Sporting Success and Economic Philosophy
When George Gillett and Tom Hicks recently took over Liverpool in a £175 million deal, some fans of the club voiced their approval. On the BBC’s 606 message boards, one fan calling himself Stevo1973 wrote, “This is surely the news every Liverpool supporter wants to hear and it looks like finally, Liverpool FC may be starting the journey back to the top of English football.”
Other fans were more circumspect. One calling himself Realsportssoccer wrote, “I remember Liverpool teams that won matches with skill, determination, flair and imagination. Now all they have to do is sign cheques.”
Most Liverpool fans seemed to resign themselves to the brutal economic reality of soccer in the 21st century. While lamenting the fact that the club had been sold to investors (and Americans to boot), they expressed hope that Gillett and Hicks would bring an injection of cash that would return them to their former glory. LFCDavem summed up this perspective, saying, “Sometimes change is good and Liverpool are in dire need of success. Who cares about the business changes as long as we get a new stadium, some world class talent and a league title?”
This ambivalent attitude toward outside investors is one fans of many clubs in England have had to take recently. The reality of the Premier League today is that you cannot win without money. The converse is also true: money can bring success, as anyone familiar who familiar with Roman Abramovich can tell you.
The current Premier League standings show how closely related money and success are. Financial firm Deloitte’s annual ranking of soccer’s richest clubs corresponds almost exactly to the table today (February 26, 2007). Manchester United top the table (4th in Deloitte’s “Football Money League”), followed by Chelsea (6th in dollars, or perhaps rubles), Liverpool (10th), and Arsenal (9th).
It is one thing for a team like Chelsea, with a modest history of success, to buy its way to glory. Despite the West London’s team two consecutive Premier League titles, many people still consider them to be unworthy of being considered in the elite of that country’s teams. Chelsea’s (or as they are often derisively referred to, Chelski) success in the last few years is almost always discussed with an implied asterisk. Chelsea are new money in a sport and a country which prides itself on history and tradition.
Russian oligarch and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich
Liverpool, on the other hand, ooze history and tradition, which explains why their jump into the American investors’ hands is done with a certain degree of reluctance. The desire of Liverpool fans to return to the club’s glory days is understandable, given how glorious those days were. Liverpool have won 18 league titles, 5 European cups, and 7 FA Cups.Witnessing Liverpool’s bid to buy their way back to glory, one can’t help but wonder what one of the men most responsible for their success would say about it. Bill Shankly is often considered the greatest ever manager of Liverpool. When Shankly took over in 1959, Liverpool were at the bottom of the old Second Division. By 1962, Shankly helped them achieve promotion to the First Division. In the 1963-64 season, Liverpool won the league title. Shankly would continue at the helm for a decade longer, winning the league again, the UEFA Cup, and the FA Cup.
But many remember Bill Shankly as much for his personal views as for his talent as a manager. And it is these personal views that make one wonder what he would have to say about Hicks and Gillett taking over the club. Bill Shankly was a socialist, at least definitely as it applied to soccer and perhaps as it applied to life. One of his most famous quotes has been memorialized in a t-shirt made by Philosophy Football.
“The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.”
Shankly’s official biography on Liverpool’s website stresses his socialist views:
His would tell anyone who cared to listen that his lads played to a socialist ethic. If a player was having a poor game Shankly would expect a team mate to cover for him and bail him out like you would do for a neighbour or a colleague down the mine. All for the greater good of the team.
So what would Bill Shankly make of two wealthy capitalists taking over Liverpool and other clubs in the Premier League? The obvious answer is that he wouldn’t like it. Writing in The Guardian, Paul Wilson makes just this point: “Shankly the football man, never mind Shankly the socialist, would be uneasy at the direction the Premiership appears to be taking.”
And while I generally agree with Wilson that Shankly would not approve of the Premier League becoming more and more of a business, it’s worth remembering how devoted a Liverpool fan the former boss was. Shankly famously said “There’s only two teams in Liverpool: Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves.” The WIkipedia entry on Bill Shankly has this nugget describing his love for the club:
One of the most iconic images of all was caught on television, when a Liverpool scarf which had been thrown at Shankly during a lap of honour was flung to one side by a policeman. Shankly pounced on the scarf and reprimanded the copper, uttering the immortal words “Don’t do that. This might be someone’s life”.
Were Bill Shankly alive today, I think he would be torn between his socialist views and his love of Liverpool. He would not want his club to be taken over by wealthy American entrepreneurs, but he would also be disheartened by Liverpool’s relative lack of success in the past few years and want to see that change. A smart man, Shankly would see that success in English soccer today requires money, and lots of it. I wonder whether Shankly would agree with a poster on the 606 message boards who said about the take-over, “It is a shame that clubs have to sell out to investors, but the big clubs have to move with the times?”
