Well, in these last recent years, major English clubs have saw the fad of takeovers occur, although they are not a new phenomena. The last five to ten years has seen more clubs being taken over by richer and bigger corporate machines. Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, West Ham, Portsmouth are already owned by overseas buyers, while Liverpool, Newcastle United, Manchester City are in the midst of takeovers (with Tottenham, Fulham and Everton potentially being other candidates) The sense of this topic, is not to have apolegetic Chelsea fans justifying the actions of their manager/owners nor any other club that has been taken over recently. Whether you believe that Abramovich is the best thing to happen to celery or not, the bigger question must be asked. Is the takeover of all these clubs doing any good for English football. Even if all the clubs in the Premiership would be takenover, there would still be discrepencies between each club. West Ham's new rich owners will never rival the amount of money that Liverpool will have if they are bought. I realize that the government nor the F.A can step in and block the sale of these clubs, but hypothetically speaking, or rather speaking for the benefit of a philsophical discussion, is the sale of football clubs doing any good for English football or Football in general? This has not happen only in English football but also in foreign leagues, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, have also had huge transfer fees given to them by their owners. They have hoarded talent, bought five or six talented players for one position and have largelly had a rough time at not only justyfying keeping them on the bench, but also with the winning of titles, whether continental or national. On one hand, I believe that the more clubs that are more financially powerful the better because it balances out the discrepencies and now more clubs are able to buy expensive players, at the same time, these takeovers by bigger companies does not serve any good other than to buy the teams which are already succesful and have been succesful in the past.Thus, even if all the teams are takenover tomorrow, some clubs will still be richer than others, and even if all the clubs are owned by rich corporations, they will have a hard time competing against one another since one club will always have more money. Thus, when I really think about it, it seems to serve no purpose. The takeover of all these major clubs will not ensure success, as it has largely failed to do so in the Seria A or La Liga, it only helps to drive the prices up of the pool of talented players. It seems that as this happens, the ability to become a player for a club is less and less possible. The youth system in many of the richer clubs has largelly been insignificant and has failed to provide any big names for the first team squad. Even if all clubs were takenover, some of the smaller teams would still be unable to compete to retain their youth talents. At the same time, the youth talents which really are talented in the youth systems of bigger clubs will be swept aside as the clubs goes out to buy younger players who have "proven themselves". Perhaps this competition is better, since it could sweep all the mediocrity out of the footballing world. Players like Lee Bowyer or Ben Thatcher would never make it to the Premiership, at the same time, overlooked talents like Peter Crouch (I realize some of you may groan, but he has been a major player in Merseyside) not make it. I really don't see how this helps out football in the end. Grassroots football, nor international football in the end. As the only that is now the most important is the transfer wealth of a club, and how many more star players a club can buy and use as bench warmers. I'll use the bigger clubs as examples, Chelsea has only one player that has come up from their youth system, that of course is John Terry. Regular starters are Manchester United that have come up from the youth system equal ~4 while Liverpool has ~3 on average. I realize that not every player in the youth system will make a breakthrough to the first team squad, but thats not necessairly the case for all the players within the FA Premiership, some have largelly relied on their youth system to provide the majority of their players. So the question is, are their more benefits of takeovers for the game of football or is it a negative force that must be resisted, much like the resistance of Manchester United fans against Glazer?
I am currently researching this topic for my dissertation at university and i have some thoughts. I want to understand why these International takeovers are becoming so attractive and I want to know if these investments are positive or negative for the business of football. Is football now more profitable to these rich entrepreneurs than previous investments and what exactly do these businessmen see in the Sport? What is motivating these new owners to buy these clubs and why are the local long term owners selling out? What does it mean for the future of the game, the heritage of the clubs and for the fans? what do you guys reckon? Why is this not happening in any other league?
