By Tony Attwood
- Telegraph refuse comment from Untold on Man City case…Can a club resign from the Premier League?
- Man C v the Premier League: this now is the all or nothing moment
To see the proponents of Manchester City’s citing the decisions of those against it as exercising the “tyranny of the majority” was one of the more bizarre issues in the current situation in football. The phrase goes back to John Adams (1735 – 1826) who was one of the founding fathers of the United States. He used it to argue against government by a single elected body, arguing instead for two elected chambers. The owners of Manchester City come from a country with no elected chambers, which rather transforms the meaning of the phrase.
As to how this can be related to Premier League football is not clear. Premier League clubs are in the league by virtue of their results, not an election by the population at large.
In essence, the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, is used now as John Stuart Mill used it as a way of denouncing mob rule. Does that sound like the situation in the Premier League at the moment? Or does the use of that phrase sound like an attempt by a political body that owns Manchester City, which is very much used to getting its own way, being miffed that it might not get its own way in the future?
In the use of this phrase, and indeed other phrases in its approach in fighting the Premier League, the club it acting to hide the real question: do we actually want a government to own a football club? Because as the Guardian points out, that is what Manchester City is. A football club owned by a (very rich) government.
Football clubs can be owned by wealthy people, we know that. By 1910, Woolwich Arsenal, the club set up by and for the working men of Plumstead and Woolwich, was being financed by a local businessman. When he said he could not go on, a second businessman (Henry Norris) came along offering to prop up the club financially and sort out its long-time funding.
That is the basis of football in England – wealthy people funding a club – it has been like that from the start. Norris invested a fortune in Arsenal, and as a reward for his efforts was kicked out in 1925 by another group of wealthy businessmen – that’s how it goes.
But rich businessmen buying clubs is not the same as nation states buying clubs as we have with Manchester City and Newcastle United. Nation-states make the laws. Rich businessmen might try and find clever ways to get around the laws (although there is absolutely no evidence that Henry Norris did this) but in the end they are still subject to the laws in the way that the owners of Manchester City are not.
And that is the prime difference – having clubs owned by nation-states means having clubs owned by people who are used to making laws, not obeying laws.
What Manchester City want is the abolition of all rules relating to finances, so that the oil-rich state that effectively owns it could use all its wealth to run the club in its name. The only club that could compete against it would be that owned by another oil-rich state.
And one of the things that marks out oil-rich states is their lack of concern for human rights of such people as those who built their stadia.
But the Premier League has its own weapon – the league is owned by the clubs within it. So they could simply vote Manchester City and any other club that starts suing it, out of the League. The grounds are simple: Manchester City are acting in a way that is incompatible with the long-term interests of the League as a whole.
Now the only problem with that is that Manchester City could afford to tie the rest of the League up in court for centuries. So there is the second alternative: the one that the Daily Telegraph refused to publish a note about when I wrote in commenting on their article on the subject. The rest of the league could hand in its notice, and start up a new league by invite only.
Manchester City could then create its own league full of clubs that it funded in its own way. They would probably pay broadcasters to cover their matches and set up their own TV network to show the games worldwide. Some people would watch. But most of us, I think, would prefer to watch the Premier League with all the clubs that have a history and which are genuinely competitive.
What we should recognise is that Manchester City is much more than a football club. It is a political mechanism, with massive followings on social media, with all of those people lapping up the political/economic message of the club’s owners.
Arsenal today bears no resemblance to Dial Square FC, Royal Arsenal FC and Woolwich Arsenal FC all of which came before it, and maybe that is to be regretted. But Arsenal FC does have a lot more relationship to the Arsenal club that joined the first division in 1919 than it ever does to the Manchester City of today.
Whether the Premier League ejects Manchester City, or resigns on mass to form a new league without Manchester City, doesn’t really matter. What is clear is that the league cannot continue in any meaningful form with Manchester City within it.
In addition to “wielding the big stick” on the one hand (massively expensive court action & claims for compensation of “lost” revenue, they are also claiming that if they don’t get their own way regarding sponsorship deals .they won’t be able to afford to maintain their high level of support in the community. Utterly pathetic.
@Ukesox Ironically, it may be Manchester United, under the leadership of the Glazers, that puts paid to that last threat.
Simply resigning and forming a new league seems wishful thinking and certainly not a solution?
Given that it appears Newcastle, Chelsea and Aston Villa are with City, would they vote to leave, or the other five or six that are on the fence?
Then what happens with the TV rights? Surely new contracts would have to be drawn up? I cannot imagine the money offered would be anywhere close both here and overseas? Would any club really want to see their revenue go down. Would players take a wage cut, transfers owed get paid? As we have seen some clubs are still making a loss, it seems unlikely they would take this option even those that want to see City punished?
I appreciate Manchester City are big news, but considering past articles on Untold about sportswashing – well not Dubai’s efforts – I’m surprised there has been no comment about Standard Chartered (SC).
I see SC, Liverpool’s shirt sponsor, is being accused of funding terrorist groups – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13493933/Liverpool-sponsor-Standard-Chartered-accused-helping-fund-terrorist-groups.html
@Rob25,
well if you are one of the other owners, would you accept investing hundreds of millions knowing it is like spitting in the wind when City115 can just get more hundreds of more millions with just a phone call ?
Or seen another way, the rules say decisions have to be made with 14 of 20 clubs voting for them – as much as I know it from reading about it on the internet. The owners of City115 argue this is a tiranny of the majority. So, does this mean that because they want a change, and only 2 or 3 clubs agree, the majority should just shut up and let the minority rule ?
@Chris
Firstly Man City have not needed hundreds of millions with a phone call. In the past certainly but they are a very well run club financially these days.
But the point I am making is it’s highly doubtful clubs would risk jeapodising their revenue forming a n ew league?
I doubt for a minute new TV contracts would match the current ones?
A good point made on another thread is the really rich clubs could form a new Euro league with no financial restraints?
Imagine just the sponsorship alone it would generate if backed by the rich oil states?
If players now are happy to head for the Saudi league now for the money on offer, then you imagine the impact?
I suppose if you are in that undemocratic small elite group of royal families in the oil Gulf states the “tyranny of the majority” is a very appropriate quote. But not in a western democratic nation where we are about to see the self immolation of the longest political party in the world be replaced by a group of political pygmies who having pauperised the nation will be replaced by another group. While this is going on our own royals led by a German with sausage fingers tries to maintain relevance by cavorting with the royals in the Gulf states.
Oh dear where did our working class winter sport go wrong ??