Boston Owners' Revolution Was No Tea Party.

As angry Manchester United fans breached the perimeter of Old Trafford on Sunday, causing the afternoon’s match to be postponed, a discussion began about the depths of their motivation. Was this invasion a culmination of sixteen-years of perceived mismanagement by the Glazer family? Was it an emotional reaction to the owner’s involvement in the announced breakaway from both established European competition and the meritocratic spirit of the game itself? – Or were they just bitter that they were no longer England’s dominant force? One thing is for certain, that after over a decade of the Tampa-based family’s distant rule, no Manchester United fan was surprised by their latest unpopular actions nor the accompanying radio silence. The same cannot be said for other fan groups, however.

Alongside the United’s Glazers, it was Saturday’s intended opponents, Liverpool and their owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG) who were the apparent ringleaders of England’s contingent of rebel clubs. The coup attempt seemed to shock England’s footballing governors, as well as the majority of fans. The scheme itself should not have been a surprise, only the poor orchestration that saw it falter.

I, like most, was incredibly disheartened by the announcement of The Super League. However, it seems that many were truly caught off-guard by the move, including those at the FA and Premier League. From the outside, I was a little taken aback at quite how covert the discussions had been and by the lack of any apparent interaction with external stakeholders prior to the, seemingly, concrete announcement of the competition. However, the pursuit of greater and more secure revenue streams came as little surprise, particularly when one considers the wider context.

FSG were at the forefront of Project Big Picture, a proposal for alterations to the English game at the back end of 2020. A key component of that proposal was the scrapping of the existing ‘One Club, One Vote’ system, with the ‘big six’ – all of whom were amongst the Super League’s founding members – receiving a greater share of decision-making power.

Project Big Picture now looks like the first key battleground of the failed revolution, upon which the rebels suffered their first defeat. The proposal had also included a reduction in the number of Premier League and domestic cup fixtures, freeing up matchdays that could then be devoted to more money-spinning contests on the continent and beyond. It seems clear now that all of these suggested alterations were a series of manoeuvres complementary to the ultimate goal of establishing The Super League.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I believed that Project Big Picture had been about securing additional voting rights with the goal of making changes to the Premier League’s system of revenue sharing, so that teams such as Liverpool and Manchester United might see more of what they considered rightfully theirs. Whilst I understood FSG’s desire for more revenue, I underestimated the apathy they held as to its source and the lengths they would go to in order secure the guarantee of that income. But it should not have been a surprise. It is part of the business model that they have developed on America’s east coast.

Most are aware that FSG own not only Liverpool FC, but also the Boston Red Sox, one of America’s most storied sporting franchises. The connection between the two institutions, borne out of working-class communities and suffering extended title-droughts, was heavily played upon in the early years of FSG’s tenure on Merseyside. However, the Bostonian ownership group have a considerably wider portfolio of sports properties, with the intention of expanding ever further.

Amongst their teams, arenas and competitions, FSG also have an 80% stake in the New England Sport Network (NESN). The network is the primary broadcaster of both the Red Sox and the Bruins, Boston’s ice hockey team. NESN is estimated to reach 4.85 million homes and with the highest rating of any regional sports network in the US, can command significant advertising dollars. It also charges cable providers and streaming services a reported $5 per subscriber to carry the channel. Whilst this high carrying cost may scare off new-age providers in the long-run, over the last 20 years the network has provided a consistent revenue stream to the group with less volatility than attendance and sponsorship, which is intrinsically tied to team performance.

Of course, plenty of people foresaw that these hugely valuable clubs would seek to band together, optimising the ability to leverage their powerful brands for maximum revenue. The concept of a ‘super league’, even a ring-fenced one, was not new. It had long been an idea, floated around by those who stood to benefit as rancour with UEFA and their competitions grew. What caught people off guard was the secretive nature of discussions, the abrupt and strangely timed announcement, and ultimately the extremely poor quality of this declaration of independence.

The secrecy, the timing and the concept itself rightly drew the ire of football fans across the continent, and most vociferously in England, but the roll-out inspired greater incredulity than fury. How could these enormous brands, with creative departments, PR strategists and, in the case of FSG, media networks, have failed to prepare a considered and professional roll-out?

