Who Will Speak For Football In Europe - 24/12/03

The European Union is going to remain as a significant player affecting the future of football. As this page has emphasised before, football is not exempt from the provision of the treaties and complaints about 'interference' are not likely to deter Commissioners from taking an interest. The same applies to MEPs who have a grouping called the 'Friends of Football' (no doubt some of there were at the free showings of World Cup matches in Brussels sponsored by Europe's brewers who also laid on the refreshments). Indeed, the draft EU constitution contains a specific reference to the Union's role in contributing 'to the promotion of European sporting issues, given the social and educational function of sport.' Although this is rather vague wording to say the least, the key point is that the draft constitution does not exempt sport and sporting bodies from normal EU rules.

This leaves open the question of who will speak for football at the European level. UEFA's Sepp Blatter (or Blather) insists that they are the only official spokespersons for European football. It is true that the Commission likes to deal with comprehensive bodies that speak for an economic and cultural activity as a whole. That is the official doctrine, but in practice the Commission also likes to have a dialogue with the really big players. Step forward G-14, the organisation that represents Europe's top football clubs (now actually eighteen rather than fourteen with the addition of Arsenal among others: Liverpool and Manchester United were already members, but Chelsea are not).

UEFA and G-14 are daggers drawn

UEFA and G-14 are daggers drawn as is evident from a recent special feature on football in leading Euro magazine European Voice . G-14 has a full page advert in the issue and is very clear where it is coming from. It is 'the voice of the clubs' as distinct from football's regulatory authorities. Football clubs are a business like any other, rather than community institutions: 'G-14 clubs are businesses and operate in the same competitive market environment as any other business.' G-14 welcomes EU involvement in issues impacting on football as a business, although they are in a sulk about the taxes they have to pay in Brussels. (G14's general manager, Thomas Kurth, is a Swiss national who lives in Barcelona, and his communications manager Geneviéve Berti is Monaco born, but they have not received the expatriate tax rates they hoped for and are threatening to move the offices elsewhere). They regard the regulatory framework provided by the EU as giving the clubs legal certainty. As far as Kurth is concerned (he used to work for UEFA before 'seeing the light') UEFA is 'an organization no longer up to date with reality.'

For his part, Gerhard Aigner, the chief executive of UEFA, claims that G-14 is vehemently opposed to UEFA's aim of spreading football's money between clubs to help preserve the 'competition and upsets that thrill supporters ... They want to use their financial power for themselves ... It is a cynical thing that the strongest clubs need to join up to combine their interests against everyone else who is much weaker.' Asked if G-14 is a cartel or at least one in the making, Aigner's choice of words became more cautious: 'That would be difficult, but what is sure, they monopolize the best players to monpolize success.'

Do the clubs or the regulators run the game?

It's the same issue that arises in the Rio Ferdinand case: who runs the game, the regulatory authorities or the big clubs? (Which is not to say that there should not be a civil court hearing about some of the procedural issues raised in the Ferdinand case). A study by Birkbeck College, London ( The State of the Game ) carried out with Grant Thornton has found that the Football Association's ability to govern independently is being 'severely compromised' by the growing dominance of big clubs. It is suggested that the growth of the Premiership has left the FA 'fundamentally weakened'. The report suggests that the FA 'is characterised by competing interests and power bases. Members of the FA's decision-making structures increasingly behave in the fashion of delegates speaking and making decisions on behalf of their vested sectoral interests.' It said that the game's political structures had become 'increasingly fractious' and an obstacle to change. 'Individuals and organisations squabble over the game's spoils, sometimes to secure much needed funding but other for no other reason than the simple desire for a bigger slice of the financial cake. It is clear that the game has yet either to strategically plan for or chance upon an effective structure of governance for the English game.' For more details go to State of the Game.