If football were not so profoundly corrupt multi-club within UEFA, or any confederation, would be banned. There is simply no way of guaranteeing basic sporting integrity when clubs play each other while being owned by the same people. When they claim to have no influence on the clubs they own it is in the same way that Saudi Arabia claimed not to be controlling Newcastle during the takeover and then changed the second strip to the Saudi colours as a two-fingered salute to the 'regulators'.
However, UEFA and FIFA respond to every corruption story by becoming even more dominated by a limited range of interests. So the only question for Liverpool is do we want to protect our ability to remain an elite club? If yes, we probably have no alternative but to try multi-club. Football in general is not better because of it. Yet again we compromise because of the distortions caused by oil states and messianic narcissists (no other way of looking at Boehly).
As a separate, but linked, point, FSG have been responsible owners. Dramatically better than their predecessors and the alternative to that previous ownership. I think we have to assume that they will be responsible owners of other clubs as long as they retain roughly the current management/control. But it's hard to look at Redbird and not to be worried about the future.
Something about multi club ownership will never quite sit right with me. The main advantage I see is in helping a club that is in need of financial stability, but even that seems a little disingenuous given the overall aim.
The biggest problem I have is with the threat to the integrity of competition. Imagine a scenario where Liverpool need Malaga to lose or draw in order to progress to the knockout stages of the Champions League, or vice versa. Regardless of the result there, the inevitable scrutiny would be justified.
Multi club ownership makes total sense for the flagship club in terms of player development and business, as you've outlined, but is it really ethical? Maybe it's just the latest form of marginal gain. I guess time will tell, but it feels like one of those times where the genie is being let out of the bottle and by the time UEFA, FIFA, etc, realise it's a problem, it'll be too late.
I won't stop supporting my club if we do go down this road of course, but we might have to get used to having some (justified) scrutiny leveled at us from rival fans.
Anyway, I enjoyed the article, thanks! 😂 Interesting subject.
Our primary competition in recent seasons has been City & Chelsea in the EPL and Real Madrid & Bayern Munich (in addition to those two) in UCL. LFC earn €255 million less revenue than Real Madrid from commercial & matchday sources. Real Madrid & Bayern (and PSG, Barca, Atletico) enjoy a significant competitive advantage in UCL because their domestic league offers virtually no competition, enabling them to rest starters as needed throughout the season. City & Chelsea have multi-club models which gives them advantages to us on the cost/assurance of player acquisitions. Add in the fact that, unlike City & Chelsea's owners, FSG will not incur losses.
Either we pursue a multi-club model or shift our expectations away from competing for the EPL & UCL each season. We'd all prefer FIFA and UEFA to govern football to ensure a level playing field where financial power isn't a factor but that's not happening. LFC has to become a "Brighton-like" model to continue the success enjoyed in the past 7 or so seasons. We have greater financial resources than Brighton for sure but we need a multi-club model to reduce the cost & increase the success rate of player acquisitions. I agree with Josh that it'll likely raise the fortunes of the other FSG clubs.
As an American, the multi-club model doesn’t really bother me aside from when it can lead to possible sporting questions - such as two clubs in the same competition.
Here, with baseball and hockey in particular pretty much every team has a feeder team that plays in a different league - ie the minor leagues.
If you, like me, grew up in a market too small for more than one major league team in a single sport (ours was basketball) then you’d be familiar with the minor leagues as major league teams love to put their feeder team into a different city, one without a pro team. I grew up going with my dad and brothers to more of these minor league baseball and hockey games than I can count - they had great crowds, were really affordable and were a good day out all round. No one cared that they were feeder clubs - the players were all prospects or coming back from layoffs of one kind or another - because you still wanted your team to win and complete in its division.
I imagine its for this reason FSG would have been so open to the pitch by Edwards and it’s not doubt the entire idea behind Chelsea’s model.
Of course I should say I’m in no way arguing for European football to go too far the way of American sports, but rather noting a similarity worth considering on this front.
