How Fans were Betrayed as Premier League Club Owners Made Fortunes

David Dein, left, who made £75m selling his Arsenal shares, at a 1993 friendly with then Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards. (Getty Images)
David Dein, left, who made £75m selling his Arsenal shares, at a 1993 friendly with then Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards. (Getty Images)
TT

How Fans were Betrayed as Premier League Club Owners Made Fortunes

David Dein, left, who made £75m selling his Arsenal shares, at a 1993 friendly with then Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards. (Getty Images)
David Dein, left, who made £75m selling his Arsenal shares, at a 1993 friendly with then Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards. (Getty Images)

In the Football Association brochure that sanctioned the breakaway Premier League 25 years ago at the dawn of the first pay-TV deal, no mention was made of the personal fortunes it would make for the owners of the bigger clubs. Led by the self-appointed “Big Five” of Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham Hotspur, the First Division clubs had angled and threatened throughout the 1980s to leave the century-old Football League, so as not to share the new TV millions with the clubs in the three lower divisions. The FA’s culture had narrowed and curdled through that decade, which ended in 96 people being unlawfully killed at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final which the governing body itself had commissioned at Hillsborough.

The FA produced its “Blueprint for the Future of Football” just two years later, its woolly pages little more than padding for the booby trap at the heart of it: to decapitate the Football League by allowing the First Division to break away. Reflecting on this ruse years later as a profound historic mistake, Graham Kelly, the FA’s then chief executive, said the plan had been for the FA to run the new top league, just as it did the FA Cup. The club owners – referred to as chairmen then, when the game was more coy about the reality that the clubs are commercial companies with shareholders – immediately stripped the FA of that notion and went off to make their billions.

The plight of the Hillsborough families and survivors, suffering a repeating nightmare through the legal system with no support from the FA or the newly super-rich clubs, has presented a terrible contrast throughout with the Premier League’s 25 years of Sky-fuelled windfalls.

The outrage is thumped home by this coincidence of timing: that the Premier League has reached its quarter century, now wallowing in £2.8bn annual television deals, with clubs spending £50m on right-backs, in the same year that the authorities have finally brought criminal charges for those deaths 28 years ago.

The first official report by Lord Justice Taylor identified the causes of the disaster, but the families were still somehow consigned to a 27-year campaign for the truth to be legally established by the new inquests verdicts in April 2016. It was Taylor’s second, final report into safety at sport generally which condemned the governance of football, the state of the grounds, the self-interest and greed of owners and directors, and the dismissive attitudes to supporters who stayed loyal throughout.

The clubs accepted Taylor’s recommendation for grounds to be compulsorily all-seater, which was never willed or agreed by supporters organizations who are still arguing for safe standing.

At the same time, the clubs managed to persuade the government they did not have the money to rebuild their grounds and secured grants of £200m public money, with the new millions from Sky TV’s desperate search for subscribers just over the horizon.

Taylor had argued against the supporters that seats need not necessarily mean higher prices – citing the then £6 cost of a ticket at Rangers’ Ibrox, which was virtually all seats – but the clubs wholly jettisoned that part of his report and multiplied the price of tickets 1,000 percent.

At the heart of the Hillsborough tragedy was the youth of so many who were killed – 37 were teenagers, many attending their first away match – because to stand on that benighted terracing cost only £6, to watch one of the greatest ever Liverpool teams play an FA Cup semi-final against Brian Clough’s Nottingham Forest. It has been another betrayal of supporters and the Taylor Report that through the Premier League’s 25 years, in grounds made safe by law because the FA and clubs themselves were no longer trusted to do it themselves, young people have largely been priced out.

Football is still as coy now as the FA was in its blueprint about how much money the lucky owners have pocketed personally, and the old myth somehow lingers that mostly they lose their fortunes. Of the original “Big Five”, Martin Edwards made £94m from his directorships and sale of shares in Manchester United, David Moores £90m selling his inherited Liverpool stake to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, David Dein £75m selling the Arsenal stake he bought cheaply in the 1980s to Alisher Usmanov. With no blueprint or planning by executive chairman Richard Scudamore or anybody else, the Premier League is now a spectrum of owners from overseas, attracted by the investment value of English football.

Successive governments since Labor's Football Task Force of 1997 have nibbled at this corporate carve-up while being dazzled by football’s media rehabilitation and magnetic appeal abroad. The pledge by the Premier League in 1999 to contribute just 5 percent of its ballooning TV income to improving squalid grassroots facilities was given in return for the government supporting the 20 top clubs’ exceptional right to maximize their deals by negotiating as a collective league.

Currently the Premier League contribution to facilities and community programs is £100m, just 3.6 percent of the galactic TV deals.

When the sports minister Tracey Crouch appeared in front of yet another select committee inquiry into football’s governance, she asked to be congratulated for securing this figure. Like the FA, football’s sadly compromised governing body, and all her predecessors, she has let the top clubs and their owners get away with it.