It beggars belief that these clubs did not prepare tailored announcements, rather than a uniform release quoting Joel Glazer posted to each of their websites. I am amazed that the teams did not develop a staggered PR campaign, with a schedule of positive messaging ready to go. Instead there was no comment from any of the English clubs for the entire 48-hours of The Super League’s existence. Florentino Perez’s wild interview did not help the situation. Furthermore, the sparkling new Super League did not have a website, it’s logo looked like a fan-made tribute to the Champions’ League emblem, and the competition did not even have a trophy.

The Liverpool owners would arguably have been amongst the biggest beneficiaries of The Super League. Having built the club back up from the brink of administration with sound management, prudent player recruitment and facility overhauls they stood to leverage Liverpool’s brand and protect against a decline having restored the club to the summit of English football for the first time in thirty years. However, as the rebellion was quashed it became clear that they also had the most to lose.

The pandemic has revealed quite how badly an empty Anfield undercuts Liverpool’s financial performance. The club recently announced a £46m pre-tax loss in the year to May 2020, a loss that will pale in comparison to that of the next twelve months. There’s little doubt that this steeled the owners’ desire to maximise broadcast and sponsorship revenue, resolving to protect against the uncertainty that will likely plague live events for some time to come.

However, with The Super League in ruins that additional revenue is beyond their reach, for now, and so FSG are reliant on the return of those ‘Legacy Fans’ most angered by the breakaway.

Today (4th May) Liverpool’s CEO, Billy Hogan, is to meet with supporters’ group, Spirit of Shankly. The group was formed, largely, in an effort to oust the club’s previous American owners. Hogan was included in principal owner John W. Henry’s apology video, in which he claimed sole responsibility. Whilst perhaps admirable leadership, it is difficult to fathom that no one else was involved in Super League discussions, particularly Hogan, when the club’s financial data would have been essential in charting their course.

The Spirit of Shankly have already made public their stance; that at the very least the Liverpool board should include elected fan representation, and a thorough exploration of a German-style “50+1” structure should be made.

Whilst FSG will seek to repair the damage they have done to supporter relations, one can assume that the 50+1 model is a non-starter. It would essentially require them to relinquish control of the club. FSG are, despite recent evidence, a prudent group and reducing the value of their portfolio will not be on their agenda.

Many will argue that Bayern Munich are able to compete at Europe’s top table under the 50+1 rule, however the reality is that the Bundesliga introduced the regulation in 1998, prior to which all clubs were not-for-profit enterprises.

Whilst English clubs were big business before 2000, it is foolish to compare it to today’s marketplace. Alongside the investment of Sky and other broadcasters, it is 21st century acquisitions such as that of Chelsea by Roman Abramovich, the Glazers taking on United and the Emirati's arrival at Manchester City, that have created the super clubs that now pepper the Premier League. Each of these purchases, and others, took the industry further and further from the point at which Germany introduced 50+1.

It must also be said that the rule is not immune to abuse and avoidance, take for example the rise of RB Leipzig; a fascinating story of a club, backed by an Austrian energy drink, that have climbed to the very top of the German game. However, they charge excessive fees and have reserved the right to refuse membership for any reason, as such having less than twenty voting members, mostly Red Bull representatives.

This Tifo Football video from 2016 does an excellent job of summarising German club structure and how RB Leipzig have manoeuvred around it -

I do believe that English supporters’ groups are right to push for greater representation – the UK’s football clubs are vital cultural institutions as well as international business giants and must be protected – but it is a slippery slope when demanding structural change such as the German model, when the developed ecosystem is potentially unsuited. Whilst they have made unpopular decisions, FSG run Liverpool in a sustainable fashion – not something that could be said of previous ownership – and whilst their ownership brings a host of issues, it avoids many of the ethical implications of having state or private individual ownership. The outlook will, of course, be different for other clubs.

Liverpool manager, Jürgen Klopp, was criticised when he called for a more measured approach to the Super League fall-out. However, following United fans’ storming of the Old Trafford pitch and a realisation by some fans, particularly Liverpool’s, that a reactionary ousting of owners could lead to a worsening of the situation, the Kop favourite’s words seem prescient.

“Yesterday on Sky, three journalists sitting all day talking about it, it’s winding up people… All the pundits have to calm down as well a little bit because, yes, no one wanted it, definitely. But now let’s deal with it and not constantly show we didn’t want it.”

– Jürgen Klopp

I’ve no doubt that not only FSG but Manchester United and others, will regroup and plot other ways to secure greater and more secure revenue streams. So, Klopp is correct when he says it is time to stop riling up the English footballing community and begin the process towards taking action to prevent unwanted alterations to our game.

“Let’s deal with it.”