- The competition winner would receive just 1.5 times more than the bottom side. By comparison, that ratio in Spain’s La Liga is closer to 3.5 times
This is good, and would make for a more competitive ESL.
It also makes it less appealing to the money men to actually win it or compete. Why bother signing new players if prize money is practically irrelevant
- The 15 “founding clubs” of the Super League would share 32.5 per cent of these commercial revenues
This percentage needs to be smaller, imo.
This is ridiculously big, as you say.
- A further 32.5 per cent would be distributed between all 20 participating teams, including the five sides invited to play in the competition each year
And this one needs to be bigger.
The fact the 'founding clubs' get ANOTHER share of 32.5 is disgusting.
- The final 15 per cent would be shared based on broadcast audience size
I'd like to see an additional commitment to parachute payments/funding of national leagues in order to help grass roots football.
I don't have that much of a problem with this as a standalone rule, but you're right, do the 'bigger clubs' really need more on top of what they're getting. This could be used much better
- Super League clubs have committed to using only 55 per cent of their revenues on “sport spending”, such as player salaries, transfer and agent fees, according to people familiar with the terms
Good. But only if some of the remaining 45% is earmarked for improvement of local neighbourhoods and youth development. If it all goes to the owners, they can feck off.
Agree. But like you say, it's very important to see where the rest goes. I suspect we already know.
.