It was the prospect of earning more money that originally brought the Scottish Premier League clubs together, and it is the same inclination that is now dividing them again.
Each team is protecting its own interests, but that then leaves the question: who is thinking about what is best for Scottish football as a whole?
It should be the SPL teams. The moment they chose to break away from the Scottish Football League to set up their own top tier, they were taking on responsibility for the state of the game at the highest level in this country. All 12 clubs own a share in the SPL, they run it, and so they have an obligation to make decisions that seek to strengthen and improve the top-flight; they do not have the luxury to be driven solely be self-interest. Yet both the Old Firm and the Gang of Ten non-Old Firm clubs accuse each other of that, of guarding their own imperatives.
It is self-defeating to damn either side. Celtic and Rangers are responsible for generating the vast majority of Scottish football income, through the broadcast deal, commercial and sponsorship arrangements, and for maintaining the European co-efficient. They are global brands, two of the biggest clubs in world football, with a rivalry that is unique, and they should be valued by Scottish football. They should not, however, be allowed to run the game on their own terms.
The Gang of Ten are responsible for the situation they find themselves in, having agreed to the 11-1 voting rights in their rush to leave the SFL behind and, on the coat-tails of the Old Firm, chase extra revenue. Short-term decisions made then continue to hamper Scottish football, but short-term decisions being made now will do the same.
Rangers and Celtic want to protect their income, and are happy to browbeat the other SPL clubs, knowing that they are the wealth generators. In that case, the game will remain in the state it is in just now: weakened, uncertain, unable to flourish to its full potential. Yet the same applies to the Old Firm. Their argument is that they would be diminished by a fairer split of the television revenue, while the change to the 11-1 voting majority, to say 9-3, would leave them vulnerable to the greed of other clubs, specifically on the issue of splitting gate receipts (even although the Gang of Ten insists this is not on their agenda).
Giving a little more money to the other clubs, and taking a little less each, would not significantly weaken Rangers or Celtic. The TV revenue represents a small percentage of their income, but would be a large percentage of the income of the other 10 clubs. The Old Firm could comfortably absorb the small, in relative terms, drop in revenue, while at the same time allowing their fellow clubs to strengthen. If they are uncomfortable about changing the voting, then they could ring-fence sensitive issues, such as gate receipts, and open up more decisions to a 9-3 majority. What do they need the other 10 for? Competition. So why stifle it?
What if Dundee United had not needed to sell, or allow to leave, so many members of the Scottish Cup winning team? What if Motherwell, despite finishing either second or third this season, hadn't already told Stuart McCall, the manager, to cut his budget next season? Other SPL clubs carry debts, but they are all – perhaps Hearts apart – running on stable, if narrow, financial limits. Some more income would make a significant impact. And a stronger overall SPL makes for a stronger Rangers and Celtic. This is the law of sporting competition, not the law of capitalism.
It is misleading to say that football clubs are businesses and so must submit to economic imperatives. They are not conventional businesses, they are social and community, as well as sporting, bodies. Competition is healthy. Running a league by self-interest, and for the benefit of only two of its 12 clubs, is short-sighted. The better the SPL is as a whole, the better its individual parts must be.
The Old Firm, and the rest of the SPL clubs, have a responsibility to do what is right for the game. Where is the consensus? Who is prepared to act radically, instead of just talking about it?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article