Club ownership: The unsolvable debate
We journalists are always told that we seldom allow facts to spoil a good story - yet, in the football business, facts are often not so much ignored, as distorted beyond belief.
The current debate about foreign ownership is a classic case in point.
Andy Burnham, the culture secretary who sparked this current bout of questioning of foreign ownership, wants the football authorities to look at their regulations, and yet rules out government intervention.
Meanwhile, Lord Triesman, the Football Association chairman, agrees the FA needs to do something, but says he would not do anything that discriminated on the basis of nationality.
And given these caveats it is difficult to see what can be done at all.
As is often the case on this issue, the starting point seems to be the belief that there was a halcyon time in English football when Adam and Eve dwelt in a supposed garden of football Eden, roughly seen as the period immediately after the Second World War.
But the reality is that there was no such time.
Indeed, even before foreign money started coming in, football had evolved so much that it would be impossible to go back - and certainly not to the historic community roots that JB Priestley and others were in rhapsodies about.
'Classic' English football was rooted in the local community, with the club at the centre of it. At the time, all matches started at 3.00 on a Saturday, the supporters, almost all of them male, often worked on the shop floor till lunchtime (there was Saturday half-day working then), and strolled down to the pub before walking to the match. When they left the ground they found a paper boy selling a pink 'un and going to a match did not generally involve any use of public transport.
Is there anywhere in England where this is now possible?
It is now commonplace to find that the communities who live round the club, often ethnic minorities, seldom go to the ground, with match days seeing fans travel long distances to revisit an area their fathers and grandfathers may have migrated from some decades earlier.
And nor will be it be easy to go back to restrictions that governed the sale of football clubs.
Until the 1980s it was difficult to buy and sell clubs. Not all football clubs may have been owned by the classic butcher, baker, candlestick maker, but many of the clubs had clauses in their articles of association which prevented the free transfer of shares.
It did not matter then because there was no money in football. Owning a football club was a matter of local prestige rather than banking money in an offshore account.
And, perhaps most crucially, then we did not have the elephant in the room, which so far nobody has mentioned - the European Union.
It is worth stressing that the father of foreign ownership is really the Bosman ruling, a consequence of defective transfer rules in Belgium leading to a landmark European Court ruling.
I doubt very much if foreign owners would have had much interest in English clubs if the pre-Bosman restrictions on foreign players still applied.
Certainly the idea of buying a World First XI, as the new owners of Manchester City plan, would have made no sense.
So given the government will not follow the US example, where government intervention has allowed sports to have its own special regulations, and Bosman cannot be reversed, what can be done?
I have two suggestions:
The FA should implement in domestic football the homegrown players rule that Uefa now applies to its European matches - that will help moderate Bosman.
Secondly, the government should change the non-domicile taxation rules which allow foreigners not domiciled in this country to gain from very generous tax exemptions.
If foreign owners and foreign players are taxed on their entire world income, as they would be if they lived in the US, then we would soon find out how many would want to come here.
Last year the government, as part of wider policy, did dip its toe in the non-domicile tax issue, but I doubt if those changes will make much difference to football ownership.
And that is the major problem.
Again, we have a lot of hot air but few practical ideas that are properly implemented, all of which makes me think this debate, like so many before it, will lead nowhere.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
isn't this part of the 12th game vision you were fully supporting? This is what you get when the game sells out its soul
Complain about this comment
Mihir
An interesting article, one which I unfortunately don't have time to respond to in detail, but a couple of initial thoughts:-
1) Non-dom's - one part of the legislation is that after so many years of paying the £30,000 get out, you are deemed domiciled so that will have an effect on people's planning and movement's long term.
2) If clubs are forced, as for European matches, to have so many home grown's, would that have the effect of playing an even higher premium on the bought in players that you are allowed?
3) When is someone going to stand up to Sky and say that the heart of many of these problems is that they don't share the money fairly and thus there is inequality from the off.
Complain about this comment
Money rules and as long as money is the focus, like in so many other situations worldwide, the rich will call the shots and decision makers will be directed by the rich. How can the government control the situation relating to foreign players in this country when it allows tax havens, even within the country? These are the complications of the system where the poor have no say.
Complain about this comment
No offence and this is my own personal opinion, but Mihir Bose knows absolutely nothing about football.
