The arguments being rolled out against the proposal, of top football clubs, to create a new European Super League, over the last 24 hours, have been bizarre and laughable. No surprise, then, that Keir Starmer was quick to jump in to, again, lend Boris Johnson's authoritarian nationalist regime his full support.
One argument that has been raised is "what about the fans?". Indeed, what about the fans? Funny, though, that, at no other time, has anyone, Tory, Labour or Liberal, given a toss about the fans, or suggested that, maybe, it would be a good idea to have football clubs that were owned by, and controlled by those fans, just as it would be a good idea to have all large companies controlled by their workers, rather than shareholders, especially given that those companies are, in fact, the collective property of those workers, and not the shareholders.
But, then we have to ask the question - "Who are the fans?" Any serious analysis of that question shows how ridiculous this argument is. Are the fans of Manchester United only those 75,000 who regularly paid to go through its turnstiles? Obviously not. In Britain alone, there are thousands more Manchester United fans who never, or rarely, ever attend a game, because they live at the other end of the country, or cannot afford to pay the thousand pounds required to buy a season ticket. The large majority of United fans, even in Britain, and the same is true for the majority of fans of all the other top clubs, only ever get to see the team they support play via TV, which is why subscription TV Sports Channels have been such big business. It means, for a few pounds, rather than the thousand pound cost of a season ticket, thousands of fans can watch the team they support.
The idea that "fans" are only those that physically attend matches is some kind of 19th century, or early twentieth century nostalgia, that wasn't even accurate then. Today, there are at least 100 million Chinese Manchester United fans, with some estimates as high as 600 million, who watch the team regularly via subscription TV. They would have no way of doing so without it. The idea that fans are just those going through the turnstiles, really meaning the people living in and around the city in which the team is based, is a further extension of nationalism and parochialism. With the Labour leadership collapsing into it at an even more rapid rate, its no wonder the Northern Independence Party, think they are on to a winner!
What the argument that fans are only these parochial supporters means is that the millions of fans of a team like Manchester United, across the globe, are relegated to second class status. Their interests are completely ignored in such arguments. But, look at the experience of those clubs in Europe that are owned and controlled by their fans. Some of them are amongst the clubs that have signed up to the Super League. Why, because unlike a Manchester United, or a Chelsea, where billionaires have pumped large amounts of capital into the club, these supporter owned clubs have to rely on a combination of their own contributions and gate receipts, merchandising etc., but also, the huge amounts that the subscription TV channels provide to them. One reason for proposing the Super League is that these large top clubs feel that the revenues coming in from TV, are a function of their own prestige, and yet a large proportion of those revenues is then going, via the various associations, to keep in existence a myriad of small clubs that, in reality, are not commercially viable, and should have disappeared long ago, or become purely amateur clubs, like the majority of football teams.
If those complaining about money in football, really meant what they say, they would have no problem with the majority of these clubs ceasing to be commercial clubs, and becoming purely amateur clubs amongst whom players took part purely on the basis of enjoyment of the sport, and spectators watched their matches on the same basis. But, of course, they don't mean what they say, and what the current objections amount to is really just the old calls for economic protectionism of failing companies, here, football companies.
And, this is also where the arguments in relation to competition are also farcical. One argument, put forward was that it would mean that only the clubs in the Super League would be able to play in Europe. That is obviously nonsense. A European Super League, simply means a recognition that the obvious basis for any such competition is itself Europe, just as, in the USA, baseball teams, ice hockey teams, and football teams compete on an all US basis, not just on a state by state basis. The obvious extension of a European Super League, is the development of a Europe wide Football League, with subordinate divisions, just as the development of the Premier League in England did not mean that the other divisions ceased to exist.
But, even without such a European Football League, the creation of a Super League does not preclude other British teams participating in European competitions, as they do now, any more than the development of the Premier League prevented clubs taking part in the FA Cup, and so on! All of the teams involved in the rest of the English and Scottish divisions, would continue to come under the auspices of UEFA, who would continue to run the European competitions they do now, and the British teams would continue to be able to have access to those competitions, as they do now. Indeed, with the top clubs taken out, and participating instead in a European Super League, it would give some of those lesser British clubs, a better chance of getting into those European competitions, rather than the places being dominated by the top clubs.
All that a European Super League does is to give fans the chance to see the top European clubs competing against each other on a weekly basis, in the same way that clubs compete within national leagues now. It increases the access of all fans to that top flight competition, by making it the basis of the weekly league matches, rather than being restricted to a few European matches between a few clubs, only on the basis of a knock-out competition. And, that, of course, is why the top supporter owned clubs in Europe have been largely supportive of such a development, because it means that the TV revenues that come into the new League will increase substantially, offsetting the role that can be played by very wealthy single owners of clubs.
The idea that this reduces competition is nonsense, because having to compete regularly against other top flight European clubs will intensify the competition between them. Does anyone seriously think that the absence of relegation or promotion changes that? Does anyone think that it will not be of relevance to any of these clubs whether they end the year at the top rather than the bottom of the Super League, with the variation in prestige, not to mention merchandising revenues that goes with the one rather than the other?
What objection to the new League represents is a reactionary, nationalism and parochialism, and attempt to hold back inevitable development and progress. Its an appropriate accompaniment to Brexit, and is rather like the attempts to prop up the failing High Street, whose time has long since past, not just in the age of the out of town retail parks, but even more so, today, in the age of online shopping. Rather like that attempt to prevent the inevitable, and progressive development, like Canute trying to hold back the tide, the attempt is reactionary, because it also seeks to protect the past, by hampering the future.
In the case of the High Street, we have calls for it to be subsidised by all sorts of means, and the subsidies are to be paid for by taxing more heavily the online retailers that represent progress and the future. In the case of the inevitable development of a European Football League, the reactionaries seek not only to try to again restrict the liberty of citizens, by trying to use the law to prevent its establishment, but by various proposals for taxation, and other arbitrary measures whether aimed at the clubs themselves, or their players, such as banning players from playing for their national team. Given the dire performances of the England team for decades, that sounds like a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face if ever there was one. But, then it comes from the same sources that gave us the biggest example of that attitude - Brexit.
No comments:
Post a Comment