Mike Gordon: The Quiet Man Who Makes FSG's Liverpool Vision a Reality

Jürgen Klopp holds the Champions League trophy with Mike Gordon, the FSG president, on the plane back from the 2019 final win in Madrid.
Photograph: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images
Jürgen Klopp holds the Champions League trophy with Mike Gordon, the FSG president, on the plane back from the 2019 final win in Madrid. Photograph: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images
TT

Mike Gordon: The Quiet Man Who Makes FSG's Liverpool Vision a Reality

Jürgen Klopp holds the Champions League trophy with Mike Gordon, the FSG president, on the plane back from the 2019 final win in Madrid.
Photograph: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images
Jürgen Klopp holds the Champions League trophy with Mike Gordon, the FSG president, on the plane back from the 2019 final win in Madrid. Photograph: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images

The crisis enveloping Liverpool in October 2010 ensured Mike Gordon arrived at the club unnoticed and unheralded. That will have suited the low-profile director just fine. A decade on, and at the moment of Liverpool’s title triumph, he was kept in the background again by UK quarantine rules that prevented the club’s Boston-based owners from witnessing in person the release of 30 years’ pent-up frustration. Not so fine.

The Fenway Sports Group president is fixed behind the scenes at Liverpool, seemingly by circumstance as much as choice, but few have exerted greater influence in recent times than the man whose appointment was confirmed by Companies House 24 hours before irate fans confronted Roy Hodgson following a 2-0 defeat at Stoke.

From New England Sports Ventures to FSG, the pervading threat of administration to world-record profits, gory under Hodgson to glory under Jürgen Klopp; Liverpool are unrecognizable from the club fought over in the high court almost 10 years ago. Anfield itself now stands as a symbol of long-overdue transformation.

As the established face of FSG, the principal owner, John W Henry, merits rich praise for achieving with Liverpool what he accomplished with baseball’s Boston Red Sox in restoring a storied but tired institution to the pinnacle of its sport. Likewise the chairman, Tom Werner, the more public voice of a company that took a well-calculated risk when acquiring the club from the near-ruinous hands of Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

But behind it all is the unassuming Gordon, a close Boston ally of Henry and Werner since they bought the Red Sox in 2002 and a Liverpool director with limited input during the muddled early years of FSG’s reign.

In 2013, the financier closed a hedge fund he owned with Jeffrey Vinik, the owner of the Tampa Bay Lightning ice hockey team. The following year, his role at Liverpool increasing, he was elevated to FSG president and top of the decision-making process at Anfield. A turning point for all.

The hiring of Klopp, the signing of Virgil van Dijk, the sale of Philippe Coutinho, and investment in infrastructure are among major calls Gordon has judged perfectly. His biggest successes, however, ones that have shaped Liverpool’s present and long-term future, have been backing a sporting model over a promising manager and untapping the club’s vast commercial appeal while keeping the fans onside. The latter is a delicate balancing act that the occasional high-profile error has jeopardized.

Gordon’s appointment as president did not immediately halt the mistakes and criticism that characterized FSG’s adaptation period. The flak intensified in 2014 when Luis Suárez was sold in the aftermath of the title slip and proceeds from his departure for £75m went on Mario Balotelli, Alberto Moreno, Lazar Markovic, and Rickie Lambert, among others.

Gordon, as those who work with him and his actions testify, is quick to learn from mistakes, to absorb information and make big decisions free of emotion, albeit while promoting strong personal relationships. That summer proved an invaluable education for the new FSG president and the beginning of the end for Brendan Rodgers as manager.

Rodgers was overruled by Gordon and the then director of technical performance, Michael Edwards, when pushing for Wilfried Bony to replace Suárez. Twelve months later, they ceded to the manager’s request for Christian Benteke in the belief that, should the striker not succeed, his value would hold in the English market. Benteke was sold for £27m to Crystal Palace 13 months after his arrival from Aston Villa for £32.5m.

