For Love, Money, or Ethnic Patronage?
That foreign investors have found British teams attractive investments in the past few years is obvious given their increasing numbers. Less clear is why these wealthy men have decided to invest their money in British soccer clubs.
Many, of course, have done so simply as an investment. Not surprisingly, this group consists of Americans. The Glazer family at Manchester United, George Gillet and Tom Hicks at Liverpool, and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa seem to have bought their clubs because they see potential profit in them. These uber-wealthy gringos have put little effort into feigning interest in soccer, but needn’t do so, as they are clearly most interested in the economic potential, rather than sporting success, of owning a team. The lucrative television deal that goes into effect this year and the huge worldwide appeal of the Premier League are two of the reasons that their investment will likely yield them the profits they desire.
Bryan Glazer (L), Avram Glazer (C) and Joel Glazer (R) (photo: Daily Mail)
Then there are the foreign owners who seem to have bought British clubs for love of the game. Roman Abramovich is the prime example. The billionaire Russian has spent oodles of his rubles on Chelsea. Though peeps occasionally come out of West London about making the club profitable, Abramovich’s time has seen incredible economic losses. Not that Abramovich cares: his team is winning like never before. Despite their on-field success, the Russian owner is not entirely happy and has often urged manager Jose Mourinho to play a more attractive style of play. Abramovich clearly cares not at all about losing money, but does have a love of the game.
Didier Drogba and Roman Abramovich with the FA Cup (photo: Daily Mail)
Another Russian, by the name of Alexandre Gaydamak, far less famous than Abramovich, bought Portsmouth in 2006. Since then he has taken a similar approach to the bearded Chelsea supremo, investing money to bring his team success. Gaydamak’s money enabled the club to bring in quality players such as Sol Campbell and Kanu and though the results haven’t been as dramatic as those seen in West London, Portsmouth had a strong season last year, finishing ninth and qualifying for Europe, a year after they were nearly relegated.
The most notable foreign takeover by a foreigner during this summer was Thaksin Shinawatra’s buy-out of Manchester City. Thaksin’s checkered past includes allegations of human rights abuses while in power in Thailand (the Guardian’s tea-time email The Fiver is now referring to Man City as Human Rights FC). Since his takeover, Thaksin has taken an interesting tack in his control of Man City. Last week, it was announced that the new owner had arranged trials for three Thai players at the club. Other clubs have been accused of bringing in Asian players to sell replica shirts in their homelands, but this is one of the only cases I am aware of in which a chairman has brought in players simply because they share his nationality. Thaksin seems to see his position as Man City owner in part as enabling him to give his country’s players a shot a the big time (the Soccernet article linked to above suggests that he is also doing it to boost his own imagine back home, where there is a warrant out for his arrest).
Human Rights FC owner “Rockin” Thaksin Shinawatra (photo: CBS News)
Though new Manchester City manager Sven Goran Erikson didn’t appear bothered by his Thai trialists, other managers have raised a ruckus when their chairmen have made similar moves. Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung bought a 30% stake in Birmingham City earlier this year. Since gaining this control, he has told the press that he wants to see Chinese players at the Midlands club. His “hope to have one or two Chinese players at the club” did not go over well with manager Steve Bruce. The man with the ugliest nose ever responded angrily, saying, “I won’t be railroaded into anything.” Time will tell how this debate will be resolved.
At Hearts, there was a similar debate last year over who ultimately got to pick the team. The Scottish club was thrown into turmoil when internal conflicts spilled out onto the front pages. In 2004, the club had fallen on hard times and was rescued by Lithuanian mogul Vladimir Romanov. While many fans initially celebrated his arrival, some began to worry when he began to bring in Lithuanian players, coaches, and backroom staff. Some players complained of the chairman’s interference. Three of the club’s top players – Steven Pressley, Paul Hartley, and Craig Gordon – organized a dramatic October 2006 press conference in which they decried the involvement of Romanov in the every day affairs of the team (Pressley and Hartley have since left, though Gordon remains at the club). Romanov is the most extreme example of a foreign owner buying a British club and then filling its roster with players from his homeland.
Vladimir Romanov, owner of Hearts (photo: BBC)
The economic draw is an important draw for all foreign owners investing in British teams. But while it is the main attraction for the Americans, the Russians seem to be focusing on building a team to express their love of the game. Then you have Thaksin, Yeung, and Romanov, owners attempting to provide a sort of ethnic patronage for players from their homelands.
If you’re a young player hoping to make it as a professional in Britain, you can work hard and be discovered by a scout from a Premier League team. Or just sit back and hope that a wealthy businessman from your country buys himself a team.
July 31st, 2007 23:05
Long time, first time.
I’m usually with you on just about everything, but I think you’re selling the Americans short here. The may not possess that love of the game, and they are most certainly in it for the profits, but that doesn’t mean they’re not interested in building a successful team. They just know their limitations and are willing to let someone else micromanage the path to success.
The Livapoo Yanks have done everything asked of them. They’ve sat with Rafa and Stevie, they’ve laid out the cash and the approval to sign all the core Reds, they let Rafa bring in a world class striker and several other parts, and they got the stadium deal done and looking sharp. I mean, love of the game or no, that’s making an effort to build a successful team with a happy fanbase.
I went to Villa Park last season and the crowd looked to be quite taken with Lerner’s hands-off style and O’Neill’s rule. Strangely, though, Jim Brown was at the match and the Browns montage was a weird sight to see. As for the Glazers…I mean, ManU won the title.
It’s clear they’re in it for the long-term cash grab. So I guess my question is, why is that so bad if they’re actually improving their clubs?
August 1st, 2007 08:08
Ace Cowboy – I think you’re right that the American owners do want successful teams, if for no other reason than the fact that success will bring more money. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh. I don’t think they are doing it only for the money. They could invest in the stock market if that were their only motivation. But unlike past club owners who were content simply to get the ego boost their position brought, the Americans are clear that they want to make money from their teams. The smarter ones may, as you say, recognize they don’t know that much about soccer and so hire others who do to handle the sporting side of things, which is not necessarily a bad situation.
August 1st, 2007 09:38
The interesting thing about Carson Yeung is that his words seemed to be focused on a critique of Chinese players (how they’ve got some technique but lack team work and commitment, which by the way is spot on) rather then saying that he’s going to make the manager sign Chinese players. It doesn’t really make sense to say ‘they’re not good enough’ and then ‘we should get some’, does it? I think his comments have been misconstrued by the press.
Great post as always.
August 1st, 2007 23:35
With the new Liverpool owners I see it like this.
Two billionaires in their sixties with a desire to be associated with something exciting and dramatic at this stage in their life. They have both been involved in various American sports for a long time, had their eye caught by the opportunities offered by Liverpool FC and the global popularity of the Premier League (the most popular league of the most popular game in the world). Sure, they saw dollar and pound signs in their eyes, but the emotional involvment in being a part of something phenomenal and exciting, something that whilst being a viable business, comes with a level of glory and beauty they just wouldnt get from managing a few businesses, trust funds, leveraging the purchase of factories in Texas or however they made their money. Tom Hicks and George Gillet have fallen in love with Liverpool, getting to the Champions League final in their first season, fallen in love with the club, history, tradition and passion of the fans.
Liverpool fans only have good things to say about them. They want to play the game of being custodians of the club, the glamour and status of that, of being major players on this global sporting stage, and want all that reflected glory from its success.
August 2nd, 2007 19:04
Thanks for your comments everybody. Very interesting perspectives. In thinking about my post, I’ve realized that it was a bit too black and white. Owners can fit in more than one of the love, money, ethnic patronage categories. Abramovich’s appointing of Avram Grant, for example, seems to be in part due to them both being Jewish (I’m Jewish, don’t hate me). And the Americans, as y’all have pointed out, can love soccer just as much as they love money. Perhaps I would suggest that the motivations I pointed out are the primary ones, though not the only ones.
August 3rd, 2007 15:28
Dude, who *isn’t* Jewish?!
December 12th, 2009 13:50
“Dude, who *isn’t* Jewish?!”
Me, and I will never own a football club either.
September 18th, 2010 14:55
Nothing but lies about liverpool on this site and from the liverpool directors. How can you say that they have any emotional attachment to Liverpool fc (ok Benefit of hindsight here in september) But also Hicks was owner of Corinthians in Brazil and texas rangers in the states. Corinthians were promised a stadium which they didnt get and they were relegated. Liverpool wes bought by the 2 yanks on money that they now don’t seem to have. That is not doing your job, that is not honoring your contract. I hope Liverpool will be taken over by RBS even if we lose 10 point in the premier League It will be good riddance to bad rubbish if hicks goes