Complain about this comment
To comment on a couple of your points:
1. The government would not be allowed to introduce "special rules" for sports as it would be deemed unfair under EU rules. The EU would have to introduce it not our Government, although they should lobby to help this.
2. Your non-domiciled point usually gets knocked about in relation to foreign high-earners in the city, but if it were that easy to change the government would have done it by now. However, it gets very complicated when you look into the detail. Don't forget that many overseas footballers would just sign contracts initially of only up to three years and state they have no long term intentions to be in the country and thus would be resident and not ordinarily resident which would confer the same tax advantages they usually enjoy as a non-domiciled individual (certainly for the first three years anyway). And that is even before you look into trusts and setting up companies offshore to structure things more efficiently to reduce thier UK tax burdens.
The prgamatic thing to do would be for the premiership clubs to realise that the gap between big and small in the football league is too large for their to be efficient competition. Maybe they should allocate out the TV money more efficiently between the divisions (but would that lead to the same attitude of the Premiership clubs appearing throughout the lower leagues?). Can you really see the clubs given up income though when millions are still flowing through everyone's coffers?
The danger with the big money men buying up the clubs and spending millions and handing out contracts with individuals getting hundreds of thousands a week, is that the average working class fan ends up being priced out. Most Premiership working class fans probably only make two to three trips a season rather than being there game in game out like in the past.
I suspect the game at the top level will need a couple big clubs to fail or for there to be a general deteriotation in people coming through the gates before anything will change for the good of the greater game and thus the 'average' supporter.
Finally, it has always made me chuckle that the most capitalist country on the planet in America actually has a theory of distributing talent to balance out their teams in most of their major sports with their draft college pick systems.
Complain about this comment
Single most important issue facing football today. Money and foreign ownership. Money will destroy football as we love it. Destroy competion. And eventually destroy interest. Half empty super stadiums. Games on TV with empty terraces abound.
And don't care what arrangements, or laws are in place at present. Things can ALWAYS be changed if the will is there. No Bosman, or no European ruling can make a blind bit of difference if the grassroots ( and I mean full force ) decided to abandon or challenge the present status quo, things would be changed. It's as simple as that. That is an unequivocal fact...... Bert
Complain about this comment
isn't the city objective going to mean that they actually lose credibility?...
within four years, city win everything, everyone they play loses, and it becomes POINTLESS watching them.
no one is going to go and watch (no offence) middlesborough or west ham get thumped on a wet february night, so clubs simply will not organise the coaches and back-up for their own supporters when they play city .
and be honest... if you were the manager,would you really risk your best eleven in a sure-fire defeat to city, as opposed to holding them back for a "possible" or "definite" three pointer?
likewise for city, if no-one's coming to eastlands to watch you play this fantastic football against their team, then you aren't going to get the "glory" that generates millions of worldwide support because, quite simply, no-one cares!
There is no point in a "best in the world" eleven; you simply become the harlem globetrotters...
Complain about this comment
"Is there anywhere in England where this is now possible?"
Whilst we lost the Sports Argus last year due to declining sales. Its very, very possible for me to walk to the Hawthorns from where I live, as it is possible to walk to many grounds in the Premier League actually (Old Trafford, Anfield, Upton Park, Wembley). The new grounds on trading estates in the middle of nowhere like The Reebok and The Ricoh are not the norm, they are the exception.
The communities around grounds are not always ethnic minorities, as you'll find around many of the grounds I've actually just mentioned.
Once again Mihir, shoddy journalism. Ever since you forced your way onto the front of camera on BBC News, and got yourself a blog, your poor journalism has done nothing but infuriate.
Its a sad day when a journalist of sport can make Mark Lawrenson look informed.
Complain about this comment
The horse has already bolted, and the government and FA know this so the Sports Minister?s comments ring pretty hollow.
Before the mid-1980s, FA legislation forbade clubs issuing dividends to shareholders and remuneration to directors. When Spurs floated the company they got round this by creating a fresh PLC and having the football club company as the subsidiary. It should have been dealt with there and then by the FA but they decided not to legislate against it.
I am a Brentford supporter and our club is majority (61%) owned by a Supporters Trust called Bees United. I sit on the board of that Trust and it ensures that supporters can become directly involved in the say of their club. In Germany?s top division, the Bundlesliga, all clubs are owned in this type of way, where 51% rests with supporters and the remaining shares sitting elsewhere.
