That said it’s not so clear that the Big Four would necessarily want to cut their ties with English football (though Manchester United might, I think) since domestic football does provide them with a fallback that wouldn’t be there if they opted for Europe and only Europe. (Though on the other hand, one can’t imagine – regrettably – that they wouldn’t be allowed back if they asked.)

over the last ten to fifteen years, the audience for association football has expanded massively, and the new supporters have overwhelmingly attached to a small number of clubs.

Actually this wouldn’t quite be my view, though it might depend on what we mean by “supporter”: pretty much all clubs have experienced considerable increases in attendances, the actual paying spectator isn’t so unevenly distributed. But of course the “passive” spectator, the TV audience, is indeed overwhelmingly attracted to the Big Four. Pandora’s Box if ever there were one.

Incidentally, I’m fairly sure that the clubs who voted for the Premier League didn’t really anticipate this, expecting (and welcoming) the gap that would grow between them and the lower divisions, but not so much the chasm between them and the CL entrants. However, from their point of view – considered as individuals rather than custodians of football clubs – it doesn’t really matter, since who cares if the club you run ends up winning nothing and owing fifty million quid, provided you’ve made millions yourself in the interim?

I think the underlying reality here, with which your points and mine would both be consistent, is that over the last ten to fifteen years, the audience for association football has expanded massively, and the new supporters have overwhelmingly attached to a small number of clubs.

I’m not sure this is right, by the way, simply because I can’t recall it ever being proposed, not seriously anyway. I don’t suppose there’s any confusion with the situation in Scotland, where the Tweedles definitely want to leave and the other clubs don’t want to let them?

I think that if people say they’re bothered, and keep on saying that they’re bothered, it’s as well to take it that they’re bothered. I mean I’m bothered, I know I am. Wouldn’t stop me paying to watch my team if I didn’t live a thousand miles away, but I know I’m not making it up.

It’s a big mistake to confuse “people watching their own side” with “people’s attitudes to football generally”. In economics it’s not necessarily a mistake, since you don’t usually contribute much money to clubs other than your own (obviously there are various minor direct and indirect ways in which you may, but the great bulk goes to the club you follow) but then again economics isn’t everything. There’s been a great sea-change in attitudes towards the top clubs, and for that matter a certain change in attitudes of the fans of those clubs towards the clubs themselves: given that sport is basically about meaning, I think this has a certain importance. Of course we could take the view that what people say and feel doesn’t matter as long as they keep shelling out – but do we really wish to?

The respective boards of Spurs and Newcastle, for example, certainly didn’t want to end the oligopoly at the top – they just wanted their team to be in it.

Well for sure, and also look at all the stupid bastards who voted for the Premier League and then fell out of it. But what’s that to do with anything?

Chelsea weren’t a top four club before Abramovitch.

Well, four top four finishes in the six seasons before his takeover might suggest otherwise. But of course it’s his money that’s consolidated that position – certainly Chelsea used to occupy the same sort of wannabee position that, say, Spurs occupy now. (There could certainly have been a different Big Four had the timing been a little different. Leeds or Newcastle or Tottenham might have been in it: Arsenal or Chelsea might not have been.)

Depends very much on whether this was achieved by pure luck

Well, it used to be achieved by pure culture – the particular culture of English football in which supporting your local team had a much greater resonance than it does (or did) in, say, Scotland or Spain. There are certainly other leagues which have always, or for a very long time, been as uncompetitive as the English now is – Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Holland and so on. But England wasn’t and while I’m sure that television was bound to break that down in the end, I don’t actually think it needed to happen to the extent that it has.

I don’t think there needed to be a separate Premier League in order to sell football to television (any more than Castleford needed to merge with Featherstone, Rupert doesn’t have to have everything he wants) and I certainly don’t think there needed to be this bloated, horrendous “Champions’ League” in which you get to sit at the trough on the basis of coming fourth.

Again, you can claim this doesn’t matter because people will keep shelling out to watch Derby or Forest or Ipswich regardless of the impossibility of these clubs achieving what they did before. But you could ask the people shelling out: “what do you think about it?” and then you’d maybe have to ask yourself if you wanted to deny that the answers possessed real meaning.

