The Whole Game Solution
If you were to ask me “What is the Whole Game Solution”, then my first, two word answer would be “a misnomer”.
There are just fewer than 6000 football clubs in this country offering Men’s Saturday Football. The whole game solution is a change to the structure for 100 of these clubs, and it clearly favours the requirements of 40 or less.
At the moment, the “Whole Game Solution” is, according to the EFL, a discussion document. I have not seen the full document, but the football league themselves have summarised the proposals and the reasons for them and this can be viewed at http://www.efl.com/news/article/2016/a-whole-game-solution-3119809.aspx.
After the initial discussion during the summer’s AGM, the League has then had further discussions with the Premier League and the FA, and have then asked for club’s opinions on various options. This has been published on-line, http://www.fsf.org.uk/assets/Downloads/News/2016/SH-WGS-letter-to-clubs-August-2016.pdf and this gives more insight into the thoughts of those who are making plans.
Unfortunately, the letter in the second link is dated August 17th, and requested clubs to respond by the 2nd September, prior to the next club’s meeting on 22nd September. This letter was not initially released to supporters’ organisation, so while the League claim that they want input from all stakeholders including fans’ groups, the truth of the matter is that we are already playing catch up.
Despite being a board member of a supporters’ trust, and even though the trust has a fan elected director, I had not heard of the 2nd September deadline until it had passed. I do not know of any club that has asked for supporters’ opinions in this time span, but several have now promised some form of consultation before any clubs vote on final proposals at next summer’s AGM. It is just that supporters do not appear to be getting a chance to shape proposals first.
Indeed the clearest response was a rejection by AFC Wimbledon, but even this was done without consultation of those fans who are not on the trust board.
The base plan was a new structure with 100 clubs in a Premier League and a Four division English Football League. All divisions to have 20 clubs, with three promoted and relegated from each division. While the football league appear to demand the three up/three down between their structure and the Premier League, there is a notable omission where they do not specify whether they will keep two up/two down at the bottom of what will become League-3, or whether this could be increased or reduced.
In the initial proposal, it was claimed that although the number of teams each division of the League was being reduced from 24 to 20, the clubs would not suffer financially. The letter that followed in August shows that the one comment some clubs have made was to doubt this. The basis for such a claim is that the plan allows for a greater redistribution of wealth from the Premier League to the lower divisions. The trouble is that with a 17% reduction in number of matches played, and effective relegation for 24 clubs, (four from Championship, eight from League-1 and twelve from League-2), it is difficult to believe in this claim. The suggestion that some of the loss from lost games could come from increasing season ticket sales or reduced squad sizes is considered by many clubs to be fanciful at best. The league has admitted as much in the letter. The league claims that by freeing up more weekends for the Premier League, they can increase the TV contract amount, but then they also project reducing the weekends by taking a winter break
The Football League had a number of other questions on their mind. In particular, in response to the loss of income from the reduction of games, they have now suggestions a Championship of 20 and three division of 22, (requiring 14 new clubs, rather than 8). I can see the logic of reducing the numbers in the Championship, where the fact they also take international breaks, means there is an inordinate amount of midweek matches, but I would keep 24 at the lower levels.
Either not reducing or a lesser reduction in the number of games for lower division clubs would also mean they are slightly less reliant on the distribution of money from the higher leagues in order to keep the current fully professional set up. I believe my club currently receives between 25 and 33% of its income from these sources. If they were to balance the loss of 4 homes games, then this would be close to 50%. While one may see the Premier League footing the initial bill, if their own agenda is met; who can say what the situation will be five years down the line. It would be foolish to assume the supply of golden eggs being laid from the TV contracts will keep growing. If at some time in the future, the amount is reduced, or at least stops rising faster than inflation, will Premier League clubs (who earn the money) wish to reduce their largesse to the rest of the league?
The Football League has also asked where additional clubs should come from. To most supporters, this is easy – the best clubs in the National League should be promoted to fill vacancies. Maybe with some restriction to deny promotion to a minority who either do not have the facilities or have a poor financial model. A financial fair play rule as currently enforced in League-2 would be a slap in the face to the promotion prospects of clubs such as Eastleigh and Forest Green. However, that is not the only potential source of new teams. The idea of reserve/development teams in the league has already been raised, and slapped down by public opinion. Despite this the league clubs voted to take the extra cash on offer to degrade the already maligned EFL (Checkatrade) Trophy, by allowing some of these teams to enter. If there is a significant cash boost, would clubs vote now for them to join the league?
There is one other source of clubs that gets mentioned quietly on the sidelines, and this clubs outwith the English system. Top of the list here, as always are Celtic and Rangers, but there is also the thought that new clubs could be formed, simply to take up places. The word franchise, considered the ugly word of English football ever since Wimbledon morphed into MK Dons would be more accurately placed against new clubs, which could be in cities such as Belfast and Dublin. The franchise would be initial only – once a club had been installed in the league (possibly as high as championship level), promotion and relegation would come on the field. The problem with any such move is that while it is not against FIFA and UEFA rules, (there are plenty of other examples of clubs playing within a different country’s league), it must be approved by the FAs of both countries. The Scots would almost certainly rail against such a move, but one would be less ncertain that the two Irish organisations would.
The league also asked if they should consider regionalisation of the bottom two divisions of the new structure, so as we end up with League-2 North and League-2 South. Of course, regionalisation does not mean that every club in the division travels less distance. We are in a national league, with an average journey of 108 miles to away games. We share the ground with a club in a regionalised league and an average journey of 124 miles for away games. Regionalisation has two other effects, it reduces the scope for promotion, the promotion places being share by the two divisions, and it reduces the profile of the leagues. Hence the overall crowds would be less. While no other country has as many national divisions as England, many leagues have introduced new national divisions in recent years, and in France, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, this has resulted in some degree of increased attendances compared to the regional leagues. The expectation ought to be that regionalisation will reduce attendances overall, not increase them.
The subject of a winter break was brought up. I get the impression that this is more of interest to the top clubs than at our level. It is clearly possible to take two or three weeks out of the season, but these have to be replaced in some way. The options are increasing the overall length of the season, adding more mid-week fixtures or reducing the size of the division. The Premier League is not about to reduce its numbers, but it may add one Saturday at the start of the season, despite some managers complaining about the short break when it follows a tournament. Overall, a winter break would be accommodated by switching FA Cup rounds to mid-week. The unwritten addition to this is that replays would be scrapped as well, at least from the Third round onwards, (a third round replay would fall inconveniently within the break). At the moment, the suggestion is that two rounds, probably fourth and fifth, get switched to midweek. The reason for this is the International and European clubs calendar takes up so many mid-week dates that more could not be found. If two rounds get switched, then two more will surely follow. The French Cup already follows this pattern, with their equivalent of the third round on the same date as in England, and following rounds all mid-week (31 January, 28 February, 4 April, 25 April). With no replays, England could follow suit
Incidentally, long winter breaks are not common across Europe, despite the general opinion that all the rival leagues have them. Italy plays matches on the 22 December, and then returns 17 days later, the French do similar (with the cup when they return). Spain has two Saturdays off, but have cup matches every midweek, except the one between Christmas and New Year. The Bundesliga has been shortening the winter break as modern pitch technology means they can promise matches are on. They still take a full month off with games on 21st December and 21st January.
In order to get some better ideas, I have designed a short survey, please fill it in. I will publish the results if there is a significant response. Thanks