The 17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as a war of all against all. This is what looks like happening on football. As rival fans relish the prospect of Manchester City playing in the non-league, clubs in the Premier League and outside it try to work out how much compensation might come their way.
What sanctions should be applied to City are a matter for
the relevant decision-makers, but I am interested in the consequences for
football mote generally. I am going to
post separately on the somewhat neglected geopolitical dimension.
One Premier League owner told the New York Times that
it would be wrong for just the current top-flight teams to split the pot
equally. Why, he argues, should a club such as Coventry City, who were not in
the Premier League at all from 2009 to 2018, receive a financial windfall,
while those including West Ham United, Southampton, Stoke City and Leicester
City, all now outside of the Premier League, receive nothing at all, despite
being subjected to far more of City’s brilliance in that time?
Even current Championship clubs who have little reason to
claim City have directly harmed them over the past two decades now privately
feel they should get a slice of the pie. Why? Well, they are anticipating
future sporting sanctions and how this might impact their own futures.
The argument being made by multiple second-tier teams is
that, if City receive a points deduction so significant that they are
relegated, then the team being bankrolled by Abu Dhabi money would be
overwhelming favourites for promotion back to the Premier League. This would
eat up one of the three promotion places in a future season, which would have
the consequence of restricting another Championship club’s ability to compete
in their own division.
Others have a more rounded perspective, with some Premier
League owners arguing any financial pot should be set aside to be distributed
right across the football pyramid and support grassroots development. The
problem, however, is that this form of financial settlement leaves the top
flight at risk of clubs seeking restitution via direct court cases against
City. For the Premier League, this would be an embarrassing, long-lasting
ordeal.
A private company
We should remember that the Premier League is a member-based
private company; a club in which its current sides are equal shareholders. One consequence in my view us that its
governance arrangements are subject to challenge in the domestic courts. While the 20 teams compete on the pitch and in
the transfer market, they are broadly expected to rub along and act in the
collective best interest off it.
That is why clubs are invited and expected to sign up to a
set of rules at the start of each season, even if they have qualms — and once
they do, a commitment is made to respect them. Even now, there are some Premier
League executives and owners who privately implore the parties to work with one
another to thrash out next steps. That, however, appears increasingly fanciful.
The punishment could not only amount to a single-season
setback, because that would not do justice to the unfair gains City made
between 2009 and 2018. Instead, it has been argued, they should receive
repeated points deductions over multiple seasons, which would highly constrain
their ability to qualify for European competition. Under this vision, it may or
may not be accompanied by such an immediately hefty penalty that inevitably
relegates City.
This is an idea that has gained traction since the verdict
was revealed, but many people have also argued that, even if demoted this
season, City could simply spend one campaign in the Championship before being
back amongst it, within a year or two, in the upper reaches of the Premier
League. A different former Premier
League executive, however, warned the NYT that this may prove more complicated
in reality, particularly as City would likely be unable to maintain the
majority of their squad within the EFL’s financial rules.
Risks for the television product
By immediately docking City, say, 100 points this season, it
would infringe upon the television product that the Premier League sells to the
world, while also undermining the league’s competitive integrity. There are concerns that TV companies will not
be happy to have Erling Haaland, one of the game’s global superstars, reduced
to playing in meaningless fixtures for a side already effectively relegated. (Haaland might, of course, jump ship and go
to Spain). There are also worries that if City have no
incentive to compete in the Premier League, they may not field strong teams in
top-flight games taking place immediately before their matches in the cup
competitions, which could lead to skewed results across a season.
A Premier League owner questioned what message may be sent
to potential future investors in the division if City are perceived to have
been punished for demonstrating too much ambition and spending too much of
their owner’s money. There is a consensus among a small number of owners that
the financial rules were not fair, serving to defend the interests of
historically famous clubs, and stifling the ability of would-be rivals to
challenge for honours. Such an
arrangement would be open to challenge under cartel law.
The expulsion option
As for City being forcibly removed via a member vote,
Premier League executives are both hoping and expecting it will not come to
that, but it is acknowledged that their patience will be firmly tested if City
resort to the domestic courts as they are certainly entitled to do. If the punishment is very severe, City might
decide to go nuclear and bring the whole edifice crashing down.
An expulsion would almost certainly require sign-off via a
member vote of the Premier League, which would require a minimum of 14 votes to
pass. If there are to be expulsions, that is more widely expected to come via
the English game’s new Independent Football Regulator, which has the power to
review the suitability of City’s executives to continue to serve in their
positions.
One prominent investor in European football told the NYT:
“We should remember, too, that football is entertainment. We are not curing
cancer here. We kick a ball in coloured shirts and try to win more games than
the others. It is supposed to take your mind off stuff. The last thing we
should be doing is taking that club altogether away from its community.”
Having experienced the English Civil War, Hobbs endorsed the
creation of an authoritarian sovereign power or Leviathan to keep the peace. (Hobbes, by the way, was about 6ft 6 inches tall - he could have been a keeper these days). No such sovereign power exists in football.
Comments
Post a Comment