Why are there fewer and fewer Premier League teams from the North of England?

Before we go on, perhaps it’s time for a little game of geographical semantics. What is “The North”, exactly? In his book Pies and Prejudice, professional Northerner Stuart Maconie states that the North begins (or ends, depending on your direction of travel) at Crewe. So, in other words:

Chester: North
Wrexham: Not North

Chesterfield: North
Derby: Not North

Mansfield: North
Nottingham: Not North

Lincoln: North
Boston: Not North

We could argue about this all day, but that’s what we’re going with. From a footballing point of view, perhaps the most contentious point is whether Stoke City counts as part of the North or the Midlands. This fascinating messageboard discussion appears to conclude that Stoke is part of the north Midlands. Twitter appears to be split on the issue.

@jonathanliew it does not get North West tonight, so no

— Thomas Measures (@Measurt) May 13, 2015

@jonathanliew No. Stoke is actually the point of the infamous 'gravy line', where Northerners can no longer get gravy on their fish & chips.

— Matthew Stanger (@MatthewStanger) May 13, 2015

Important question: does Stoke count as part of 'The North'?

— Jonathan Liew (@jonathanliew) May 13, 2015

By a narrow majority, though, the prevailing wisdom was that Stoke was not part of the North. And if we apply Maconie’s “Crewe Test”, you’ll find the Britannia Stadium falling just south of the Crewe Line. So there you have it.

The downward trend

The first ever Premier League featured 10 northern sides out of 22 – Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Oldham, Blackburn, Leeds, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday and Middlesbrough. And over much of the next two decades, that proportion remained just about constant – around half, or just under. Leeds and the Sheffield clubs went into decline, but over time they were replaced by teams like Bolton, Sunderland and Wigan.

^{Newcastle United, an extreme example of northeness and terminal decline}

Over the last five years, though, something has happened. One by one, the small north-west teams dropped out of the division, and were replaced by southern clubs. Of the last 14 clubs to be promoted out of the Championship, only one – Hull City – has been from the North. Middlesbrough could join them, but more likely one of Ipswich, Norwich or Brentford will beat them to it.

We’re not going to make any wild hypotheses about why this might have happened – OK, maybe one or two – but what’s beyond doubt is the unmistakeable southward shift in the top-flight balance of power. What might have caused it? Here are some possible theories.

1) Total randomness

Which we can’t rule out, of course. The sample size of only a few years is quite small, and perhaps these are just natural fluctuations. Maybe Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich come straight down next season, and say Hull and Blackburn and Middlesbrough go up. We can’t rule it out. But given that next season’s Championship could have as few as seven northern clubs in it (and a maximum of 10), it’s unlikely.

^{Bournemouth will be part of a southern-centric top flight next season}

2) The dominance of the big northern teams

The last time the North was this poorly represented in the top flight was in the 1980s. The 1983-84 First Division had just four northern clubs out of 22. Not coincidentally at all, this period was also the heyday of clubs like Brighton, Norwich, Oxford, Luton and Crystal Palace. Nevertheless, most of the big prizes still went north: Liverpool and Everton shared eight of the 10 league titles that decade. Which begs the question: does power and money concentrate in the hands of a very small number of big clubs?

Perhaps the unprecedented growth of the two Manchester clubs has had a detrimental effect on the teams around them. Their scouting networks and marketing operations are more extensive than ever, allowing them to hoover up not just fans, but young players who might once have gone to teams like Bolton, Blackburn or Burnley.

But Jimmy Armfield, who spent his entire career at Blackpool before managing Bolton and Leeds, believes it works the opposite way. “One thing about Lancashire, and by that I mean the old Lancashire, is the competition,” he told the Yorkshire Post. “Where I live in Blackpool, I can drive for less than an hour and be at Preston, Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan, Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Everton or Burnley. The two Manchester clubs and the two Liverpool clubs were the catalyst for the success Lancashire has enjoyed. The other teams have had to pull their socks up to match them.”

3) The North is less attractive to players

Roy Keane wrote in his autobiography about how hard it was to attract players to Sunderland when he was manager there. “Sunderland is pretty bleak,” he said. “They wanted compensation for the cold and dark nights.”

^{Roy Keane struggled to attract players to Sunderland, even with a beard}

Foreign players, especially, make no secret of the fact that London is one of the most attractive footballing destinations in the world. Not that this is particularly new, of course. When Chelsea and Liverpool went in for Marcel Desailly in the summer of 1998, it was no contest. “I needed to have a French school nearby for my children,” he said. “So I opted for London; for Chelsea, for family reasons and for the quality of life.”

Tragically, only when he arrived would Desailly realise that West London is one of the most boring places on earth.

4) Politics

Going back through the history of top flight football in England, a curious pattern presented itself. The nadir for northern clubs came in the 1980s, a period of industrial strife and social turmoil for many parts of northern England. Conversely, the region rebounded strongly in the 1990s and 2000s, as business and investment sluiced into places like Middlesbrough and the Wirral. Leeds got a Harvey Nichols. The joke, ultimately, was on Leeds there.

Go back a little further, and there is still a decent correlation. Northern football declined under the Conservatives in the 1950s before briefly rallying under Labour in the 1960s, and then again in the 1970s. The following chart may be complete and utter nonsense. But maybe, just maybe, we could be on to something.

Again, perhaps all just a coincidence, but might the recent decline in northern Premier League football have anything to do with the party of government? George Osborne may talk about creating a Northern Powerhouse, but according to the think-tank Centre for Cities, the economic gap between north and south has actually widened.

For every 12 net new jobs created in the south of England in the last decade, it found, only one had been created anywhere else.

What could any of this have to do with football? The full and frank answer is we’re not entirely sure. But if money is the most important determinant of footballing success, then perhaps it’s hardly surprising that where economics goes, football follows. If you’ve got any bright ideas, do please share them in the comments below.

• Can you name the footballers as children?