Should supporters be involved in running their own clubs?
When a conference on supporter involvement in English football includes speakers from Barcelona, UEFA, the F.A. and non-league football clubs, you know something unusual is going on.
This isn’t the Leaders in Football conference of a couple of weeks ago, but it might have been just as important: Supporters Direct’s annual conference concluded last week in Birmingham, and it seems to have cut to the heart of the question of how and why supporters should be involved in the governance of their clubs.
As a little background, the mission of the national organization Supporters Direct is fairly simple:
Through establishing and developing supporters’ trusts, we aim to bring about responsible, democratic representation at spectator sports clubs, and so help promote the highest standards of governance, accountability and embed those clubs deeper into their communities.
Since Supporters Direct was founded a decade ago, they have supported the growth of trusts — non-profit democratic supporters’ societies — at clubs across the country. Ian at Two Hundred Percent has a must-read take on the proceedings of the conference. Ian believes Supporters’ Direct is at a crossroads, on “the question of whether supporter ownership of clubs is always a good thing.”
As Ian mentions, what’s more important than any sweeping generalisation or any single example of success (say Exeter) or failure (say Notts County) is the broadness and depth of the movement as a backbone for British football clubs: over seventy now have a supporters’ trust representative on their board of directors, over 150 have a supporters trusts, and over 150,000 fans are involved in the movement.
This broad base belies the argument against supporter involvement that fans are too short-sighted to be involved responsibly in their clubs. Trusts have saved many clubs from the wall, and given supporters a direct stake in the team they support — in a responsible, democratic and non-profit form, as the legion of advice on the SD website on how to set-up a successful trust iterates.
This can work from top to bottom. The representative of Barcelona present, Lander Unzueta (Chief Marketing and Commercial Officer), had previously attended SD’s inaugural conference in 1999 as a Barcelona fan-activist seeking change at his club — three years later, thanks to the democratic structure at Barcelona (as a member-owned club), Unzueta was elected to Barcelona’s board. It’s clear that supporter involvement can work for the good of the game at the highest and lowest levels in different ways, whether it’s through democratic representation or outright ownership, as in the successful cases of FC United of Manchester and AFC Wimbledon.
This perhaps is, as Ian at Two Hundred Percent says, the key for the trust movement: “there is no “one size fits all” answer to the question of how supporters trusts should work,” he writes. At some clubs, trusts have been proven unable to successfully balance majority shareholdings with the interests of other directors. At some, outright ownership has worked — just as other structures of ownership have successes and failures, of course.
But in most cases, stronger supporter representation in governance of the club has been an undoubted positive. Ian reports on a workshop at the conference which showed “the importance of developing strong relationships with local authorities, and that clubs with a strong supporters trust (or that are trust owned) are likely to be able to build closer ties with their communities, because they are more likely to be perceived as working for their community rather than being simply private businesses being run for private gain.”
I find this all very interesting from the perspective of American sports as well, as we think about the future of MLS. Especially in a country where public funding of stadia is widespread, should we not take a serious look at how supporters can become part of the clubs that are often receiving substantial public funding from taxpayers? Would it not be wise to look to see how supporters could take a responsible stake in governance of their clubs and work towards embedding them into their communities?
About the Author
Tom Dunmore is the founder and editor of Pitch Invasion. Follow him @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Email this author | All posts by Tom Dunmore
You might also like:
|
|
|
|
|
15 Comments
Trackbacks
- Should supporters be involved in running their own clubs? « Scissors Kick
- The Sweeper: Rafa on the Rack | Pitch Invasion
- Supporter Ownership in Italy | Pitch Invasion
- Ebbsfleet United: Members Disappear, Club Failing, No-One Shocked | Pitch Invasion
Not just association football either. My Washington Redskins could benefit from some supporter involvement right now (or really anything that takes power away from Snyder)…
Very true, Jeff. Shame the NFL outlawed the model the Green Bay Packers have successfully been run under for decades.
Packers’ shareholders do not receive dividends on their stock, and they only elect the board of directors of the club. They do not have any say in the day-to-day operations of the franchise.
For all intents and purposes, the Packers are run much as any other NFL team, with those in power making meaningful decisions.
I know it’s seen as very egalitarian and Utopian to have fans influencing the day-to-day running of a club, but it’s far from reality – as it should be. As Brian Billick said, “Players play, coaches coach, owners own and writers write.”
KT — electing the board of directors seems to me to be a very serious and important responsibility! How is that not an important example of successful and responsible fan involvement in ownership and governance? The fact they don’t receive dividends is a good thing, as it means the good of the club and not pure profit is more likely to guide their votes.
This is not about letting fans decide everything on a day-to-day basis at all, the typical kneejerk criticism of supporter involvement. Of course you need a board of directors, and the example above was about the value that’s been proven of having supporters on clubs’ boards of directors in England or having a say in who is elected to them.