A note: if you want the real success of English football over the past twenty years – vastly increased attendances, receipts and public interest – it’s not the Premier League. It’s the Conference.

OK, got it on second reading. Took me a while, because practically all the football supporters I know are either Man U (and think the dominance of the Big Four is great) or City (and think it would be great if only City could get into it). The latter do hate Man U’s dominance of the league, but that’s just because they hate Man U, always have hated Man U and always will hate Man U – they’d hate them just as much if they were relegated.

Depends very much on whether this was achieved by pure luck, or by something like a draft system which would make it impossible to put together anything like the actually existing Man U team.

The Celtic League, mentioned by Chris above, is AFAICS a bit more competitive than the old Welsh rugby union league (having followed more or less the model suggested by John in #149), with no obvious effect on attendances either way.

But if they keep on attending in increasing numbers and in the face of extortionate price rises, then I think you really do have to take it that they’re not that bothered. I also think we need to separate out people’s complaints about “uncompetitivness” and those which simply relate to their team not doing very well. The respective boards of Spurs and Newcastle, for example, certainly didn’t want to end the oligopoly at the top – they just wanted their team to be in it.

Also “Big Four” including Chelsea/sky/ski is retrofitted. Chelsea weren’t a top four club before Abramovitch.

What was your point about competitiveness, ejh? I wasn’t sure what you were saying people complain about.

Ah, this isn’t true. The empirical evidence consists of the fact that we complain about it all the time. People do, observably, hold this opinions and express them. It’s very widespread indeed.

However if (and only if) you restrict “empirical evidence” to observation of attendances, and take it that if people keep on attending then they’re not that bothered, then that’s another matter: but while continued attendance is scarcely irrelevant, it’s not the whole story.

a) they’ve filled at least three of the top four places in each of the last twelve seasons

b) they’ve filled all four places six times, including the last four seasons

c) since 2001/2 (Chelsea were sixth) none has finished lower than fifth

d) in the past three seasons the gap between fourth and fifth places has not been smaller than eight points.

FACT: prior to the introduction of the Premier League, there was no occasion on which the the top four of the top division were the same in consecutive seasons, let alone four (or more) Indeed there were only eleven occasions(ii) in which three of the top four places were occupied by teams that had been in the top four the previous season, and this never happened for more than two consecutive seasons, let alone twelve.

(i) probably

(ii) 1984/5 and 1985/6
1981/2 and 1982/3
1977/8 and 1978/9
1973/4 and 1974/5
1972/3 and 1973/4
1961/2 and 1962/3
1959/60 and 1960/1
1903/4 and 1904/5
1891/2 and 1892/3
1889/90 and 1890/1
1888/9 and 1889/90

(Where sets of two seasons overlap, e.g. 1888/9 and 1889/90, 1889/90 and 1890/1, it is not the identical three teams involved, so Preston Villa Wolves Blackburn becomes Preston Everton Blackburn Wolves becomes Everton Preston Notts County Wolves. Only two teams are common to both sets.)

But on this analysis, why not send the Big 4 off to a European Super-15 (or whatever) league and have a domestic competition where the final league table is of some interest?

Basically, this would make the domestic league irretrievably second-rate (NB that whenever this has been proposed in the past, it has been suggested by one or more of the Big Four, and vehemently opposed by the smaller clubs). Even more so if it didn’t have relegation and promotion.

Seriously, do fans of Championship teams bemoan their promotion to the Premier League, even though it means that they face a season of watching their team get repeatedly smashed, with small chance of survival and negligible chance of winning?

Liverpool lost only twice all season, to Middlesboro and Spurs.

Even in the 50’s the IL was a minor league in the sense that its teams likely had working agreements with specific major league teams, if they weren’t owned outright. Minor league baseball was locally popular lots of places, but was not the equivalent of the majors.

What changed was not only television, but also the increasing sophistication of the major league teams in the use of their minor league affiliates. The best minor league players go to the majors when rosters expand in September, pennant race or no. Injured major leaguers are sent to the minors for rehabilitation. AAA teams are generally used as a sort of safety valve/reserve vehicle for roster moves. All that makes it hard to establish loyalty to minor league teams.