Everybody pretty much agrees that the rules favour six clubs, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it at the moment.
The problem lies in the fact it takes 14 clubs to vote through a change. Which sounds good, as theoretically it means those six clubs can't stop the rules being changed. But the reality is that not every club feels the rules are restricting them.
If the 14 clubs voted to bin the current restraints and open spending up, what are they voting for? Straight away they could be adding another two clubs to the six already outspending them.
If you are Brighton, Brentford, or Bournemouth, who aren't really competing with the top six, but would see themselves as competing along with Villa and Newcastle for those 8 European slots, would you want to vote to potentially establish a top 8? You're just making your own task harder.
For everyone else in the Premier League, the rules effectively set a maximum cost of competing. How many owners / investors want that cost to increase without a tangible increase to their rewards? Why double your losses to still stay mid-table or lower half? Why make it easier for new teams coming up to catch up with you and potentially take your place?
This is why the rules that are obviously broken have not been changed in any significant way. I don't see them being adjusted significantly without something fundamentally changing or some external force coming into play.
Should English teams no longer be able to compete in Europe, I think that would see a change happen. But at the end of the day, with only a couple of clubs really suffering from it there's just not enough impetus to make big changes happen.
