The Gentrification of Football or How A Popular Sport Has Become Elitist Controlled by Business The Example of The English Premier League From 1992 To 2020.

Mémoire de fin d’études :
Année universitaire 2021-2022
THE GENTRIFICATION OF FOOTBALL OR HOW A POPULAR

SPORT HAS BECOME ELITIST AND CONTROLLED BY
BUSINESS: THE EXAMPLE OF THE ENGLISH PREMIER
LEAGUE FROM 1992 TO 2020.
Présenté par : Antoine CHEVALLEY

Sous la direction de : Richard DAVIS
Université Bordeaux Montaigne.
Mémoire de master recherche en études anglophones.

UFR Langues et civilisations.
Département études des mondes anglophones.
Année universitaire 2021-2022:
THE GENTRIFICATION OF FOOTBALL OR HOW A POPULAR

SPORT HAS BECOME ELITIST AND CONTROLLED BY
BUSINESS: THE EXAMPLE OF THE ENGLISH PREMIER
LEAGUE FROM 1992 TO 2020.
Présenté par : Antoine CHEVALLEY

Numéro d’étudiant : 361645
Sous la direction de : Richard DAVIS
Mémoire de master recherche en études anglophones.
DÉCLARATION DE NON-PLAGIAT
Je soussignée, Antoine Chevalley, étudiant à l’Université de Bordeaux Montaigne, déclare sur

l’honneur que le mémoire de Master recherche en études anglophones que je présente publiquement est
strictement le fruit de mon travail personnel. L’origine de tout emprunt de texte à un auteur et de toute
illustration (graphique, image, etc.), quelle qu’en soit l’origine, est indiquée précisément dans le texte
lui-même et dans une liste de références placée en fin du mémoire.
Fait à Bordeaux, le 12 juin 2022.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank Richard Davis, my headteacher for this dissertation.
M. Davis has supported me since the first day I told him about my dissertation subject. He always gave
me good advice, was of great moral support when needed, but also knew how to push me when I needed
to be.
Besides, I would like to thank Robert Owensmith, Richard Pierce, David Burrows, Suibhne Blaix and
Mark Chapman who took time to answer my questions. I had very interesting conversations with them,
and their insights and knowledge of English football helped me a lot, giving me a lot of material to use
for this dissertation.
I also want to thank my amazing and loving girlfriend, Cloé, for her constant support in what has been
yet another extremely challenging year. Without her words and the presence of Gustave, our cat, I know
writing this dissertation would have been even more difficult than it actually was.
Last but not least, I would also like to thank my great friend Thibault, who has given me many advices
in how to organise my work and my thoughts. I hope I will be able to help him as much next year.
GLOSSARY
Big Five: The Big Five was the group uniting the five most influential English clubs of the 1980s:
Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham. Together, they fought against the
smaller clubs to get more money and pushed for the establishment of a breakaway league in England,
which became the Premier League.
Big Six: The Big Six is the name of the six richest and most powerful English clubs of the 2010s:
Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, and Tottenham.
Championship: The former Football League’s Second Division. It became the First Division when the
Premier League was born and is now called the Championship, the second level of English football.
Community Shield: The winner of the previous edition of the Premier League and the winner of the
previous FA Cup edition meet each year in August in a one-off contest to win this title, which was first
called the Charity Shield.
FA: The English Football Association, the ruling body of English football, which was created in 1863.
FA Cup: The Football Association’s Cup. It is the oldest football competition in the world. Its first
edition took place in 1871. Both professional and amateur clubs participate in it.
Football League: It is the oldest football league in the world and was launched in 1888. Before the
creation of the Premier League in 1992, it consisted of four leagues: the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Division. Since 1992, it consists of the First, Second, and Third Division, which have respectively
become the Championship, League One, and League Two, and represent the second, third, and fourth
levels of English professional football.
League Cup: Created in 1960, this competition looks like the FA Cup. However, only teams from the
first four divisions of English football can participate in it.
League One: It is the third level of English professional football. It was the Third Division before 1992,
and when the Premier League was created it became the Second Division while being in reality the third
level of English football.
League Two: It is the fourth level of English professional football. It was the Fourth Division before
1992, and when the Premier League was created it became the Third Division while being in reality the
fourth level of English football.
Premier League: Created in 1992, it was previously the Football League’s First Division. It is the
highest level of English professional football and is sometimes referred to as the Premiership in this
work.
Super League: In this work, it refers to the breakaway league announced by 12 of the biggest European
football clubs in 2021.
UEFA: The Union of European Football Associations. It is the governing body of European Football
and manages the UEFA Champions League, the biggest club competition in Europe where the 32 best
clubs battle for the European title each season.
FOREWORD
On the 19th of April 2021, I woke up with the terrible news that shook the football world. Only
a few hours earlier, twelve of the biggest European football clubs had released a statement announcing
the creation of a private competition. The European Super League, as it was called, aimed at competing
with the biggest club competition in Europe and in all likelihood the world, the UEFA Champions
League.1 Of the twelve clubs initially involved, three were Spanish (FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, and
Atletico Madrid), three were Italians (AC Milan, Inter Milan, and Juventus Turin), and the six last were
all English football clubs: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, and
Tottenham.
This project, an exclusive league of fifteen European clubs, to which would be added, each year, five
temporary members, was purely motivated by greed.2 Those clubs, by breaking away from the existing
European competition in a league opened to only a few clubs, were not acting for the greater good. This
project, when launched, would attract the top sponsors and TV broadcasters which would simply
abandon a now very less interesting European Champions League. This League would shake the existing
order and jeopardise many of the left-out football clubs, which would simply become less attractive for
sponsors and even for players. It would also make the already rich top clubs even richer. As stated in
the press release, “Solidarity payments will grow in line with league revenues and are expected to be in
excess of €10 billion during the course of the initial commitment period of the founders.”3 These
solidarity payments were to be paid to the clubs forming this new competition and not the ones left out.
Fortunately for the football world, an unprecedented protest led by football fans from the whole of
Europe, even fans of clubs that were to be included in this new private league, led to the withdrawal of
many of the clubs involved. Only 48 hours after the original press release, the European Super League
was already stopped, at least for another few months.
It is exactly this event that made me want to write my master’s dissertation on football. Like many fans,
I was shocked by this breakaway league. I saw it as the latest sign of how football was now only a rich
men’s toy. These clubs and their owners did not care anymore about us, the fans, as shown by the
backlash following this announcement. Hence, I wanted to know how such drastic change could happen
in the relationship that once united supporters and their football club. Therefore, I chose to take the
example of the most powerful and richest football league in the world, as can be seen from the fact that
its clubs made up half of the founding members of the European Super League: The English Premier
League.
1.The acronym UEFA stands for Union of European Football Associations, which is the governing
body of European football.
2.PSG, Bayern Munich, and Dortmund were part of the project but did not join, this is why they were to
be 15 founding members.
3.The Super League. https://thesuperleague.com.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF FIGURES: ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4
I. How did the Premier League become the most powerful and richest league in the World? ......... 19
a. Making a good start. .................................................................................................................. 19
1. The battle for the first TV rights sale of the Premier League. ............................................... 20
2. Sky and the clubs’ work to rehabilitate the game. ................................................................. 26
3. Rise and rise: boom in the TV rights deals............................................................................ 32
b. The Premier League taking over the world. .............................................................................. 37
1. Development of merchandising: a new way to make money for the clubs, offering a
sometimes-dangerous new status to the players. ........................................................................... 37
2. Sponsors and partners through the examples of jersey manufacturers and jersey sponsors: a
new economic asset for the Premier League clubs. ....................................................................... 43
3. Overseas TV rights deals: attracting foreign fans and earning more revenues. .................... 50
c. The World taking over the Premier League. ............................................................................. 55
1. Foreign owners taking over the Premier League and its clubs. ............................................. 56
2. Foreign investments through the example of naming. .......................................................... 62
3. The Premier League taken over by foreign players and coaches: the key for greater success.
68
II. The expansion and internationalisation of the Premier League: a dramatic change for domestic
fans? .................................................................................................................................................. 77
a. Football: a popular sport that became more and more expensive over the years. ..................... 77
1. Inflation of match and season tickets. ................................................................................... 78
2. Watching the Premier League on TV: an increasingly high price to pay. ............................. 84
3. Merchandising and its impact on fans. .................................................................................. 90
b. Clubs trying to keep up with the Premier League leading to mismanagement. ........................ 95
1. The consequences of the gold rush for the clubs missing it. ................................................. 96
2. Clubs’ mismanagement leading to catastrophe. .................................................................. 103
c. Fans and institutions, once united, now divided...................................................................... 108
1. A proximity with the institution now lost as clubs seem to be more focused on the business
side of the sport. .......................................................................................................................... 108
2. A proximity with the players now lost as the actors of the game are now stars. ................. 115
3. Football stadiums: the perfect example of the gentrification of football............................. 121
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 128
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 131
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 140
TABLE OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Football Source: National Geographic Society Map June 2006 Edition "Soccer United the
World”. Retrieved from: Football Source: National Geographic Society Map June 2006 Edition
‘Soccer United the World’. June 2006. Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2: The Sunday Times from the 19th of May 1985. Retrieved from:
‘Https://Twitter.Com/Lewispringle/Status/971135690741374977’. Twitter,
https://twitter.com/lewispringle/status/971135690741374977.
