People used to buy Prem clubs for noble reasons. No longer
Why do owners own? In the old days it was for pure, on the whole, and simple reasons. First, inheritance. People became directors of football clubs because their dads had been. Second, altruism. The original founding fathers were very often clerics, starting a club for healthy boys, to keep them out of mischief (as at Everton), or factory owners, as at West Ham. Third, status. A butcher, baker or solicitor, when he'd made his pile, often said it was altruism, putting money into his local club, but mostly it was to improve his standing.
For more than 100 years, till roughly the 1980s, that was how it was. Money never came into it. Shares didn't yield dividends and directors didn't get paid, though they did get some lovely little perks. In the 1970s, travelling with Spurs, a highlight was a nice European draw, when the directors got invited to British embassies for cocktails. They insisted they had to attend to represent the club. And there were the exotic pre-season trips, to Japan or the West Indies, where they stuffed themselves at the club's expense. All fairly harmless.
Today, I'd say there are five motives.
1) Greed: Now by far the most prevalent element. For foreign businessmen at Man United and elsewhere, and the ones trying to take over Arsenal, it is an investment - hoping for a future killing - or to fit in with other business deals. They were never fans of the club, or even of football. They're fans of money. And there's loads of it in the Prem. The normal fan knows about millionaire footballers and doesn't really care if they can kick straight, but is mostly unaware of directors getting £50m for their shares, a chief executive paying himself £2m a year, or a chairman receiving £100,000 for a couple of hours a week.
2) Ego: To acquire a national profile, exert power and influence, have people listen to their boring thoughts. I'm sure that's what kept Doug Ellis at Aston Villa for so long, and Ken Bates at Chelsea. The money did come into it, but their big heads came first.
3) Fun: Despite his moany-looking face, I honestly think that's what brought Roman Abramovich in, not the idea of an investment, nor to make himself important. You have to realise the problems young multibillionaires have, and feel sorry for them. You've got all the houses, more yachts than you have time to sail, more girls than you can eat, so where's the next excitement coming from?
Football is a perfect plaything for a rich man, a healthy hobby when he might be tempted by more perverse pleasures. I suspect Alan Sugar got involved with Spurs thinking it would be fun, something new, rather than in the hope of making a killing. How wrong he was about the fun - it must have been hell, being hated, all those rows and legals. But it was a good investment.
4) Status: Not quite the same as ego, or wanting power. In the old days, it was a matter of local status, being big at the Rotary. Now you can use ownership to give you national respectability or acceptance. That's what Mohamed Al Fayed hoped when he bought Fulham.
5) Help: Investing in a club because you genuinely want to help it and the local community. It did happen often till quite recently, with Jack Walker at Blackburn and Sir Jack Hayward at Wolves, and possibly Dave Whelan at Wigan (though he did name the stadium after his firm). It still happens in the lower leagues, such as Carlisle United with Fred Story, a local builder. But in the Prem I fear we'll never see any sort of altruism again.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