The Guardian Sport



Coco Gauff Comes Back at US Open and Beats Elina Svitolina

USA's Coco Gauff celebrates winning the second set against Ukraine's Elina Svitolina during their women's singles third round match on day five of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 30, 2024. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
USA's Coco Gauff celebrates winning the second set against Ukraine's Elina Svitolina during their women's singles third round match on day five of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 30, 2024. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
TT

Coco Gauff Comes Back at US Open and Beats Elina Svitolina

USA's Coco Gauff celebrates winning the second set against Ukraine's Elina Svitolina during their women's singles third round match on day five of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 30, 2024. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
USA's Coco Gauff celebrates winning the second set against Ukraine's Elina Svitolina during their women's singles third round match on day five of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 30, 2024. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)

Coco Gauff was not aware that she'd lost five consecutive matches against opponents ranked in the top 50. She was not sure exactly how many points in a row she'd dropped — 11, it turns out — to give away the first set against Elina Svitolina in the US Open’s third round on Friday.
Here, then, is what was entirely clear to Gauff at that moment: “I needed a reset.” So before the second set, the 20-year-old from Florida went to the bathroom, changed part of her outfit and splashed water on her face. Then Gauff went back on court and extended the defense of her first Grand Slam title by turning things around to beat the 27th-seeded Svitolina 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, The Associated Press reported.
“Felt like a new person coming out,” the third-seeded Gauff said. “I just didn’t want to leave the court with any regrets.”
After making mistake after mistake early on at Arthur Ashe Stadium, Gauff managed to reel off nine of 11 games in one stretch and won again despite losing the opening set, something she did three times en route to claiming the 2023 trophy at Flushing Meadows, including in the final against Aryna Sabalenka.
“It was in my mind today. It gave me a lot of confidence,” Gauff said, “just because it felt like déjà vu a little bit.”
On Sunday, Gauff will face No. 13 Emma Navarro, one of her teammates at the Paris Olympics, for a berth in the quarterfinals. Navarro eliminated Gauff in the fourth round at Wimbledon.
“I did a good job of neutralizing her serve and just playing really aggressive from the baseline and pushing back against her groundstrokes,” Navarro, who is from South Carolina and won an NCAA title for Virginia, said about that matchup last month. “And then always getting one more ball back in the court.”
Navarro advanced Friday with a 6-4, 4-6, 6-3 victory over No. 19 Marta Kostyuk. Other women's fourth-round matchups set up in the afternoon were No. 7 Zheng Qinwen vs. No. 24 Donna Vekic, and No. 26 Paula Badosa vs. Wang Yafan. No. 2 Sabalenka was set to play No. 29 Ekaterina Alexandrova at night, with the winner to face No. 33 Elise Mertens, who outlasted No. 14 Madison Keys in three sets.
The first men’s fourth-round pairing that was set up was No. 6 Andrey Rublev against No. 9 Grigor Dimitrov. No. 8 Casper Ruud will meet No. 12-seeded Taylor Fritz.
Zheng-Vekic is a rematch of the gold medal match at the Summer Games four weeks ago; Zheng won that one.
Vekic beat Gauff in the third round at the Olympics, part of Gauff's recent drought against top-50 foes. That also was part of a recent slump that saw Gauff win just five of her previous nine matches.
Such a contrast to a year ago, when Gauff won 18 of 19, and 12 in a row, along the way to two tuneup titles on hard courts and then the championship at the U.S. Open that made her the first U.S. teenager to triumph at Flushing Meadows since Serena Williams in 1999.
By the conclusion of one set against Svitolina, it seemed as if another loss might be in the offing. Gauff’s totals were 16 unforced errors — nine on backhands — and just seven winners. She put only 45% of her first serves in. She went 0 for 3 on break points. She allowed Svitolina to claim 19 of the 28 points that lasted more than four strokes.
All of those numbers got better across the last two sets as Gauff tried to be more aggressive with her forehands and be more careful with her backhands. And something else changed, at the behest of her coaches: Gauff got the partisan crowd more involved.
Svitolina said afterward she was bothered by an ankle injury picked up last week
“I feel like she started to go (for) more a little bit. But to be fair, I didn’t play the way that I wanted to play. ... Then she started to be more alive," said Svitolina, a three-time Slam semifinalist. "And, of course, the crowd was behind her."
Everything began to change for Gauff on Friday after 1 hour, 10 minutes, when she broke to lead 4-2 in the second set, smacking a cross-court forehand winner. She celebrated with a yell of “Come on!” and raised her left hand to wiggle her fingers and ask the spectators to get louder.
Soon that set belonged to Gauff, who closed it with a 94 mph ace, shook a fist and shouted.
In the third, with UConn women’s basketball stars Paige Bueckers and Azzi Fudd sitting in her guest box at Ashe, Gauff broke right away, then held to go up 2-0 with the help of one 38-stroke point that she took when Svitolina sent a backhand wide.
Soon it was 5-1 for Gauff, whose only late wobble came when she served for the match at 5-2. She wasted three match points and got broken there. But Gauff broke right back to close things out.
“I’m glad that I had that match,” Gauff said, “because I think it just makes me match-tough and gets me ready, probably, for future challenges.”