A small number of Manchester United fans staged a pitch protest at Old Trafford yesterday. The result was the postponement of the match with old rivals Liverpool. They had, of course, also been partners of Manchester United in the ignominious European Super League.
It's a little hard to be sure what the pitch invasions was really about. There seemed to have been little forethought given to a demand - apart from the fact that the fans wanted an end to the ownership of Manchester United by the Glazer family.
I can understand and sympathise with that. But as a lesson in protest this one delivered a real punch line - which is that to make the effort worthwhile you have to say what you want, and not just protest about what is.
The simple fact is that replacing the Glazers with another foreign owner would achieve nothing much, if at all. The maintenance of an oligopolistic power elite in football would continue in that case. The exploitation of fans would remain the norm. The indifference of the club to their concerns would definitely remain. So surely that is not what those who protested wanted, was it?
The alternative would have to be fan ownership. But how is that to be financed? How too is control for the benefit of the community of Manchester above all else, whatever the worldwide support might be, to be ensured?
I support the fan ownership of clubs.
I think local authorities might have a large part to play as the custodian of golden shares that protect the community and fan base of football clubs against commercial predation.
I think that for football to survive a change in this direction is essential - or the gap between the name, place and those who live there will become so remote that football will simply become elite sport and big business (on which route it is already firmly headed, hence the need for disruption now).
This though needs planning. And yesterday did not deliver a demand for that change of direction. That was a waste of an opportunity, and they do not come around too often.
As in all companies, stakeholders need to be at the heart of football. A serious plan to make that possible is required, that fans can really subscribe to. I hope someone can deliver on this. And that some big names - I am looking at you Gary Lineker - can get behind it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Another alternative would be to have all the stakeholders represented on the board by law, with the fans representatives perhaps having a veto if they don’t believe in the direction of travel of the owners of the club.
If this is transparent then any potential owners can decide if they want to buy the club or not.
The interesting issue here is how football might feed popular understanding of the way neoliberalism has distorted economics. It would be worth developing the way in which the European Superleague provides a case study into modern neoliberalism neo-neoliberalism?; which is now slolely rentierism.
The cutting-edge of neo-neoliberalism (neo-rentierism?) is the ‘Spac’ (special purpose acquisition company). Here is what that towering exemplar of capitalism, Warren Buffet thinks of the Spac:
“‘It’s a killer,’ Buffett said about the influence of special purpose acquisition companies on Berkshire’s ability to find businesses to buy. ‘That won’t go on forever, but it’s where the money is now and Wall Street goes where the money is.'” (Bloomburg, 1st May, 2021).
Bllomburg go on to quote Charlei Munger, Buffet’s long-time buiness partner:
“‘It’s shameful what’s going on,’ Munger said. ‘It’s not just stupid. It’s shameful.'” Munger, however surprisingly is naive; neo-rentierism has no shame. It hires politicians and media to write, and seed the public space with a cloud of apparent general faith.
Agreed
“I think local authorities might have a large part to play as the custodian of golden shares that protect the community and fan base of football clubs against commercial predation.”
You would give a ‘golden share’ in Liverpool and Everton to the Labour run Liverpool city council? Where Nick Kavanagh, Joe Anderson and four other councillors have been arrested for corruption? Where a government report described ” a “rotten culture” of dubious contracts and backroom bullying, where staff were silenced and official records dumped in skips. “?
That’ll work well. As always, you live in a “la-la land” where your answer to everything is to give more power to government and blindly ignore every example of what happens when you do.
“The alternative would have to be fan ownership. But how is that to be financed?”
How indeed? Do you actually have any answer to that point? Perhaps the fans could have a whip round to buy the next £100m striker?
“And that some big names – I am looking at you Gary Lineker – can get behind it.”
I’m sure Gary Lineker will take notice of your call to action.
Yes I would
Why? Because more people would be involved in local government if it had such a role in society
I live in the real world of seeking to encourage democracy
You are clearly promising kleptocracy
One of us – and I mean only one of us – is acting with good intent
The neo-liberal view is that the more power an entity has, the more there is to be corrupt about. A version of the saying “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” from the 19th century.
It’s nice to see the counterpoint expressed that giving people more power over other peoples lives will lead to greater engagement with democracy and less corruption.
The psychologist profession describes a syndrome of little boys wanting to make the world better by being nice.
But the advantage of your view is that if you don’t like how your local football team is being run, instead of stopping attending because you weren’t going anyway, you can wait for the next electoral cycle.