Figure 3: The Sun’s front page about Hillsborough. Retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster_and_The_Sun
Figure 4: “IT’S A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME” advertisement by Sky Sports. Retrieved from the
Twitter account @90sfootball: https://twitter.com/90sfootball/status/702221416859435008
Figure 5: Vinnie Jones, Wimbledon player, nails a Wimbledon jersey on the “A Whole New Ball
Game” promo poster. Retrieved from Sky Sports’ article “Alive and Kicking: The First Premier
League promo”: https://www.skysports.com/football/story-telling/11661/11979300/alive-and-kicking-
behind-the-first-premier-league-promo.
Figure 6: Advertisement of the new Premier League before the first televised game. Retrieved on
BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 1, 15min 23s.
Figure 7: Sky Sports’ advertisement of the Premier League before the first televised game. Retrieved
on BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 1, 15min 25s.
Figure 8: Sky’s annual profit from 1992 to 1996. Chart made thanks to data found in Horrie, Chris.
Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p.155 and ‘Sky TV: 20
Years in Pictures’. The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2009. www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gallery/2009/feb/03/sky-tv-20th-anniversary-bskyb.
Figure 9: Manchester United Jersey Sponsor deals 2000-2020, in millions of pounds per year. Chart
made thanks to data retrieved at: ‘Manchester United Chevrolet Kit Deal To Expire In Exactly One
Year’. Footy Headlines, Ends Man Utd Shirt Deal. 23 Nov. 2005. news.bbc.co.uk, Man Utd Sign
£56m AIG Shirt Deal. 6 Apr. 2006. news.bbc.co.uk, Joy, Oliver. ‘Manchester United Pen New Multi-
Million Dollar Aon Deal’. CNN, ‘United Announce £30m Vodafone Sponsorship’. The Guardian, 11
Feb. 2000. The Guardian
Figure 10: Manchester United kit manufacturer deals from 1996 to 2020 in millions of pounds per
season. Chart made thanks to data found at: Bray, Chad. ‘Nike and Manchester United Set to End
Equipment Partnership’. The New York Times, 9 July 2014. NYTimes.com, Blanchette, Rob.
‘Manchester United and Adidas Agree on New Kit Deal’. Bleacher Report, Unitedkits.Com - the
Definitive Illustrated Guide to Manchester United Kits | United’s Kit Manufacturers.
Figure 11: Yearly amount earned by some Premier League clubs through their kit manufacturer’s
deal as of 2020. Chart made thanks to data retrieved from: Chelsea Signs Record-Breaking £900m
Nike Kit Deal’. BBC News, 14 Oct. 2016. www.bbc.com, Liverpool Announce £80m-a-Year Nike Kit
Deal Smashing Rivals Man Utd’. The Sun, 7 Jan. 2020, Reuters, CNBC com with. ‘Puma Signs
Record-Breaking $860 Million Partnership with Manchester City’. CNBC, 28 Feb. 2019, ‘Tottenham
Hotspur Reveal Details of Bumper 15-Year Nike Deal’. SportsPro, 30 Oct. 2018, Verschueren,
Gianni. ‘Arsenal Announce Kit Deal with Adidas Reportedly Worth £65M Per Year’. Bleacher
Report, ‘West Ham and Umbro Agree “long-Term” Kit Deal Extension’. SportsPro, 30 June 2020.
1
Figure 12: Revenue sources and percentages of Manchester United in 2005. Retrieved from:
Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006, p. 7.
Figure 13: Revenue sources and percentages of Manchester United in 2019. Retrieved from:
Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006, p. 4.
Figure 14: Recapitulative scheme of the relation between the product’s quality and the investments it
can bring. Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute,
https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.
Figure 15: Every Premier League TV rights deal in the United Kingdom from 1992 to 1999. Retrieved
from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute, https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.
Figure 16: Premier League’s overseas broadcast rights from 1992 to 2019, in millions of pounds.
Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute, https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.
Figure 17: The FA Premier League’s logo in 1992. Retrieved from ‘FA Premier League’. Logos
Download, 5 Nov. 2017, https://logos-download.com/19107-fa-premier-league-logo-download.html.
Figure 18: The Carling FA Premiership logo starting 1997/1998. Retrieved from: Limited, Alamy. Le
nouveau logo de football de Carling Premiership pour la saison 1997/8, qui a été lancé aujourd’hui
(mardi). Image PA Photo Stock – Alamy.
Figure 19: Percentage of foreign players by league in Europe as of 2016. Retrieved from: Poli,
Raffaele, et al. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report: Issue No. 12 - February 2016: Foreign
Players in Football Teams. 12, Feb. 2016, p. 6.
Figure 20: Revenue growth of the “big five” European leagues in 1996-1997 and from 2001/02 to
2010/11. Retrieved from: Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to
Dominate the World. Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 372.
Figure 21: Big Five European league clubs’ revenue in 2019-2020. Retrieved from: Ajadi, Theo, et
al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2021: Riding the Challenge. July 2021, p. 14.
Figure 22: Evolution of the cheapest Sky Sports package compared to inflation from 2004 to 2015.
Retrieved from ‘Tips to Watch Sky Sports for Less’. Which? Conversation, 22 Apr. 2015,
https://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/tv-sports-sky-virgin-bt-price/.
Figure 23: Total changes in charges in real terms of different Sky packages from January 2004 to
September 2009. Retrieved from: Sky Group, “Trends in charges for pay tv services, the quality of
services provided to consumers and subscriber numbers”. 2010, p. 36.
Figure 24: Changes in average spend per match-going fan by category from 2014/15 to 2019/20.
Retrieved from: Football Benchmark - Cost of Fandom in the Premier League – the Etoro Fan
Financial Statement.
Figure 25: Evolution of the price of an adult shirt from different Premier League clubs (2014-2017).
Retrieved from: Henshall, Tony Jimenez and Angela. The Costs of Swapping Football Shirts.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180517-the-cost-of-swapping-shirts.
Figure 26: Annual money earned by some European football leagues through manufacturing deals.
Retrieved from: Nast, Condé. ‘Can the £1 Billion Football Jersey Business Overcome Covid-19?’
Vogue Business, 12 Sept. 2020.
Figure 27: Comparison of league position and total wages in the Premier League (2011-2012).
Retrieved from: Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate the
World. Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 368.
2
Figure 28: Football League clubs’ revenue and wage costs in 2017-18 and 2018-19. Retrieved from:
Ajadi, Théo, Tom Ambler, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2020: Home Truths. June 2020,
p. 25.
Figure 29: Average revenue of Premier League and Championship clubs in 2018-2019. Retrieved
from: Ajadi, Théo, Tom Ambler, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2020: Home Truths. June
2020, p. 17.
Figure 30: Dial Square FC’s official logo. Retrieved from: Dial Square F.C.
https://www.dialsquarefc.com/.
Figure 31: Manchester United fans wearing green and gold scarves at the Carling Cup final in 2010.
Retrieved from: Bainbridge, Luke, and Ed Vulliamy. ‘Manchester United Fans Go Green and Gold at
Wembley in Colour-Coded Protest against Owners’. The Observer, 28 Feb. 2010. The Guardian.
Figure 32: FC United of Manchester’s official logo. Retrieved from: ‘Football Club United of
Manchester’. Wikipédia, 1 Jan. 2022. Wikipedia,
https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_Club_United_of_Manchester&oldid=189448572.
Figure 33: Evolution of the average weekly wage of a footballer in England’s first division from 1961
to 2010. Retrieved from: ‘From £20 to £33,868 per Week: A Quick History of English Football’s Top-
Flight Wages’ | Sporting Intelligence.