Our motives are protect the long-term future of the club in its community, something that Manchester City?s new owners - or most of the top flight for that matter - could not care less about. Yet Premiership supporters outside the top four lap it up as they desperatly cling on to the dream of joining the Champions? League elite.
It?s too late to cry foul now, the damage has been done, and the rush for gold has left the ownership structures of all out major football clubs far removed from the ordinary fan.
Complain about this comment
City won't be that good, they will still only be able to play 11 men and they won't get all their targets.
Being 10 times richer won't equate to being 10 times better.
Complain about this comment
Changing the tax regime as suggested will make little or no difference. The players would insist that their salaries are paid in another jurisdiction, such as Zug in Switzerland, beyond the reach of the UK taxman, which is what happens in showbiz.
If foreign businessmen want to spend their cash buying football clubs rather than yachts and Ferraris, then that is their privilege. The EU has laws and regulations governing ownership of companies, competition, free movement of labour, etc., and it is foolish to imagine that football can exist outside of these, or even desirable that it should. However, it is the FA which is selling the product to television, and it is within their power to distribute the proceeds more equitably, but they show little inclination to do so. If the cash was distributed a little further down the pyramid, then the top clubs would not have the resources to pay such a high premium for the top talent, and it would be spread a little further - not much, but a little, perhaps enough to open up the race to a couple more horses.
Complain about this comment
Given that the worst run club in the Premiership at the moment are Newcastle, who are under English ownership, I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to restrict foreign ownership.
Foreign ownership may mean more foriegn coaches in the Premiership (although Newcastle's next manager may also be foreign), and fewer English players. Those fewer English players are of a higher standard than in previous years, but we can't afford any injuries. Watch Walcott get a cruciate knee ligament injury and not play for England for 2 years. That was McClaren's problem. If Ashley Cole and John Terry are out, the replacements are poor. Most of the top players were fit on Wednesday. How often that will happen in the run up to 2010 remains to be seen.
The worst case scenario of all this foreign ownership is the spectre of a breakaway super league, but again, this was first mooted when all the Big Five (Everton, Spurs, ho, ho) were in English hands. The only time I've heard a mention recently was from the shoe salesman masquerading as Man City Chief Exec, and he's English. He's also got a different boss now. Might have to go back to his shoe shop.
It is a sad fact that Newcastle will probably never win anything ever again, unless they get taken over by Russians or Arabs. They have one of the biggest supports in the country, but the money isn't there in the boardroom (or the competence). However, they've not won owt for 39 years, so what's the difference? Also, if it weren't for Chelsea and Blackburn, Man Utd would have won 12 Premierships instead of 9. So money has made the Premiership more interesting, rather than less. In a few years time we may have Man City and QPR challenging for the title. A genuine four-horse race, when has that ever happened?
Complain about this comment
Interest Article Mihir Bose and one that I hold close so my heart.
Your suggestions are really good, but I also have a problem with young player (domestic) leaving from a small club (e.g. Leeds) and end up in the unknown world of Chelsea at the age they should be shining, and at times with promises that they parents will get a gardening job.
England is at the moment the helm of European football and there is discontentment with this law, now Imagine what is going on In Argentina, Brazil, Holland, Portugal, where none of the big young promises stay there until they come out of age.
My suggestion is more radical and global:
FIFA should impose a rule that player that do not A - reaming at their clubs or B - in their countries until the Olympic age i.e. 23, will not represent their countries in the World Cup
Complain about this comment
Why is this Government so concerned about foreign ownership of football clubs when it couldn't care less about foreign ownership of energy companies?
Complain about this comment
Tax the blighters. Why are we giving them tax breaks anyway?
Complain about this comment
This all comes down to Richard Scudamore, he sold the premiership out for as much money as he could get.
Complain about this comment
Shouldnt Andy Burnham, the Culture secretary, be addressing the issue of 'selling off' the TV rights to our National game before jumping on this particular bandwagon?
Complain about this comment
If Newcastle are to be believed that they are the model of a club under British ownership - give me the Foreign input anyday
Complain about this comment
Can someone at the BEEB please explain to myself and others why my previous post has been 'modded?'.