A series of expensive failures fuelled the clamor outside Anfield for Liverpool to scrap their “transfer committee”. Gordon, part of the recruitment team, ignored the pressure, convinced the problem was not FSG’s model but having a manager ill-suited to it. Edwards, whom Gordon decided should run the football operation, was promoted to technical director in August 2015. Rodgers was sacked two months later.

The dismissal was not entirely results-driven. It was also a strategic call to clear the way for a manager comfortable with FSG’s system. The attraction of the charismatic Klopp, a two-times Bundesliga-winner, was obvious, and Gordon was sold on Rodgers’s replacement after making his first call to the holidaying coach. But part of the appeal was the 14 years Klopp had worked alongside a sporting director in Germany. Klopp’s relationship with Edwards, promoted to sporting director by Gordon in November 2016, is central to Liverpool’s revival, but not at the exclusion of the FSG president.

The 55-year-old Gordon remains based with his family in Boston, where he moved from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as a student and made his name and fortune as a financial investor. Yet his involvement in the day-to-day running of Liverpool is forensic. Gordon speaks with Edwards, the chief executive, Peter Moore, club officials, and Klopp on a daily basis.

It is several times a day to Klopp, with whom he has developed a close friendship and working relationship. Contrasting personalities but a meeting of minds. Gordon stayed at Klopp’s home after flying in to seal the manager’s new five-year contract in December. Attempts to do so incognito were derailed when his private jet skidded off the runway at Liverpool John Lennon airport.

Klopp wants lucrative pre-season tours kept to a minimum to maximize what little time is available for a training camp. Thanks to Gordon’s sway with fellow investors in FSG, Klopp gets his way. Not every manager of a global club has that luxury.

The FSG president, the second-largest shareholder after Henry with 12%, insists everyone at Liverpool speak their mind. Less internal politics and paranoia that way, and the club has been riven by both in the past.

It was Gordon who smoothed relations at boardroom level between Liverpool and Southampton following the former’s aborted move for Van Dijk in the summer of 2017. Klopp, Edwards, and Gordon agreed not to sign an alternative central defender despite Southampton refusing to negotiate over their primary target and reporting Liverpool to the Premier League over an alleged illegal approach. Six months on, and communication reopened with St Mary’s, the three were more than happy to meet the £75m price for a player who would transform Liverpool.

Sanctioning Coutinho’s sale to Barcelona for £142m, the third-highest fee of all-time, and not buying last summer in the belief the European champions had more to give also reflect sound judgment at the top of the club.

Klopp’s impact has helped the FSG president oversee another significant feat – maximizing revenue without alienating a majority of supporters. Anfield is a more commercial stadium than ever, with double the number of corporate seats (7,000) in the new main stand. There have been 17 new commercial partnerships signed in the past two financial years and in 2017-18 Liverpool posted a world record pre-tax profit by a football club of £125m.

In less successful times, with less popular managers, the connection between club and fans that Klopp strived to rebuild from day one would have been undermined by such commercialism. Even with Klopp it has been challenged by several spectacular own goals, not least April’s decision to furlough about 200 non-playing staff. The move was abandoned 48 hours later following fierce criticism from former players and supporters.

The episode echoed proposals to increase £59 tickets to £77 in 2016 and a U-turn within 24 hours after fans staged a mass walkout against Sunderland. Attempts to trademark the word “Liverpool” ignited similar accusations of corporate greed and fan protests before the application was rejected last year.

Overall, however, supporters are more engaged with the club, and vice-versa, than for years. The open dialogue between the hierarchy and the Spirit of Shankly supporters’ union over the furlough and ticketing controversies is testament to that and to what can be achieved. Gordon recognized the need to work closer with a global fanbase. It was his decision to appoint Liverpool’s first fan liaison officer, the former Times journalist Tony Barrett, having seen the role at work in Germany and questioned why such a critical gap existed in England.

With the £114m main stand opened in 2016, a new £50m training complex due for completion in Kirkby in the coming months and plans for a £60m redevelopment of the Anfield Road stand, FSG has committed to the three most expensive capital projects in Liverpool’s history. Gordon has been instrumental in each, although the Anfield Road scheme has been postponed for 12 months because of the pandemic’s impact on the construction industry.