So if you lived in Liverpool:
1. Would Liverpool Council have the share in Liverpool FC and Everton? Would Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral, St Helens Councils get a shout? That’s not easy, they don’t easily cooperate.
2. Where would Liverpool FC and Everton pitch themselves in looking for player and coaching talent, building stadiums etc.? Would they be looking to match Man C, Chelsea, Barcelona, AC Milan, or should they target more moderate level, and therefore compete at a lower level?
3. If you decided to compete with the big teams (as would be the public pressure), how would investment in the club from the Council be determined, bearing in mind subsidy control laws.
4. If you use public resources on Liverpool FC and Everton, wouldn’t Tranmere Rovers across the water be wanting comparable treatment? Why can’t they use public funds to become superstars of Europe? Why should Liverpool FC and Everton get favourable treatment? There’s a JR there.
4. Would the footballers be included in the Council’s job evaluation procedures or would they be exempt? It would stick in the throats of Council service managers if exemptions were given for footballers and not for people needed to run actual public services.
I’m not in favour of this idea as a Council officer (I’ve worked at LCC but am now elsewhere), but open to be persuaded.
I am suggesting this apply to all Uk clubs
Why did you deliberately miss the point?
And if football cannot survive without the money from oligarchs / big business subsidy then it should not exist
Aren’t TV and match day revenues enough? Isn’t this what fair competition is about?
Or don’t you like fair competition?
And maybe you don’t like democracy much either?
Sorry, I am clearly not understanding your point.
Who is to say what is ‘enough’ to go into sport? Most clubs in England are amateur and run quite happily for years on a shoestring. Liverpool FC could revert to amateur or semi pro status. It would be sustainable and would probably put out a good team. But they wouldn’t be competing with Barcelona, Bayern, AC Milan etc anymore.
And how do you literally stop someone investing in a legal activity if they want to? You’d be opening up opportunities to new teams to operate outside the system. You would need to ban it to prevent it.
It’s a choice, for sure. But I can’t see a lot of support for it.
Are you really saying that the Premier League cannot compete on its TV and other income?
Come on.
A nice case of being careful what you wish for. I am old enough to remember Jimmy Hill fighting to abolish the maximum wage for players. Then the Bosman ruling, allowing players to join another club at the end of their contracts. Both restrictions had been to level the playing field and allow smaller clubs to compete. I believe it was right that players should be able to bargain for for what they are worth, but it has had consequences. Now only billionaires have deep enough pockets to own big clubs, and this is the inevitable result.
No, the English clubs constrained as you suggest couldn’t compete with the big European clubs.
Obviously the Premier clubs would be subject to the same constraints, so that competition would find its level.
I wouldn’t want local government getting involved and I don’t think there is much appetite for it. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
You have clearly not read the accounts of these clubs then
I have
They can survive without the debts most owners impose
But I do work in local government, I have worked at Councils with big teams on the doorstep, including Liverpool and Trafford.
Intervention as you suggest is not happening any time soon.
I have never come up with a good idea that has taken less than ten years to deliver
I didn’t think that my first comment on this blog would be on the post about football, but here we are!
I think one of the suggestions made has been to emulate the system German clubs use, the 50+1 rule? This, from what I understand (and I may be wrong), allows club members to have 51% of shares, so they can potentially control decision-making.
49% could still be owned by one single owner, who’d provide investment and still make some financial gains but wouldn’t be able to make choices fans felt were detrimental to the club?
I’m sure there are lots of problems with this model, but since it’s been done successfully elsewhere, wouldn’t it be a good place to start?
I agree with the idea
I would simply make the +1 a golden share to ensure that the rule really was enforced
It was a well known route during initial privatisation
You’re going to need a big clean out of local authorities to achieve it. Pretty much a complete change of personnel.
Yes, you will find the odd Leader/Mayor who will see football as a vanity project, but
I doubt they’d be better than the oligarchs. Probably more short term in their horizons.
Not sure how you’d get LA investment into football except on as an arm’s length basis due to subsidy control issues – it’s from the CTA. You’d need to persuade the EU to rewrite.
Then you’d need to persuade the population that LAs getting involved in this activity was a good idea. I’d vote against it. It one club messes up, so what? It’s an opportunity for someone else.
Surely the fastest way would be to find a football club with low debt (there must be some?) and take them into domestic trophies + European competition without taking further debt. Show them how it is done.
With respect, you really are missing the point