That is the dilemma for Liverpool and any team who wants to keep up with the soccer Joneses. Fans may want their clubs to stick to their principles, but they also want them to win. For Liverpool, success in 2007 seems only possible by welcoming the millions of American capitalists Gillett and Hicks. The challenge for the club and its fan will be to celebrate future money-fueled successes while not forgetting the glory days achieved under their socialist manager Bill Shankly.
February 27th, 2007 00:27
Very interesting background, especially the bit about money being tied to success of the teams. I’ve been wondering what has been happening with Liverpool – not a rabid fan sorry, more of a generalist when it comes to EPL.
Is money the absolute answer though? I have seen loads of money spent on high-profile players that ultimately don’t prove to be very good decisions in the long run for clubs.
To add some perspective consider that maybe less money might create innovation, forced of course. Watch this keep in mind how innovation has been created for so many of the worlds best organizations. Also, how much money does the CBF have and look what Brazil has done on the World stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZqPumbDX_M
I can understand your point about the history Liverpool has and the hesitation fans have welcoming American investors but, consider the potential without giving them a chance.
Cheers,
Jason Cronkhite
http://zigazoga.typepad.com
February 27th, 2007 11:50
Here in the US, fans have had to come to terms with this situation ever since the 1960’s/70’s? court case that permitted free agency in baseball. Players, just like people in other occupations, want to sell their services to the highest bidder. Aside from the self-perpetuating advantages that this creates for deeper-pocketed clubs, what bothers me is the lack of continuity in player personnel. It’s harder to feel that kinship with a club when its roster changes so much from year to year. No one cares about this when you’re talking about the personnel at an auto mfr. or Wal-mart, but it’s unappetizing to me to have to accept it with a sports club. And the sense of tradition and fraternity among English football supporters is much stronger than it is here, so this is tougher for them.
Jason is right that money isn’t always the answer, but it’ still a big part of the equation. Money can’t buy loyalty like Bill Shankly’s, but how do you create loyality like that?
Excellent article, btw.
February 27th, 2007 18:17
Jason – I agree that money is not a panacea, but I don’t think there are many examples of teams having long-term success in the recent past who have not been wealthy. There are going to be counter examples of successful teams without much money, but soccer economics (especially the implementation of the Bosman Ruling which brought free agency to European soccer in 1996) means that the bigger clubs have such an advantage over “smaller” teams that their success is far more likely.
February 27th, 2007 18:20
Susan – I absolutely agree that it’s a shame that loyalty is only really notable by its absence today. Players like Ryan Giggs and Paolo Maldini who have stayed at their clubs for their entire career are so rare. That said, it’s easier to be loyal when you start at Man U or AC Milan. A player at Worcester City would probably love to move to a bigger club; if he stays there, it’s likely that he’s simply not good enough to move up the hierarchy (though he might be loyal too).
February 27th, 2007 22:59
Ok, back to baseball, where it should be. Hicks is the owner of the Texas Rangers, aka the team that spent 252 million for Arod. Remember how well that worked out. Since they’re in the same division as my Mariners, I’ve followed them for a while. They have done nothing for a long time w/Hicks & his money. I don’t think the team has ever won a playoff series. In the little I know, I wouldn’t trust Hicks & his money. Like everyone has said, it’s a balance of having the money & managing it.
The next question I think is key is this: What’s the key to managing the money & the related chemistry of players? I think we could agree that some luck comes into play for success – injuries, career years, to name two. So, what makes a good GM (and owner – since they ultimately ok the spending or not)? Just off the top of my head, it seems that it’s obviously good scouting & observation skills first. In addition to the more objective, there is the exact science of trusting one’s gut. It’s the feeling part. It’s a guessing game with feelings, how fun.
That’s what comes to me first. I’d like it if you explore the financial stuff more in the future – esp. considering today’s big drop in all the markets.
Also, I liked the t-shirt a lot. I would put the individual rewards part first though & then the group part. Like the saying goes, a person can’t help others unless they help themselves first. I like to define socialism to mean a form of capitalism that creates a real middle class (through sharing of the resources). Real meaning around 95% or more or so having a floor level of quality of life that most can agree is acceptable/wanted.
Last, if anyone wants to see a great sports movie (it’s a documentary w/lots of social issues mixed in), it’s calld ‘Heart of the Game’ and it came out on dvd today. Sorry, not soccer, but check it out! It’s basketball, the second best sport after baseball. Hey, David, maybe your next project could be making a soccer version of the documentary – like of that team in Georgia? You know people don’t read the paper anymore, so you could bring the story to wider audience – people who watch soccer documentaries! HA! No, if you build it, they will come. Alright, enough of me. Later. Keep up the good work.
April 28th, 2007 19:24
[...] manager Paul Jewell has a tortoise named Trotsky?), they are a long way off from the time when Bill Shankly easily espoused his football/economic philosophy based on socialist ideals. “Just take a look at the Premiership,†writes Ronay, “to find out [...]
February 17th, 2008 14:32
[...] of many of the best players and criticisms of a boring league. Is it time to start the spending? David Keyes discusses the issue in the context of the latest buy-out of an English Premiership team. New [...]