Let's not pretend we don't know the real intentions behind the binning of the blackout on the opening weekend.
The first match of the season is usually a decent gauge for likely attendances throughout the season.
Considering the fact this doesn't apply to the PL, means that the FA are perfectly happy to test waters with smaller clubs, but wouldn't want another battle with the self-important PL and all the big clubs with plastic fans who must be obeyed.
This move, imo, is to assess the impact on behalf of Sky, building towards 2029 when the existing PL TV rights deals end.
Between now and then, Sky will, I believe, increase the number of non-blackout weekends to apply substance to the argument they'll inevitably push upon the FA and UEFA to drop the blackout altogether.
Remember, it's only England, Scotland and Montenegro who apply blackouts, so the statute is pretty weak - weakened further by how much better Spanish, German and Italian clubs have been in Europe than English clubs who have enjoyed the protection of the statute, the bigger English clubs who have primarily generated absurd wealth as a result.
There's a valid argument that the statute is detrimental to football in this country in the modern age, partly because media focus is almost entirely honed in on the big clubs with big brands and big players with big egos, but also because status and credibility - earned or presumed - are now fundamental factors of life for so many younger fans.
Additionally, the blackout applies pressure on clubs and broadcasters to plop more matches into weekday slots, which aren't ideal at all for clubs like Argyle with all the travel involved.
On the flipside, the argument to retain the blackout also has some merit.
It certainly helps many of the smaller clubs financially - not all though, so this merit is pretty shallow.
Ultimately, imo, the blackout is an archaic measure introduced because a northern club owner got a little salty because the money in the sport started to filter out too far beyond the North and Midlands for his liking, reaching the South beyond London, and at the time there was still the phoney culture of Northerners blaming the South for all their ills. Much of that BS still remains.
The clubs that benefitted most from this blackout were - yes, you guessed right - all the already bigger clubs located in all the wealthier cities - London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham.
Hmm, how many of those cities are down South?
Don't presume that to be mere coincidence.
How many top-tier titles have been won by Southern teams outside of London?
Portsmouth twice, 48-49 & 49-50.
Silly me, Southampton and Bristol City each finished as runner up once, Portsmouth finishing third once - that's all better then, level playing field.
My point is that, in light of decades of national investment into the sport being centered almost entirely around the big cities, the clubs relevant to them are in no position whatsoever to talk about financial equality in the sport, just as those cities themselves are in absolutely no position to have any Burnham-like fool lecture the country about poverty and economic prospects - they can all stfu with their BS.
The blackout, IMHO, was taken as a tool by the Northern/Midlands/London-centric FA to further establish the power in the sport within the big cities - everyone else has had to scratch and claw their way in.
Now we also have to hear the waffle from that Ratcliffe fella about Wembley-of-the-North being paid for by us for Manchester - wtf?
So balls to the blackout, and balls to all the precious lot who want to further exploit the protectionism that is geared to serve them.
Bin it - permanently!
I enjoyed that rant immensely, cheers.
www.skysports.com
