The English Premier League (EPL) was officially founded on 20 February 1992. The formation of the league marked a significant change in English football as the top clubs broke away from the traditional Football League, which had served as the top tier of English football since 1888. The inaugural season would start on 15 August 1992. It would change English football forever.
By the 27th of May 1992 all 22 clubs from what was then the First Division resigned en masse from the Football League to join the new competition. No doubt all believed that they would benefit from the money that would flow directly to them rather than to the Football League. This was because the Founder Members Agreement created before the League was announced, was based on the new league establishing the principles for it’s commercial independence. No doubt all believed that they would be better off, none considering that they could be one of the team’s relegated.
it would also appear that none of the clubs considered the long term impact this could have on the club of which they were custodians if they were relegated.
No doubt when the new League was backed by a landmark five-year, £304 million television deal with Sky and the BBC they were all rubbing their hands with glee. Many started spending money like drunken sailors.
Since the start of the English Premier League 32 clubs who have played at that level have subsequently gone into administration. That is 32 clubs out of the 51 who have played in the Premier League since 1992 at the start of the 2025/26 season. That means that 62% of all clubs who have graced the Premier League have since gone into administration.
For those unfamiliar with the term ‘going into administration,’ it means an insolvent, or in some cases nearly insolvent company is placed under the control of an independent, licensed professional called an administrator. The aim of appointing an administrator is to provide the club or business with “breathing space” from legal action by creditors. This breathing space gives the experts time to determine if the business can be saved, restructured, or sold to achieve a better result than the club closing it’s doors.
One of the interesting facts when looking at the English Premier League is that only six clubs have played in every single season since the EPL started in 1992: These six clubs are: Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur.
Only Chelsea were not part of the 1990 meeting with the then Managing Director of London Weekend Television Greg Dyke with representatives of the other five clubs to discuss a breakaway League. David Dein of Arsenal, Philip Carter of Everton, Noel White of Liverpool, Martin Edwards of Manchester United and Irving Scholar of Tottenham Hotspur were the men who attended that meeting.
Not only did the men around this table know that as the big five they were likely to make their positions stronger, but as shareholders in each club they knew that they individually would reap the benefits personally, and most definitely have.
There were many who warned that this was a league built on greed and that English football would pay a heavy price in the long term. The fabric of English football and the Football Leagues has paid a massive price as more and more clubs overspend to try and compete.
One of the great earners for lower league clubs was always a good cup run and a home game against a big club. An away game was okay ,and the hope of forcing a replay at home, but in 2024/25 the FA stopped replays. This was said to have been at the request of the Premier League clubs who claimed that there were already too many games. With gate receipts shared with 45% going to each team and 10% to the FA this is a potentially big blow for those outside the Premier League.
Manchester City has joined the “Big Five” in recent times and Chelsea, despite being in the EPL since 1992, is on the outer. While the broadcasting rights was a key revenue raiser at the start of the EPL, it reamins so today, but no longer with teh rights in the UK. When teh rights were renegotiated for the period from 2019-2022 the value of the overseas broadcasting rights rose 35% to £4.35 billion. This meant that now 46% of the league’s broadcasting revenue comes from overseas.
Previously, every club in the Premier League received an equal share of the overseas revenue, but in 2019 it was revealed that the Big Six would receive up to an alleged £80 million more than the league’s bottom sides during the three-year cycle.
Is there no end to the greed? What will be a huge concern is the news that EPL viewing figures are dropping due to the predictable and dull fare being served up by teams, and coaches looking to avoid defeat as opposed to trying to win.
Unfortunately, the EPL has had an impact well beyond the British Isles. Other leagues had to match the salaries on offer to keep star players and attract their share of the best, to make their competitions attractive.
For decades in many leagues around the world there were clubs who had a reputation for developing young players. They knew that they were unlikely to keep those players but the transfer fees often kept that club afloat financially. Fans hated to see these players leave but took pride in the fact that they had started their career at their club, and that link would always be there.
Before the 1980’s and early 1990’s there were very few top clubs who invested in youth. They had youth teams but there were no academies like we have today. These were the result of a 1997 report by Howard Wilkinson. Once the report was completed and digested the FA introduced the official Academy system. This led to the creation of the Premier Academy League in 1998, which featured Under-19 and Under-17 sections.
Many believed that this was a way for the clubs to avoid having to pay huge fees to sign players. If they could identify talent at a younger age, and have them in their academies they would save millions of pounds. Those who were not going to make it would simply be discarded or on some occasions were sold to lower division clubs. Suddenly some of the clubs in the lower divisions found themselves having to pay for players they previously would have developed, because the lure of a Premier League club saw young talent ignore them in search of that pot of gold.
To be fair to FIFA, despite all of the criticism that they receive, those at the helm at the time clearly saw what was likely to happen with the dawn of the Academy, and the poaching of players. So in September 2001 FIFA established the current regulatory system for compensating training clubs. The aim was to reward developing and “small” clubs for their investment in young talent.
This fell under two categories. The first was the Training Compensation (Article 20): This was intended to see money paid to the clubs that helped develop the player when they sign their first professional contract, or when a professional player is transferred internationally up until their 23rd birthday. The amount is calculated based on standardized training costs divided into four club categories.
The second category is the Solidarity Mechanism (Article 21): This applies to international transfers of professional players before the expiry of their contract. In this category 5% of any transfer fee is supposed to be redistributed to all clubs that contributed to the player’s training between the ages of 12 and 23.