Complain about this comment
Example of a stadium within walking distance: St James' Park. It's right in the city centre, as if the whole city was built around it (which it probably was).
Anyway, I lost all interest in the Premiership about 8 years ago, when I felt money was completely ruining it. Looks like I was ahead of my time a bit. It's going the same way as the SPL, where the real competition is for third place, and where half the league seems to be in with a chance every season. No one gives a toss about the top two except the Old Firm themselves, and all the Old Firm actually care about is making sure the other team doesn't win. This is the future of the Premiership, where you have the rich teams battling it out for Champions League spots, and managers being sacked because they could "only" get into the UEFA cup. Then the only real competition will be at the bottom of the table.
The sad thing is, people actually think Man Utd vs Arsenal is an exciting fixture.
Money has ruined far more things (far more important things) than football. I'll worry about football AFTER energy companies, oil companies and "public" transport companies have been properly regulated, and once Parliament and councils have stopped wasting our money. Until then, this is what fans get for increasingly ridiculous expectations. You want real football? Go out and play it yourself.
Complain about this comment
What does taxing non-domiciled foreigners have to do with ownership of football clibs?
Taxing of non-doms is about taxing people on income earnt in this country.
How many of the foreign owners have incomes in this country?
Complain about this comment
Given what happened to Wimbledon, and the way american sports franchises are moved around, how long before we have a majority of foreign owners of Premiership clubs who decide that the Premiership needs to be the Global league, resulting in New York Man Utd, Chicago Liverpool, LA Villa, Moscow Chelsea, Abu Dhabi City, West Ham Reykjavik and who knows what else? It could become very expensive to attend home games, let alone aways. There may, or may not, be rules against this happening, but can they be relied on, if they exist at all ?
Complain about this comment
Yeah I can really see the government introducing massively controversial non-dom legislation, with an impact on our wider economy, just to sort out football club ownership.
Complain about this comment
British but living long years in Germany, I see the Premiere League, the whole Plollywood story over tha past 5-6 years, with much the same fascination and revulsion at the club politics and obsession with commerce and profit. The football is great too, but it is more a perverse fascination with the prima donnas and their enormous wages that grips me.
It couldn't happen in the Bundesliga. The rules of ownership protect the interests of the fans and locals to some degree. Fans have much more voice, clout and access to the inner workings of the board. Better someone better informed than me details the legalities.
But for all that we may be poorer here. The best players Germany produces or develops (not just Lehmann, Ballack etc. but lots of Berbatovs, van der Vaarts and Diegos) will drip off to better paying clubs (3 or four in Italy, 2 in Spain or the top half of the Premiere League. Only Bayern Munich seem able to keep the German end up here - for how long will that last?
There's not much TV money in the Bundesliga for complicated reasons. It seems to be more widely allocated. There is less chance of a profit investing in a German football club. It shouldn't be too difficult for the FA (with political support) to change the articles of FA membership to make clubs less of a target for fat cats looking for a plaything. As Mihir said, a club used to and essentially should (if they want a fanbase) serve their local community in the first instance, as they still do in Germany.
But good old Plollywood; it's one of the biggest soaps worldwide. Only a bit embarrassing when you're an expat.
Complain about this comment
Football, as a business, allows a public view into how international businesses work. For most such businesses, their practices are hidden and unknown to the public. But, because football is out in the public eye, the whole process of business is known. Football fans, and others, can see how international business works, including tax dodges, flaunting of employment law, abject lack of honesty and integrity, etc.
Of course the British government wouldn't intervene in football business because the rules they introduce would have to be applied to other businesses and then the whole welfare state for the wealthy would be under threat.
Complain about this comment
With the greatest of respect to Mihir, if Arsenal had taken his advice and counsel (via his columns and comment) they would still be stuck at Highbury ( like Spurs and Liverpool at their grounds), scratching around for a lender, missing out on an extra £30m pounds a year and generally angry with their lack of forethought.
I would therefore take anything he says about owning and running a football club with an enormous pinch of salt. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry what?
Thi sseems like an article written at the time of events JUST to get involved in it. It is half thought and hurried.
And as for the ethnic minorities - it's possible that maybe football is not followed in whatever thier origin is from. Despite this, even Old trafford has its share of "ethnic minority" people who live around the grounds.
