Richard Scudamore is not the most popular man on planet football. Despite masterminding one of the most enlightened, free-market success stories of modern times, the chief executive of the Premier League is a constant target of criticism from fans, pundits and the president of Uefa. Many seem to regard his stewardship of England’s top flight as symbolic of everything that has gone wrong with football and the world.

But after nearly ten years in the post, has he got used to the flak? “Well, let’s just say that it can still be frustrating,” Scudamore says at the Premier League’s headquarters in Central London. “You are fighting people’s preconditioned view of what football is supposed to be about. Nobody is ambivalent about football. We are probably up there with politics in the way people perceive things in terms of pantomime good and evil.”

For all the talk of greed, however, the reality is that the Premier League is a textbook model of the Third Way. The collective bargaining structure, in which half the domestic television rights income and all the foreign rights income is distributed equally among all 20 clubs, has delivered huge subsidies from the top clubs to the rest. The League also gave away nearly £125 million last year in payments to the Football League, the Football Foundation and other community and charity projects – a sum that is equivalent to the entire turnover of the top flight when Scudamore started his tenure as chief executive.

So why the allegations of selfishness? “Whose lunch have we stolen?” Scudamore asks. “Greed to me is if there are four cakes on the table and one person scoffs the lot. How can that allegation be made about the Premier League? The consumers have a choice, whether they are fans or television viewers. We have to provide a product they want to purchase, otherwise they would go elsewhere. That so many around the world enjoy watching the league is the reason why clubs have been able to improve stadiums and purchase the top stars. This in turn has enhanced the experience for fans in England.

“Have we harmed the rest of the football landscape? Average Football League attendances are up and could overtake Serie A by this time next year. The Football League has just enjoyed its best-ever TV deal, as has the FA. The Champions League doesn’t seem to be suffering, either, does it?”

Scudamore regards his greatest success as having kept intact the joint bargaining system, despite the forces threatening to tear it apart. “Holding the League together has been the greatest challenge and the greatest achievement,” he says. “The redistribution formula is flawed at any given time for all 20 clubs, but when you add all 20 views together, it functions and moves forward.

“The main reason the formula has held up is because the revenues are so large, enabling us to divide the income without the top clubs crying foul. If the centrally generated revenues were to plummet, the big clubs would start looking across at what is happening with their competitors in Italy and Spain, who get far more in relative terms through individual selling.”

Scudamore’s analysis is irrefutable. Last season, Manchester United earned £49.3 million from Premier League broadcast income, while Derby County, the bottom club, earned £29.1 million. In Spain, where television rights are sold individually by the clubs, Real Madrid earned €110 million (about £87 million) and Levante only €8 million. If United had to give up any more income to lower-ranked teams, the imperative for renegotiation of the formula – or for a breakaway league – would be irresistible.

But equally, the formula will not be sustainable if the League sits still, which is why Scudamore is committed to an international dimension – the so-called 39th game. “I don’t want an overseas element for the hell of it,” he says. “I know that the only way to preserve the central model is if we are allowed to grow commercially, enabling the top English clubs to continue to compete with international rivals who don’t have the same obligations to share the wealth. People laugh when I tell them that I am, politically speaking, a leftwinger. But I have always believed that you pile it high so that you can do something responsible with the money.

“People think that it is inevitable that the world will throw itself at the Premier League. We are competing in a fiercely competitive cultural marketplace. Half the world is still deciding if they are going to have a sporting ethos or not. And if they are, they have still to decide which sports they are going to be interested in. Even if they plump for football, there is no guarantee that they will give their loyalty to the Premier League.

“A meaningful international match is fundamental in order to exploit this nascent interest at a decisive moment in the global marketplace. This, in turn, will enable us to secure the long-term success of the League and the viability of collective bargaining.”

Scudamore is proud of the cash that the Premier League has provided for good causes. He spends about 20 per cent of his time trying to ensure that the many projects supported by the League are effective. “I have been heavily involved in charitable work from a young age,” he says. “My father suffered with polio and was the chairman of the British Polio Fellowship, so I spent a lot of time as a teenager organising holidays and such for disabled kids.

“The Premier League provides a lot of money to good causes, but it has the power to do much more. We have spent a lot of time developing education programmes, health programmes and diversity programmes where not a ball is kicked. Instead, we use the power of football, the badge of the club, the name of the player, the League, as a means of achieving social objectives. The Villa Vitality Scheme, for example, is a health and education scheme run in conjunction with the primary care trust where football plays no part at all.”

Scudamore has done an excellent job in steering the top flight through the choppy waters of globalisation, although his tenure has not been without blunders, not least the cack-handed way in which plans for “the 39th game” were first announced. But, is it not time for a little more balance in the way that the Premier League is perceived? “That would be nice,” he says.

Faith, hope or charity?

Is the Premier League’s so-called commitment to good causes anything more than PR spin? Consider the following:

Last season the League gave away nearly £125 million in payments to the Football League, the Football Foundation and other community and charity projects. Few other organisations in the UK donated as much to good causes.

One of the newest initiatives is the Premier League/PFA Community Fund, which is investing about £13 million over three years on social and community projects. Kickz is an example. It involves all 20 Premier League clubs (and 11 more in the Football League), working with local police to help to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in disadvantaged areas. Clubs are also offering young people a chance to play basketball, box or learn how to DJ and MC.

Improving children’s education is another area where football clubs are playing a big part. All of them run a project called Playing for Success. Every club have a classroom in which qualified staff teach children mathematics, English and even foreign languages. More than 250,000 youngsters have taken part since the scheme started some ten years ago.

Scudamore on . . .

6 plus 5 “The fundamental problem is that it is not legal, according to EU law. But even if its legality was not an issue, I do not think our clubs would want it. The League has been successful because it has been open and inclusive. The benefits of the freedom of movement of players has enhanced the quality of the football on offer and outweighed any downsides. To be honest, any form of protectionism is an anathema.”

The FA “There is nobody alive who understands where the job of the FA starts and ends and where our job starts and ends. I have been chief executive for almost ten years and I am quite happy to say I don’t know exactly how the relationship between us is supposed to work. The spheres of responsibility are often developed simply by coexisting and getting on with it. So you err on the side of caution and try to bring people along with you if you can."

Foreign ownership “I don’t think nationality is at all relevant. What matters is whether potential owners have been guilty – not suspected or accused – of a crime, in which case they should not be involved. It is also vital that they abide by our rules when they get here. And, to be frank, the new foreign owners have, in many ways, been more compliant than some of the owners we had in the past. You can only speak as you find.”