Back in 2010/11 I spent quite a bit of time in SE Asia, particularly Malaysia. As an expat, a retreat to the many available sports bars provided great access to live Premier League football in the evening (the time difference to the UK meant that games start to be shown around 22:00 hours) plus the not unpleasant possibility of imbibing some brews.

One thing that stood out was the massive following and enthusiasm for the EPL games evident amongst young Malaysians. They all claimed to be devoted fans of one or other of the big clubs and often could be seen resplendent in their favourite club’s (expensive) team shirt.

Being for the most part young, they had little or no idea of the massive traditions tied to these clubs; only that they were highly successful and famous. Success and entertainment are highly attractive attributes to aspiring young people with money in their pockets.

These scenes of consumer consumption are replicated across the region and explain why, in the close season, the top EPL clubs head off to SE Asia and China for tours. Money talks, and extending the geography of the market to the emerging markets is a sure way to raise revenues.

Fast forward to today. We have two super wealthy Malaysian entrepreneurs as owners of UK football clubs at QPR and Cardiff City.

Vincent Tan at Cardiff City insisted on changing the colour of the team shirts from blue to red (red is a ubiquitous colour, considered auspicious, in Malaysia and other parts of SE Asia and China) oblivious to the club’s traditions; interfered in the manager’s team preparations and selections and then unceremoniously sacked him on highly tendentious grounds.

He is now focused on keeping the club in the Premier League this season; a task rendered probably more difficult by the disruptions caused by his own interventions. Where he goes from here, time will tell.

Tony Fernandes, owner of QPR, could have given Mr Tan some advice about management mistakes in the Premier League. QPR were relegated largely because they hired expensive players who had little or no loyalty or commitment to the club but who happily took the fat pay packets.

Fernandes, who was brought up in London, seems to have more awareness and responsiveness to the specifics of QPR’s heritage and the affections of the fans.

Nevertheless, his (costly) investment in the club is undoubtedly tied closely to his Air Asia and Lotus operations. Youngsters across SE Asia are primary the users of Air Asia’s low cost flights. There can be no doubt that Mr Fernandes’s interest in the club is premised on their return to the EPL where the £££millions start to roll in again from TV payments and the sale of club merchandise and advertising rights.

Now, the above observations about these Malaysian owners are not meant to be arguments against Malaysian businessmen. They are meant to highlight the fact that any and all foreign owners who are first and foremost businessmen/entrepreneurs, are interested in UK football because of its global television footprint and thus in the potential platform that provides to sell a global (or regional) consumer brand. As an afterthought, or by happenstance, they might like the game as a sport too. But that is inconsequential.

So, my argument here could equally well have been constructed by observations about super wealthy Qatari or American owners too. They all see televised UK football as a means to an ends; and those ends are the selling of global and regional brands to their target consumer audiences.

Historically British owners of UK football clubs tend – with some exceptions – to possess different credentials. Yes, they were first and foremost businessmen and entrepreneurs, but in becoming owners of clubs, they usually embedded robust ‘duty of care’ and ‘custodianship’ policies and practices into the governance and management of the clubs.

Examples of this tradition were the Moores family (Littlewoods Pools) at Liverpool, and closest to our hearts, the Cobbolds at ITFC. These invaluable attributes came wrapped in a coating of avuncular paternalism, which perhaps today is considered outmoded and amateur.

Nevertheless, there was genuine ownership of the clubs for the sake of their contribution to the main competitive entertainment for the public in the club’s catchment area. Fans’ attendance at matches, not television rights, was the principal source of clubs’ revenues. That helped concentrate owners’ minds on the club’s reputation amongst the local population .

Even if we jump forwards from that 1960s/70s generation to the 1990s (think Alan Sugar) or to today (eg the current West Ham owners) where the entrepreneur owners are reputed to apply pugnacious, ‘take no prisoners’ management styles to climb the citadel of great riches, still we can see a strong degree of ‘rootedness’ in these people’s love of the game.

They undoubtedly give no corner in the protection and enhancement of their football investments (eg Ken Bates!), and are unsentimental in taking what they can from the television channels. Nevertheless, they seem far less intent than their foreign counterparts in using the football club merely as a vehicle for advertising ancillary and potentially more lucrative consumer brands.

This non-footballing agenda of foreign owners, viewed from a footballing perspective, means that these owners find it irresistible to put their hands all over the operations of the football notwithstanding their flimsy or non-existent understanding of how football clubs work at the operational level (management, coaching staff, players, methods, etc). The incoming new owners at Elland Road handing Brian McDermott his P45 being but the latest predictable episode.

The evidence to date from UK clubs with foreign ownerships reveals, in my opinion, a haemorrhaging of clubs’ integrity and traditions at the expense of the owners’ overriding search for revenue through global and regional consumer brand recognition.

readtheleaguetable added 17:09 - Feb 2 Capitalists are capitalists. Where they call home is irrelevant. Their clubs are their properties and their goal is profit. Only fan ownership along German and (some) Spanish models can address your concerns.
2

Facefacts added 20:02 - Feb 2 Excellent blog, thanks. ITFC has a more 'traditional' owner at present, but who knows how long it will be before that all changes.
0

SouperJim added 10:19 - Feb 3 A good read, although phrases like "avuncular paternalism" will have many reaching for the dictionary rather than just enjoying the blog.
2

bluelodgeblue added 15:04 - Feb 3 Whats a Dictionary?
0

Bluetaff added 16:10 - Feb 3 That's a very interesting blog, I enjoyed that but it is clear evidence that football - particularly in this country is in dire need to chase the almighty dollar (so to speak). The importance of money has very quickly overtaken the historical significance within these clubs, who started this mad scramble? Could it be Sky or perhaps UEFA's revitalised Champions League, or maybe the Bosman ruling?? What is clear is that the fan is losing the game, the importance of the FA Cup has been devalued...what next? Good blog though giving food for thought!

0

blueherts added 17:41 - Feb 4 Good blog - It also doesnt help the development of Young English talent and investment in Academies . Man City have young Jack Rodwell - a decent player but one who will not flourish whilst there . Everton have a great record in past few years of producing young English players and in Bill Kenwright and a board are an exception to the rule of foreign owners in the top flight . Foreign owners sit and FFP strange bedfellows and will never support the development of young English players Interesting but all clubs around us ( exc Burnley) are foreign owned - Leics, Forest , Leeds , Derby , QPR, Reading , Blackburn As they say Business is Business but a good blog and it will only become increasingly more common Be careful what you wish for

0

Blogs 295 bloggers