On 11 July, the European Commission published a long-awaited strategy paper on sport and resisted calls to enforce certain elements of competition law on sport.

The argument is long and complex but basically boils down to whether something should be done to prevent the rich clubs getting richer and to allow greater redistribution of resources from sponsorship and TV money which would enable smaller clubs compete with the big boys.

The G-14 has lobbied hard on its members' behalf behind the scenes and the Commission is reluctant to take on the big boys. However, the worry remains that if the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea continue to get the bigger slice of the TV cake, and in turn have more resources to consistently qualify for the big European money, then the leagues will be dominated by a handful of clubs and fans will be driven away by the predictability of it all.

The US system has been advocated by sporting socialists whereby inequality is blunted by revenue sharing and even talent-sharing through a "draft" system. What the big clubs in Europe have argued is that if you increase equality, you take the competitive edge away from teams and players. The big clubs argue that football is different from other industries which require much tighter regulation. The question remains though . . .

is it better to have a few teams dominate or would a league benefit from more balanced contests between teams with little between them in terms of resources and talent?

Nobody believes that anyone outside the big four will win the Premier League next season or even beyond that. For the moment then, the rich will get richer but surely something should be done to share the wealth a little more fairly?