Figure 34: Eric Cantona kicking a fan at Selhurst Park in 1996. Retrieved from: ‘Cantona on His
Infamous Flying Kick on a Fan: I Would Have Loved to Kick Him Harder’. MARCA, 26 Jan. 2022.
Figure 35: Brick houses just outside of Manchester United’s Old Trafford. Retrieved from:
KGGucwa. English: The MUFC’s Stadium and the Houses in Its Neighbourhood. 6 June 2009. Own
work, Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 36: Highbury Stadium and the Emirates Stadium. Retrieved from: Limited, Alamy. Vue
aérienne du Club d’Arsenal montrant le stade Highbury & l’Emirates Stadium, domicile des artilleurs
ou les Gunners Photo Stock - Alamy.
Figure 37: Executive box at Old Trafford in 2019. Retrieved from: ‘Manchester United Hospitality
Viewing Box Old Trafford 2019/20’. The Hospitality Broker.
Figure 38: Seasonal Hospitality Prices at Old Trafford for 2015/2016. Retrieved from: ‘How Much
Would You Pay for a Box at Old Trafford?’ R/Reddevils, 2 Apr. 2015
3
INTRODUCTION
The main reason that made me chose English football and especially the English Premier League
as an example of the gentrification of football is the special bond ties the English people and football
since the 19th century. Furthermore, football and sports in general are not a light subject. Even though
they are not common subjects in research, it does not mean that they are not of interest. As we will see
throughout this dissertation, football in England and the United Kingdom is a very serious subject for a
large part of the population. Football and sports in general are reflects of the society, and sports’ study
can help to understand the trends and tendencies of a society. I thought that choosing a country where
football holds such an important place was necessary to examine how the evolution of the game
impacted such passionate people. In order to analyse the evolution of the relationship between the
English people and football, we need to know how that relationship evolved up to the beginning of the
English Premier League in 1992.
Football is an English game. Even though the origins of the game are very ancient, it was in
England that the game was codified, organised, and where it became the worldwide phenomenon we
know today. Football is by far the most popular sport in the world, as shown on the map below, where
the countries in green are those where football is the most popular sport.
Figure 1: Football Source: National Geographic Society Map June 2006 Edition "Soccer United the
World"4
It is also the most accessible sport on the planet. To play the game, a ball of any size and made
of any materials is all that is needed. Anything works, even a simple paper ball.
The game of association football as it is known today was created in 1863 when the Football
Association was formed in England. However, at that time, the sport was not even spread across the
4.Retrieved from: Football Source: National Geographic Society Map June 2006 Edition ‘Soccer United
the World’. June 2006. Wikimedia Commons.
4
whole of England. According to David Goldblatt, “judicious use of the Riot Act, as well as rural
depopulation, meant that these games were all but extinguished by the 1850s, but they lived on in the
ludic zoos of the public schools.”5 This game was confined to schools that were, at the time, reserved
for the richest part of English society. This meant that the working class, which in the middle of the
Industrial Revolution, spent most of their time working in the different factories, had no time to play the
game. This domination of the sport was clearly seen in the results of the Football Association Cup (FA
Cup), the oldest football competition in the world. The first edition, which was held in 1871, saw the
Wanderers, a team of public school and university students, take the cup home. The trend would
continue for the first ten editions of the FA Cup, and saw teams of players coming from the best public
schools and military regiments win each and every edition.6
What allowed the working class to conquer the “beautiful game” was the same thing that forced
most of them to move into overcrowded cities to find work: the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the
development of football among the working class relied on four important factors: “the rapid growth of
urban centres of population, the shortening of the work week which provided leisure time for industrial
laborers, the development of rapid and relatively inexpensive means of transportation, and an
educational system which fostered physical as well as mental activity.”7 The link between the growth of
urban centres and the Industrial revolution is pretty clear. While in 1800 only London had a population
of more than 100,000 inhabitants, nearly a century later, in 1891, 22 more cities could say the same.8
The cities developed mainly in the Midlands and the North of England, the heart of the Industrial
Revolution. However, while many working-class people lived in urban areas, they did not have the time
to do much besides their work in factories as they were working six days a week often in harsh
conditions. The situation changed progressively, and “By 1870 a half-day Saturday was realized in most
factories, mines and workshops, providing leisure time for the bulk of the laboring population.”9
This increase of interest in football in working-class households was also made possible thanks
to the Education Act of 1870, “ordaining that a school should be placed within the reach of every English
child”.10 By giving every English child the opportunity to be educated, regardless of their social status,
Parliament indirectly gave the working-class children access to football. By giving working-class
children a place where they could be with each other in a positive setting, and where they could simply
learn codified sports as much as learning how to write and to read, the Parliament unconsciously gave
football a boost among working-class people. The children could then take the game out of school when
5.Goldblatt, David. The Game of Our Lives: The Meaning and Making of English Football. Penguin
Books, 2015, p. 6.
6.Baker, W. J. ‘The Making of a Working-Class Football Culture in Victorian England’. Journal of
Social History, vol. 13, no. 2, Dec. 1979, p. 243.
7.Ibid, p. 241.
8.Ibid, p. 242.
9.Ibid, p. 242.
10.Ibid, p. 243.
5
they went home and play in the streets of these new urban areas. The new and mainly northern urban
areas, a much easier access to education, and reduction of the working week gave a better access to the
now popularised “beautiful game” to a majority of the English people.
This societal change paved the way for the working class to take over the sport. Football offered
a release for the working class. While they had to comply with the social norms most of the time,
Saturday afternoons offered them the opportunity to escape from the monotony of factory life. The
football pitches became a place where they could express themselves and not only be a part of the
masses. As David Goldblatt puts it, “one of the main ways in which the pleasures of football were
expressed in the past was as escapism. Escape from the drudgery of work, from the rigidity of social
norms, from externally imposed restrictions and deprivations of all kinds”.11 This phenomenon led to
many clubs being created by the working class in order to compete with the elite, especially in the North
and the Midlands. For instance, Aston Villa, a predominant football club from Birmingham, was created
in 1874 by a chapel. Several religious organisations created many other working-class football clubs
such as Everton in Liverpool. Similarly, Manchester United-one of the six English clubs that wanted to
form the new European Super League in 2021- was created by workers on the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Railway as the Newton Heath Football Club in 1878.12 The same thing can be said about the Gunners
of Arsenal, also members of the new European private league, a club created by workers at the Royal
Arsenal munitions factory in Woolwich as Dial Square Football Club in 1886.13
Very soon, the working class realised that the game was a place where they could compare
themselves with aristocrats. On the pitch, everyone was equal, and even though the concept of social
classes was still present, during the course of the game, they were just 22 men competing for a victory.
The working class was also very numerous around the pitch, as many went to support their colleagues,
husbands, fathers, etc.
The specific moment which showed that the working class had taken over football and made it
their sport was during the 1883 FA Cup final. On that occasion, Blackburn Olympic, one of the many
northern working-class teams entering the competition, beat the Old Etonians, a team composed of
aristocrats. Blackburn, which had lost against the same team during the previous edition’s final, became
the first working-class team to lift the FA Cup, 12 years after its creation.14 This title would be followed
by 30 years of total domination by northern working-class teams in the FA Cup, as they won every title
from 1883 to 1914. When the Football League, the oldest football league in the world, was created in
Books, 2015, p. 42.
12.Conn, David. The Beautiful Game? Searching for the Soul of Football. 2010, p. 19.
13.Ibid, p. 19.
14.The TV series « The English Game”, released in 2020, is a good way to live this story through the
characters of Arthur Kinnaird, an Old Etonian, and chairman of the Football Association, and Fergus
Suter, a poor Scotsman paid by a factory owner to play for his football team.
6
1888, all of the 12 founding teams were working-class Midlands or Northern teams.15 As the working
class was thriving on the pitch, the crowds became more and more numerous to watch and support with
passion their local team. Even though “Institutionally and economically they [the football clubs] were
controlled by the urban middle classes, (but) the cultural compass of the game was set by the tastes and
dispositions of the working class. What, ultimately, made professional football such an important
cultural phenomenon was the enormous appetite of the British working man for playing it, watching it,
reading about it and gambling on it.”16 The “beautiful game”, by being accessible to the masses, became
what we know today. It started to attract more and more people. While the first FA Cup final was
watched by 2,000 spectators, the same event attracted 25,000 spectators 20 years later, and in 1901,
Crystal Palace attracted more than 100,000 persons to their stadium.17 These attendance figures show
how football opened itself up and became a social event where the working class gathered to spend a
good time outside the everyday life routine. Furthermore, the advent of football in its home country
created special bonds between the working classes and their clubs. People were certainly much more
emotionally attached to their local clubs than today, As Cyprian Piskurek stated:
Because football clubs in England are much older than in the rest of Europe and their grounds
were often built right in the middle of Victorian neighbourhoods, the interlink between football
clubs and residential communities was often considered to be especially strong. This is not to
say that this connection was always harmonious, but clubs certainly drew most of their support
from their local communities and were accordingly perceived as an integral part of the
neighbourhood.18
This special bond between the people and their respective local football clubs, seen as an integral
part of the neighbourhood, underlines the fact that football had very quickly become a predominant part
of the working-class life. Even though football in England had some serious crises throughout its history,
as we will see later on, the fans have always stayed loyal to their teams.