There was reluctance inside FSG to proceed with the Anfield Road rebuild as the return on investment is not as attractive as that from the main stand. Its president not only pushed for the redevelopment but, having witnessed the 750,000 crowd that welcomed Liverpool home as European champions last summer, he was the driving force behind scrapping the original plans for a more ambitious expansion.

Gordon’s decisions have strengthened Liverpool’s future and illuminated its present. He would prefer to go about his business unnoticed but his contribution should not go unheralded.

(The Guardian)



Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
TT

Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)

When Algeria and Austria meet in their last group game in Kansas City on Saturday, it will not only be key to both countries’ hopes of progressing at the World Cup but will also revive memories of one of the tournament’s darkest moments.

The only previous time the sides shared a group, Austria were accused of conniving with West Germany to ensure both teams advanced in the tournament and Algeria were eliminated.

The game was later dubbed the "Disgrace of Gijon" after the Spanish city where the 1982 World Cup proved an eventful debut for the North Africans, who upset West Germany in their first match with a shock 2-1 victory.

There were 24 teams in the tournament for the first time in ‌1982, divided into ‌six groups of four with the top two advancing to a second ‌round ⁠of group matches.

Algeria ⁠lost their second group game to Austria and beat Chile 3-2, leaving them with four points from their three games at a time when two points were awarded for a win.

NEIGHBORS CONTRIVED RESULT TO BOTH GO THROUGH

The group concluded 24 hours later in Gijon with Austria playing neighbors West Germany and a 1-0 win for the Germans would send both sides through.

West Germany went ahead after 10 minutes through Horst Hrubesch, after which both teams passed the ball around with no intention of adding to the score and contrived a ⁠result that squeezed Algeria out on goal difference.

“Even though we had somewhat ‌expected it, we were all angry, outraged and stunned,” said ‌Rabah Madjer, Algeria’s former African Footballer of the Year.

“That two major football nations could agree to eliminate a small ‌country like Algeria, playing in its first World Cup and just emerging on the international stage, ‌was shocking.”

German sports magazine Kicker described the proceedings as “after about 20 minutes, the attacking intensity faded”.

“The Austrians, for their part, made no effort to exploit the additional space going forward. Suddenly, nobody seemed interested in playing serious football anymore. What followed was an endless exchange of passes, with few challenges and almost no urgency. Possession was ‌lost mainly through misplaced passes.”

French daily L’Equipe said there should have been 22 red cards shown to the players of both sides.

SPECTATORS WAVED WHITE ⁠SCARVES TO PROTEST

Spanish spectators ⁠waved white scarves in a traditional sign of disapproval while on Austrian television, commentator Robert Seeger told his viewers: "Turn it off!"

German defender Paul Breitner, a World Cup winner in 1974, saw little wrong.

"The public is stupid if it doesn't understand that qualification was all that mattered here,” he said, and FIFA ruled the teams were within their rights to play as passively as they did, in response to an Algerian protest.

The Germans won their three-team second-round group, ahead of England and hosts Spain, and advanced to the semi-finals, where they beat France on penalties before losing to Italy in the final. Austria finished behind France in their second group.

A direct result of the "Disgrace of Gijon" was FIFA changing the rule to ensure the final matches in World Cup group stages are played simultaneously to prevent teams having advance knowledge of what they require to advance and the possibility of manufacturing the outcome of games.

“Many people apologized afterwards. It's good to acknowledge the harm you've caused, but it didn’t change anything for us,” Madjer said.


Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
TT

Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)

Thomas Tuchel's England were riding a wave of optimism at the World Cup after their opening 4-2 demolition of Croatia, but Tuesday's 0-0 draw against Ghana served as a reminder that progress at major tournaments is not always straightforward.

The victory over Croatia had showcased England at their best, with fluid attacking football, goals and a sense that Tuchel's methods were taking hold.