As long as i went to Forest matche, I saw a fair amount of people at the city Ground. So that whole point seems like a hopeless reason to support the point.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I take issue with you, bergo10, on your Arsenal / Emirates conclusion. I can't find in Mihir's article any assertion that could have inhibited Ersenal from borrowing and building a new stadium. At least they have done it or are doing it, it seems, through good housekeeping rather than selling themselves for obscene sums to whoever in the Middle East, Russia or USA has obscene sums to throw around.
But it seems odd to find fault with one aspect of a detailed article and therefore assign all Mihir's other points and arguments to the trashcan. Your last sentence mocks your own opinion.
The main point is surely that football in England is like a flower with too much sun - the roots are drying up.
I used to watch Chelsea every home game in the seventies; old first and second division, and being a Chelsea fan ( or a fan of any other club for that matter) it was a matter of inner conviction and connectedness. For most fans I suppose it still is. But since the Roman oil money arrived, I have much more opportunity to cheer the results from Stamford Bridge but much less pride or connectedness to Chelsea's achievements. In 1975, Butch Wilkins passed, Charlie Cooke dribbled and Ian Hutchison scored for ME! Now (Joe Cole certainly excepted) they seem to do it for the mogul, the mirror and the media.
Also with the greatest respect, Bergo10, and congratulations on your brilliant stadium and not having a mogul so far - and a manager who protects his players from the dangers of mirrors and media.
But all that was not the thrust of the article as far as I understood it.
Complain about this comment
I think its time to look again at what part football plays in our lives. To many, the days of going to the footy on a saturday afternoon is a thing of the past and football has been reduced to being a tv spectator sport, there is no social interaction with peers and it is killing the reason why a lot of people actually went. These big names in football have (as is well documented) priced people out of the stands. Greed and profits have taken their toll on the normal joe bloggs and there is a void that needs filling.
So along have come the first of the next generation of teams, FC United of Manchester and the MK Dons to name a couple, fan owned with their feet firmly on the ground, high aspirations but not driven by money, driven by the fans need and want for football. Football that is accessable by the normal man, players that are not out of touch with who they are and what they are there for. The difference in financial terms for me between going to Man Utd and FC Utd is £100 per match, and to be honest theres a better atmosphere at FC, still love big Utd but the feelings gone in the stands.
So as an off shoot from a greedy fat cat putting Man Utd in debt I have found football again, i will never forgive glazer for taking the club away from the fans, but will thank the fans for bringing FC United to life, Love Utd hate Glazer.
bring on utd , bring on utd , bring on utd
Complain about this comment
Money has ruined a once great tradition in this country. Clubs and players resemble a Hollywood 'A' List party, with the supporters and fans not on the guest list.
Gone are the days when players would arrive at the ground on the bus with the fans and definitely gone are the days of the huge crowds the game used to attract. Fans are being priced out of watching their team and instead are spending their hard earned cash somewhere else.
I know the game has to evolve, but to be quite honest, the game is tumbling into a farce. If it's not the clubs, it is certainly the TV bosses squeezing the cash out of you to pay subscriptions to watch the footie. The terrestrial broadcasters seem powerless to top the bidding of Sky and Setanta.
Clubs being bought out left, right and centre by people who have no idea about what they haven taken on, nor do they have empathy with the supporters - Newcastle United is a great example.
Football used to be a game for the masses. Now, It's hard to say, but I am certainly disillusioned. I wouldn't turn my back on football, but I look upon it with some shame.
Complain about this comment
Mihir, what really needs to happen is for UEFA, FIFA and the national associations to lobby the British (and other national govs) government and the EU to make a special clause for football and sport in general. There should be quota on foreign players and the loophole allowing south americans to gain European passports must also be closed. That is surely what football needs and the average fan wants. At the moment we have this megalithic premiership with its annual top 4, Champions League heavyweights like Real Madrid and Barcelona followed by a host of sides like Bremen, Lyon and PSV while the rest of football looks.
I remember when South Americans wanted to play for teams like Boca Juniors and Sao Paolo and didn't just see their traditional clubs as stepping stones to Europe. The money in football needs to be redistributed so that success stories like Chievo Verona, Deportivo La Coruna and Wigan Athletic are not a thing of the past. Yes, Wigan was taken over by Dave Whelan and his millions, but a sustainable plan was implemented and I'm sure they wouldn't crumble financially if they were relegated.