As part of my research for this dissertation I chose to conduct a few interviews with English
football fans, as I thought their views and opinions on the different subjects around football would be of
great use. I conducted five interviews with English and British football supporters, that are available in
full length in the appendix. The first question I asked every one of the interviewees was as follows:
“According to you, what place does football hold in English society?” Every one of my five interviewees
agreed to the fact that football had always had a predominant place in the heart of the English people.
David Burrows, a former professional player in England during the 1980s and the 1990s told me:
15.This was due in part to the fact that, at first, many aristocrats opposed the decision of the Football
League to accept professional players, something that for them was against the ethos of football.
Books, 2015, p. 9.
17.Baker, W. J. ‘The Making of a Working-Class Football Culture in Victorian England’. Journal of
Social History, vol. 13, no. 2, Dec. 1979, p. 248.
18.Piskurek, Cyprian. Fictional Representations of English Football and Fan Cultures. A. Sonntag and
D. Rane, Palgrave McMillan, 2018, p. 253.
7
First, it is the national game, the national sport and football is everything in many towns. What
football has done for many cities is bringing a togetherness and if you look in depth some of the
deprived areas where the football stadium is a place where people can meet. People can watch
their national sport. People can talk about their national sport; children can learn about the sport.
But then there's many sports. But football has been still maintained as the national sport and
that's how I see it. It's a collective thing, a reason for everybody to get together and there's not
enough of that in today's world.
David Burrows highlighted the fact that football is a way to come together and a way to bring
joy and something different into deprived areas where everyday life is far from easy. Additionally,
Robert Owensmith, a Chelsea fan since the first time he went to Stamford Bridge, Chelsea’s stadium, at
the end of the 1960s, told me: “I think it's hugely important. I think every club, from the smaller clubs
to the bigger clubs are at the centre of their community. Unlike in France, which is maybe more and
more bending towards rugby, in the Southwest anyway. In England, the football club is the beating heart
of a city.” Like David Burrows, Robert Owensmith really focused on the community aspect. Football is
and has always been in the centre of the community they are a part of. When asked if they think there is
an indivisible link between football and the English people, the answers were pretty clear. All five of
them agreed on that, with Suibhne Blaix, a school assistant in France and fan of Liverpool, telling me:
“I think if their club would go down it would leave a gaping hole in their lives. For some people, it could
be as important as religion.” Mark Chapman, Suibhne Blaix’s colleague, also a Liverpool fan, told me:
“This is definitely a religion for some people.” What Suibhne Blaix and Mark Chapman told me
underlines the importance of football for a part of the English population, obsessed with the sport.
Consequently, football, even though it was at first an aristocrats’ sport, became over the years,
thanks to many factors such as the reduction of the working week or the easier access to education for
every English child, the people’s sport. It was taken over both on the pitch and in the stands by
increasingly more numerous working-class people. The clubs have, since the end of the Industrial
Revolution, always been anchored in their communities, thanks to their proximity on a geographical but
also social level, with many working-class men being part of the clubs. Throughout the decades and the
ups and downs, the English people never abandoned football, which is in part why the “beautiful game”
and the English people have a special bond, with football being for some as important as religion.
Now that we covered the importance of football and the relationship it has built over the years
with the English people, we are going to study how the Premier League emerged in 1992. As we will
see, many factors and catastrophes as well as greed and a constant fight for power led to the creation of
the Premier League that changed the status of football.
In 1956, Independent Television (ITV), launched in 195 5, aimed at getting the rights to
broadcast the First Division of the English Football League (the ancestor of today’s Premier League).
At the time, the Football League was composed of four divisions and 92 football clubs (22 clubs in each
8
of the first two divisions and 24 in each of the third and fourth divisions). ITV, through its regional
companies, aimed at getting the rights to broadcast live Football League games. It is important to note
that at that time, the only game that was shown on live television was the FA Cup final, so ITV’s plan
was a revolutionary event in the history of football. They targeted big clubs such as Manchester United
and Newcastle United, and were ready to pay up to £1,000 per match, which for the time equated to
10,000 extra paying customers at the stadium gate.19 The problem was that ITV was only offering money
to some of the clubs and not to the whole Football League. Because of that, many smaller clubs who did
not receive any offer for the rights to broadcast their games, called for a total ban on television. These
clubs feared that if the fans had the opportunity to watch the games from the comfort of their home, they
would stop coming to the stadium, where they would have to support their clubs in sometimes poor
weather conditions. They argued that they would lose a large amount of the gate money, which was the
main source of revenue for a football club in the 1950s. After a meeting in Manchester, the smaller clubs
won their battles and got a total ban on televised league football.20 The bigger clubs were not happy
about the decision and threatened to break away and form a new league where they could sell the rights
to their televised games. However, the English Football Association, English football’s governing body,
as well as the Football League, which managed the four professional English football divisions, opposed
this idea, and ITV was not so sure about broadcasting live games anymore. 21 Even though this attempt
by some of the biggest clubs at getting extra money looked like they were acting out of greed, it is
important to remember that during the 1950s, the clubs were not generating a lot of revenues and could
only count on selling tickets to their home games. Since 1919, they also had to share the revenues of the
gate on game day with their opponent.22 It meant that home teams only got 80 per cent of the money the
game generated, but when they played away, they would still get 20 per cent of the amount made by the
home team on that day. Therefore, getting money from TV broadcasting would have allowed the clubs
to have more revenues to keep them afloat. However, what ITV wanted was not fair to a lot of the
Football League’s clubs, as only a few clubs would benefit from it, thus endangering the competitive
balance in the different divisions. This affair was the first one of the many that would happen for the
next 30 years, showed the constant conflict between bigger and smaller clubs.
During the end of the 1950s, ITV and the BBC both tried to convince the Football League to
sell their rights to live games, but nothing seemed in favour to change the opinion of the majority of the
92 clubs, which always voted against it. However, in 1964, the Football League arrived on TV, which
represented a turning point. Since clubs did not seem ready for live television, the BBC offered to
broadcast a show made up of highlights of the different games. They offered £3,000 a year to be shared
between the 92 clubs of the Football League, approximatively £32 per team, to air their show on
19.Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p. 6.
20.Ibid, p. 7.
21.Ibid, p. 9.
9
Saturday nights at 9:30 pm. The offer was accepted, and on the 22nd of August 1964, the first Match of
the Day was aired and represented an event that would change the trajectory of the Football League.
While, as many clubs feared, a small decline in the attendance of the Football League during the first
season of Match of the Day, the First Division’s overall attendance “had gone up by some 300,000” for
the season.23 As the First Division teams were seen more and more on TV, they attracted more fans.
This confirmed the smaller clubs’ fears, as the bigger clubs could make more money thanks to the extra
attendance provoked by their appearance on television, smaller clubs, less frequently shown on TV, lost
in attendance. Some of the clubs, located next to the bigger clubs such as Manchester United, Liverpool,
or Tottenham in London feared that people living in smaller towns and cities that had a local club would
go and support a bigger club because of what they saw on TV.24
BBC and ITV continued to battle for the TV rights of the Football League, and began to work
together in order to give the least money possible to the clubs. This is why by 1980, clubs each received
only £10,000 a season, or £920,000 in total per annum. According to Chris Horrie, “when adjusted for
inflation, [the money the clubs received] was far less than what they had been offered by ITV a quarter
of a century earlier.”25 This is how the Football League entered the 1980s, which was to be the worst
decade for English football, a decade marked by hooliganism, extreme tensions between the clubs and
BBC/ITV as well as growing tensions between the bigger clubs and the smaller ones.
24.Ibid, p. 30.
25.Ibid, p. 35.
