Not everything he’s written has been well received on Tyneside over the years, but Martin Samuel’s latest piece for The Times on the anti-competitive PSR rules introduced by the Premier League is well worth a read.
He insists that Newcastle are one of several clubs being ‘handicapped’ by spending rules that ‘only serve to maintain the status quo’ in England’s top division. Samuel believes it’s a purposely flawed system that stops the likes of Newcastle, Forest, Brighton or Brentford ‘getting too good’ in a bid to protect the ‘big six.’
One section of his piece that hits the nail on the head features Alexander Isak, where he writes: ‘After Alexander Isak scored the winning goal against Arsenal on Saturday, he was talked of as having passed his audition, because Isak is the striker Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta has his eyes on to bolster his forward line and relieve Kai Havertz.
‘Yet why should a club that is backed by the wealth of Saudi Arabia have to sell their best goalscorer to Arsenal? It’s because profitability and sustainability requires Newcastle to pretend they are poor.’
He couldn’t be more right. We are backed by one of the wealthiest owners in world football (who arrived at a club without debt) with ambition to take us to the very top, yet there’s three constant themes that follow us. 1) The PSR rules don’t allow us to spend, 2) the ATP rules limit our ability to bring in lucrative sponsorship deals and 3) we’re constantly told we must make a big sale to free up funds. Make it make sense.
Samuel continued, explaining why the current rules seem specifically designed to limit our growth: ‘It keeps them (Newcastle) exactly where the elite wants them: tenth, at present, so that their finest players become frustrated and wish to leave. And where would they go? To the established elite, the ones who shape the rules to ensure they stay at the top — unless an upstart disruptor such as Nottingham Forest comes along and spoils it.
‘Newcastle, like Forest before them, may need to sell so they can buy. Yet selling could strengthen a rival, so the impact of buying has a diminished effect. Clever, isn’t it? And all because those elite entities were so unhappy about what almost happened to Portsmouth, when they nearly went bust, but didn’t, 14 years ago. They still haven’t got over it, poor lambs. That’s why they vote for these rules to ensure no club outside the Super League six ever attempts ambition again.’
The Premier League is often heralded the ‘best league in the world’. In many ways, it still is, but the days of Blackburn or Leicester winning the league will be long gone if they continue to insist on anti-competitive rules that don’t make sense.
Add Comment