Football governance - learning from the Edwardians

With a Commons Select Committee investigating football's governance and ministers railing against the way the game is run, the latest edition of United fanzine Red News, had an interesting press clipping showing how things were done back in 1909.

Having finished Champions in 1907/08 (see photo), United won the FA Cup in the 1908/09 season and had upset the FA in various ways (including outrageously having a replica of the FA Cup made). This was also the time of the ill-fated player rebellion over their attempt to unionise. United were being bankrolled by local brewer John Henry Davies who put up the £60,000 to build Old Trafford. As you can see from the clipping from the Daily Sketch on 7th December 1909 below (reproduced with kind permission), the FA had suspicions that United were not a "genuine" club under its rules.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of United's actions in 1909, it is worth noting what the FA rules said at the time.

On what made a club "genuine":

"...that is to say, that it was formed by the voluntary effort of a number of people resident in the locality of its headquarters, and that there were many shareholders who, with separate interests, had the right to elect directors."

And on what sort of ownership was permissible:

"The Football Association does not allow the private proprietorship of clubs carried on for the purpose of speculation and profit."

And finally on financial monitoring:

"they [the FA] have been prosecuting inquiries. They demanded the balance-sheet, which is never made public. The share list has been examined [any Qataris on there?]. The increases of capital, the alteration of the articles of association (without permission), and the alleged issue of debentures [bonds] for large sums in connection with the building of the new ground at Old Trafford have been matters for consideration."

None of the stipulations above exist in the current FA rules of course, but wouldn't the game be better off if they did? Why were restrictions on "speculation and profit" removed? Why are individuals allowed to own clubs, rather than diverse groups of supporters? Why is there so little financial scrutiny of debt and accounts? 

When we scratch our heads as to how to improve the governance of football, perhaps we should start with the FA rules of Edwardian England and see how they did it....

LUHG

The Government and football – strong words need to be followed up with action

Sports Minister Hugh Robertson had some harsh words to say about the governance of English football yesterday:

"If you look across sport, it is very clear to me that football is the worst-governed sport in this country, without a shadow of a doubt. The levels of corporate governance that apply to football, a point often addressed by [Labour], lag far behind other sports, and other sports are by no means beacons in this regard."

Not only did Robertson (correctly) identify the problem, he promised action.

"So, action is needed and the Government will take it, but it wants to see the results of [the Department of Culture Media and Sport] select committee first."

That's quite a bold statement, and also very clear. Football supporters need to hold that promise to account. Here is my list of what's wrong with football. Others may agree or disagree and no doubt views on the relative importance of each problem will differ:

Debt and financial mismanagement

How is it that no Bundesliga club has ever gone bust or into administration yet dozens of English clubs have?

Leveraged buyouts

Impossible in most European leagues, banned in the NFL(!). Adding debt to a club for the privilege of having new owners. Nothing added, nothing invested. 

Supporter ownership

Why is there no help (or even preference) for the most natural owners to take a stake in their clubs? Instead we end up with the crooks, carpetbaggers and dodgy dealers who have ruined so many.

Ticket prices

Record income flows into our game and yet prices rise inexorably upwards with supporters priced out. £100 for a non-executive ticket at Arsenal? Laughable.

The FA

Responsible for the debt ridden shambles of "Nu Wembley", the decline of the FA Cup and the shambolic England team and its manager. Not fit for purpose.

Financial inequality in the game – Champions League qualification makes you rich, PL mid-table makes you worry, relegation could send you broke. Lower than that clubs fight for scraps.

Standing

Why hasn't there been a proper debate on this? Visit a German stadium and see how they do it (no doubt they would sell us some of their highly engineered safe standing barriers).

You may have your own issues you would add to the list. Some, such as the level of player wages, seem to me to stem from the no. 1 problem, financial mismanagement.

I believe that if Hugh Robertson is serious about taking action on football "governance", these are the issues and benchmarks against which he and the government must be measured.

Over to you Hugh.

LUHG

Football authorities watch no.1

So it's now ten days since the publication of Red Football's bond prospectus. Ten days of massive coverage in the media, of justified anger by supporters, of petitions and protest groups being established and ten days during which I can't recall seeing any comment at all from the people in charge of the national game; the FA and the Premier League.

Such silence is even more curious given the fact that these bodies are the ones who have allowed the pillaging of United to happen. Either organisation has the authority to introduce whatever rules they see fit to regulate the financial affairs of member clubs, neither has chosen to do anything to prevent the asset stripping of Manchester United.

So I thought I'd start a regular(ish) check on any public utterances by these "custodians" of the game on United's financial woes or the wider debt crisis threatening English football.

There are four key individuals in positions of power at the FA and Premier League (who are independent of member clubs). They are:

Lord Triesman - Chairman of the Football Association

Ian Watmore - Chief Executive of the Football Association

Sir David Richards - Chairman of the Premier League

Richard Scudamore - Chief Executive of the Premier League

Using the power of Google and the organisations' own websites, here is what they've been saying about the debt crisis afflicting the game since 11th January 2010:

Triesman- nothing

Whatmore - nothing

Richards - nothing

Scudamore - spoke to 5Live's Sportsweek programme (on Sunday 17th January) his club specific comments mainly related about the crisis at Portsmouth (download audio here). Highlights include:

'Given the amount of central income that is generated by the Premier League, it would be down to absolutely rank bad management if a club itself was actually to go into administration.'

[On intervening to set what clubs can and can't do financially] 'We can only go by our rule book. I don't think anyone wants the Premier League running football clubs, it's very much for the owners to run the football clubs.'

'In fairness to the people at Portsmouth and [Pompey chief executive] Peter Storrie and the people who are running that club, they are working very, very hard and have worked extremely hard to live the dream [oops] for Portsmouth.'

'They've had a succession of owners through there and the people there now are scrabbling very hard to make sure this football club stays alive.'

'There's only a certain point at which we can intervene. We changed our rules in September and now, when we see the financials [reports] that come in from clubs at the end of March, we will be able to take a stronger role to come in and make sure they are sustainable.'

'Do you want to just have a club that barely survives in the Premier League? Do you actually want to own a club that is safely mid-table? Do you want to own a club that pushes for Europe? Do you want to own a club that guarantees being in the Champions League?'

'Your attitude and answers to those questions give you an answer as to what sort of money might be required and we at the Premier League are never going to be intervening to the level where we decide how much it needs to run a club.'

'Debt per se is not bad. It's the amount of debt relative to your income that's the critical issue.'

LUHG