^^^^^
The 3 tier system was, in my understanding, initially a response to problems with breweries owning taverns, an issue the Brits have only started to address this century. Here in town, pre-Prohibition, there were several breweries, 2 really big, which owned a lot of taverns. Independent tavern owners couldn't compete on costs, and so banded together to start their own joint brewery, the only solution to hand. After prohibition and the institution of the modern system severing brewing and retailing, the companies now forced to choose between brewing and property ownership ultimately opted for the latter. Same thing happened in Britain to a large degree. The distributor was presumed to be a necessary equalizer between (big) brewer and (little) tavern owner. But both brewers and retailers exist on a wide variety of scales now. A system designed to protect the little guy (suspend cynicism and just stipulate this this for now) no longer clearly does so. It is not obvious at all that 3 tiers are better for anyone, including the consumer, than 2 tiers, as Tommy suggests. But I can see that some small as well as large brewers might prefer not to have to go door knocking on their own. I'm with Tommy, choice is what's needed. If distributors provided a sought-after service, rather than receiving what amounts to a privateer's letters of marque, everybody could do well.