The question is whether supporters should have some power in deciding who is on that board, whether that’s one representative or more. If representative democracy is good enough for our political system, which determines far more important things, why couldn’t it work for sports as a trust of the community of supporters? (and of course, it does in Spain and Germany and England in many places)
As for your final point, I’m not surprised that’s your response, but such a dismissive attitude without even considering the examples provided in Europe from Barcelona to the Bundesliga to the terrific work of Supporters Direct and thousands of supporters involved in ownership and governance of their clubs just strikes me as short-sighted and reactionary.
Fair enough.
And, yes, electing the board of directors is a very large responsibility. But it’s big picture, not day-to-day – and I have no idea how the process works in terms of whether or not the elections are wide open and legitimate or whether the 9,000+ shareholders merely rubber stamp an approved slate of candidates. I’d leave that to a Packer fan.
And I understand your position as well, but let me say this – present company excepted, the vast majority of fans who are fervent enough to want to influence the fortunes of their clubs are people that, by and large, I wouldn’t want within a hundred miles of making important decisions.
European “clubs” are just that – with years of tradition and actual involvement built up over years as clubs themselves went from membership-based organizations that supported football (and other sports) teams, and which then became (in FCB’s case, and others) juggernauts. But trying to graft that on after the fact, especially in an American franchise model, seems to me to be unworkable.
Should American sports teams – including, of course, MLS teams and USL teams and PDL teams – listen to their customers? Absolutely. Any smart business listens to as many of its customers as it can. Not just the most vocal. Not just the ones who make up a small percentage of the ticket purchasers but who make up a large percentage of the volume in the stadium – everybody. If you’re going to ask me if MLS and other American soccer teams are woefully inadequate at listening to their customers, I’ll say yes. If you’re going to ask if I want supporters – however well-meaning – having a seat at the table and influencing day-to-day things…I’m going to have to say no.
And reactionary is as reactionary does. You know I love ya, but you have a whole lot of reactionary people in the organiSation you’re near the top of as well.
Certainly I’d want to learn more about the Packers example as well before touting it as a model or not, which is why I didn’t mention it in the main post. But I too would love to be educated on it further.
I really and truly don’t think the supporters of clubs in England, Spain or Germany are any more educated or able to be involved in governance of a club than fans of MLS clubs. Indeed, at the time the supporters’ trust movement was launched in the 1990s, English football fans were still best-known for racism, hooliganism and the disasters of the 1980s. They did not have a tradition of being involved in running clubs at all. They were subservient and treated that way in the 1970s and 1980s: one reason they were caged-in and hooliganism did become particularly virulent, I believe (treat people like animals…etc).
The Spanish and German cases are as you say, based on a long tradition of member-run sports clubs — but I think it’s fascinating that it was not the case in England, and it’s much more similar to here in terms of the idea of supporter-ownership being grafted on later — a hundred years after the founding of clubs in most cases. In England, the trust movement has grown fast as supporters realised that by taking a responsible share of the club, they could make the entire club more responsible — including the culture of support. Like with most things, giving people a democratic share of something makes them more willing to protect it and prevent abuses, whether by owners or fellow fans.
As for MLS fans, as a proportion of the fanbase, I’ve been delighted to find American fans are more open to activism and engagement with their clubs than I found amongst English fans two decades ago. The youth of the league and its fanbase is in itself an opportunity to get it right from (near) the beginning.
Still, it’s a fascinating topic and I do genuinely want to raise the question of whether it’s right for MLS rather than saying it is (that’s my opinion from my experience here in Chicago, but it may not be as applicable elsewhere). I hope to foster a longer debate on this going forward.
“I really and truly don’t think the supporters of clubs in England, Spain or Germany are any more educated or able to be involved in governance of a club than fans of MLS clubs.”
And I do.
They’re footballing nations. We, sadly, are not there yet. And nor are our fans.
Not that there aren’t morons in other countries. There are.
I just think MLS fans in charge of running a club would be firing six coaches a year.
But KT, that’s really not what this is about. It’s not MyFootballClubFC where fans get to vote on who is coach every week. Believe me, the typical fan in England is no different — just look at some English messageboards. The idiocy quota is the same, and probably worse, in England. Having lived in both places, perhaps you could take my word on this one? If not — find me some evidence to the contrary!
Still, maybe MLS isn’t ready for a fan-owned team and the greater burden of responsibility that would bring, and in any case, that’s not exactly viable right now financially, even if we did decide it were desirable. But would a supporter representative on each MLS club’s board really bring the whole edifice crumbling down? Supporters pooling together to put money into the club on a non-profit basis and having a democratic election to find a responsible representative is a sure way to encourage fans to be more seriously involved and to increase fan-club engagement. As you said, MLS needs to listen to its fans more, and this is one way of doing it.
