Man City guilty verdict should be a catalyst for Premier League ownership change

City’s case exposes the dire need for an alternative model for club ownership, says JAMES NALTON THE Manchester City case should serve as a warning that the game needs a reset in terms of who owns controlling stakes in its clubs. A verdict came through last week that Man City have been found guilty on all counts related to breaking financial rules and of the majority of charges related to failing to co-operate with the investigation. The exact sanctions dished out to City on the back of the rule-breaking by the club’s owners are yet to be revealed, and the club have lodged an appeal, but regardless of the outcome, this should serve as a catalyst for change, not just in how the game is run, but also in which parties have a controlling stake. It has been clear for some time that football at the top level is no longer primarily a sport, a pastime or a communal activity. It’s a business that has been bought by capitalist states and private equity firms. A game that emerged in local communities or workplaces, and whose biggest investment might have previously come from the leaders of those industries, is now part of another, wider global game that doesn’t care much for sport or local communities. There appeared to be some surprise that parts of the response to the verdict that found City guilty were focused on political elements, but with the Premier League effectively allowing states to own clubs, this was bound to happen. It’s also not the first time politics has become intertwined with Premier League ownership. Another example was seen when the Guardian revealed that the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, reportedly encouraged the league to push through the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. The BBC has reported that other clubs fear political interference in the City case, but what else did the rest of the Premier League expect if it allows this kind of political state ownership? In his response to the Man City verdict, current Prime Minister Andy Burnham took care not to criticise the club’s owners. It shows how delicate he sees this situation politically, as the Abu Dhabi United Group, which in turn owns City Football Group and Man City, also invested billions in property development in east Manchester, and the City of Manchester Stadium complex itself, during his time as the city’s mayor. “They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is,” Burnham said last week. “I would be concerned if they did stop investing. I don’t think they’d give us up.” Trying to insert rules to regulate a runaway capitalist sport as football has become at the top level is difficult, seemingly impossible. Apply these too strongly, and you pull up the ladder to favour the status quo; don’t apply them at all, and some owners will act recklessly and spend their clubs out of existence, effectively gambling on a club’s future and potentially losing everything while fans are left powerless. On top of this, when spending limits are put in place, it is usually the players — who, along with aspects like club lore and supporter culture, make the sport so appealing and lucrative in the first place — who lose out through a salary cap, or spending limits that are effectively a salary cap. There have also been worries expressed that this episode could damage the Premier League’s commercial power, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. This commercial power certainly hasn’t benefited supporters; quite the opposite. Most of the negative issues fans face from following a Premier League team arise directly from over-commercialisation, so it’s about time there was a change in this regard. The game at this level has appeared too far gone to introduce some form of fan ownership, or a model similar to that seen in Germany where supporters become members of the club and maintain at least a 51 per cent stake, with outside investment taking up a maximum, non-controlling 49 per cent stake. What could change this in England is a partial collapse of the current system, and something as seismic as this Man City case could qualify as such. Though City’s appeal is pending, the guilty verdicts dished out last week show how much peril the club’s owners have potentially put the club in. Regardless of the differing views on the extent of rules and regulations, City’s owners knew what they were and have been found guilty of breaking them. It is they who are responsible for this situation, and they who should be the most accountable when punishments are dished out. Man City are quite unique in the modern game in that though they have grown into one of the best clubs in Europe, many of their supporters still remember what it’s like to support their team in the third tier of English football. Many supporters from that period quite enjoyed the ride, too, and still talk about it with pride as part of the club’s journey and identity. As a result of this history, a good portion of the club’s original, long-term generational support might not be too bothered about a return to the lower leagues. It’s just another part of the journey that is supporting City. Many will also have enjoyed the ride that the current owners have taken them on to the pinnacle of the sport, regardless of recent revelations and guilty verdicts. It remains important that clubs outside the status quo, which City became part of, are still able to embark on such a rise. While the owners should be punished, the club should be offered a chance at reform, and part of this could include supporter involvement or a system of membership that safeguards a club’s existence, applying some of the characteristics of 50+1 to a Premier League setting. There are already organisations set up at City that could begin this type of work. The MCFC Fans Foodbank and Trade Union Blues support the club from an angle of community work and supporter representation. In his final column for Football 365, John Nicholson called for the Premier League to be “abolished… as a business and a concept. The league should revert to being the First Division because it is. Each team issued with equal funds, and be community owned.” Writing for the Guardian, Jonathan Liew put forward the idea that “City should not be sold; they should be taken back. Requisition. Nationalise.” These ideas seem radical and impossible, but something as big as what has happened to Man City offers a chance to at least look at alternative ownership structures. If Burnham does want to interfere, then proposing something along these lines is something that could make a positive difference. If Abu Dhabi really cares about generationally loyal Man City supporters and the people of east Manchester, give them the club. Club says bank statements, transfers and witness evidence refute commission’s central finding Club could be hit with points deduction or expulsion following landmark ruling