ticket to watch a team achieve absolutely nothing except the avoidance of relegation. They will still be £millions in debt each year trying to achieve Premier League status. At what point will it not be worth it? Once they have gone bust?
The system is beginning to fail and we are going along with it with our eyes wide open. I don't want the 'Big four's' money. I would like to see TV money distributed evenly throughout the Premier League. It takes 20 clubs to form that League. Without the other 16, the 'Big four' have nothing to achieve.
At what point did it become more about how much money can any one club get, than the sport itself?
Not only do we need to distribute the TV money fairly, it's time to limit the amount of money that can be spent by any one club in a season and limit the number of players any one team can have on it's books.
- Trish, Herts, 08/05/2009 14:51
Report abuse
I wish UK would put up a fight to maintain their culture and sovereignty....and I hope I see many in the USA do the same! There is no common sense in this world, it seems.
- Bobc, Ky USA, 08/05/2009 13:35
Report abuse
Is there nothing out there that the present government wouldn't interfere with?
- Rogan, Irving, 08/05/2009 13:03
Report abuse
This is rich!!! After today's expenses revelations, I think Andy Burnham has lost all political credibility. Before bleating on about socialism in football and redistributing wealth he ought to have a long hard look in his own grubby little back yard.
- Goggs, London, 08/05/2009 12:55
Report abuse
So everyone goes down to the lowest common denominator. Remember under Labour we are all winners and there are no such things as loosers.
- Ayliff Mcnab, Spain, 08/05/2009 11:01
Report abuse
