Football Ownership: Fan-Owned & 50+1 Versus The Oligarchs
Football is often regarded as one of the most renowned and widely followed sports globally, owing to its immense popularity and appeal. It possesses the ability to unite individuals and generate enduring memories.
Nevertheless, owning a football team entails a significant amount of accountability. Football club owners are responsible for making financial, strategic, and operational choices that determine the trajectory of their clubs. Football ownership has gained significant importance in recent years, as seen by the notable failures of several prominent teams worldwide. These incidents have underscored the necessity for responsible and committed ownership to the community’s well-being.
In today’s article, we will examine the concept of football ownership, including its difficulties and advantages, and provide guidance on which ownership methods prioritise the fans’ interests and the sport’s long-term health.
Fan-Owned Clubs
This compilation comprises sports teams exclusively owned by fans or followers, either through a collective organisation or due to restrictions on majority ownership by a small group as stipulated in the club’s constitution or governing regulations.
Supporter-owned teams are achieving success in both the English game and globally, providing a blueprint for fans who wish to regain control of football from the corporate elite.
In 2021, a large number of Arsenal supporters staged protests against the owner, Stan Kroenke.
Before the planned European Super League secession, fan ownership would have been supported by only a few Arsenal fans or fans of the so-called ‘Big Six’ clubs. There is a significant surge in support for drastic changes that provide supporters authority over their teams, while the specific details of these changes are still being discussed.
Ensuring fans a portion of ownership, special shares with specialised voting privileges, and automatic representation of supporters on governing boards: comprehensive reforms have now become a priority. Incorporating a rule akin to the German 50+1 rule has been a prominent topic in political discussions, as seen by the support of over 85,000 individuals who have signed a petition advocating its adoption. Although it is unlikely that professional teams would be immediately transferred to supporters since this would necessitate a significant restructuring of football’s financial system, there is currently a pressing need for change that would enable fans to regain control over the future of the sport.
Although the Super League’s collapse has created a fresh chance for fans, fan ownership is not a novel concept in English football. Indeed, as a paradigm, it possesses an impressive heritage of triumph. Supporters have consistently demonstrated their ability to be competent caretakers and innovative managers. However, they have not yet proven themselves at the Premier League level. However, the historical account of fan ownership offers valuable insights for individuals who wish to take advantage of the current opportunity and empower people in the audience and on the stadium terraces.
The Biggest Fan-Owned Success Story
FC Barcelona is often regarded as one of the most popular football clubs owned by its fans. Their league competitors from Basque are far less affluent and receive less support in comparison. Club elections are conducted by individual members or followers casting their votes. A multitude of fan clubs further fuels the team. The sole issue plaguing FC Barcelona is the presidential elections.
To become the president, an individual must provide a deposit equivalent to 10% of the club’s net value. This eventually bestows authority upon the affluent rather than the broader fan base. President Joan Laporta required a sum of £108 million before assuming office.
50+1 Rule
“50 + 1” refers to the German ownership model for professional football teams. In every Bundesliga team, the club’s members must own at least 50 per cent plus one share of the voting rights.
The supporters’ legally mandated participation ensures that the members in charge of the club are held responsible for the members. Bayern Munich fans can convene an Annual General Meeting (AGM) to oust the incumbent chairperson. Such turmoil is quite uncommon. However, a distinct power dynamic exists as the individuals in authority do not own the club but operate it on behalf of the members.
Fans can exercise their consumer choice and express their approval or disapproval by voting for or against the individuals in positions of authority. Due to the absence of formal owners, those who manage clubs typically consist of local entrepreneurs and former football players. Their public personas enhance transparency and responsibility, unlike England, where most Premier League teams are managed by anonymous administrators acting on behalf of absent owners.
Oligarchs in Football
The widening disparity between the financially privileged and disadvantaged in sports has resulted in the desire for a takeover by an extremely wealthy owner who can use their resources to achieve tremendous success, a prevalent aspiration among football supporters in the 21st century. However, new evidence indicates that supporters should exercise caution in their desires, as off-field modifications frequently result in tumultuous performances on the pitch.
Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich acquired ownership of the entities that oversee Chelsea Football Club in June 2003. This decision profoundly impacted the global football community, affecting all levels of the sport’s hierarchy. Upon arrival, Abramovich initiated an unparalleled shopping spree to revolutionise the West London club into a worldwide brand capable of competing with powerhouses like Man Utd and Real Madrid.
On the pitch, it is difficult to dispute Abramovich’s success in this aspect throughout his ownership. During the 19 years after the acquisition, Chelsea achieved victory in 19 significant competitions. Under Abramovich’s ownership, Chelsea became England’s most successful side in winning trophies.
Over the past twenty years, the acquisition has become a significant event for the influx of wealth in football. Fans of consistently unsuccessful teams worldwide have been inspired by the possibility that a wealthy benefactor would one day buy their club, following in the footsteps of Abramovich’s transformation of Chelsea. Furthermore, this occurrence has occurred in several instances. Newcastle United has had a significant transformation in ownership, transitioning from a period of financial difficulty under retail magnate Mike Ashley to qualifying for the prestigious Champions League under the ownership of PIF.
Manchester City has undergone a significant transformation, evolving from a team that frequently moved between the Premier League and Championship divisions into a highly successful team with successive major titles. Simultaneously, in the lower divisions, Wrexham has gained widespread recognition on a global scale by achieving promotion to League Two, with the support of owners Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney.
However, those aspiring to achieve such impressive accomplishments have frequently had disappointing, if not disastrous, outcomes. We shouldn’t be taking gambles with our historic teams as if they were newly launched UK betting sites. Clubs such as Derby, Bury, Bolton Wanderers, Blackpool, and others have faced imminent collapse due to the failure of new owners to fulfil their promises of financial stability. These owners spent money in an unsustainable manner, aiming to secure a spot in the lucrative Premier League and its substantial broadcasting revenues. However, when this risky strategy did not yield the desired results, these clubs were forced to shut down.
The new analysis from Football Benchmark provides a more detailed explanation of these concerns. Examining the ten most significant acquisitions of majority stakes to gain control of a club in Europe’s top five national leagues (Germany, Spain, England, France, and Italy), just three teams have won their respective leagues following the takeover. Each of those also comes with a mentioned drawback.
Debate and Conclusion
The debate between the approaches above to football club ownership holds positives and negatives. But in terms of which ones are best? It’s hard to argue that football should belong to the fans.
The Premier League is trapped in a perpetual cycle of ownership. Whenever a club is made available, the potential buyers typically consist of authoritarian countries through their sovereign wealth funds or willing partners, questionable billionaires, hedge firms focused on maximising financial gain, or secretive groups.
Inevitably, as long as supporters are excluded from the decision-making process while their teams are being traded without their involvement, clubs will continue to be trapped in the same repetitive pattern. Although the current white paper shows promise, future administrations must expand upon its groundwork and further democratise the game. Newcastle United, for instance, would be best safeguarded by those who have a genuine affection for the club rather than those with ulterior motives of exploiting it as a tool for political gain or only for financial exploitation. This applies to all other prominent strongholds of English football and around Europe.
