The right-wing, populist government of Boris Johnson has responded to a tide of reactionary opposition to the proposal to set up a European Super League of top football clubs, in the manner that would be expected. Johnson, of course, sat himself on top of the wave, and quickly rushed forward with populist statements and proposals, in order to do so. For him, it was also fortunate that other reactionary interests, such as his friend Mohammed Bin Salman, also lobbied him, to oppose it, as he has his eye on taking over Manchester United. That he should do so, is not surprising, because the current ownership of top football clubs is indeed rather feudal, being in the hands of one billionaire or another, with change at the top coming in the form of a periodic change of dynasty, but no change in the underlying social relations.
The European Super League, actually, offered a way out of that, because, by putting football on a rational European basis, and all of the revenues that goes with that, it meant that other ownership structures for football clubs were opened up that would have meant the possibility of taking control out of the hands of a few billionaires. That is why some of the top supporter owned and controlled clubs in Europe, such as Barcelona and Real Madrid were part of the initiative, because they knew that, given the level of debts within football, given that costs are governed by player salaries that have been driven up by competition to secure them by the billionaire owners, who operate much like medieval patrons of the arts, the only way any club that does not have such a billionaire owner can survive, is by getting much larger revenues from media coverage.
In fact, all of the outrage from fans, in England, about the proposals, is much like the situation in the Middle Ages, when serfs were left backing one feudal lord as against another, as what the opposition has amounted to is not the ending of control of clubs by billionaires, as was suggested, but is to strengthen that very form of ownership! Of course, those very same fans have always been over the moon when, seeing the potential for their own club losing such patronage, some other billionaire comes along to save their bacon. Such appears to be the case, now, with the fact that the Glazers may pull out from Manchester United, but their place will be taken by that well known promoter of freedom and democracy and other progressive causes, Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. No protests about this butcher, coming along to own and finance the club appears to be planned by those same fans.
But, there is one good thing that has come out of this carnival of reactionary parochialism. Populists always respond to an upsurge in popular anger, by making hasty statements and promises. Boris Johnson, with his legendary lack of attention to detail, or facts, or ability to look forward further than the next stunt, came out to promise legislation that would give control of clubs to supporters. Keir Starmer, adopted his usual position, two steps behind Johnson, holding his coat-tails, and the rest of the Labour Party followed behind Starmer as loyal retainers. Now, in terms of this specific proposal there are very obvious, and immediate problems. For example, how is a “supporter” to be determined. Is it only, for example, season ticket holders? That would exclude thousands of fans of top clubs in Britain alone, let alone the millions of fans of those top English clubs, like Manchester United, across the globe. Manchester United is thought to have at least 100 million, and as many as 600 million Chinese fans alone! If on the other hand, all of these fans were able to register as supporters, much as the Co-op allows its customers to be a member by paying £1, wouldn't such an arrangement be too unwieldy to be able to exercise any kind of real democracy? After all, although the co-op, theoretically, allows all its members to participate, the reality is that the majority do not, meetings are held very irregularly and in locations where most cannot attend, and so real control rests in the hands of a more or less permanent bureaucracy. This is always the problem with any kind of consumer co-op, as against a worker owned co-op.
The other problem, is obviously that, if you are a billionaire owner of a football club, why on Earth would you put millions of Pounds of your own money into it, and then let a few thousand other people, decide how it is going to be spent? Anyone who thinks that is going to happen is living in a fantasy land. If the government ever did introduce legislation giving control to supporters, then the obvious immediate consequence is going to be that the billionaires would pull their money out, and, given the levels of debts in football, the English and Scottish Football Leagues would collapse. Net debt in the Premier League alone is £4 billion, or 83% of revenue. If that is the case with the top clubs, imagine the parlous state of the rest of the English football clubs. And, when all of that sends football into decline, what do you think the media companies, who currently pay billions to screen matches is going to be?
That is why this proposal is never going to see the light of day. It will disappear into the long grass, of years and years of commissions and inquiries, if it even gets that far. But, by raising this question, Johnson has uncorked the genie from the bottle, because, if it is valid to ask the question about should football companies be democratically controlled, it is even more valid to ask the question – shouldn't all companies be democratically controlled? It is more valid, because many football clubs are privately owned companies, not even publicly listed corporations. Its why individual billionaires can come in, and simply buy up ownership and control from the existing owner. That makes such clubs more like the privately owned capital of the early 19th century, rather than the large socialised capitals that arose in the second half of the 19th century, in which the company itself is a legal person, and shareholders are merely creditors of the company, people who lend it money in the same way as bondholders lend money, banks lend money, in exchange for interest, or landlords might lend land to a company in exchange for rent. None of that lending to the company should bestow any legal right for the lender to exercise control over the company, any more than a bank that gives you a mortgage to buy a house has a right to control how you use the house, what colour to paint your rooms and so on.
So, if football companies are to be placed under the control of supporters - though a more realistic and effective measure would be to turn them into producer cooperatives owned and controlled by the players, managers, ground staff, coaching staff, administrative workers and so on – then surely it is logical that all companies should be treated in the same way! Why shouldn't workers in a car plant, or a bakery be able to expect that control over their workplace be in their hands, rather than in the hands of shareholders. After all, the future and livelihoods of tens of millions of workers, of citizens up and down the country are dependent upon the future of those companies and their performance. Why should that be left at the whim of a tiny number of billionaire shareholders, rather than being placed under the democratic control of the workers?
After all, in Germany, that fact is already recognised. Germany has long since had co-determination laws that give workers, via the trades unions, the right to elect half of the members of company boards. In practice, of course, this is largely for show, because shareholders also elect half the members, and the Chairman has a casting vote, meaning workers can always be outvoted. But, the principle is established in such laws, it simply requires that principle to be implemented consistently, by workers electing all of the members of boards, and exercising full control of the company. The EU, also recognised this principle in its Draft 5th Company Law Directive. Even the social-democratic government of Harold Wilson, in the 1970's recognised it, when it set up the Bullock Committee into Industrial Democracy, which recommended that the trades unions should elect 50% of company board members.
So, it is not unreasonable to expect that Keir Starmer, and today's Labour Party, having trailed behind Johnson and his proposal to put football companies under the control of supporters, should at least build upon the ground established by Wilson and European social-democracy, by committing a Labour government to removing the control over all companies by shareholders, and vesting that control instead into the hands of companies' workers. That simple measure of introducing the principal of industrial democracy would be the equivalent of the struggle for political democracy conducted during the 19th and early 20th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment