EPL Open Mic : Is Money Ruining "Our" Beautiful Game Of Football?

Here is my response to the first EPL Open Mic: Is Money Ruining ‘Our’ Beautiful Game of Football?

In my take on the issue, I have decided to focus on two effects of the amount of money in the Premier League as a result of it‘s success: the growing trend for foreign ownership of clubs and the changing nature of the relationship between clubs and fans.

When the Premier League was formed in 1992, the FA probably had no idea of the monster they were about to unleash.

The creation of a new top division in England was the start of a break from the doldrums of the 1980s, which reached its nadir with the Heysel disaster and the five year ban for English clubs from European competition.

Optimism had been boosted by England’s semifinal run in the 1990 World Cup, and the creation of a new league, separate from the Football League, was seen as a way to build on this success and lure the top players to England.

Fast forward 16 years, and the Premier League seems to be in rude health. English grounds are graced by giants of the world game such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Cesc Fabregas, Steven Gerrard and Michael Ballack.

English teams are dominating Europe’s premier club competition, the Champions League—the past four finals have featured an English team, and last year’s final was an all English affair.

On the surface, all appears well. But, dig a little deeper and you start to see some emerging problems that come with being one of the best leagues in the world.

Russian Precedent

Most of these problems have come with the growing number of foreign club owners. The Premier League is now a global brand, and as a result there has been a rush to invest in it. Some companies see it as a way of improving their brand visibility, others as a way to have a bit of fun.

Either way, the trend started by Roman Abramovich in 2003 has rolled onwards.

After Abramovich’s takeover, Chelsea proceeded to go on a spending spree that had never been seen before in English football, splashing out over £100 million on players in the space of one summer.

The result? Five years and six trophies later, Chelsea have moved on to the next level in English football, their fan base is growing, and the squad is ever improving.

Chelsea’s case appears to show that foreign ownership is good thing. There have been bumps along the way, but Chelsea fans are glad for the investment Abramovich has poured into the club.

An examination of the fortunes of some other clubs under foreign ownership proves that the experience of Chelsea fans is part of the exception, rather than the rule.

The Pitfalls of Globalisation

Abramovich taking over Chelsea in 2003 was the beginning of a bright new dawn in the history of the club, but it hasn’t always been that way with other teams.

The shock transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano to West Ham United on transfer deadline day 2006 and subsequent take over by Eggert Magnusson had many people predicting a top four finish for the Hammers. The season that followed was spent fighting relegation, safety only being secured on the last day of the season with a 1-0 win over champions Manchester United.

Mascherano hardly featured for West Ham, and Tevez was off the following summer to Manchester United.

The takeover of Liverpool by George Gillet and Tom Hicks has seemed to have done more harm than good at Anfield. The seemingly ever illusive league title keeps evading the Merseysiders, and Rafael Benitez has found his position as manager undermined by behind the scenes machinations.

Benitez has also found that his transfer ambitions have been stifled—Liverpool’s owners refused to sanction the release of £18 million to purchase Gareth Barry.

Arguments about Barry’s ability aside, a manager should be free to choose his transfer targets and should expect to be supported by his superiors in going after them. Pulling in opposite directions does not benefit the club; it just holds it back.

Culture Clash

One of the effects of the growing number for foreign owners is that a culture clash has emerged between old, traditionalist values and new, continental and in some respects alien practices. The departure of Alan Curbishley from West Ham United illustrates this very succinctly.

The traditional role of a manager is to select the team and control who comes in and out of the club. Curbishley was not allowed to do this, with Anton Ferdinand and George McCartney sold above his head. As a result, Curbishley walked out on the club, meaning there is one less British manager in the Premier League.

Some owners want to impose themselves on their new club and interfere with the way things are run. This can only lead to disaster. Andriy Shevchenko was widely rumoured to have been forced upon ex-Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, and that turned out badly for all parties.

By all means, owners should take an interest in the way things are being done, but it should be left to the people who have that experience and expertise. When this doesn’t happen, it just leads to problems. But, with no supreme power to check them, owners can do as they wish within the structures of their club if they want to.

Developments at Manchester City will be worth watching, to see if this sort of trend will continue in the Premier League. ADUG have been very forthcoming in their declarations of who they are going to try and sign, and this could come into conflict with the way Mark Hughes wants to run the club.

He recently said that City’s hugely successful youth policy will not be ignored, despite the club’s new found riches. The question is, how will Hughes react if top name players are forced upon him? Will he take the same action as Curbishley and walk out?

Tradition v Modernisation

From a fan’s perspective, the success and wealth of the Premier League has also brought them problems, from rising costs to a feeling of detachment.

Traditionalists argue that the game is moving away from being a pursuit of the working class, and towards being dominated by big business and affluent people who have no roots in the game. In bygone days, supporting a team was based on a generational heritage: dad’s taking their son’s to their first game, leaving them hooked for life and likely to pass their passion onto their children.

While this can still be the case, such a story is growing less and less likely.

Now, however, it seems people will go to matches because it is fashionable and good for their business. For example, the corporate Club Wembley seats for the 2007 FA Cup Final were filled for the occasion. Contrast this to the 2008 Carling Cup Final, a less prestigious game, where the “suits” were conspicuous by their absence, and you can see what motivated those people to go.

The growing success of the Premier League has attracted these people to the game, because it as seen as something that will benefit their stature and wallet.

People that have followed their team through thick and thin now find they cannot afford to fund their dedication to their club. With the credit crunch in effect, this is becoming even harder than before.

This comes with the development of the Premier League into one of the world’s best leagues. There is a perilous balance between the pros and the cons of the league’s globalisation. On the one hand, you have the best players in the world wanting to ply their trade on these shores, and on the other you have the loyal followers who are being priced out of going to watch their club—a club they complain has "changed".

Tradition is increasingly being sacrificed for profits and global popularity. Some may lament this development, but it was inevitable. Success in business dictates a global approach, making it more likely that loyal followers feel disillusioned and jaded.

As the Premier League and it’s fans appear to get richer, loyal stalwarts are feeling increasingly short changed.

A Balance—And A Solution?

Foreign ownership can be good for clubs, if they keep a link to the past and understand the traditions and intricacies of how the club operates. For all the criticism Roman Abramovich has received, the model employed at Chelsea is a respectable example for other clubs.

There have been hiccups along the way, such as the sacking of Jose Mourinho and some questionable transfer dealings, but the club have maintained a link with their past and are currently stable and prosperous.

Non-corporate season ticket prices have been frozen for three years, and you can purchase a ticket for FA Cup, Carling Cup, and Champions League Group Stage games for £25 for adults and £12 for OAP’s and children.

Fans from bygone days can take up the opportunity to return to the Bridge, and take along their children for the first time. The generational link and story is kept alive.

Pre-Abramovich stalwarts such as Steve Clarke, Frank Lampard, and John Terry remain a key part of the club and have been crucial in recent successes. A Past Players Trust has been established to help out former players who have fallen on hard times.

Abramovich has ensured a lasting contribution to the club with the construction of a new youth academy and first team training facilities, meaning Chelsea have some of the best facilities in Europe.

The key to Manchester United’s recent success has been the fact that Sir Alex Ferguson has been allowed to get on with his job the way he has been doing it for the past 20 years, and he has also been aided in the transfer market by the Glazers. They have not forced players on him, they have sat back and just let him get on with it.

Conclusion

With success comes pitfalls, and with the Premier League it is no different. Success has lead to top players and money in abundance. As the competition grew, it’s viability as an investment opportunity increased, and the current trend of investment from all corners of the globe doesn’t look like ending.

It looks like it is here to stay, and we just have to get used to it.

In spite of this, the loyal supporter must not be forgotten in modern football. A link must always be kept with the past as it shapes every club’s future. If this link isn’t preserved, clubs will walk into a global future blind. If they do keep it alive, it will make the seismic changes the fans experience in supporting their team a little easier to digest.