Twenty years ago the Football Association agreed to the ­formation of the Premier League. While the latter has gone from strength to strength, the former struggle with their supposed authority over football in this ­country. As England manager in 1992, although never party to any of the many meetings that took place, I was kept reasonably informed as to the progress of the formation of the new league, mainly by chief executive Graham Kelly and technical director Charles Hughes. The fact that the league was going to consist of only 18 clubs would, of course, have been of great benefit to the national team. That it remained at 22 clubs for its first three years before settling to its present number of 20 does, in my opinion, reflect badly on the FA, who from that moment never recovered the authority that they once owned. There were many conflicts of interest, with a number of club chairmen and directors sitting on various Football Association committees. Saying one thing out of committee, but voting exactly the opposite in committee was rife. The pressure for some people was intense and both Kelly and Hughes suffered from that. I clearly remember them bursting into my office at Lancaster Gate one morning both angry and frustrated following a meeting which had allowed the clubs to stay at 22. Both men realised that, with the probability of football changing in Europe, as it has done, the welfare of the national team was simply being disregarded. I myself was asked to publicly support the formation of the Football Association Premier League (it’s not called that now!) but refused on the basis that it was not only breaking up the football family of 92 clubs, but was being formed on the basis of power and financial greed. I still believe that to be true. Having said that, 20 years on, it would be totally wrong of me not to recognise the changes. The quality of the stadiums, the pitches, the pace of the game have all improved dramatically. But at what cost? Apparently Norwich City were the first club this season to field an all-British team. The money in the Premier League has attracted some top foreign players and, in many respects, has made the league what it is today. But for every foreign player who has made it, I can name you two who have not. The wealthy foreign ownership of many of the clubs has increased the popularity of the league abroad, bringing in even more money from overseas television. But wealthy people, be they British or foreign, do not take charge of our clubs to stop being wealthy. Almost everything seems to be based on money. We all seem to be aware of players’ salaries but, believe me, the non-football people do very well. It would make very interesting reading if we could all be made aware of the salaries of the owners, chairmen, chief executives, financial directors and directors of all the Premier League clubs. It is not just the players who are on top salaries. Our national game has been taken over by money and so it is no surprise that it is recognised as the best league in the world. Why is it, then, that over half our top clubs would go into administration if all their debts were called in?Nothing surprises me in football, certainly not since 1992.‘Kelly and Hughes realised the national team’s welfare was being disregarded’