Why are we asking this now?
Because Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand,
lodged a formal £81.6m bid yesterday to buy Manchester City. The
club's board has announced it will endorse his bid. Barring the
unlikely scenario that he fails a "fit and proper person test", he
will get the chance to use some of his fortune (estimated at up to
£2bn) to revive a perennially underachieving club and challenge
"the big boys" of English football.
How many big clubs are foreign-owned?
Most of them. The reigning Premier League champions, Manchester
United, who are City's arch-rivals, have been owned by the American
Glazer family since 2005. Chelsea, champions in 2005 and 2006, are
owned by a Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Liverpool were
bought this year by two American multimillionaires, Tom Hicks and
George Gillett. Another US tycoon, Randy Lerner, bought Aston Villa
last year, while Stan Kroenke, a Colorado-based billionaire, has
snapped up 12 per cent of Arsenal this year, with a long-term view
to a buyout. Portsmouth have a French-Russian owner, Alexandre
Gaydamak, while West Ham were purchased last year by an Icelandic
consortium. Mohamed Al Fayed has owned Fulham since 1997.
Any other deals on the horizon?
Blackburn Rovers are in talks with a US-based, British-born
businessman, Daniel Williams, who is fronting an American
consortium which wants to buy the club. Birmingham City are subject
to interest from a Hong Kong consortium fronted by businessman
Carson Yeung. Reading's owner, John Madejski, has said he would
sell to the right bidder, with Far Eastern interest rumoured, while
Tottenham are increasingly being linked to foreign buyers. A
majority of Premiership clubs will be foreign-owned within a year
or so.
Why is Thaksin's bid so controversial?
Primarily because of his controversial record as Thailand's leader.
He was ousted in a largely peaceful coup last year by a military
junta, which has, in recent weeks, frozen more than £1bn of his
assets. Thai prosecutors have filed corruption charges against
Thaksin and his wife over allegations of wrongdoing in a land deal.
Human rights groups have questioned some of his policies when in
power.
Thaksin's defenders argue that he was a successful, populist - and
popular - politician, pointing to the fact that he was the first
elected Thai prime minister to complete a full term in office
(2001-2005). He then won a landslide second victory in 2005.
Unarguably, many Thais dislike Thaksin, not least the junta, but
his Thai Rak Thai party (dissolved by the junta in May), had
millions of members and wide support.
Have other owners faced questions?
Abramovich has been accused of asset-stripping Russia. Al Fayed was
embroiled in the parliamentary "cash-for-questions" scandal. Hicks
helped to bankroll George W Bush to power in controversial
circumstances. Gillett has a $1bn bankruptcy on his CV. Gaydamak's
father - also his backer - has been implicated in arms dealing and
tax evasion scandals. Malcolm Glazer has been accused of
share-price ramping and being, among other things, a "trailer-park
tyrant" for policies affecting tenants in housing projects.
Why is the English game so attractive?
Money is one reason, but not the only one. The Premier League is
the world's richest, with £2.7bn of TV revenues to be shared
between its 20 clubs over the next three seasons, thanks to
record-breaking contracts with BSkyB, Setanta, and a raft of
lucrative overseas rights' deal. That equates to an average income
from TV alone of £45m per club, per year, before a ticket, replica
shirt, match programme or pie is sold. The Premiership is screened
in more countries (200-plus) than any league in the world. And that
makes it attractive, increasingly so in the lucrative, but largely
untapped, markets of Asia. As a global brand, the Premiership is
becoming sport's equivalent of Coca-Cola and McDonald's. Owning a
piece of that is, naturally, attractive to billionaire
speculators.
Does owning a club guarantee big profits?
No, far from it. To rework an old gag: How do you make a million in
football? Start out with a billion. There are no guarantees. Clubs
can be European high-flyers one year, and on the verge of
bankruptcy in a lower division not long afterwards - Leeds United
being a prime example.
What other reasons are there for buying?
They are probably as numerous as the buyers. Al Fayed's main reason
for buying Fulham in 1997 was, arguably, to get himself a slice of
establishment respectability, but he has yet to be granted a
coveted British passport. Abramovich wanted the ultimate trophy
asset, not to mention a haven in London from potential political
turmoil, when he bought Chelsea.
The Glazers, Hicks and Gillett, all sports franchise owners in the
US, saw potential in England's biggest, best-known clubs, for a
healthy bottom line. Lerner is a sports nut with money to spare,
who genuinely admires the history and tradition of Villa, and will
be content to break even. Thaksin is a populist from a nation with
a thirst for English football: per capita viewing figures are
higher in Thailand than anywhere. He tried to buy Liverpool in 2004
as an election was looming in Thailand. He failed then, but glory
by association was, and remains, an aim.
So what's wrong with foreign ownership?
Nothing, if you accept that football is just another branch of the
global economy. If foreign companies can buy British utility firms,
car manufacturers, pub chains, and banks, and if foreign talent can
populate Britain's football and rugby pitches, and can coach
British Olympians to medals (as they do in rowing, swimming and
other sports), why shouldn't foreigners own football clubs?
Because, say critics, some foreigners fail to respect tradition,
pile debt on their clubs in "leveraged" buyouts, and risk tearing
asunder the fabric of age-old community institutions.
Are the critics right?
Time will tell. United are doing well now, on the pitch, under the
Glazers, while labouring under £660m of debt they never had before,
serviced by ever higher ticket prices that increasingly force the
traditional "dad and lad" audience out. But that's business. And in
the 21st century, football is big business.
Are foreign owners of English football clubs a good
thing?
Yes...
* They bring large amounts of money, which equates to new players,
better chances of success and, therefore, happy fans
* They validate the stellar success of an English product in a
global marketplace flush with even greater potential
* There have been plenty of greedy, self-interested and egotistical
British owners. Some foreign owners try extra hard to please
fans
No...
* The cash they bring is often borrowed, 'leveraged' against club
assets, which carries a theoretical risk of financial
meltdown
* Their main motivation is the bottom line, via aggressive
marketing, not getting local people through the turnstiles at
affordable prices
* English football risks becoming fuelled by money amassed,
possibly unethically, by people who face no meaningful
screening
