Who owns football?

Or, as it might have been written, ¿Quién posee el fútbol?

'Who Owns Football? - The Governance and Management of the Club Game Worldwide'
(ISBN 978-0-415-44570-2)
Edited by David Hassan and Sean Hamil
First published by Routledge in 2011
Based on articles first available in 'Soccer and Society' vol. 11.4
£76 from Amazon

This is a slim academic volume, with fewer than 200 pages, but the densely written and analytical text requires time and effort to do justice to the wealth of information and ideas which the the book contains.

In the Introduction: models of football governance and management in international sport (David Assan and Sean Hamil), the invigorating thoughts of Michel Platini are followed by an introduction to the collection of seven articles, only three of which (1, 4 and 7) are perhaps strictly relevant to the aims of this blog.

1. Financial performance in English professional football: 'an inconvenient truth'
Sean Hamil and Geoff Walters

Question section 1
Between the 1992/3 and 2006/7 seasons, the combined annual turnover of the Premier League clubs increased by 900%. In how many of these seasons did the combined Premier League clubs make a collective pre-tax profit?

4. Who owns England's game? American professional sporting influences and foreign ownership in the Premier League
John Nauright and John Ramfjord

Question section 4
How many Premier League football clubs (2010-11) are owned by investors based outside the UK?

7. The model of governance at FC Barcelona: balancing member democracy, commercial strategy, corporate social responsibility and sporting performance
Sean Hamil, Geoff Walters and Lee Watson

The best section is left till last. Here you will find a blueprint for the club of your dreams. Return to it again and again when your club behaves in a lesser way.

Question section 7
How many socios had FC Barcelona on 30 June 2008?

The verdict?
At around £80 to buy, perhaps it might be thought expensive for a book. But looked at another way, it does not cost significantly more than attending a Premier League game. Or, even in these hard times. you might be able to find a library which has it on its shelves.

This is a book to be cherished.

Appendix: answers to questions

Section 1: none of these years

Section 4: 10 (at 5 March 2011: Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Fulham, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Sunderland, Tottenham Hotspur).

Section 7: 162,979 on 30 June 2008 (175,071 on 29 August 2010).

The two sides in football

The private
In the West Ham programme for 9 May 2010, David Sullivan (Chairman) wrote:
'In a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

On the West Ham website (13 August 2010), we read that the club has raised £4m in new equity through a placing of shares, primarily with new investors. These include John Harris and Daniel Harris (father and son), and also Terence Brown (former Chairman of the club).

If necessary, readers will be able to find out a little of the background of Mr Brown by using their favourite search engine. The welcome given by West Ham fans to this news must have been fairly muted.

Daniel Harris has joined the board as a non-executive director while Terence Brown becomes an honorary life president.

In case you, and Mr Sullivan, have forgotten, 'in a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

But perhaps not ordinary supporters.

The public
This side was represented by Members of Parliament speaking on behalf of their constituents in the Adjournment Debate on 8 September 2010: (the) role of football supporters in the governance of professional football clubs.

The debate was well attended by MPs, both listening and speaking, and also by club supporters in the visitors' area.

It was opened by Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) who has the distinction of having two premiership clubs (Everton and Liverpool) in his constituency. The debate showed that MPs are well aware of both the importance of football in the life of their constituents and the nature of the problems which need to be tackled, particularly in connection with premiership clubs.

One gained the impression that MPs would be quite prepared to support the introduction of a legal requirement that supporters, if they wished, should be able to gain control of their clubs.

The bridge?
West Ham is currently owned by WH Holding Limited, a private limited company This structure is not appropriate for a large number of small shareholders.

But the most obvious alternative, a public limited company, would probably be unacceptable to the present owners.

What is needed is an intermediate body in which supporters could invest, and from which they could withdraw if necessary, sums of the order of £500 to £1 000 in absolute safety, until the money could be used to buy shares in the main company.

Finally, these members would be able, if they wished, to exchange the value of their investment for benefits of equal value provided by the main company, now the members' body.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow.

T. S. Eliot

Why did West Ham United Supporters Trust fail?

West Ham United Supporters Trust (referred to as WHUST) is the trading name of West Ham Supporters' Society Limited, IP29300R, first registered on 24 October 2001 and now dormant.

These notes are based on the only documents (no longer available) which could be found on the web. The information provides an insight into the likely reasons why WHUST has not survived. This is of obvious importance to WHAM! who would not wish to repeat any mistakes made by WHUST.

At the WHUST AGM in September 2003, it was made clear that the Trust "could not veer from its pro-fan agenda and therefore could never join the anti-Brown campaign".

It is likely that the fate of WHUST was sealed from that date as the West Ham Board, and the fans, realised that the 'revolutionary' forces did not have enough votes and the support of major shareholders to bring about change.

Weaknesses of WHUST revealed in the documents available

1. A shortage of active members
Amanda Matthews (who re-appears later in connection with the "Stand up, sit down" campaign) says that, of the original members, only two remain. On 15 January 2004, she appeals for more help for the 8 active members.

2. A lack of focus
It can't make up its mind if its main purpose is to raise funds to buy shares so that it can influence the football club or to act as a forum for the whole range of opinions you can expect from football fans.

3. Poor use of the resources it does have
Much effort is spent in replying to every point raised by fans on the website.

4. Some dotty ideas
These probably appear as a consequence of other weaknesses. For example 'we do have a healthy amount in the bank at our disposal, which we have earmarked to use to double our membership, in doing so will then be able to invest in more shares'.
But supposing this does not produce any new members? Or very few? What then, with no funds, is the future of the trust?

5. A lack of financial control
There is no indication that priorities have been properly assessed and finances directed accordingly, in other words having a plan with a realistic budget.

6. A lack of influence
As someone pointed out (18 September 2003), with just over 300 members at £20 each for each of the two years the Trust has been running, the total raised equals £12 000. Spending just half of that could have bought (21 May 2003), at £3 a share (including dealing costs), 2 000 shares. The Trust had 200!

Every effort has been made to ensure that the facts in this analysis are accurate and that the comment is fair. If you would like to discuss the matters raised, please respond, either on this site or by direct communication.