FFP

[toshes mate]

What came first the so called Big Six or the media manipulation of a marketing opportunity that homed in on this group because they were seen as the easy money from a broadcast revenue perspective? When you play monopoly the financial risk is more manageable but is the audience, on the whole, less fulfilled?  Competition may be financially hazardous for participants but is it much more rewarding and productive long term?  History suggests the answers to both the latter questions is yes.

The answer the later two questions is "Yes", but the blame on destroying the league system lies firmly with the fans rather than the media.

The Media's job was to make money, which they have done unbelievably well. The English fans (unlike the German fans) were happy to be feed whatever the media gave them and buy shirts from only the Big Six Clubs.

For sure some fans (e.g. those supporting the so called Big Six) bought into the monopoly trap with the assistance of a political decision to allow exclusivity of coverage within the contract.  What would have been the state of play had the exclusivity of coverage been refused?  We don't know and so I think it is bit remiss of you to blame all fans.   I am sure that teams in the lower leagues would love Saturdays as they once were when so many people would go to a local game just to see the football and hope their team would win because there was no live media coverage.

There are so many ways the existing coverage could be improved to the benefit of all football clubs and not just the chosen few to be adored by armchair fans who have the means to pay an expensive subscription and be guaranteed that their team, more often than not, could be seen live on TV.   As has been solidly stated elsewhere on this thread repetition may give the appearance of competition but it soon wears thin especially for the bit teams.   There must surely be a better way of handling the game so that it retains is integrity and honesty as a professional sport and not a gravy train.