Richard Masters, the chief executive of the Premier League, faced criticism after his remarks during a session with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on January 16, where he appeared to refer to Everton and Nottingham Forest as “small clubs.” This statement came in response to questions about the differences in how alleged breaches by Manchester City compared to those by Everton and Forest were being handled.
Masters’ comment sparked outrage among fans of both clubs, with many expressing frustration over perceived unequal treatment. Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, chair of the CMSC, subsequently wrote to Masters on January 26 seeking clarification on his remarks. She expressed concerns about the implication that clubs are categorized based on size and raised questions about whether every club in the league receives fair and consistent treatment.
In response to the backlash, Masters sought to explain himself and clarify his statement. The incident highlighted broader issues related to fairness and consistency in the Premier League’s disciplinary processes and raised questions about the treatment of clubs of varying sizes within the league.
In his letter to Dame Caroline Dinenage, dated February 8 and made public thereafter, Richard Masters sought to clarify his earlier remarks regarding the distinction between “big” and “small” clubs within the Premier League.
Masters explained that his response during the committee session was prompted by a question from a committee member who used the term “big clubs” in the context of suggesting that certain clubs might use legal means to delay or avoid disciplinary actions. Masters emphasized that the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) apply equally to all clubs, regardless of size or stature.
He further clarified that the Premier League does not use any criteria or classification to categorize clubs based on their size. Instead, all clubs are treated equally under the league’s regulations and guidelines.
Masters acknowledged the valued and respected status of clubs like Everton and Nottingham Forest within the Premier League. He highlighted their rich histories, passionate fanbases, and significant contributions to both the league’s competition and their respective communities.
Overall, Masters’ letter aimed to address concerns raised about the perceived differentiation between clubs and reaffirm the Premier League’s commitment to fairness and equality in its operations.
In his response to Dame Caroline Dinenage, Richard Masters clarified that his reflection of the committee member’s question did not intend to imply any unfair treatment based on club size. He emphasized that the Premier League’s rules are applied consistently and fairly to all clubs, regardless of their size or stature. His intention was to convey that the league’s board maintains a consistent approach in enforcing regulations.
Regarding the request for minutes of the board meeting where the Premier League’s “sanctions policy” was adopted, Masters declined to release them but assured that the cases of Everton, Forest, and Manchester City were being handled professionally. He explained that the cases were fundamentally different in nature and that he couldn’t provide detailed information due to confidentiality constraints.
Masters acknowledged the fans’ interest in on-pitch matters rather than financial regulations but stressed the importance of maintaining integrity and fairness throughout the league’s regulatory processes.