Skip to main content

The downsides of the 50+1 model


The 50+1 model in German football has many admirers in the UK, illustrated by the number of supporters carrying 50+1 placards outside Old Trafford.  However, it is often treated rather uncritically.  I am far from convinced that it is the best way forward, as I argue in my book Political Football to be published by Agenda on May 27th.  The key need is for an effective independent regulator who could license club owners.

A recent article in The Athletic looks at some of the downsides of the 50+1 model.    

First of all, the democratic oversight isn’t quite as strong as it seems. Most clubs make it very difficult for rival candidates to stand for election, for example. They will only put up a single candidate who is then rubber-stamped by the electorate. Taking back real control is therefore quite hard.

At the same time, the involvement of elected officials worried about their standing with the members can also create tension with those paid to run the football operations. “It is very difficult to work in a quiet way with a long-term, clear plan because of interference from above,” one Bundesliga official explains. “You are not really free to make a lot of good and strong executive decisions — if you are struggling there is always an opposite side that tries to eliminate you from the club. Without short-term success, you’re gone.”

These multi-layered power structures tend to make for noisy environments as soon as things move in the wrong direction. Because those in charge at ground level answer to custodians who are in turn reliant on the approval of the members, big clubs can quickly become a cacophonous mess of internal politics, targeted leaks and collective hysteria. Without strong leadership and competent decision makers, even blue-chip sides such as Hamburger SV or Schalke 04 can quite easily slide into chaos — and towards Bundesliga 2 oblivion.

And that’s not the only problem. By barring club takeovers, “50 + 1” restricts outside investment into the league. Unless they’re lucky enough to attract minority shareholders willing to put up money without control, clubs cannot raise huge sums to grow. All money needs to be generated organically, through the steady increase of revenues, which is a slow, treacherous process. 

Clubs like Borussia Dortmund or latterly Borussia Monchengladbach have shown that you can get ahead without investment but it takes years if not decades of sustained success on the pitch and a myriad of right decisions off it to get anywhere near the top.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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/