If football were not so profoundly corrupt multi-club within UEFA, or any confederation, would be banned. There is simply no way of guaranteeing basic sporting integrity when clubs play each other while being owned by the same people. When they claim to have no influence on the clubs they own it is in the same way that Saudi Arabia claimed not to be controlling Newcastle during the takeover and then changed the second strip to the Saudi colours as a two-fingered salute to the 'regulators'.
However, UEFA and FIFA respond to every corruption story by becoming even more dominated by a limited range of interests. So the only question for Liverpool is do we want to protect our ability to remain an elite club? If yes, we probably have no alternative but to try multi-club. Football in general is not better because of it. Yet again we compromise because of the distortions caused by oil states and messianic narcissists (no other way of looking at Boehly).
As a separate, but linked, point, FSG have been responsible owners. Dramatically better than their predecessors and the alternative to that previous ownership. I think we have to assume that they will be responsible owners of other clubs as long as they retain roughly the current management/control. But it's hard to look at Redbird and not to be worried about the future.
Something about multi club ownership will never quite sit right with me. The main advantage I see is in helping a club that is in need of financial stability, but even that seems a little disingenuous given the overall aim.
The biggest problem I have is with the threat to the integrity of competition. Imagine a scenario where Liverpool need Malaga to lose or draw in order to progress to the knockout stages of the Champions League, or vice versa. Regardless of the result there, the inevitable scrutiny would be justified.
Multi club ownership makes total sense for the flagship club in terms of player development and business, as you've outlined, but is it really ethical? Maybe it's just the latest form of marginal gain. I guess time will tell, but it feels like one of those times where the genie is being let out of the bottle and by the time UEFA, FIFA, etc, realise it's a problem, it'll be too late.
I won't stop supporting my club if we do go down this road of course, but we might have to get used to having some (justified) scrutiny leveled at us from rival fans.
Anyway, I enjoyed the article, thanks! 😂 Interesting subject.
Our primary competition in recent seasons has been City & Chelsea in the EPL and Real Madrid & Bayern Munich (in addition to those two) in UCL. LFC earn €255 million less revenue than Real Madrid from commercial & matchday sources. Real Madrid & Bayern (and PSG, Barca, Atletico) enjoy a significant competitive advantage in UCL because their domestic league offers virtually no competition, enabling them to rest starters as needed throughout the season. City & Chelsea have multi-club models which gives them advantages to us on the cost/assurance of player acquisitions. Add in the fact that, unlike City & Chelsea's owners, FSG will not incur losses.
Either we pursue a multi-club model or shift our expectations away from competing for the EPL & UCL each season. We'd all prefer FIFA and UEFA to govern football to ensure a level playing field where financial power isn't a factor but that's not happening. LFC has to become a "Brighton-like" model to continue the success enjoyed in the past 7 or so seasons. We have greater financial resources than Brighton for sure but we need a multi-club model to reduce the cost & increase the success rate of player acquisitions. I agree with Josh that it'll likely raise the fortunes of the other FSG clubs.
Great post. Like that line about just needing a laptop to decide whether a player is good or not. Even better in an air conditioned room.
Did I just become a Màlaga fan?
As an American, the multi-club model doesn’t really bother me aside from when it can lead to possible sporting questions - such as two clubs in the same competition.
Here, with baseball and hockey in particular pretty much every team has a feeder team that plays in a different league - ie the minor leagues.
If you, like me, grew up in a market too small for more than one major league team in a single sport (ours was basketball) then you’d be familiar with the minor leagues as major league teams love to put their feeder team into a different city, one without a pro team. I grew up going with my dad and brothers to more of these minor league baseball and hockey games than I can count - they had great crowds, were really affordable and were a good day out all round. No one cared that they were feeder clubs - the players were all prospects or coming back from layoffs of one kind or another - because you still wanted your team to win and complete in its division.
I imagine its for this reason FSG would have been so open to the pitch by Edwards and it’s not doubt the entire idea behind Chelsea’s model.
Of course I should say I’m in no way arguing for European football to go too far the way of American sports, but rather noting a similarity worth considering on this front.
I second that E Motion