10
Figure 2: The Sunday Times from the 19th of May 1985.26
Nothing certainly better sums up the general state of football in England during the 1980s than
the article “Putting the boot in”, published in a May 1985 edition of The Sunday Times. At the beginning
of the second paragraph, we can read these sentences: “British football is in a crisis: a slum sport played
in slum stadiums and increasingly watched by slum people, who deter decent folk from turning up.”
These words of an extreme violence were nonetheless appropriate and well chosen. 1985 was certainly
the worst year of a decade marked by fan violence and stadium insecurity. This article was published
only a few days after the Bradford City fire. On the 11th of May 1985, 56 fans perished when the wooden
stand caught fire because of some debris that was under the floorboards. Things like that were not
supposed to happen, especially since clubs had to follow the Green Guide, “the Home Office Guide to
Safety at Sports Grounds, a system introduced after sixty-six people were killed in a crush at Rangers v
Celtic derby at Ibrox on 2 January 1971”.27 On this very sad occasion, 146 people were also injured.
26.Retrieved from: ‘Https://Twitter.Com/Lewispringle/Status/971135690741374977’. Twitter,

https://twitter.com/lewispringle/status/971135690741374977.
11
The Green Guide’s role was to ensure the fans’ safety when entering a stadium, with different guidelines
for the clubs to follow. This guide was followed, in 1975, by the Safety of Sports Ground Act, which
set “standards, mainly on fire safety and infrastructure, for all major British football grounds and a time
limit for their implementation”.28 However, the Valley Parade fire highlighted one clear trend and made
it look like clubs did not care for the safety of their supporters. First of all, Bradford City had not
respected the Green Guide, but the club had also been warned twice by the Health and Safety Executive
about the risk of fire because of the debris, in 1981 and 1984.29
Even when the clubs tried to respect the different guidelines to make the stadiums a safe
environment, some of the fans decided to put themselves and others in danger. Only a few days after the
Bradford City fire, another unforgivable event occurred in Belgium. On the 29th of May 1985, Liverpool
was to play against the Italian club Juventus for the European Cup final. However, the game was
overshadowed by a catastrophe known as the Heysel Disaster. Liverpool and Juventus fans fought
against each other, leading to 39 fans being crushed to death because one of the concrete walls of the
stadium collapsed. Liverpool fans were condemned for their violence and held responsible for the
disaster. Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Prime Minister, had to apologise for the behaviour of the English
fans, and every English football club was banned indefinitely from every European competition.30 This
event, a public embarrassment for the whole of England, which occurred only a few days after football
fans were called “slum people” by The Sunday Times, made the English authorities fully realise the
problem that was hooliganism in England. This was of course not an isolated event, as only two months
earlier, Millwall fans rioted during a live-televised FA Cup game against Luton when the fans invaded
the pitch and fought against the police.31 The hooligans had already started causing much damage in the
1970s, but the problem intensified in the 1980s. They caused so many disturbances that Ken Bates, the
owner of Chelsea, decided, in April 1985, to install electric fences inside Stamford Bridge, which he
ultimately had to take down for everyone’s safety. The presence of hooligans meant that many of the
fans did not want to come to the stadium anymore. Between 1975 and 1986, attendance in the Football
League dropped by a third, with 1985 recording the lowest attendance ever seen.32
However, the rise of hooliganism in English football did not happen magically, as its rise was
linked to the rise of far-right movements in England as well as Margaret Thatcher’s harsh social
policies.33 The first wave of hooligans was made up of mainly unemployed isolated males who were
hardcore supporters of their football clubs. They were ready to fight to defend what they regarded as the
28.Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate the World.
Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 31.
30.This ban would last five years.
33.She was England’s Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990.
12
honour of the club they loved. Most of them were unemployed because of the Iron Lady’s leadership of
the British government, a period which was marked by record unemployment. Between 1979 and 1985,
unemployment increased from 1.464 million to 3.284 million.34 Her economic strategy “threw thousands
of working-class football fans out of work in traditional industries”, mainly in the West Midlands, the
North, and the North West, where unemployment was respectively at 13 per cent, 15,7 percent, and 14.1
percent.35 As stated earlier, many important clubs were located precisely in the regions of the Midlands
and the North, which were badly impacted by the Thatcher era. Cities such as Manchester, Liverpool,
and even Birmingham relied on coal mines and industries. When, during Thatcher’s time as Prime
Minister, many factories closed, this not only had an impact on the working class which worked mainly
in this area, but also on the cities themselves which lost a significant part of their economies. Some
football fans who had lost their jobs were suddenly isolated, and now spent all their energy and violence
at football stadiums defending the honour of their football clubs.
The second wave of organised hooligan groups that emerged at the end of the 1970s was
different. Even though unemployed fans could still be found in hooligan groups, the movement was then
much more organised. These groups were mainly made up of employed males with great organisational
skills.36 They claimed an affiliation with football clubs, such as the Chelsea Head-hunters or Manchester
United’s Red Army, but they were not extremely interested in football. They were rather interested in
controlling territory in urban areas, like gangs of the early 20th century. They enjoyed violence more
than anything, and this is what made them so dangerous: attacking rival supporters was not enough, they
could attack anyone.37 Many of these firms’ members were outspoken racists, which led the National
Front, a far-right movement, to contact and work with them. They attacked racial minorities for no
reason but their hatred. This led to fights with left-wing fans who did not accept racists in stadiums.38
In 1985, after more than a decade of inaction against hooligans, the Thatcher government finally
took action, after the Bradford fire and the Heysel Disaster. Even though the Bradford fire was provoked
by the club’s inaction, it was at first believed that hooligans caused it, and they began to be held
responsible for every problem that English football had at that time. The sanctions started with an
immediate alcohol ban in the stadiums. No alcohol could be sold to the fans inside the stadium, except
for wealthiest fans sitting in the corporate boxes that flourished in some stadiums at the time. Those
boxes were special places in the stadium that rich individuals or businesses could rent for a period of
time. They could then watch the game from their box, avoiding the sometimes-harsh weather conditions
and the lower-class fans while drinking alcohol and eating petit-fours. This was a controversial decision,
35.Ibid, p. 43.
36.Ibid, p. 32.
37.Ibid, p. 33.
38.Ibid, p. 34.
13
and an early sign of the gentrification of football. The second measure, which was debated for a time,
was the ID scheme. The aim was for the police to be able to stop and search anyone around football
stadiums but also to install CCTV cameras in order to control football fans. This measure was finally
adopted in the Public Order Act of 1986.39 However, Thatcher wanted to take more action. She wanted
clubs to start a membership scheme, with membership cards for the fans wanting to watch games, thus
making fans easier to identify and to arrest. This was to be the Football Spectators Bill which, fortunately
for the fans, never went through. Margaret Thatcher and her government were often reproached, as the
Public Order Act highlighted, for seeing football as a matter of public order and mass control rather than
supporters’ safety. Instead of trying to find and arrest the hooligans responsible for many of the disasters
of the 1970s and the 1980s, she seemed to believe that every football fan was a potential threat that had
to be monitored. This would lead to the worst tragedy of the 1980s that we will see later on, at
Hillsborough in Sheffield.
While the Iron Lady was leading her crusade against football fans, football clubs and their
owners were battling against the ITV/BBC alliance, and also started to battle against each other. In 1983,
the 92 football clubs of the Football League accepted an offer that would give each of them
approximately £30,000 a year.40 Even though it was a bigger amount than the one they had received
three years earlier, the bigger clubs of the First Division were increasingly unhappy, saying that they
deserved more money than the others since they had a bigger audience. Though they were right about
that, the Football League’s egalitarian system meant that every one of the 92 clubs involved received
the same amount of money from the TV deal. The “Big Five”, the five richest football clubs in England,
Arsenal, Everton, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Tottenham, started to meet frequently in order to
form a new Super League with the top League clubs. Consequently, they grew even unhappier during
the 1984-1985 TV deal negotiation. On this occasion, BBC and ITV made a joint offer of “£4.5 million
for a package of nineteen live games and an unlimited number of Match of the Day highlights- a mere
£2 million more than they had paid in the humiliating 1983 deal”.41 The “Big Five”, which since 1983
had the time to prepare for a breakaway, also had the support of Robert Maxwell, owner of the Daily
Mirror and of Derby County and Oxford United who started lobbying in favour of the move in his
newspapers. The smaller clubs, fearing being left out, decided to refuse the BBC and ITV’s bid as the
bigger clubs wanted. The response was really clear: no agreement was found, and the 1985-1986 season,
starting only a few months after the Bradford and Heysel disaster, saw football not being on screen for
the first time since Match of the Day first aired in 1964. The effects were dramatic, as the biggest drop
in gates in the history of the Football League occurred.42 This showed that football, in such troubled
times, needed TV to be sustainable. Eventually, the clubs agreed to a ridiculous BBC offer, but the “Big
39.Ibid, p. 52.
