EPL: Do Decisions in the Premier League Go in Favour of the Bigger Clubs?

It has been well-precedented in recent weeks that key decisions made by referees in Premier League matches usually tend to favour the sides sitting at the top of the table.

This topic of debate is something that has plagued the English division not only since its reformation as the current EPL. From around the time of the great Leeds team—led by Don Revie in the 60s and 70s—that dominated the English league system, footballing fans have complained about unfair calls that benefit the sides in the title hunt.

It is certainly unquestionable that the likes of United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal (as well as City this season) receive favourable treatment from the referees in comparison to sides of lesser footballing pedigree.

This season has seen United awarded 10 penalties whilst conceding only three.

Since the start of the Premier League, Arsenal have been awarded a whopping 49 spot kicks (Robin van Persie has taken 25).

However, a stat that might intrigue you most is that, since 2006, Chelsea have on average conceded one penalty at Stamford Bridge every 18.3 home games.

That works out roughly at one penalty awarded at the Bridge against the Blues per season.

But it's not just penalties that go in the direction of the bigger teams. This weekend alone has seen three highly disputable goals given to teams in the top five.

Yesterday, both of Chelsea's goals against Wigan (a game they only won 2-1) were, by all definitions of the word, offside.

And today, not but an hour-and-a-half ago, United were awarded a penalty—with QPR captain Sean Derry being sent off—for nothing more than the slightest touch of Ashley Young's back within the Rangers area. The game eventually ended 2-0.

So why do the big teams arguably get such preferential treatment from the officials?

The favourite conspiracy theory is the classic "bribing" of referees.

Now I think this particular notion is absurd. In the modern era of technology and the recent phone hacking scandal, there is simply no way a team would be able to get away with this in a league as high-profile as the EPL.

Another more innocent suggestion is that it makes sense the bigger teams are awarded more penalties and have less given against them because they do a lot more attacking than teams below them.

This is certainly unquestionable. After all, in match like today's, United have had far more attacks than QPR, and as such, give way to more opportunity of winning a penalty. 

However, what I believe drives referees most are the fans.

Imagine you're standing in the middle of a stadium full of around 50,000 boisterous fans yelling and screaming directly at you for a penalty every time one of their players goes down in the box.

There's only so much one human being can take before they crack and the nerves get to them.

Yes, referees know what they are in for when they sign up to the job. But as I say, we're all only human after all and when that many people are putting pressure on you at once, poor decisions can be made.

The likes of Wigan, QPR and other teams at the bottom of the table have far smaller stadiums and followings than the teams at the top.

There is still a pressure, but after the game is done, the ref can escape the majority of insults. You can't throw a stone in England without hitting a United, Pool, Chelsea or Arsenal fan.

Unfortunately, this is a problem that will probably never go away, but at the end of the day, that's football.

We all have to put up with poor decisions—it's part of the game. Let's not forget that in the 1966 World Cup final, England were awarded a goal that quite possibly might not have crossed the line.

There is a weird karma in football that usually balances itself out. If your team is wrongfully punished one day, then don't worry because at some point in the future, you will be on the receiving end of the good news!

This doesn't excuse the problem, but it does at least provide some peace of mind for unhappy fans.