CAPE TOWN - It was merely seven weeks ago, in January 2022, when the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak praised the impact of the English Premier League (EPL) in how much it raises for the British economy.
Sunak, resplendent in the archetypal corporate white shirt and tie, awkwardly sporting a football in each hand at a photo opportunity with some young players feigning reminiscence of a Harry Kane or Mo Salah, could not hide his euphoria: “It’s fantastic that the Premier League has contributed billions to the economy throughout the pandemic. This is testament to football fans’ unwavering support for the beautiful game.”
The Chancellor, beleaguered by the huge debt he was forced to incur in the public finances in mitigating the impact of Covid-19, had every reason to be grateful to the EPL.
His euphoria is based on a report in mid-January by international consultancy firm Ernst & Young, that EPL football contributed £7.6 billion (R149bn) in gross value added revenue to the UK economy during the pandemic-hit 2019/20 season.
More precisely, EPL football contributed a much-needed £3.6bn to Her Majesty’s Treasury coffers in the year – £2.2bn in direct taxes and £1.2bn from players’ personal tax receipts.
EPL football supported 94 000 jobs. That the EPL is the most popular and watched football league in the world is underpinned by the fact that the economic contribution of Premier League clubs to the economy grew by a staggering 840% since the 1998/99 season.
But then, to twist an adage, seven weeks is a long time in football. The fallout of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen the owner of Chelsea FC, Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, sanctioned on Thursday by the British government.
This includes a freeze on his assets in the UK including the football club, the intended sale of which was temporarily suspended.
It also means that the club could not sell further match tickets, buy or sell players or even offer new contracts.
The sanctioning is intended to stop Abramovich from profiting from Chelsea. The group’s turnover increased to £434.9m at the end June, 2021 from £407.4m in June 2020.
As a sop to fans and employees, the government has issued a special licence that will allow fixtures to be fulfilled, staff to be paid and existing ticket holders to attend matches.
In fact, Chelsea beat Norwich City 3-1 on Thursday night, as if the departure of Abramovich was a mere coincidence.
The saving grace for thousands of Chelsea FC fans, including our very own Siyavuya Mzantsi, is that sometimes there are more important things in life than the beautiful game.
But as UK Culture Secretary of State Nadine Dorries concedes, sanctions have consequences. In the case of Chelsea, so does its owner and his actions.
Football clubs are deep-rooted cultural assets and the bedrock of the local communities in which they are located. “I know this brings some uncertainty, but the government will work with the league and clubs to keep football being played while ensuring sanctions hit those intended,” tweeted Dorries.
The sanctioning of Abramovich once again raises the issue of the ownership protocol and procedures of iconic British sports and other cultural assets.
Dorries would do British sport with a global appeal a great favour by introducing a new charter for ownership rules of British clubs which are transparent, as opposed to the current opaque and non-existent process.
There is nothing relating to ownership rules, due diligence relating to owners’ financial background such as a KYO (know your owners) akin to KYC (know your customers) rules in banking or to sources of funding in the documents of the EPL, FA and UEFA.
This includes the EPL Handbook for 2021/22. There is nothing relating to the above in the Fitness & Probity and Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules either.
The impression one gets is that any Tom, Dick and Harry can buy an EPL club largely bereft of relevant in-depth scrutiny.
If there is, it is well steeped in secrecy and a criminal neglect of non-disclosure.
Current UK company law curiously does not require disclosure of beneficial owners even of shell companies that front ownership. Take Ernst & Young’s Premier League Economic and Social Impact Report. Ownership rules and due diligence, FFP and Fitness & Probity, not surprisingly, do not get any mention.
London has become notorious for hosting Russian and East European oligarchs and a hotbed for laundering their ill-gotten gains, sadly in “collusion” with governments beguiled by their political donations and the foreign direct investment flows.
Hence its unflattering sobriquet “Londonograd”.
The EPL brand is one of the most iconic in world sport. What was steeped in a history of serving the community, has long since been overtaken by an over-commercialisation of the beautiful game, nay popular sports in general, in which profit maximisation, wage inflation, shareholder vanity through the pursuit of trophy assets, and over-leveraging have become the norm.
The stewardship of the beautiful game by international gatekeepers, administrators, governments, players’ associations and even activist groups has long been wanting and self-serving. Just look at the corruption surrounding the bids for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, and the shenanigans of its former president.
Just look at the ugly parade of owners, some of them “not fit for purpose” for manifold reasons such as the new owner of Newcastle United, whose ultimate boss allegedly ordered the brutal murder of a dissident journalist or a previous owner of Portsmouth FC who conceded to me that his makeshift consortium was only interested in the real estate value of Pompey’s assets adjacent to the stadium.
Modern football and sports sometimes seem to be stuck in a moral relativism, ambiguity or even vacuum. Some Chelsea fans, alas, still fail to see the bigger picture and demand that the government “punish the owner, not the fans”.
Parker is a writer and economist based in London
Cape Times