WHY ARE ALL PREMIERSHIP CLUBS BEING BOUGHT UP?

Last updated : 22 June 2007 By editor

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.