Against Ghana, however, they encountered an entirely different challenge. Carlos Queiroz's side defended deep, remained organized and physical, and frustrated England for much of the ‌night as they ‌emerged with a valuable point.

England remain top of Group L ‌and ⁠are still firmly ⁠on course for the knockout stages, but the stalemate raised fresh questions about whether Tuchel's side possess the creativity and variety required to break down stubborn opponents.

Ghana appeared content to sit back and absorb pressure, surrendering possession but denying England space in dangerous areas.

"It is difficult to find a way through when someone plays a 4-5-1 and completely deep and is committed to it," Tuchel said afterwards. "They celebrated a 0-0 like a win. You cannot ⁠lose your head about it."

For all of England's dominance on the ‌ball, the Three Lions struggled to create clear ‌chances. Harry Kane, who scored twice in the opening victory over Croatia, was largely isolated and ‌tightly marked.

His frustration was summed up in stoppage time when he blazed his shot ‌over the bar from six yards after Nico O'Reilly's header had struck the crossbar.

The performance also reignited debate about England's attacking options. Anthony Gordon again struggled before being replaced by Bukayo Saka, whose introduction injected some urgency and unpredictability into England's play, forcing a save from Ghana goalkeeper ‌Benjamin Asare late on.

Marcus Rashford may also be pushing for greater involvement after England's lack of penetration against a compact defense.

Declan ⁠Rice and Elliot Anderson ⁠provided control but little creativity in midfield, allowing Ghana to remain comfortable for long stretches.

Rice insisted there was no cause for concern.

"We have one more group game to top the group, so we have to be positive," he said.

England's emphatic win over Croatia had sparked talk of momentum, belief and the possibility that Tuchel's new-look side might be finding its stride early.

Ninety minutes against Ghana quickly cooled that enthusiasm.

For the fourth major tournament in succession, England failed to win their second group game, exchanging the exhilaration of a four-goal display for a frustrating stalemate.

The surge of optimism generated by the Croatia victory has been checked, at least temporarily.

And while England remain well-placed to reach the knockout stages, the sense of optimism that followed their opening performance has been replaced by familiar questions about flare, consistency and whether they can break down organized opposition when space is at a premium.


Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
TT

Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has defended the introduction of hydration breaks at the World Cup, insisting that for football's governing body they are driven purely by sporting considerations and not commercial interests.

Mandatory three-minute breaks, introduced in the 22nd and 67th minutes of every match at the tournament, have drawn criticism from players, coaches and fans since the opening round of fixtures.

The breaks, introduced to help players cope with high temperatures across North America, have opened up additional advertising windows for broadcasters, Reuters reported.

This has fueled debate over their impact on the game, with some viewers complaining about being exposed to commercials during the three-minute stoppages.

"There is no ⁠additional revenue for ⁠FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance. So, this is not a financial issue for us. For us, it is purely a sporting matter," Infantino said in a statement on Wednesday.

The breaks allow coaching staff to give in-game tactical instructions, a shift critics say disrupts match momentum and fundamentally alters the nature ⁠of the game.

England manager Thomas Tuchel said the additional break "interrupts and changes the identity of the football match,” while Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa said dividing matches into shorter segments takes away the fundamental characteristic of the game.

Spain coach Luis de la Fuente and Netherlands captain Virgil van Dijk have supported the intent behind the rule in extreme heat, but questioned the need for it in cooler conditions and at covered venues.

"The main reason is the heat, but we also have to understand that in a competition like the (FIFA) ⁠World Cup, played ⁠over 39 days, with teams potentially playing eight matches in those 39 days, having a moment to rest is extremely important,” Infantino said.

"What matters even more to us is ensuring that all teams, in every match, are playing under the same conditions.

"It's very difficult to accept that a coach might have the opportunity to influence a match by making adjustments simply because it's hotter, while in another match, where the temperature is slightly lower, the same coach doesn’t have the same opportunity."

Infantino added that the breaks had not reduced the intensity of matches, suggesting players were able to maintain a high level of performance throughout games.