After that? A review to make sure that they make bigger returns to their communities via tax paid.
It never stops, does it?
The P³ also entirely misses the point of what the superleague is trying to do:
Third, none of these clubs looks to be in a good financial position. The trend is for tiny profit margins on revenue and heavy gearing – meaning most are very vulnerable to debt repayment.
Yes, entirely so, it’s a standard analysis of European sports clubs with leagues and promotion/relegation that near all revenue will flow through to the players who gain the promotion/avoid the relegation. This does not happen in American sports leagues where promotion does not happen and also there’s a hard payroll cap.
What’s really needed?
Some serious debt right off by their owners, for a start.
And some serious pay cuts for players, next.
Then there is a requirement to ensure that they can live within their means – and not require ongoing finance to cover losses as a part of their business model.
Which is exactly what the superleague is trying to do. Introduce the American-style monopolistic positions of the extant teams with a hard payroll cap. Therefore less will flow through to the players, more can be used to pay down debt, provide a profit to owners and reduce the need for continual capital inflows.
This is all known stuff. The Sports Economist did a whole book on it a few years back if memory serves.
So, what’s the P³ recommending? What the superleague is trying to do even as he opposes what the superleague is trying to do. Well done there, well done that man.