41.Ibid, p. 54.
42.Ibid, p. 56.
14
Five”, once again feeling humiliated, decided to activate their plan for a Super League. The Football
League was kept together thanks to the Heathrow Agreement in December 1985. During the meeting,
clubs agreed to change the TV deals money split: the First Division clubs were to receive 50 per cent of
it, the Second Division clubs, 25 per cent, with the Third and Fourth Division sharing the last 25 per
cent.43 They also agreed to the First Division teams having their vote count twice in order to have more
power. The “Big Five” left the meeting satisfied, as even though they had once again been humiliated
by the BBC and ITV, they left Heathrow with more power and control over the Football League.
However, the big clubs were not done. They started working closely with Greg Dyke from ITV on a
deal that would see them getting all the money. It was first the project of a ten club Super League, with
the “Big Five” getting most of the TV rights money. ITV felt threatened by the arrival of a new
broadcaster that we will see later, and decided to revive the “Big Five” plan of a new league. It was
more of a pressure to ensure that the Football League would continue working with ITV. When the other
clubs learned about that, another emergency meeting was held in Aston Villa in 1988. The smaller clubs
once again gave the bigger clubs what they wanted. ITV would not broadcast the ten clubs Super League
but the whole 22 clubs’ First Division, and the split of TV money was once again changed, with the
First Division getting 75 per cent of the deal’s money, and the three other divisions sharing the last 25
per cent.44
When football entered 1989, the year that happened to be the most crucial of the 1980s for
English football, or one might argue of the century, no one could imagine what was going to happen.
On the 15th of April 1989, a disaster that would change the trajectory of English football occurred.
Liverpool was set to play against Nottingham Forrest at Hillsborough, Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium,
in the semi-final of the 1989 FA Cup. David Burrows, who was playing for Liverpool at that time and
was present that day, agreed to talk about that ominous event:
The day was, well, first of all, it was an early kick-off which no one liked. The players don’t
want to play at 12:00 o'clock. We wanted to play at the usual time at 3:00 o'clock. This causes
problems for players and for supporters arriving from their cities. So, it was a day where we
prepared, we had played at this time before, so we know how to prepare and we arrived at the
stadium as normal. Everything seemed normal when I went out to warm up before the match, I
noticed that the Liverpool section was not getting very full and I wondered where everybody
was. And it was very strange because normally at 15 minutes before the kick-off, the crowd is
there. But they've been a bit of a problem for a lot of Liverpool supporters on routes to the match,
but unfortunately again we can talk about errors and misjudgements and the match was not
delayed. It went ahead at the specific time and the match started. A few minutes into the game,
well, I noticed that the supporters weren’t concentrating on the match. They were concentrating
on something else. They were concentrated on the start of the crush and everybody wanted to
see the match. Everybody arrived a little bit late so everybody was scrambling to get into the
ground, and unfortunately this was the problem where big mistakes were made from all angles
and hence the start of as we know now the 96 deaths. From my point of view, as a football
player, I just joined Liverpool in October of 1988, so everything was going fantastic for me
15
personally I had got in the England under 21 team I joined Liverpool, I became a regular in the
team. I got into the team very quickly so everything was fantastic. And all of a sudden, my heart
came shattering down and completely broke. And this was the ups and downs of not only life
but also football. One minute you're in there on cloud nine and the next minute, back right down
to Earth with a Big Bang.
As David Burrows stated, multiple errors were made, and subsequently, Lord Justice Taylor
was commissioned to make a report on what happened on that day. As we were still in the hooliganism
crisis and as Margaret Thatcher was still trying to implement the national membership scheme to
recognize fans easily, the Liverpool fans were quickly under attack. It started with The Sun, which only
four days after the catastrophe, falsely accused the Liverpool fans of looting dead bodies and preventing
medical staff from resuscitating agonising supporters. However, it was later revealed that the fans were
trying to help the medical staff and these were false allegations. The Taylor Report by Lord Justice
Taylor, published in 1990, stated that the Liverpool fans, even though some were drunk, did nothing
wrong. In fact, police officers who had to make the Liverpool fans enter the stadium had underestimated
their number and overloaded a part of the stand which collapsed. Taylor excoriated the state of the
stadium, being too old and in too poor of a condition to host such an event. This emphasized what had
already been said after the Bradford fire and further proved that clubs did not care for the safety of their
supporters. After Bradford, nothing had changed. It took 96 deaths for the football world to realise the
real problem.45 To ensure a good experience for its fans, the club needed safe and welcoming
infrastructures. Taylor made mandatory the end of the terraces, the stands where the fans were standing
and not seated. Every club had terraces, as they allowed more fans to watch the games. Taylor asked for
renovations of the stadium, and made it mandatory for the First Division teams to have all-seater
stadiums within three years after the report. Seating the fans would allow to control them easily, as
everyone would have an allocated seat when buying a ticket. This report, which aroused the problems
of English football and gave solutions to it, made Thatcher abandon her membership ban, and the fans
were less controlled. Hillsborough proved that Thatcher’s policies were not the priority to make football
stadiums healthy environments again.
Meanwhile, the “Big Five” and the smaller clubs were not done in their battle for power in the
Football League. Even though the “Big Five” had won at Heathrow and Aston Villa, the smaller clubs
did not intend to let them take full control of the Football League. Before September 1989, the League
President was Philip Carter, one of the “Big Five” clubs’ president.46 However, during a meeting in
September 1989 during which he was voted out, smaller clubs subsequently gained more power.47 The
smaller clubs united behind Ken Bates, Chelsea’s owner, and fought against the “Big Five” and their
friend Greg Dyke from ITV. They managed to vote for the re-enlargement of the First Division, thus
45.This figure is now at 97 after one of the fans died following his injuries at Hillsborough. It was
determined that if he had not been hurt at Hillsborough, he would likely be alive.
46.He was the president of Everton.
16
forcing the “Big Five” to share the money with more clubs.48 This was the final insult. They decided to
break away for good, but this time, one thing had changed. The “Big Five” could count on the help of
the Football Association. In fact, Graham Kelly, a representative of the Football League, joined the
Football Association as the new chief executive.49 Kelly was on the “Big Five’s” side, as showed by his
vote against the re-enlargement of the First Division. The Football League and the Football Association
always had issues working with each other. The FA was in charge of the national team and the FA Cup
while the Football League was in charge of the four professional divisions of the game, divisions that
they had created. It was always a struggle for power between the two. It had started at the end of the 19th
century, when the FA was opposed to professionalism.50 Both institutions believed massive change was
needed after Hillsborough. The Football League wrote “One Game, One Team, One Voice”, a document
that ambitioned to dictate the way English football needed to go in terms of stadium safety, youth
development, etc.51 The FA decided to ignore it and wrote its own document, the “Blueprint for English
football”. At a moment when they could work together for the sake of English football, the FA, which,
led by Kelly, believed in the “Big Five’s” project and decided to go on its own. With the FA on their
sides, things were much easier for the “Big Five”. The FA’s support gave them legitimacy. An
independent league would have had difficulties being considered by the UEFA, as the Football League
would have argued that they were the only true and legitimate league. With the FA, the reigning football
body in England, the new league would be considered. Throughout 1990, Graham Kelly worked to find
sponsors for the new League to be ready. The FA told everyone that it was good for English football as
a whole
Finally, on April 5, 1991, the Premier League project was made public. Then, the creation of
the Premier League happened quickly. On July 17, 1991, a founder members’ agreement was signed,
and a subsequent agreement with the Football League was signed on September 23, 1991. The last step
was made on the 23rd of February 1992, when the 22 founding members accepted the “Blueprint for
English football” and resigned from the Football League. The Premier League was set to start in the
summer of 1992. The Premier League was a rebranding of the First Division that still worked with the
three other divisions through the relegation and promotion system. This meant that the three first teams
of the Football League’s new first division (now the second division) at the end of the season would
replace the three last teams of the Premier League, which would be demoted to the Football League’s
first division. However, the Premier League worked on its own when it came to economic, sponsorship,
and merchandising matters.
48.The “Big Five” managed to get the First Division to 20 clubs, but Bates and the smaller clubs
rechanged that to the 22 that was in place before.
