Mark Lawn fears the Premier League’s mega £5.5billion television deal could kill the competition in the lower divisions.

As part of the eye-watering sums now available in the top flight, the three relegated clubs next May will pocket up to £59million apiece in parachute payments.

That significant amount of wedge is broken down into £23million for the first year, which is nearly a 50 per cent rise on the current figure, £18million for the second and £9million each for seasons three and four.

As it is, Wolves will face City in League One with a budget thought to be in the region of £23million – a huge war chest swelled by £15million from their second-year ‘parachute’.

And Lawn insists the chasm between the Premier League old boys and the rest will grow even wider once the effects of the latest record-breaking broadcasting contract kick in.

The Bantams joint-chairman said: “Parachute payments are supposed to be there to make sure that a club could survive coming down from the Premier League. But this sends the whole Football League akilter.

“Wolverhampton Wanderers are going to get £15million this year and they are not even in the Championship. That will give them a vast advantage going into this league.

“Our budget is going to be competitive but we won’t be able to compete with them – and they’re ‘only’ getting £15million. It will get even worse with the teams coming down from next year.

“People are starting to forget about how much this increase in parachute payments is going to affect the other divisions.

“The Premier League has ruined our competition with this. It’s ridiculous.

“But the top clubs won’t care about that. They are only interested in the Premier League and anything going on outside that doesn’t matter.”

Domestic football has been blighted by dubious club owners in recent years. With so much ready cash available now, Lawn believes that problem could get worse.

“We’ve all let the supporters down about these parachute payments and I voiced this to the other chairmen. It’s only going to get worse.

“What if you get someone unscrupulous coming along and they just decide to take the money? They could put out a side but just drain all the cash for themselves. It wouldn’t worry them if the team went down and down.

“You could reach the ridiculous situation where a club could be in the Conference with a £9million parachute payment. That’s how stupid it is and that’s all down to the Premier League.

“They shouldn’t dictate to us what happens in our league. We’re selling our soul to the Devil and we should stop it. I think we should get the FA involved and FIFA because it’s not right – it will kill the competition.”

While the Premier League chairmen hungrily eye the bottomless pit that’s going to be on offer, the current Football League television contract worth £195million until 2015 is a mere pittance in comparison.

Clubs do receive an annual ‘solidarity payment’ that is handed down but that is heavily weighted towards those in the Championship, who receive £2.3million apiece every season. Teams in League One get just £325,000 and League Two £250,000.

Set up three years ago by the Premier League as a small attempt to redress the balance, the figures hardly match up with those who have dropped out of the top 20 – and that is before the parachute is increased.

At the recent Football League meeting in Vilamoura in Portugal, there was a proposal to distribute the solidarity hand-outs more evenly among the three divisions. But that was rejected after a mass ‘no’ vote from the Championship.

Lawn’s disappointment included a thinly-veiled dig at promoted Yeovil, the new minnows of the second tier who will be short-odds favourites to plunge straight back down.

He said: “Even the new clubs that have gone up voted against it, which stunned me. Without being rude to them, I’d hazard a guess they won’t be up there long.

“So you thought they would have used the opportunity to level the playing field a little bit further down.

“But everybody knows where they stand. The only way round it is to get into the Championship and that’s what we’ll strive to do.

“And if you got more money, it would only go on players’ wages. It’s not like you’d see it in the club’s infrastructure – the only benefactors would be the players.”