Is there room in football for a multi-club model for good?
Red Bull is reviled. City Football Group is hated. But is there another way?
The time has come to ban gambling advertising in football.
I mean everywhere. Front, back and sleeves. Stadium, website and socials. Television, not only from whistle to whistle but from the top of every broadcast to the bottom.
It's an extreme view but hear me out. I don't support an outright ban on betting on football. People enjoy it and that's fine. I haven't bet on football for a long time now but I have before and probably will again.
So, this isn't an abstinence rant. But let's face it: you're going to have a bet on Saturday or you're not. Bombarding you with ads isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.
The counter-argument is that these businesses wouldn't pump millions of pounds into their weirdo uncanny valley pseudo-footy lad ads if they didn't deliver a return on investment.
But these are embedded behaviours, in my experience of being around football every day for a lifetime, so I don't think it's uncharitable to suggest that bookies advertise to new customers as much as existing ones, and that's not something football should be doing for them.
Football should also be considering the simple fact that the global gambling industry can't be trusted.
It's been openly taking the piss in its dealings with Premier League and EFL clubs for years now, with sponsors exposed for every transgression from misogynistic marketing campaigns and backing fascists to being illegal in the United Kingdom or just flat-out not existing.
Gambling has abused its privilege. Game over.
Don’t miss this week’s Beefy Bites!
Is there room in football for a multi-club model for good?
Football clubs sharing owners seems to contravene the underlying concept of the sport. At its base, club football is a vast global network of competition in which any two teams could face each other if their circumstances align. The path from local roots to the global pinnacle isn’t linear but it’s usually there if you plot the necessary waymarkers.
That’s boring and obvious but I think our collective understanding of it explains why the idea of some person or group owning several clubs at once is so unwelcome. There’s logic to it, but it’s not just logical. It’s visceral. It’s an allergic reaction to something we know instinctively isn’t the way it should be.
Both the North American Soccer League and Major League Soccer had times when multi-club ownership saved the league, but that’s North America and the single entity structure. Later, Roman Abramovich spanned a continent by owning Chelsea and absolutely definitely not owning CSKA Moscow. UEFA had its say then as it does now.
There are now many multi-club ownerships operating to various degrees. The most advanced, most successful and most despised are Red Bull and City Football Group (CFG), Abu Dhabi’s holding company for all or part of clubs all over the world with Manchester City at the head of the table.
In England alone, the owners of Aston Villa, post-Abramovich Chelsea, Brighton & Hove Albion, Crystal Palace and Leicester City have overseas interests. The regulatory environment has affected the way those ownerships are represented on paper, adding the matter of double standards into the equation.
The reasons for the multi-club model being unpopular are many and justified. Red Bull and CFG have rebranded some of their clubs to a greater or lesser extent, compromising both the heritage of the clubs in question and their uniqueness in the great global football tapestry.
Shared ownership clubs tend to enjoy wealth their rivals can’t compete with. That’s true elsewhere too, of course, but the artifice is stripped bare when it’s a system club wearing system colours. Rapid Vienna aren’t taking on Red Bull Salzburg. They’re taking on Red Bull.
Players moving between Manchester City and New York City, and especially between Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig, are regarded with a knowing side-eye. Irrespective of the balance sheet realities, even the potential for iffy dealings gives cause to be suspicious.
Football supporters are simple folk. For the most part, we just don’t want to have to think about these things at all. We know in our guts that it should all be simple and fair, and that the existence of these conglomerate clubs complicates that by definition.
To date, nothing about the multi-club model has been to the betterment of either football or any part of football outwith the clubs themselves. So far, so football; we can grumble and gripe but Red Bull and CFG are hardly the only ownership groups looking after number one.
But is it necessarily the case that shared ownerships must always be insular and exclusively self-interested? Could there be a multi-club approach that does more good than harm for the game, and society, as a whole?
I’ve spent more time than is healthy studying the Red Bull system, looking at the philosophy, the coaching and player development strategies, and the performance and prospects of the players who pass through.
For all its inherent negatives, for all the things it does that go against everything I believe to be right for the game, Red Bull is consistently impressive.
With RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg leading the charge on the field, New York Red Bulls and Red Bull Bragantino in support, Red Bull Brasil and Red Bull Ghana bringing up the rear, and Liefering backing up the group’s Austrian operation as a feeder club, Red Bull’s worldwide clout is geared up to identify, nurture and mass produce young footballers.
They’re good at it, too. Red Bull players are well coached albeit within a notoriously rigid tactical framework. The ability to move them between clubs seems to benefit the players but their autonomy – or lack of it – should be more important.
If it’s possible to build a multi-club set-up for good, being a net positive influence on its players is as honourable a starting point as any. But rebranding clubs (name, colours, badge included) is off the table.
The next requirement is for absolute transparency. The organisation would have to be above suspicion from the start. That means minimal internal transferring of players, if any, and financial reporting beyond reproach. Whether or not that rules out the control of an outside brand with stated motives outside football is up for debate.
There should be no two clubs based in the same confederation and playing in their top national divisions, avoiding conflicts of interest at continental competition level. A Premier League club should not share ownership with a club in La Liga or Serie A against which it might reasonably come into opposition.
That sentiment hints at a possible structure for the multi-club system for good. I wouldn’t want my club to be a subsidiary feeder club within another but there might be circumstances in which one big club owning a handful lower down and overseas makes sense.
But let’s be realistic. If there’s a big club at the top, the others are automatically subjugated. The benefits flow up the chain and all the shit – the loss of identity and autonomy, the cheap selling of players and everything else that comes with it – goes the other way. That might well be the unfortunate truth that spikes the idea of multi-club groups being ethical in any way.
Knock that big club out of the game, though, and maybe there is hope.
Without the need to swerve confederation-level conflicts of interest, is there room in football for mutually beneficial groupings of lower league clubs across Europe? Could Walsall partner with Martigues in France and Delémont in Switzerland without the involvement of a Chelsea or an AC Milan or indeed a Red Bull?
Some form of substantial philanthropy would go a long way. Academies in developing countries and emerging football countries exist already but they could evolve specifically for the mutual benefit of the clubs and society.
Meaningful contributions financially wouldn’t hurt either. Today’s multi-club owners would be able to point to their own examples either directly or through some form of community regeneration but really it’s always with other reasons in mind.
It’s good for the clubs or the owners in some cases. In others, it’s a sportswashing play. In others still, it’s outright money laundering.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Indeed, the most outlandish notion that comes to mind is that of a multi-club organisation built and run entirely as a non-profit. It seems extremely unlikely in the current football epoch but significant change can happen when it’s least expected.
Football is financially and socially problematic, and the multi-club model is as much a symptom as a cause. Problems have solutions. Sometimes, all it takes is a visionary. We never know when the next one is around the corner..
If you enjoyed the main piece, please share this week’s newsletter using the button below.
I am available for writing commissions and freelance opportunities. Contact me directly and we’ll talk.
Salty beef extracts
(£) The Match: Swansea City v Cardiff City (High Protein Beef Paste)
I went to the Swansea vs Cardiff ‘bubble match’ – it was completely bizarre (i)
Martinelli’s strange demise is a problem Arsenal can no longer ignore (i)
Lee Carsley’s left-field selections are a breath of fresh air for England fans (i)
New Champions League format risks devaluing currency of major match-ups (The Guardian)
Graceful, intelligent and friendly: Sven-Göran Eriksson never lost his cool (The Guardian)
Juan Izquierdo, Uruguayan footballer, dies aged 27 after collapsing on pitch (The Guardian)
Sven Goran Eriksson: Too much of a gentleman for English football? (Unexpected Delirium)
Why VAR is the worst thing that has been inflicted on football (The Football Fan)
“We laughed, we cried and we knew we were saying goodbye. Sven, thank you for always being the person you have always been – passionate, caring, calm and a true gentleman.”
Former England captain David Beckham on his final meeting with the late Sven-Göran Eriksson.
Dessert
That’s your lot. Thanks for reading. Please subscribe if you enjoyed it and haven’t done so yet.
Have a week.