China exercises soft power against Arsenal

Yesterday's game between Arsenal and Manchester City was pulled by Chinese state television after Mesut Ozil made remarks on social media about what he stated was the treatment of Uighur Muslims in China (claims denied by China). Ozil has German nationality, but is of Turkish heritage and his remarks were initially made in that language.

The game was replaced by a recording of the game between Wolves and another North London club. A Chinese state newspaper described Ozil's comments as 'false' and claimed he had 'disappointed' football authorities. In addition, the Chinese Football Association said Ozil's comments were 'unacceptable' and had 'hurt the feelings' of Chinese fans.

Arsenal were quick to distance themselves from his remarks on Chinese social media, saying that they were those of an individual and not the club and emphasising that the club was apolitical. Any exclusion from the lucrative Chinese market would be a commercial blow for Arsenal. In this case China has taken action against an individual club rather than the Premier League as a whole in contrast to the treatment of the National Basketball Association.

The BBC's Beijing correspondent Robin Brant commented: 'The NBA's crisis in China showed how serious and how immediate the impact on commercial interests could be. So important is football to the UK and its soft power that very senior British diplomats have pondered the impact on UK China relations of something like this.'

Speaking on Wake up to Money on Radio 5, Professor Simon Chadwick of the University of Salford made a good point when he said that there is often considerable ignorance in Premier League clubs about China. This was brought home to me when I was asked to brief a Premier League manager and it quickly became evident that he thought that China still had an Emperor which was not a good start.

The treatment of football I have seen on Chinese television is quite sophisticated. When Charlton were in the Premier League I was sitting in my room in Kunming and switched on the television to see an in depth explanation of the relationship between then manager Alan Curbishley and his assistant Keith Peacock.

Clearly there are contrasting views on this matter. One would be that clubs need to straighten out their thinking, to paraphrase Mao. The alternative view would be that the ability to speak out against claimed human rights abuses should not be curtailed. Whether footballers (like actors) should use their celebrity to intervene in politics is a matter for debate.

What is evident to me is that China is only just starting to realise the potential of soft power as distinct from hard (e.g., military) power and the extent to which sport offers an avenue for exerting influence elsewhere in the world. The Premier League television contract with China is worth half a billion pounds a year.

This is not a good time for Arsenal and Ozil is in trouble for his conduct at yesterday's match against Manchester City when he was substituted: Tantrum

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month. He was approaching ninety, but still went to games. Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules. Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000. The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts. Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen. There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere: https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/

The Political Economy of Football V2

Search This Blog