We also need national and international laws restricting the flow of massive capital. Anyone can see the current economic system of laissez-faire and speculation is ruinous, not only to football, but to the greater world.
Politicians and authorities have to decide whether to let a social institution become a global brand. If the Russians/Chinese/Arabs and Americans want to be a part of football, why don't they develop their own games? It is ridiculous to see kids in the Far East supporting Manchester United and Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
Restrictions on foreign players or distorting the tax laws is essentially immoral or impractical. We live in a capitalist world so ultimately the power will lie not with clubs, the players or their agents but with the viewing public. When the game becomes so boring as a result of talent being concentrated in a few sides that people turn off and TV revenue dries up, even egocentric oligarchs and publicity seeking oil rich states will get fed up with pouring millions into an unrewarding experience. In the meantime we should be concerned not with restricting who owns what but with ensuring that clubs are run honestly and do not go bust. Applying employment law, company law and tax law rigorously is enough. If there is to be an exception make it a rule that clubs must at least break even over a two year period. This will mean that good management is rewarded and talent shared around more.
Complain about this comment
I agree with much of what you write , singacity, but the question is surely whether sport belongs to the commercial principals of capitalism; or whether capitalism has the right to dominate other aspects of our lives than politics and economics. Sport, education, the arts, health and welfare... should they be profit-makers?
There are alternatives to capitalism which work very well (google Silvio Gesell and many others) but as long as our decision makers are in the position they are in because of capitalism nothing's going to change, is it? Not unless forced, and when did we British get up in arms about anything - especially moral and ethical issues.
Your assertion that power lies ultimately with the viewing public is sadly true. The initial power is with the media, especially TV, who dictate to the Premiere League / Championship League on the basis of nationwide and worldwide advertising potential. Your club now has little do do with your locality. Fan loyalty is not reflected by the clubs as they swop players and managers monthly and clubs like Man City change their face and identity overnight.
Most of the blogs I have read about the Middle Eastlands development show a sense of excitement and amusement but also a deep worry and sense of foreboding.
The Bundesliga can't sell itself internationally like the English PL, and consequently has less money to distribute, generally pays players less, and has fewer international big names but still goes on strongly at local level. My team in Germany, Borussia Dortmund, have been rubbish for four years or so but still had 75,000+ through the turnstiles today - as usual.
Keegan, Curbishley et al have to learn that they are working for couch-potato football fans and not their local team suppporters if they are to succeed in England, I suppose. Shame.
Complain about this comment
First of all, let's bear in mind that an influx of foreign money into football - like any other industry - is not necessarily a bad thing from a national perspective. League football is a rare example of something that the UK is actually good at, and so it attracts foreign investors.
To be sure, if Manchester City can simply go and buy the league title - not a safe assumption, in my opinion - this would be detrimental to the competitive spirit of the game. But the real problem here is the distortion caused by money - where that money comes from is not, in itself, the issue. I think fans of foreign-owned Man City are a lot happier than fans of UK-owned Newcastle right now!
So there's a problem, but it is clubs' inequality of wealth, and ability to pour money into the game for reasons of prestige rather than business, not foreign ownership in itself, which is the problem. Expecting to tax non-doms on money they earn overseas is unrealistic. Tax them on the money they earn here, of course; try to tax their overseas earnings and they'll simply leave, taking a lot of investment and jobs with them. Anyway, you do not need to live here to own an English football club - you could own a club here without ever setting foot in the UK.
A second problem is that football is not profitable, despite huge TV and merchandising revenues. These are loss-making businesses - prestige assets, not profitable investments. Just look at the debts of a lot of big (and smaller) clubs to see what I mean. Costs - transfers and wages, mainly - always rise to, or above, the level of income.
So we have to ask ourselves what we want. I would say we need four things. We need (a) more home-grown players at our big clubs, (b) fairer TV access (not everything sold to satellite and pay-per-view), (c) the right to watch ALL national games on terrestrial TV, and (d) a viability test, meaning rules preventing the indefinite subsidy, by rich owners, of loss-making clubs for prestige reasons. Clubs should be made to live within their income from football.
The government might (just) help on the third point, but international (and EU) regulations do not allow the government to help with the others.