17
From the first breakaway attempt in the 1950s, English football and the Football League
remained stuck in a constant battle between the biggest clubs, accused of being greedy, and the smaller
ones which fought to have an egalitarian league. However, during the 1980s, English football hit rock
bottom. Hooliganism, lack of stadium safety, and the Iron Lady’s fight against football all troubled an
already complicated decade for the Football League. The “Big Five” tried to break away three times as
they wanted to grab more of the share, and the internal conflicts were at a climax. However,
Hillsborough’s aftermath and the FA’s support to the “Big Five” in their last breakaway attempt changed
the course of football forever. Now, one question remains: Was the Premier League going to be a game-
changer?
18
I. How did the Premier League become the most powerful and richest league in the
World?
After the controversial move from a minority of clubs of the Football League to break away and
form the brand-new Premier League, the clubs and owners involved knew there was no room for
mistakes. At the time, the project was criticised by individuals such as Gordon Taylor, chief executive
of the Professional Footballers Association. He declared: “The FA is trying to diminish the Football
League and with it most of the professional clubs in this country. Its blueprint is a way for the leading
clubs to seize virtually all the money, leaving the remaining clubs to wither and, for some, die”. 52 To
have someone as important as the leader of the organisation defending the players’ interests and rights
criticise the Premier League and the FA was proof of how divisive the project was. For Gordon Taylor,
this move, which would end the egalitarian system on which English Football operated since the
formation of the Football League in 1888, would endanger many clubs unable to reach the heights of
the Premier League. More surprisingly, Graham Taylor, England’s male national team manager, who
was working for the FA, shared Gordon Taylor’s views on the subject. When asked about the new
Premier League during a press conference, he declared: “People think there must be a lot of my thinking
in this Premier League. There is none, and I’m not totally convinced this is for the betterment of the
England team. I think a lot of this is based on greed”.53 To see that the creation of the Premier League
had not convinced the manager of the national team is proof that the project had not won unanimous
support. It is with this pressure that the Premier League had to operate in order to convince everyone.
The road to success seemed arduous.
a. Making a good start.

To convince the whole of English football, the Premier League needed to make a good start. The
Taylor Report following Hillsborough in 1990 had given some clues on how to attract people into
football stadiums again. However, it was not the only improvement the Premier League had to ensure.
In order to be sustainable, the Premier League needed, as it had done with its name, to start afresh.
From the broadcasting to the advertising by way of safety, environment, and show on the pitch,
everything had to be better. After the disastrous 1980s, football had a lot to be forgiven for. This was
the Premier League’s first challenge.
53.Ibid, p. 102.
19
1. The battle for the first TV rights sale of the Premier League.
After having suffered from the ITV and BBC alliance throughout the 1980s, the Premier League
needed to sell the rights to broadcast its live games for the right price. ITV, which had counted on Greg
Dyke’s friendship and alliance with the big clubs since the mid-1980s, seemed to have the advantage.
However, ITV was not the only broadcaster interested in buying the rights to broadcast the Premier
League.
During the 1980s, when the “Big Five” intended to break away, they worked with Saatchi and
Saatchi, a consulting agency. Taking the example of American sports such as American Football and its
National Football League (NFL), the consulting agency argued that a reduced league with bigger teams
could attract enormous amounts from the TV rights they would sell.54 Saatchi and Saatchi also claimed
that satellite and cable pay-TV were working options used for American sports such as the NFL. These
ways of broadcasting meant that a person wanting to watch a satellite or cable pay-TV channel had to
pay a subscription fee in order to have access to the channel. However, during the 1980s, England and
the United Kingdom were late compared to what was done in the United States in terms of TV
technology. But between the time of the analysis and the beginning of the Premier League, things had
changed. In December 1988, the Astra satellite was launched from French Guiana.55 It contained
telecommunication satellites owned by many broadcasters, including Rupert Murdoch’s Sky Television.
This was a game-changing arrival. Rupert Murdoch, owner of many newspapers in the United
Kingdom and already present in the broadcasting market in the United States, had the opportunity he
dreamt of. Before satellite TV arrived in the United Kingdom, he could not own a British TV company.
The British media regulation law was such that when an individual owned at least one newspaper, he
could not be the owner of a TV company unless he sold his newspaper.56 Murdoch, whose newspapers
were quite prosperous, did not want to do so. However, when satellite TV was launched in the United
Kingdom, it helped him in a big way. He could base his TV company wherever he wanted and could
still sell his subscriptions for Sky Television in the United Kingdom, something made possible thanks
to the satellite system. His experience with pay-TV in America meant that Murdoch knew that people
would only pay to watch three things on television: pornography, live sports, and recent Hollywood
movies.57 Since pornography was forbidden on British television, Murdoch had his eyes on cinema and
football, the national sport in England and the United Kingdom.58
During the beginnings of Sky Television, Murdoch had not acquired the rights to broadcast English
football. He could count on the many fresh Hollywood movies that he bought for his subscribers.
54.Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p. 46-47.
55.Ibid, p. 64.
56.Ibid, p. 65.
57.Ibid, p. 66.
58.In order to access the satellite channels, the subscribers had to buy and install on their roofs a
satellite dish.
20
Unfortunately for Sky Television, it was not enough to generate revenue. Murdoch and Sky also faced
competition from another satellite broadcaster: British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) The pay-TV
operator was already in service in 1988 when the Football League chose its new broadcaster. BSB, at
the time, had made a concrete offer of £25 million per annum, which represented “more than ten times
the amount then paid by ITV and the BBC”.59 However, ITV’s friendship with the “Big Five”, which at
that time were threatening the rest of the Football League with their breakaway, meant that they kept
the advantage. As we saw in the introduction to this dissertation, Greg Dyke and ITV worked at that
time to form a new league with the “Big Five”, and put pressure on the rest of the Football League to
refuse the offer from BSB. Even though ITV kept the Football League’s TV rights, BSB’s offer showed
that the threat from satellite TV was real for broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV. But it was also a
threat to Sky Television. Sky not only had to work against BBC and ITV, which had the support of the
most valuable clubs of the Football League and kept the rights at a low price, but it had also to deal with
a satellite broadcaster that, from 1988, could afford to offer enormous amounts of money to the Football
League. Rupert Murdoch knew that there was no room for two satellite broadcasting companies, and
decided to act. Consequently, in November 1990, he took over BSB to form BSkyB, the result of the
merger between Sky Television and BSB.60 However, this merger brought enormous problems to
Murdoch’s company. While BSB and Sky Television were battling for the rights to broadcast
Hollywood movies, both companies spent too much money on movies that did not interest enough
people. When Sky took over BSB, the merged entity was losing £14 million a week. Even though Rupert
Murdoch and Sam Chisholm, the new chief executive of the company, managed to save money, the
broadcasting service was still losing £1.5 million a week by the end of 1991. As time went by, Rupert
Murdoch had no option. If he wanted his business to recover, he needed to acquire the rights to the new
Premier League. His experience with the NFL in America made him believe he needed one thing: live
sports, and thus football in the United Kingdom. As Chris Horrie stated: “It was football that had
persuaded many to buy their first TV sets in the 1950s; and it was football that could persuade people
to now buy a satellite dish”.61 Even though football in England was in an uncomfortable situation
following the shame of the 1980s, the prospect of a new football division, rebranded and renamed, made
the broadcasters pretty optimistic about the money they could afford to offer for the TV rights of the
Premier League. The battle for the right to broadcast the Premier League would in all probability be
fought between BSkyB and ITV. It is however important to mention that until a very late stage, the
Premier League considered two offers to create their own Premier League Channel: one by Full Time
Communications and another from the Swiss Banking Corporation.62 The prospect of a Premier League
21
channel was too complicated for the time, and even though it would be revived later in the 1990s, the
two companies were not invited to the final meeting, and thus not even considered in the vote.
BSkyB had debts and needed football TV rights to survive and was ready to do everything it
took to win the battle. ITV, on the other hand, had the support of the “Big Five” and had retained the
rights of the Football League against another satellite broadcaster in 1988. This was the setting before
the most important event for the new-born Premier League.
The deadline to decide on the new broadcaster was set in April 1992, barely four months before
the beginning of the following season. The negotiations were simple. In February 1992, during a meeting
with Sam Chisholm and Rupert Murdoch, Sir John Quinton, the first chairman of the Premier League,
told them: “There are no rules. There is a knock ‘em down and drag ‘em out negotiation; and the last
man standing is the one who wins”.63 Indirectly, Sir John Quinton, by pronouncing these words, opened
the door to a ferocious competition between the two broadcasters. The one willing to go the furthest
would certainly be the winner. Another event had also made this battle unpredictable and uncontrollable.