Idiots on messageboards don’t generally even get involved in the leadership of supporter trusts in practice (or even in the more successful and respectable supporters’ groups in MLS). It’s a long, hard slog that takes a lot of time and serious study of the issues involved in governing clubs. Dig through all the literature on the SD site about setting up trusts and see how they are advising fans to do it — I believe there are MLS fans capable of taking this up too. And anyone who took on a venture based roughly on this model (which obviously would need adaptation for the U.S.) would quickly see that it’s not about firing coaches or letting fans run wild.
Its an interesting concept and many people think its a great idea but I wonder how much “democracy” in this sense would benefit an organization, especially some of the bigger clubs out there. It is good to have open discussions on the directions a club is taking but I think it may be counter productive to have too much involvement from the outside. This is partly because people would be at each other’s throats in term of the direction they’d like to see a team take.
Interesting discussion, similar to many I’m having when speaking to fan initiatives across Europe. I’m working with fans across Europe who want to be involved in the running of their clubs, or increase their influence. I’ve been talking to the KT’s in Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Israel.…and I understand where you are coming from. However, luckily there are people with a positive attitude and a vision, like you Tom, who really believe in change.
The football environment in most of these countries is or has been similar to the one in England years ago with regards to the governance of the game. Yes, times are difficult, but they are and have been in England too but still the trust movement managed to emerge.
It is similar in Italy. I went there almost three years ago to see what fan culture is like and if there were groups who wanted to be involved in the governance of their clubs. Back then it didn’t look promising. However, as Vanda pointed out, there are now several initiatives who want to have a say and promote good governance. It is early days but things are clearly changing.(…)
And that brings me to the question of whether groups in MLS are less educated than fans in Germany or Spain. From my experience the majority of fans in Germany and Spain are not well educated in ownership and governance of football clubs. However, in every country it is the minority of educated fans who really move things forward and get more people involved. But all of them have started somewhere and just because the majority of fans in MLS don’t know about fan ownership doesn’t mean it is not possible.
All of the groups I work with have been in similar, often rather depressing environments, where the majority of fans is not interested in involvement. But these minorities with a vision are all doing an incredible job in promoting what’s actually possible and what it could mean to have a say in the running of their clubs. The trust movement is growing across Europe, with supporters trusts and supporter-owned clubs in 14 countries.
Before I leave, I just wanted to point out that the supporter directors I know are happy to make decisions. They all bring something to the table which is beneficial to the club. I don’t know of one example where the fan-director is lost, not knowing what to do on the board. It’s a question about the governance of the club, job profiles, how well they are supported, etc. If it’s not your cup of tea, KT, it might be Tom’s or somebody else’s. And believe me there are many good people around. We should rather focus on getting them together and distribute knowledge rather than pointing the bad guys out.
From what I’ve learned I believe that supporter ownership is a model which could work in almost every country, but not at every club! Yes, there are many cultural differences that should be taken into account and there is always a lot of educational work needed, which can be incredibly exhausting. But in the end it is very much down to the people you get involved. There are many groups in Europe happy to help with regards campaigning, increasing membership etc and there is Supporters Direct who are supporting the groups and putting them in touch with them. It’s never going to be easy but not impossible.
You have to ask yourself what the value of your club is. I believe it’s not just the ground and the team but the fans and its value to its community by its existence (local pride) and that’s why fans should be involved. I have to go but will post some example of supporters trusts and supporter directors later this week.
Little bit late to the party, but hey ho!
“But KT, that’s really not what this is about. It’s not MyFootballClubFC where fans get to vote on who is coach every week. Believe me, the typical fan in England is no different — just look at some English messageboards. The idiocy quota is the same, and probably worse, in England. Having lived in both places, perhaps you could take my word on this one? If not — find me some evidence to the contrary!”
Football fans are, at their core, absolute morons. Regardless of the race, colour, creed, passport. location or team, my experience tells me that they are brain-dead knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, monosylabic imbeciles who struggle to see past the end of their beer bellies.
However, take them outside of the footballing arena (in every sense) and almost universally they become a different creature. Away from the mob rule mentality, away from the blinkered passions, most, not all, obviously, would be a decent addition to their club’s boardrooms.
Whether this means they should contemplate taking over is something else though. For every FCUM and Shalke, there is an Ebsfleet and a Notts County (forgive my English bias, it’s what I know best)
The ever-increasing distance between fan and club is one of the things that turned me off full-time, professional football. There is an expectation of blind loyalty to “the brand” regardless of any mismanagement that may be going on. As one drops down the leagues, the need for fan involvement becomes ever greater, be it in the form of stewarding, programme editing or groundsmanship. The line between employee, volunteer and partisan spectator becomes blurred. Whilst there is invariably a money man/men in the background, and their influence as holder of the purse strings is still huge, there is a degree of culpability and accountability to the wider fanbase that isn’t seen at the top end. Witness Portsmouth. Fans may not control the club, but they are integral to the ongoing survival of it in more ways than simply paying their gate money. The tuned-in owners recognise this. It is not about making money at the bottom end, and therefore the room if ego is minimalised. Fans are the life blood of a nonleague club far more than they are of a Premiership club, and in that sense, they always have been involved.