Of course by having the professional clubs suddenly have academy sides in the lower age groups this meant that they minimised any payments that were required.
Equally, someone had to police this. In countries like Australia the clubs often do not want to prevent a player going on and playing at a higher level, and so when pressured have caved in and foregone their development fee. Others have simply never received what is owed. As was the case with one Australian International, who had a 14 year career overseas. His junior club never received a cent from the club he signed for in Europe, because no one asked.
The academy system has proven to not be all that it is made out to be. For a great insight into this system read Michael Calvin’s “No Hunger in Paradise.” Here it is revealed that despite the promises made to parents, “only 180 of the 1.5million boys who play organised youth football in England will become a Premier League pro. That’s a success rate of 0.012 per cent.
So what hope those in academies outside the top tier of football in countries around the world?
Once again many nations have simply tried to copy the English Premier League set up, without giving the whole development area of the game the thought and attention it deserves.
In Australia the National Premier Leagues brought in a points system for players based on age, experience, loyalty to the club etc. Coaches could only have so many points on the field at one time. What this did was change the highly competitive state league competitions into development leagues.
As many who had been around the game tried to point out, but those in the ivory towers chose not to listen, these leagues were already developing players. They had been supplying the national competition with players since the NSL commenced in 1977. Young players would be given an opportunity in their club side when they were good enough. Often it would be a tough learning curve. Some would prove they were up for it, others showed that they weren’t. This is the evolution of sport, finding your level. Not everyone is good enough to play internationally, yet some will be outstanding players at the level below.
Players were used to the hurly burly of a competitive league. Yes, they needed to improve in certain areas when they stepped up, but now the A-League clubs bemoan that fact that many are not ready. That it takes two years to prepare a player for the A-League.
There are many who have said that the academy system was another example of greed. This is debatable. However the A-League clubs having youth teams some would say it has been calamitous.
As now many young players are being signed up, and they are sold a dream, just like the academy players in England, that this is a guaranteed pathway to professional football. First of all there are no guarantees in sport, especially the higher you go. The word “pathway” is so overused in sport today. It is still a path if it leads somewhere, but “pathway” implies that all who take that chosen path will succeed. Of course they will not.
What we are in fact witnessing now is how the system can in fact now work against a player.
A-League clubs are signing up young players to play in the local competition, but wearing their colours and representing their club by name. These players are supposed to be the cream of the crop of youngsters and that is why they have been snapped up by the professional clubs; although not on professional contracts.
Many, in fact most, will never make it through to the professional ranks and a contract in the A-League. They are discarded along the way, for them there is a major roadblock on the pathway.
As they have been told how good they are and that they can make it into the professional ranks, some go away and work hard and earn themselves a second chance and trials with other clubs overseas.
Then, if they are fortunate to be offered a contract this is when the trouble starts. As there is the compensation that this club has to pay out to the developing clubs. The A-League clubs sit there with their hand out waiting for their financial windfall.
As one cynic explained, ‘maybe this is why they sign and discard so many players, to ensure that they will receive something if one of these players does make it!’
The pertinent question here is should a professional club be entitled to any training compensation fees or solidarity payments if they have had a player and then discarded them? Surely if they believed the player was good enough they would have kept them, and in time hoped to make money from a sale to another club. They have had the chance to assess the said player at close quarters and over a period of time and decided that they will not make it to the top. Surely by making the decision to let the player go they relinquish any hold on that player? By cutting the player surely that end’s their entitlement to a slice of the development pie?
It would certainly make the path easier for many of the players who have been passed over if this were the case, as the training compensation fees or solidarity payments have frequently been a stumbling block and have seen contract negotiations come to an end with the new club they are hoping to resurrect their career with.
The training compensation fees or solidarity payments were about protecting and helping to sustain the grassroots clubs who find the diamonds and start polishing them in readiness for a possible career in football. FIFA saw that these clubs were facing extinction unless there was a mechanism to reward them for their part in a player’s development. Sadly, so many clubs have missed out on money owed to them because they simply do not have the manpower to submit a claim.
Those administrating the game are ideally placed to assist the clubs and the game as a whole by submitting and pursuing these claims, simply do not appear to care. Yet their role is to protect and promote the best interests of the game. Now these clubs are seeing their potential windfall being cut as the A-League clubs steal players away with promises of a career, only to cut them two years later. The clubs then have to pick the pieces up and reaffirm the belief in that player’s ability. So they deserve every dollar that comes their way should that player carve out a career in the game.
Some have suggested that all of the training and Compensation fees should be waived when a player signs their first professional contract, but the player in question should have to disclose which club/coach had the biggest influence on them reaching this stage, and that all monies should go to that club. This would encourage club’s to do the right thing by players; however it could be open to a player being influenced in their choice.
Another view is that football adopts a similar model to the PGA golf where 2% of their earnings until they are 23 are held and then shared amongst the clubs they played for as they rose through the ranks. Would that include a professional club’s youth system? Many feel very strongly that it should not.
The truth is the time has come where FIFA must add a clause to Article 20 and 21 that says if a player has been released by a professional club’s youth system before signing their first professional contract, the professional club in question will NOT be entitled to any training compensation fees or solidarity payments?
This would ensure that the grassroots clubs do indeed receive what they deserve, although the mechanisms for claiming those entitlements has to be easier.
.