The people who CAN help are FIFA and Uefa. Look at the World Cup or the Euros - great tournaments, available to all on BBC and ITV, thanks not to the FA but to FIFA and Uefa respectively. Both have considered home-grown quotas. We - and government - need to work WITH these bodies, with leaders like Blatter and Platini. They are the best bulwark against the 'money rules everything' brigade.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me a great deal of problems could be done by having rules about how clubs are run.
Ensure the wage bill cannot top a certain percentage of club's direct annual income, teams in overall debt - or who enter administration - cannot win promotion or trophies for that season, and loans cannot be more than a set percentage of an averaged annual income over a number of years.
Those might bring some sanity back to football.
Quotas and the like will be challenged in such a business as football, economic regulations you can get away with, curtailing peoples right to work inside the EU you can't.
Moreover, home-grown quotas will simply entrench the richer clubs - they'll hoover up the best home-grown players leaving the rest of the teams to pick up the dregs. That'll do wonders for the game, when average League 1 players turn out against in the EPL week-in, week-out I'm sure we'll still be the envy of Europe.
Image teams with several Robbie Savage type players... You can hear the samba drums now!
Quotas won't improve English football, dropping the ridiculous catchment rules for teams academies, investing in schools (instead of selling playing pitches) and maybe having sports-orientated schools and colleges would though.
Complain about this comment
This is a ridiculous debate. If foreign invesment and thus the money went out of English football then the quality of football in the Prem would instantly fall. Look at Serie A, the money has gone out of Italian football yet I don't see the fans rushing the stadiums. Also because of this lack of money Italian teams struggle to make the big signings. AC Milan were the best team in Europe only a few years ago yet they are not even in the Champions League this season because they could not sign new players to add youth to an ageing team. The only way to prevent foreign investors coming into these clubs and keeping the standard of football in the Prem high is for more English investors to come in and pump the same money into the clubs. As for the assumption that man city will now hammer everyone wasn't the same said about Chelsea? This has not been the case there or at Real when the "Galacticos" were there.
A awful lot of this argument seems to be based on nostalgia. Remember the good od days when 10p would buy you a stak and kidney pie, dessert and ticket to see the "talkies".
Complain about this comment
i find it amazing that we still regard Premiership and, to a certain extent, Championship football as sport. Like F1 it has become an entertainment medium, most watch the game on television as price of entry for many families has become prohibitive.
Alteration of the Non-Domicile status may well help Football Clubs regulate their ownership, however, the UK's largest overseas earner is the Financial Services sector where many Non-Doms work as the Government found when it faced a backlash over its attempted rule changes. The market will dominate football clubs as with any 'in-vogue' companies. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Billionaire owners decide that there's something sexier to own given the amount of debt found in the balance sheets of many of our top clubs rather than the Billionaire owners actual cash.
Complain about this comment
A very pertinent article mihir
As one of the many foreigners around the world looking in English football has a great following internationally and no doubt this adds to the spectacle somewhat. With this said, my honest opinion is that foreign ownership is diluting the English part of the English premier league. Some might say that the large amount of foreign money brings in fantastic players from around the world, but surely the ideal scenario is such that the fantastic players around the world are English? Perhaps it is a primal approach but I see no interest from international owners in developing English football for the good of the game. It will always come down to the bottom line for them, and this in turn will lead to the decay of what is a fantastic football spectacle.
Complain about this comment
The problem has its genesis in the tv money and the conditions under which the FA allowed EPL to be set up as a separate body not under its control. The FA can continue to wring its hands but it is effectively powerless having abdicated control at the outset of the EPL.
Complain about this comment
it will take nothing less than a global change to alter the current status quo, what will be the point in restricting foreign investment in english clubs when the other big clubs around the world continue to spend stupid amounts of money.
fifa need to cap wages and transfer fees globally, to allow clubs to operate and compete on a level field (apologies to those in yeovil...) if this happens, players will only play for clubs that they want to play for, instead of the one that pays them the most, that is the heart of the relationship between club and fan. clubs would, with a wage and transfer cap, only buy players that suit the clubs style/ambition etc
as for the constant gripe against the big 4, i only have to say that success brings in money. if newcastle and man city had won more trophies in the last 30 or 40 years, we would have a big 6. money did NOT create the big 4 (with the exception of chelsea), the other 3 were already big through winning trophies. notts forest were a very good team and won trophies for a brief period, as did aston villa and west ham...they all had the same opportunities to break the monopoly of the big 3 but didn't take them.
club chairmen should shoulder some responsibility too, like sacking managers who 'only' qualify for the uefa cup, or 'only' finishing 10th in the whole country, ridiculous...they are the ones who are bringing the game into disrepute
Complain about this comment
As an ex-pat lifelong Argyle supporter I can empathise with this problem.
