Champions League English Premier League Football General Sport Summer Sports Transfers UEFA Uncategorized


Well how about that. 18 out of the 20 premier league clubs have voted to change the way sponsorship is done at the clubs suck a monumental vote that is more one sided then o feel we have ever seen in regards to the premier league. 

And while it will affect some of those who have voted for it, these changes of made permanent will be in my opinion great for the game moving forward. Now to explain what is exactly being proposed going forward. 

Firstly as has been stated elsewhere by a certain teams supporters this is not being done to stop their new ownership. This is being to make all teams more accountable to the FFP (financial fair play) moving forward. 

Newcastle’s new owners addressed the squad and Steve Bruce on Monday (Image: GETTY)

Secondly this as stated earlier at the beginning of this post a huge 18 of the 20 teams have voted to bring in a new ruling that any sponsorship for a team, their ground or their training facilities can in no way be connected with the ownership party of the team. While that may seem unfair the fact that only 2 teams didn’t vote for it is a sign that all teams and officials are in the same boat when it comes to this call. 

Now it comes to the 2 teams that didn’t agree that being Manchester City and the newest rich team in the league Newcastle United. Manchester City decided not to vote so they abstained while clearly Newcastle voted against, which I can’t say is surprising given the fact both sides are seeking to challenge the legal validity of this proposal. 

Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour with chairman[-]
Khaldoon Al Mubarak (left) during the Barclays Premier League match at the City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester. (Photo by Martin Rickett/PA Images via Getty Images)

The reason that these teams will be looking to challenge any new rule of this nature going forward is if you look at city for example they already have major sponsorship deals in place that link back to their owners. Newcastle on the other hand since their new owners have been in charge of you look anywhere you can see that they are already linking up with potential new sponsors that shock horror are linked with the new owners. 

While this may not seem like a major issue at the moment the major point as I said earlier is the FFP in where as a club on a rolling 3 year cycle you can not lose more then £105 million out of your financial accounts. This gets to be a bigger problem from here as if a team’s ownership has a sponsorship deal with a company they are linked to them what is stopping these owners from doing something dodgy and inflating the money coming in to counteract against the losses. 

Admittedly this could hurt teams that are already in sponsorship deals with connections to the teams owners but there is the catch. This deal whilst yes causing these issues would not be applied retrospectively to these teams, that to me though now creates an issue going forward in regards to these sponsorship deals. 

Leicester City’s King Power Stadium(Image: Plumb Images/Leicester City FC via Getty Images)

What happens when these deals are almost up? Can they be renewed for longer? Will the clubs have to find new sponsors? I think that’s one thing that will need to be looked at. Look at Leicester as another example with their stadium being named the “King Power” which is a company operated by the team’s owner. 

What will happen when the naming rights deal is up? What I I want to know is will they be barred from expanding the deal or will they still be allowed to continue the sponsorship of the stadium, and if they can how is the price worked out? 

This for me seams like the right time, as I along with my friends and that includes some of those here at Fanbabble have said in the past to look at the 50+1 model that is in use in Germany. Admittedly it would be a shock to the current owners but with being a Charlton fan I know from previous experiences with owners who screwed us over to the point of almost extinction. 

Image taken from

But back to the rule change, the fact that it has been voted for 18-2 to me says 2 things. 1 the traditional style owners are sick of these big money investors coming down n and ruining the fabric of the game. 2 the majority of the teams who had been involved with what now appears to be the failed “Super League” (despite the fact some teams still believe it will happen) trying to get back in the good graces of the other teams they compete with. 

I for one looking at all these truly feel like what is being done should have been done long before now. At the same time I can not see the justification from “The Toon” that this is a punishment against them for having owners with money to spend on the team going forward.

However, I think that there is still plenty to work out in regards to the roll out of the changes and how they will effect all teams in the premier league now and any teams who gain promotion going forward given the wealth of money now coming into some of the teams that are almost in the premier league. Once those issues are sorted out and fine tubed then i feel we may be one step closer to having the real premier league back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: