What money can't buy

[Cunny]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/07/...y_cant_buy.html

 

What money can't buy

 

In the rest of Europe, they know the value of a club's soul - which is why no billionaire could prise Barcelona from their fans.

 

David Conn

 

July 29, 2007 6:16 PM

 

Possibly the lowest point in the English football authorities' limp efforts to do or say anything about the buying and selling of our great clubs was reached shortly after the Glazer family succeeded in their bitterly contested takeover of Manchester United in May 2005. The family's acquisition had been opposed by the directors and most of the fans, who argued that the Glazers had no discernible connection to the club and were planning to load it with the costs of their takeover. That fear has since proved well founded - United now owe £660m to the financial institutions that backed the Glazers.

 

United's dashing title win last season and the cash spent on new players this summer have created a general impression that the takeover has done the club no harm. But the money for players can only be found after £62m in interest alone has been shipped annually out of the club. Armchair fans around the world may be oblivious to the debt, but at home United fans are indignant about the steepling season-ticket price rise, announced just as the richest ever TV deal pours into the Premier League. Old Trafford season tickets have risen 14 per cent, and, in addition, fans will be charged automatically for every cup match United play at home, perhaps another £300. They may be league champions again, but the club's season-ticket waiting list is disappearing. In July, they announced they had season tickets on open sale, priced £570 to £722, for the first time in more than a decade.

 

The FA had no rules to prevent the takeover or even enable it to express a view, nor does the government have any legal framework to protect sports clubs, or sport itself, from being treated as just another business. In Britain, we say we value sport, but we have never taken the trouble, formally, to treat it as a distinct social and cultural activity with inherent values, as many other European countries have. Football fans here pledge lifelong loyalty to their clubs, but the clubs are all companies, increasingly bought by billionaires looking to make even more money.

 

The FA once took a robust view that clubs were not there for owners or directors to exploit. In 1899, just as professional, commercialised football was taking off, the FA imposed rules to protect the clubs' sporting heart. These allowed clubs to form limited companies, but prohibited directors from being paid, restricted the dividends to shareholders, and protected grounds from asset-stripping.

 

Later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

 

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.

 

Football clubs became companies for sale like any others, against the 'heritage' and rules once insisted upon by their governing body. No other country has a perfect system, but in Spain the tradition of the membership club survives. Barcelona and Real Madrid are both owned by members who democratically elect a president and board. The clubs are resented for receiving the largest share of Spanish football's TV money and are ruthlessly ambitious, but nevertheless Barcelona, particularly, embody a sense of belonging in their very structure. When Roman Abramovich went looking for a major club to buy in 2003, he considered first Barca and Real, but discovered that, because they were member-owned, they were beyond his reach. Spanish clubs that were in debt in the early 1990s were required by law to convert to limited companies but, alongside Barca and Real, Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad survive as member clubs and bastions of Basque belonging.

 

In Germany, the football association stipulate that Bundesliga clubs must be 51 per cent owned by their members, the fans. This is one part of a general policy maintained by the German FA that clubs should remain connected to their local communities, with prices affordable to young and poorer people. At Schalke 04, entry to league matches at the magnificent 62,000-capacity Veltins Arena (including safe, modern terracing for 17,000 people to stand) begins at €9 (£6).

 

In Italy, the clubs have long been owned by businessmen or, as with Juventus and Milan, by corporations. In theory the clubs could have been ripe for takeovers, but US-leveraged buy-out investors see England, not Italy, as the honeypot. Abramovich is said to have looked at the Italian giants, but Fiat and Silvio Berlusconi's Fininvest are not for selling Juve or Milan, which add prestige to their corporate, and in Berlusconi's case political, image.

 

The sale of clubs to foreign tycoons has enabled the most recent generation of English 'custodians' to earn once-unthinkable personal fortunes. Martin Edwards made a reported £93m from selling his Manchester United shares on the stock market, before the Glazers bought the club. West Ham chairman Terry Brown made more than £30m from the sale of his shares to the Icelanders, and so it goes on.

 

The arriving foreign businessmen, and the top clubs, say what is happening is all for the good, a sign of the Premier League's international success and desirability. But the relationship between sport and business is much more complicated than that; it is about more than money and television rights.

 

Elsewhere in Europe - and here when the FA knew their role - there have been attempts to define that relationship, to develop rules to protect the larger meaning and purpose of sport. Years ago, sadly, the FA gave up, and while our government talks of its love of sport, it will not assert itself. So, in English football's richest era, the greatest clubs have been up for sale, the buyers welcomed with a handshake and with just a feeble plea in their ear from the governing body, asking if they might be kind enough to respect the game's 'heritage'.

 

· David Conn writes for the Guardian and is the author of 'The Beautiful Game?'

[R A Softlad]

Fantastic club Barça.

[floyd]

It's alright being member-owned like Real, but it does help with the council buying things of you for $350 million to clear debts.

[Knox_Harrington]

Been asking this on and off these forums for a while as to precisely what makes English football different. Think there's a genuine disgrace in the way in which ownership has been taken out of the community in English football.

 

Good piece.

[Hassony]

Been asking this on and off these forums for a while as to precisely what makes English football different. Think there's a genuine disgrace in the way in which ownership has been taken out of the community in English football.

 

Good piece.

 

money and the stability of the league

[growler]

much prefer what we have rather than the racism, boring, changing managers each season, stupid promises, who squads changed each summer, cynical diving etc that owns most of the clubs and owners across europe.

[Stevie H]

Been asking this on and off these forums for a while as to precisely what makes English football different. Think there's a genuine disgrace in the way in which ownership has been taken out of the community in English football.

 

Good piece.

the dismantling of the youth system is one of the saddest parts of it. people seem to blame wenger and rafa for it, but every club is culpable.

[Stevie H]

much prefer what we have rather than the racism, boring, changing managers each season, stupid promises, who squads changed each summer, cynical diving etc that owns most of the clubs and owners across europe.

can you explain how any one of those elements isn't present in the english league?

 

we're just doing what italy did 20 years ago and spain did 10 years ago. football's cyclical.

[John am Rhein]

the dismantling of the youth system is one of the saddest parts of it. people seem to blame wenger and rafa for it, but every club is culpable.

 

Eh? Surely Arsenal (i.e. Wenger) have one of the best youth systems of all (?)

 

And we aren't so bad either.

[John am Rhein]

Been asking this on and off these forums for a while as to precisely what makes English football different.

 

I think it has its roots in the 80s with the whole country falling in thrall to the stock market and football clubs (led by Spurs as it says above) being a part of that.

[Stevie H]

Eh? Surely Arsenal (i.e. Wenger) have one of the best youth systems of all (?)

 

And we aren't so bad either.

talking in terms of the national game really, local / english kids developed by clubs. gerrard was our last decent one, ashley cole was probably arsenal's and united haven't really developed anyone noteworthy since the beckham / scholes generation.

[cymrococh]

talking in terms of the national game really, local / english kids developed by clubs. gerrard was our last decent one, ashley cole was probably arsenal's and united haven't really developed anyone noteworthy since the beckham / scholes generation.

it's younger that's the problem though, rafa and wenger don't get the slightly-better-than-raw materials to work with because the ability just isn't there.

[yellow jumper]

the coaching of young players in this country is a disgrace. the system hasn't worked. it's not as though england was producing world-beating teams before the foreign invasion, in fact plenty think that the current crop are the best for several generations.

 

until england sort out grass-roots coaching they'll struggle to produce the same talent in numbers as other countries. it's true in more than just football too.

 

here you see seven-year olds playing on full size pitches cheered on by rabid parents determined to see their kid winning. in south america and southern europe you see children playing on small courts or confined spaces with smaller balls and everything they do is geared towards touch and technique.

[Knox_Harrington]

much prefer what we have rather than the racism, boring, changing managers each season, stupid promises, who squads changed each summer, cynical diving etc that owns most of the clubs and owners across europe.

So you don't want football clubs to be owned by the community they represent? Don't see how you can't have none of the above and still have that. Indeed, Germany seems to do OK on that front.

the coaching of young players in this country is a disgrace. the system hasn't worked. it's not as though england was producing world-beating teams before the foreign invasion, in fact plenty think that the current crop are the best for several generations.

 

until england sort out grass-roots coaching they'll struggle to produce the same talent in numbers as other countries. it's true in more than just football too.

 

here you see seven-year olds playing on full size pitches cheered on by rabid parents determined to see their kid winning. in south america and southern europe you see children playing on small courts or confined spaces with smaller balls and everything they do is geared towards touch and technique.

Totally agree.

[Stevie H]

it's younger that's the problem though, rafa and wenger don't get the slightly-better-than-raw materials to work with because the ability just isn't there.

nobody knows if the ability is there or not because the emphasis in this country at youth level is all on size, speed and athleticism. you'd think people might have learned a thing or two from the ajax model in the 80s or the brasilian salao model. find the kids with technique and ability, teach them to play the game then build them up in the gym later on if needs be.

[Stevie H]

the coaching of young players in this country is a disgrace. the system hasn't worked. it's not as though england was producing world-beating teams before the foreign invasion, in fact plenty think that the current crop are the best for several generations.

 

until england sort out grass-roots coaching they'll struggle to produce the same talent in numbers as other countries. it's true in more than just football too.

 

here you see seven-year olds playing on full size pitches cheered on by rabid parents determined to see their kid winning. in south america and southern europe you see children playing on small courts or confined spaces with smaller balls and everything they do is geared towards touch and technique.

good post.

[matty]

Been asking this on and off these forums for a while as to precisely what makes English football different. Think there's a genuine disgrace in the way in which ownership has been taken out of the community in English football.

 

Good piece.

 

Swings and Roundabouts though Neil. What Growler said has some resonance. There are things which make English football better than a lot of the continental countries. Full stadiums for the vast majority of games, less racism (surprisingly?), more action, more passion in many cases from the terraces...Look at Italy, pathetic attendances outside the big matches, clubs managed incredibly incompetently by local bigwigs, corruption, violence, scandal. Much of that is true for Spain too. Real led by a succession of sociopaths, a big two monopoly often briefly challenged but never broken.

 

The question I'd ask is when was ownership genuinely 'in the community' in English football? It's long been in the hands of rich old white blokes. Some of them may have hailed originally from the supporting community, but they long since gave up a great deal of identification with that community.

 

And for a club to be bought by rich foreigners it had to be sold by someone, someone who was probably acting more for their own good than for altruism.

[Knox_Harrington]

Swings and Roundabouts though Neil. What Growler said has some resonance. There are things which make English football better than a lot of the continental countries. Full stadiums for the vast majority of games, less racism (surprisingly?), more action, more passion in many cases from the terraces...Look at Italy, pathetic attendances outside the big matches, clubs managed incredibly incompetently by local bigwigs, corruption, violence, scandal. Much of that is true for Spain too. Real led by a succession of sociopaths, a big two monopoly often briefly challenged but never broken.

 

The question I'd ask is when was ownership genuinely 'in the community' in English football? It's long been in the hands of rich old white blokes. Some of them may have hailed originally from the supporting community, but they long since gave up a great deal of identification with that community.

 

And for a club to be bought by rich foreigners it had to be sold by someone, someone who was probably acting more for their own good than for altruism.

Para 3 - totally agree on. Moores should have gone down the socio route and it's scandalous he remains "life president".

 

Para 2 - take the general point.

 

Para 1 - There's no need to presume that if we had community based ownership we'd automatically inherit many of these problems. It isn't even about community based in itself. What Conn continually refers to is who should or shouldn't be worthy to own a football club. I'd have love to have seen, around the time of Michael Knighton, someone have taken Danny Baker's very vocal comments about football clubs being akin to National Trust properties seriously and that there should have be an obligation of care for anyone who wishes to own one. Instead we are potentially at the whim of the Thaksins of this world. Football clubs are one of the most significant parts of this country's cultural fabric. I cannot think of another part as significant which has been left as open to the vultures.

[Stevie H]

Para 3 - totally agree on. Moores should have gone down the socio route and it's scandalous he remains "life president".

 

Para 2 - take the general point.

 

Para 1 - There's no need to presume that if we had community based ownership we'd automatically inherit many of these problems. It isn't even about community based in itself. What Conn continually refers to is who should or shouldn't be worthy to own a football club. I'd have love to have seen, around the time of Michael Knighton, someone have taken Danny Baker's very vocal comments about football clubs being akin to National Trust properties seriously and that there should have be an obligation of care for anyone who wishes to own one. Instead we are potentially at the whim of the Thaksins of this world. Football clubs are one of the most significant parts of this country's cultural fabric. I cannot think of another part as significant which has been left as open to the vultures.

the water board?

 

the FA f***ed up royally in allowing spurs to profit from the holding company loophole. since that, every club has been up for grabs. the game's appallingly regulated by a bunch of faceless, nerveless suits who do nothing but take from the game and put nothing back in. how peter ridsdale for example is still allowed to operate at any capacity within football is disgraceful.

[cymrococh]

how peter ridsdale for example is still allowed to operate at any capacity within football is disgraceful.

ken bates' continued raping of Leeds, while hilarious, should never be allowed to happen to anyone else and the santa crookalike should be sent to chokey.

[matty]

Para 3 - totally agree on. Moores should have gone down the socio route and it's scandalous he remains "life president".

 

Para 2 - take the general point.

 

Para 1 - There's no need to presume that if we had community based ownership we'd automatically inherit many of these problems. It isn't even about community based in itself. What Conn continually refers to is who should or shouldn't be worthy to own a football club. I'd have love to have seen, around the time of Michael Knighton, someone have taken Danny Baker's very vocal comments about football clubs being akin to National Trust properties seriously and that there should have be an obligation of care for anyone who wishes to own one. Instead we are potentially at the whim of the Thaksins of this world. Football clubs are one of the most significant parts of this country's cultural fabric. I cannot think of another part as significant which has been left as open to the vultures.

 

I would absolutely have loved to see Liverpool sold to the fans. I would have stumped up massive amounts of the family fortune (i.e. what the NatWest would lend me) to buy into it.

 

You're completely right that football isn't viewed as culture in the wide sense of that word. Football has long been a business, but so has art and music. It's strange that despite about 50 years of 'liberal' values growing in importance across society that we still view culture as stuff that only happens in theatres and galleries. Because of this, football isn't protected in the same way as art is. The Madonna of the Pinks was subject to a government order preventing its sale abroad, and a public fund to save it. And that's not even British!

 

I do see that football is parochial in the way that art isn't. John Osborne fans probably don't slag off Pinter fans on forums, etc, (Or maybe they do???!) so any intervention is subjective for some people. Football is a pastime, and a wealthy one, so there's no pressure from the public to protect the individual pieces that make up the sport.

 

In a related note, the attitude of governments over the past 30 years has been to lower the borders to foreign investment, with the result that foreign billionaires are keen to do business in the UK. Football is a buisness and prestige thing. Despite its often dodgy image, it can lend some legitimacy to those involved in it. (Maybe this will end soon). On the contrary, some countries in Europe are still very protectionist. I always come back to Italy, but they still battle very hard to keep Italian businesses Italian. Even the basket cases like Alitalia. So our business culture and sporting culture have overlapped. This economic power may well see English clubs dominate once again - but at what cost, and what effect on the national side?

[Knox_Harrington]

I do see that football is parochial in the way that art isn't. John Osborne fans probably don't slag off Pinter fans on forums, etc, (Or maybe they do???!)

There was a time when you had to pick between Hobson and Tynan and that choice indicated something about you.

 

Generally, good post, good thread and a good column, I'd love to see Conn explore further into this.

[Stevie H]

There was a time when you had to pick between Hobson and Tynan and that choice indicated something about you.

 

Generally, good post, good thread and a good column, I'd love to see Conn explore further into this.

so would i but reckon he'd pretty soon meet with the usual brick wall as football circled its wagons.

[fyds]

it's younger that's the problem though, rafa and wenger don't get the slightly-better-than-raw materials to work with because the ability just isn't there.

That's thr true real point - it's also why there are such slim pickings in Scotland for top players these days. If football was virtual we would have the best fat coach-potato, over developed thumbs FIFA PS3 players the world has ever seen.

 

Kids just don't seem to play as much footy as we did - not for real anyway. Not helped by the lack of facilities, parents afraid there is a peadophile behind every tree (thanks to the Mail etc) and kids being told not to play near daddy's monstrous 4x4 in the street.

 

When I was a kid, we'd play footy in the street for hours - dawn til dusk, perfectly safely with half time for dinner. We would wander for miles, cycle to Flint or Southport and our fun was never 'organised'. Now, I don't see kids playing footy in the street - hardly ever. Parents want to know where their kids are and what they are doing and who with the whole time and the poor sods spend so much time going to various after school clubs and doing homework in the infants and juniors they don't have the same opportunities we did just to be kids. Then add to that the PC games... and you get a dearth of young footballing or sporting talent and a load of fat asthmatic kids.

[Bo Benn]

I would also like to add the view that those kids that do take on football these days seems to take it more seriously. Parents and coaches seem to groom the kids to become professional football players even from a very young age something which I think is decremental for the development of youngsters. A lot of the spirit is lost along the way and some of the kids get tired of the game long before they become senior players.

 

Also we pride ourselves with this academy of ours. When the truth is the more 'advanced' this academy has become over the past decade or so the fewer players seems to make it into our first team. Is taking young players from all over Europe and elsewhere far away from their home, parents, buddies, habits and culture really that positive for their development?

 

Makes me sad to see when big clubs including our own are poaching 14-15 years olds from across the continent. The kids themselves and their over committed dads say it's good for their development and that they have better opportunities at big clubs. I think that's absolute b******s. It is not at that age, in fact I suspect it's much better for them to stay at their own clubs for another three or four years. Note that more often than not the young players I'm talking about are already at relatively big clubs in their respective countries and to say that Liverpool would be a much better place for them is simply not true. If FIFA would put their foot down on teenage transfers (say up to 17 yrs) I would not argue against it.