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



Naomi Osaka Loses to Karolina Muchova in US Open Second Round  

Japan's Naomi Osaka reacts during her women's singles second round tennis match against Czech Republic's Karolina Muchova on day four of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 29, 2024. (AFP)
Japan's Naomi Osaka reacts during her women's singles second round tennis match against Czech Republic's Karolina Muchova on day four of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 29, 2024. (AFP)
TT

Naomi Osaka Loses to Karolina Muchova in US Open Second Round  

Japan's Naomi Osaka reacts during her women's singles second round tennis match against Czech Republic's Karolina Muchova on day four of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 29, 2024. (AFP)
Japan's Naomi Osaka reacts during her women's singles second round tennis match against Czech Republic's Karolina Muchova on day four of the US Open tennis tournament at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City, on August 29, 2024. (AFP)

Seemingly back in her US Open match, suddenly a point from getting to a third set, Naomi Osaka lost her way Thursday night, missing forehand after forehand until she ceded that game and chucked her racket, sending it clattering on the Arthur Ashe Stadium court.

Not much later, she was out of the tournament, eliminated 6-3, 7-6 (5) by Karolina Muchova in the second round of an event where Osaka won two of her four Grand Slam titles.

“It's a little rough, because I do take these losses really personally. It’s like a dramatic word, but I feel like my heart dies every time I lose,” said Osaka, the champion at Flushing Meadows in 2018 and 2020, and at the Australian Open in 2019 and 2021. “It sucks a lot, but I’ve been trying to be more mature and learn and talk more about them.”

Osaka — once ranked No. 1 but now No. 88 after missing nearly 1 1/2 years because of mental health breaks and time off to have a baby — struggled for much of the early going, dropping five consecutive games and 22 of 26 points in one stretch.

But she played much better in the second set, getting her only break of the match to lead 5-4 and yelling “Come on!” when Muchova netted a forehand. The crowd roared for Osaka.

Serving for that set, Osaka hit a 119 mph ace, her fastest of the match, to lead 40-love. That gave her three chances to extend the match to a third set. That's when Osaka really faltered, making five forehand errors, with a double-fault mixed in, to waste all three of those set points and, worse, get broken.

“During the pressure moments, I got nervous, and I don’t know if I just have to keep playing more matches and get used to that feeling, especially on a really big stage,” Osaka said. “Honestly, if I get past the disappointment, I feel pretty proud of myself to have gotten that many opportunities while still feeling like I could have played much better.”

When they got to the tiebreaker, it was Muchova who asserted herself, then used some scrambling defense on the last point, flinging the ball back over the net and seeing Osaka send a swinging volley out.

“This is unbelievable — the atmosphere and the people. This is crazy energy,” said Muchova, a 28-year-old from the Czech Republic.

She enjoyed a breakout season in 2023, reaching the final at the French Open before losing to Iga Swiatek, and the semifinals at the US Open before exiting against eventual champion Coco Gauff. But shortly after that run at Flushing Meadows, Muchova left the tour because of an injured right wrist and she had surgery in October.

She was sidelined until this June; her Grand Slam return was a first-round loss at Wimbledon last month.

“Honestly, this year, the biggest win for me is that I could play again,” Muchova said. “This is just a cherry on top, to be here again, in this stadium.”

On this brisk evening, with the temperature dipping to 70 degrees after topping 90 on Wednesday afternoon, Muchova did not look at all like someone who is currently ranked 52nd.

Using a pen to jot down thoughts in a notebook during changeovers, Osaka was never able to seize control of the on-court exchanges.

Her groundstrokes were not as perfect as they were during a 6-3, 6-2 victory over 2017 French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko on Tuesday. Osaka did not make a single unforced error until the second set of that one, which became her first win against an opponent ranked in the top 10 in more than four years.

But if Osaka played so-so this time, Muchova was the one who looked terrific, whether serve-and-volleying or mixing in slices, finding her spots with serves or turning up the power when she wanted.

From the moment Osaka went ahead 3-2 at the start, everything went in Muchova's direction through the end of that set. And just as it seemed Osaka was getting back into the contest — with thousands of spectators supporting her — her forehand let her down.