Foreign investment - good for the game?
A product of the moneymen
Also In The News
|
Published by HarperCollins, out now in paperback, 615 pages, £15. |  |
Tuesday, 19, Sep 2006 10:34
This week saw Arsenal become the latest club linked with a potential takeover by a foreign investor. They vigorously denied the speculation. But this has hardly been the first time the north London club has been subject to such reports and, in line with the no smoke without fire cliche, the list of possible buyers is continuing to grow by the day.
Metals magnate Oleg Deripaska, 39, Russia's sixth-richest man worth £4.8 billion and connected with the Gunners in 2003, Vladimir Potanin, 42, worth more than £2 billion, oil expert Ralif Safin, 51, worth £1.5 billion, and most recently Boris Berezovsky, 60, Russia's first ever billionaire now exiled in Britain, have all been among those linked with the club.
Yet Arsenal fans' chat rooms have been inundated with expressions of displeasure at the prospect of the club being taken over and by their resultant joining of the ranks of Chelski, Manchester Buccaneers, Aston Villa, Portsmouth and most probably West Ham United.
But why is there such fierce opposition from Gunners fans to the prospect of their club being instantaneously rescued from the financial mire their new Emirates Stadium has plunged them into? The theory that takeovers from foreign investors may harm on-pitch success has been well and truly banished by Chelsea and Roman Abramovich. And one only need glance at the Premiership table so far this season to determine that the Blues aren't one-offs - Alexandre Gaydamak's Pompey lead, Glazer United hold second, Chelsea third, Randy Lerner's Villa in fifth.
One possible answer is an obvious option - and that is that money, financial security and the wealth to purchase any and every player on the back pages is not everything to a football fan. Even winning, dare I say it, is not everything to the football fan. Take the Chelsea fan - ecstatic at having seen their 50-year title drought ended, the norm is now winning, anything less deemed a disappointment. This mentality has infiltrated through the team, now so fearful are they of losing that taking risks, gambling is simply unacceptable. The dwindling attendance figures at Stamford Bridge is testament to this.
Another suggestion, although one I maintain is wide of the mark, is that the foreign investor taking over a club somehow detracts from the pedigree or history of a club, that a wealthy businessman owning a football club inevitably mixes politics and sport, chalk and cheese. But what these recent doubters have chosen to ignore is that businessmen have always owned clubs and that the romantic notion of a club being owned by one of its own fans is a rarer than recognised trait.
It is wrong to say the foreign investor brings all doom and gloom. For a time, no matter how limited, it is fantastically exciting for the football fan. Names of players previously only linked with La Liga and Serie A outfits suddenly make up ambitious shopping lists - note Tevez and Mascherano - and suggestions that Champions League football, and even triumph, could be on the horizons awaken dormant expectations.
Where the novelty 'dream team' capacity ends is the key and remains a point of debate. But the trend of the foreign investor is one only on its way up and we should welcome it. Not only will all the teams eventually even out again financially if the trend continues but the money will also seep down throughout the game, reaching the lower leagues and, hopefully, boosting the general state of the game in this country.
Ben Arnold.