Why the Big Four SHOULD share the Champions League wealth

I won't lie, part of me was disappointed when Barcelona dumped Chelsea out of the Champions League on Wednesday.

The reason for this is not because I hold a candle for Chelsea - fans of that team might not realise this, but they are a very difficult side to like, or these days even admire - but because it robs me of the chance to complain.

With mere seconds to go at Stamford Bridge I had this week's column all figured out. Not only are the same top four teams of the Premier League the same as they were last year, I was all ready to moan, but the final two teams in the Champions League are the same as well. And those two teams comprise one half of the PL's 'big four'.

How boring is that?

But, still, don't let the Catalan club's last minute heroics fool you: the dominance of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal of the Premier League, and, to a greater and lesser degree, of the Champions League itself, is strangling the life out of football.

Don't think so? Well answer me this: can you name the last team from outside this quartet to win the Premier League? (Answer at the bottom of this piece.)

I could ask another question: when do you think the next time a team from outside the 'big four' will win the Premier League?

Maybe when Hell freezes over?

It was revealed this week that the Government is also concerned about this state of affairs. Turns out Culture Secretary Andy Burnham - Mr Burnham happens to be an Everton fan - has held talks with Richard Scudamore, the Chief Executive of the Premier League. The Minister wants other clubs in the PL - that, by the way, is the overwhelming majority of clubs - to have a fairer shake of the money tree.

The Premier League - who, increasingly, first and foremost act in the interests of the big four - are said to be unhappy with this idea. No surprise there, then. No surprise either that the talks have broken up without agreement.

The phrase that is being used by the Government is "competitive balance". Surely even those who most vocally support keeping the Premier League as it is can't seriously pretend that as a whole it has any competitive balance.

It is easy to get hysterical about the idea of those who have - and who each year use what they have to get more - giving some to those who don't have as much, and don't have any chance of getting any more. After all, why should Manchester United give Fulham money from their Champions League pot? What are we, communists?

Do yourself a favour, forget this argument. A league is only as strong as its weakest clubs, not as strong as its strongest.

In America the National Football League (NFL) understands this. It shares its revenues equally. That way, at the start of the season each team has a real chance of winning the Super Bowl. Oh, and despite being an international niche sport, the NFL is also the most profitable and successful league in the world.

Would it really be the end of the world if we at least discussed out loud some real reforms to the Premier Status quo? Things like introducing a wage cap, revenue sharing, ticket prices, a sharing of gate receipts, and quotas for English players.

The time is now to talk about these things. Because if in three years time the top four teams are still the top four teams, some of us will puke.

And many more of us will turn off.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed at the top? Blackburn Rovers, 1995

Read the rest of Ian Winwood's column here - and come back every Friday for more

Win a Golf 2.0 TDI 140 GT Sport