Football was all about community identification etc.
When I read the comments on Argyle 606 it is often about the number of Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea etc. shirts worn about town which seem to be in the majority compared with Argyle shirts.
I am sure that many football supporters have never seen the team that they say that they support. A triumph for marketing maybe but a defeat for what football is all about.
I had a soft spot for Chelsea as one of the "underdogs" of London (old 1st div) but that was with the likes of Osgood,Harris,Webb,Cooke etc. Now they are successful and when I see them on MOTD it is not the same.
Anyway no matter what I will remain green through and through. Argyle is still a club of the city, apart from 20% Japanese, and about 5 French speaking and 5 Scottish speaking players !!!
Complain about this comment
If you want to reduce the number of foreign players get the government to remove football from the list of skilled professions for which work permits for non-EU nationals are still granted.
That would prevent £35m being spent on a Brazilian who thinks he's signed for a different club.
It should also calm the transfer feeding frenzy and allow more home grown players to come through.
Sadly not much you can do about ownership apart from apply the "fit and proper person" rules rigorously.
Complain about this comment
Article makes sense, and really just puts into words what we all know - Football ( the league variety) is no longer a sport, but big business.
My question though - as much as we all complain, and as undoubtedly far removed from "ideal" as it is, would most people be watching it in todays' world if it were still "the local team" with not much at stake?
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
I think you are confusing things here with the non domicile issue. Most footballers will be deemed resident in the UK in most of the years that they play for clubs here. As such they will be liable to tax on their income from their UK employer. Even non residents are taxable on their UK income.
The question here is whether the clubs are indulging in blatant tax evasion by coming up with schemes to give non repayable loans or loans which do not become repayable until the players contracts end and they become non UK resident.
At the end of the day it all comes down to greed and that greed is being fed at present by TV money. If that money ever dries up then the implosion that you are presently witnessing in the banking world will be as nothing compared to the fall out in football where the only 'real' assets the teams have is their ground.
Complain about this comment
the worst run club in the premiership may indeed be newcastle and owned by the english, but one of the best run is Arsenal also owned by english.
Complain about this comment
The Newcastle fans as far as I can remember have never been happy with the board or chairman. Perhaps they should consider the way that two of the world's largest clubs are owned, FCB Barcelona and Real Madrid. These clubs are owned by their supporters who have a say in who runs the club and how it is ran. They can vote off Chairman / Presidents who they believe are not running the club properly. If a few celeb fans put up some cash, not too much as no one group should have overall control, and 100,000 to 200,000 fans put in a small chunk of cash 1,000 to 2,000 Pounds each, they could take out Mike Ashley and pay off the debts and take control. Just a thought......
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Echoing post 19 - Can someone at the BEEB please explain to me and others why my post has been 'modded'? It's an opinion - what's so scary about an opinion?
Read 'Love All The People' by Bill Hicks. It puts everything perfectly in perspective.
Complain about this comment
I don't care much for the house rules. Unfairly silenced i say!
Complain about this comment
If I were someone interested in purchasing a football club - for whatever reason - I would seriously look at Leeds Utd. A massive club that could be purchased 'on the cheap' in comparison with others, especially when you take into account their fan base.
Complain about this comment
Leeds are not exactly massive at all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I really think that Mihir should steer clear of sweeping generalisations.
Ask any Aston Villa fan what they think of the foreign ownership of our team and Im sure you would find 100% devotion to Randy Lerner.
Lets not forget that amongst these so called giants of the game in England you will find that they have massive debts, the Villa dont.
We also have an owner who has given up potentially £2m in sponsorship to the wonderful Acorns charity as well as giving money to the National gallery.
The man has a lion tattoo on his leg which shows his permanent devotion to the club and describes watching a John Carew goal as good as seeing a dylan concert at the Albert Hall.
So Mihir when you start questioning the foreign ownership of our clubs take note that they are not all bad !
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS