Can attack on sponsors hurt Glazers?

Hitting the Glazers in the pocket may be an effective tactic for disgruntled Manchester United fans, particularly given that commercial income - at which the club has been so successful in generating - has stalled.    Sponsors may be vulnerable to threats of reputational damage given that they are seeking to enhance their reputation, or at least their profile, by an association with the club.

However, perhaps the acid test is whether these guerilla tactics can be sustained in the long run. For the Glazers, the strategy appears to be give the storm time to subside which has certainly happened with earlier waves of protest.

In recent weeks, some fans have sought to engineer cyber-attacks on club partners, leaving negative reviews to damage the reputation of brands associated with Manchester United.

In March, United’s signed a £47 million-per-year deal with the global technology company TeamViewer to sponsor the club’s shirts. However, on Trust Pilot, an open online review platform where consumers can provide feedback about a company, United supporters have posted negatively about TeamViewer.

As of Tuesday afternoon, 86 per cent of the company’s visible reviews on the platform were judged “bad”, leaving an overall rating of 1.3 out of 5 for TeamViewer. One poster went under the name of “Paul Pogba”, writing: “Terrible software, gave my PC malware. Definitely do not recommend.” Another review read: “Immoral company that will act as accomplices to horrible acts against things you hold dear. Avoid.” A third wrote: “Poor product and even poorer choice of sponsorship with the Glazers. There are cheaper alternatives to this on the internet for free do not purchase or use.”

Some may discount the negative reviews as mischievous fun and games, but those familiar with the Glazers are convinced that this avenue is the most likely to unsettle the club’s ownership. Indeed, when some on social media attempted to pressure the club’s partners during a wave of protest around 18 months ago, sources say the club’s hierarchy sought to internally monitor the extent of the issue. 

The idea from supporters here is that a brand may come to consider an association with United as a blemish on their reputation and as such, they may then seek to withdraw from a partnership or not renew the deal when it next comes around.

“The protests need to be financial to hit the Glazers,” says one former colleague of the United owners. “If you are the Glazers, you’re saying, ‘Bring it on’, if the protesting fans do not give up their Iseason tickets. They may just think, ‘Oh, OK, pay £60 a game, shout that we are a bunch of bastards, but do make sure you pop into the club shop and buy some pints and a burger at the game as that keeps the money rolling in’. As long as fans keep spending money at the club, they will be OK. Ultimately, it may require fans to make ultimate sacrifice, to not watch their team at the stadium, to hit the owners in their pockets.”

On Tuesday afternoon, this approach intensified, when a group of anonymous United fans on social media posted an open letter, tagging in the club’s sponsors, warning that they are deemed to be “legitimate targets” due to their association with the club.

The letter read: “As commercial partners of the Glazer family, you are legitimate targets of the global fanbase because the combined £279 million per annum you pay will not go towards investment in the squad to compete with the best clubs that United now trail. It will not go towards refurbishing Old Trafford or training facilities, both now so outdated that they have become a symbol for Glazer disinterest. To that end, Manchester United fans will boycott your products, seek to tarnish your brands and support your competitors until you terminate your commercial partnership with the Glazer family.”

The question of protests against sponsors has been raised before. Indeed, representatives of United and Nike, sponsors at the time, held talks about the potential revenue impact of boycotts when the Glazers took over the club in 2005. Supporter groups opposed to the takeover had called for boycotts of brands such as Audi, Vodafone, Budweiser and Fuji, who all had deals with the club in 2005, but it did not lead to substantial damage to the Glazer family.

Instead, United now have to accept a pattern of commercial growth that appears to be stalling. Since 2017, the club’s commercial income has risen only from £276 million to £279 million, while the television rights deals for the Premier League are likely, at best, to remain stagnant during the next cycle.

The collapse of Project Big Picture and now the Super League has seemingly doomed the major growth options for United, such as streaming matches on their own platforms and selling directly to the consumer, and they now appear more distant than ever. The TeamViewer shirt deal represented a drop on the previous Chevrolet one. In the absence of commercial growth, on-field success would appear to be the most effective driver of capital value for United.