Skip to main content

Is the multi club model a good thing?

Is multi-club ownership really such a positive thing? And as so often, it is a question the game has never really faced up to, preferring to stand by and do nothing for years before finally stopping to wonder if it is now so widespread that they might as well just legitimise it.

The arguments in favour of multi-club ownership are clear. As well as the Red Bull empire, you could just look at the success of the City Football Group.  It's a road Chelsea are planning to go down.

City are at the top of the tree, Premier League champions for four of the past five seasons. But Melbourne City (men and women), New York City, Mumbai City and Yokohama F Marinos have won league titles as part of the group and Girona, Troyes and Montevideo City Torque have won promotions, all of them benefiting from a shared network of players, coaches and scouts as well as data, knowledge, infrastructure and strategy.

With the investment of Brighton & Hove Albion owner-chairman Tony Bloom, Royal Union Saint-Gilloise have not only been promoted to the Belgian top tier for the first time in 49 years but finished as runners-up last season and are second again now. They took their place in the last -eight of the Europa League draw alongside Manchester United and Juventus.

The potential benefits of belonging to a multi-club network are clear for clubs that have fallen on hard times (as Royal Union had) or clubs that are newly formed (like New York City) or nearly-new (like Mumbai City, Montevideo City Torque, Melbourne City). 

RB Leipzig was spawned from the playing rights of fifth-tier club SSV Markranstadt, while the Red Bull rebranding was nothing new for the club once known as SV Austria Salzburg but named, at various stages, after a supermarket chain and a financial services corporation. Some things are not sacred, particularly when Red Bull are offering to give you wings.

The downsides

But the more entrenched and the more widespread the multi-club model becomes, the more the success stories will come to be outnumbered by the failures. In its annual benchmarking report on the European club football landscape, UEFA stated that no fewer than 82 of its top-tier clubs now have a “cross-investment relationship” with one or more clubs — and it goes without saying that the majority of them will not be successful.   The record of Everton bidders 777 is mixed.   The experiment of Roland Duchatelet with Standard Liege, Charlton and other smaller clubs ended in failire.

Sacrificing your club’s identity — signing up to be a satellite of a much bigger club in a much bigger league — might be perfectly acceptable if a) that identity is yet to be fully established, as in the case of some of the City Football Group’s acquisitions or b) there is the promise of success. It will be far harder to tolerate for fans of those clubs whose fortunes decline or even stagnate.

That is the real point here. Football clubs are not pawns. They are socio-cultural institutions which exist to represent and bring pride and joy to their communities (which these days can mean not just the immediate area but a huge global fanbase).

No club, unless established for that purpose, should be a mere satellite to another — or to a sovereign wealth fund, an energy drink manufacturer or anything else. Nor should any club see its entire purpose redefined for the benefit of an investment group which could easily lose interest and allow an underperforming club to fall into managed decline.

The direction of travel is worrying, but nobody seems to question it. The only barrier UEFA has raised relates to its own competitions — and even that one proved easily surmountable for the Red Bull clubs. And now Ceferin is talking about possibly removing that obstacle? Why? Why on earth would UEFA remove rules which exist (in theory) to preserve the integrity of their competitions?

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s...

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 ...

Spurs to sell minority stake

Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to ...