During a meeting between the FA and the different representatives of the 22 new Premier League clubs,
the FA Chairman Bert Millichip said something that would set the tone of the new league. When
referring to the number of clubs in the Premier League, as this number was to be reduced from 22 to 18
in order to have a more ferocious competition, Millichip told the clubs that it was up to them how many
clubs they wanted in the Premier League.64 By telling the clubs they had the control over such an
important matter, Millichip and the FA lost the control of the Premier League. They would simply assist
the Premier League, and would let the same men that wanted to break away from the Football League
in order to grab more of the share dictate the politics of the Premier League. Promising. Consequently,
the battle between ITV and BSkyB was going to be ferocious.
The way the TV money was going to be shared between the 22 Premier League clubs was known
before the choice of the broadcaster and had its importance. During a meeting with the first CEO of the
Premier League, Rick Parry, the 22 clubs agreed on a 50:25:25 split. This meant 50 per cent of the TV
money was shared equally between the Premier League clubs, whether they finished first or last. Then,
of the remaining 50 per cent, 25 were shared according to the final position in the League’s standing.
The team finishing first would get the most money out of these 25 per cent, and the lower a team finished,
the less share of this money it would have. Eventually, the last 25 per cent were going to be shared based
on television appearances.65 The most-watched teams would then get the most out of these 25 per cent.
This split had its importance, as it was a total change from what had been done before. Under the Football
League, the money was shared equally no matter the television appearances and the final result in the
65.Robinson, Joshua, and Jonathan Clegg. The Club: How the English Premier League Became the
Wildest, Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, p. 32.
22
League table. Even though this egalitarian division of the TV money was disrupted during the Heathrow
Agreement of 1985, when the biggest clubs demanded a bigger share, the split only took into account
the different divisions. The First Division had more money to share between its 22 clubs, but this money
was shared equally and did not take into account performance and audience. The choice of the
broadcaster seemed even more important now. With ITV as the Premier League’s broadcaster, the “Big
Five” could hope to collect most of the 25 per cent shared regarding television appearances. In a way,
ITV had already done that in 1988. At the time, they were broadcasting the First Division, and had
established, each week, a Big Game, supposed to be the climax of the football week. ITV’s friendship
with the “Big Five” through Greg Dyke meant that a secret protocol allowed Arsenal, Tottenham,
Manchester United, Liverpool, or Everton to appear on the Big Match nearly every week.66 Thanks to
this secret agreement, the “Big Five” was able to attract many sponsors and to sell a lot of merchandise.67
Nothing seemed to say that the same thing was not going to happen if ITV won the bid-war against
BSkyB.
Consequently, BSkyB, Murdoch, and Chisholm knew they had to get the smaller clubs’ support.
During the final meeting where the future broadcaster of the Premier League was going to be decided,
a vote was to be held. In order to win, a broadcaster had to obtain more than two-thirds of the vote. It
meant that if the 22 clubs’ representatives voted, the winning company had to get 15 votes. BSkyB, as
they knew the “Big Five” was never going to vote for them, had to find 15 allies among the 17 remaining
clubs. They started lobbying club chairmen. For that, their football talk show Footballers’ Football
proved to be crucial.68 They tried to seduce the owners and learn more about ITV’s offer in their
hospitality suites, in order to prepare their own offer. However, an event and a club changed the whole
situation: Tottenham, one of the “Big Five” members. The club’s owner, Irving Scholar, who had taken
control of Tottenham in 1982, resigned from the Tottenham Hotspurs PLC board and decided to only
remain chairman of the football club. Now you must wonder what this means. When Scholar took
control of Tottenham in 1982, he was the first owner who, even though attached to the club he owned,
saw it as a business opportunity. Tottenham became the first club to rent hospitality boxes inside its
stadium, White Hart Lane. In 1983, Tottenham became, thanks to Scholar, the first English football club
to float on the stock exchange. However, this move was forbidden by the rules of the FA. In fact, when
clubs first started to become companies at the end of the 19th century, rules such as the Rule 34 were
made to avoid owners making more money than necessary from the clubs.69 It was made clear that the
owner of a club should not “receive any remuneration in respect of his office as director”.70 Scholar
simply bypassed the rule by creating a PLC, Tottenham Hotspurs PLC, and then putting the football
67.Ibid, p. 96.
68.Ibid, p. 99.
69.Conn, David. The Beautiful Game? Searching for the Soul of Football. 2010, p. 24-25.
70.Ibid, p. 24-25.
23
club inside this PLC. Nothing was done by the FA about it, and Scholar became the pioneer of a
technique that would be used by many clubs later on. He also was the instigator of the breakaway with
Martin Edwards, Manchester United’s chairman. However, in 1991, Scholar and Tottenham went
through an economic crisis, and the shares of the club lost almost all of their value. This is when Scholar
decided to step out. Usually, a club changing ownership was not a great deal, but not this time. Robert
Maxwell, a friend of Irving Scholar and media owner, was forced to make an offer when it was
discovered he had lent money to Scholar when the club was in trouble.71 However, Rupert Murdoch felt
threatened by Robert Maxwell, who was one of his rivals and had a good relationship with ITV. He
feared that Maxwell would lobby club owners into backing ITV’s offer. The solution was to prevent
Maxwell from buying Tottenham, but he could not buy the club himself as it would be a clear case of
conflict of interest on the day of the vote. This is why he urged Alan Sugar, supplier of BSkyB’s satellite
dishes, to back the bid made by Terry Venables, Tottenham’s coach at the time.72 Alan Sugar, Rupert
Murdoch and Sky’s ally, helped Venables complete the takeover in June 1991. It was later revealed that
out of Venables, Sugar, and Maxwell, Sugar was the only one that had the necessary sum of money to
buy the club. With Sugar at the head of Tottenham, Sky had won an ally inside the “Big Five”, an event
that could change the whole situation.
On the 18th of May 1992, the 22 club chairmen met at the Lancaster Gate Hotel in London to
take the most important decision of the beginning of the Premier League. ITV and Sky had made a
presentation on the 14th of May to show their respective projects for the future of the Premier League’s
broadcasting. On the 18th, the “knock ‘em down and drag ‘em out” negotiation took on its full meaning.
While the two broadcasters did not have the right to change their bid on the day of the vote, ITV raised
its offer to £265 million over five years, or £53 million a season.73 In 1988, ITV had paid £11 million a
season for the First Division rights. In only four years and with the perspective of a new Premier League,
the price soared. This offer was serious, and while given after the deadline, was studied. However,
BSkyB was not defeated. During the months before the meeting, Sam Chisholm, the chief executive of
BSkyB, befriended Rick Parry, the CEO of the Premier League. When they saw ITV’s latest offer, Parry
gave Chisholm the details of ITV’s latest bid, and Alan Sugar, Tottenham’s owner, even asked him to
“blow them out of the water”.74 Parry even delayed the vote by a few minutes to allow BSkyB to make
a counteroffer. £304 million over five years for sixty live games. ITV could not match the offer, but it
was up to the clubs to decide. David Dein, Arsenal’s chairman, tried to prevent Alan Sugar, Tottenham’s
new owner, from voting as an interested party, but during a vote to decide whether Sugar could take part
71.Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p. 100-101.
73.Ibid, p. 87.
Wildest, Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, p. 33-34.
24
in the final vote, David Dein was the only one to want him out.75 The vote went ahead. BSkyB’s offer,
backed by the CEO of the Premier League Rick Parry, won the vote by fourteen to six, with two clubs
deciding not to vote.76 Arsenal, Manchester United, Everton, and Liverpool, what remained of the “Big
Five”, were supported by Leeds and Aston Villa, but it was not enough to beat BSkyB. From the
beginning of the 1992-1993 season and for at least five years, Sky was going to broadcast sixty games
a season of the new Premier League.
Sky, by having the smaller clubs on their side, befriending the League’s CEO, and with the
strategic takeover of Tottenham by one of Murdoch’s friends, had won against ITV and its strategy that
consisted in believing in the “Big Five’s” power inside the Premier League. The “Big Five” and ITV,
initiators of this new breakaway league, were defeated. This first bidding session for the Premier
League’s TV rights proved that in this new world, there were no rules and everything was permitted.
Clubs had what they wanted: more money in order to develop their infrastructures and to be more
attractive to players. However, one might also argue that the money Murdoch offered made clubs forget
about his newspapers’ opinion on football. The Sun, one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, falsely
accused the Liverpool fans of looting dead bodies and preventing medical staff from resuscitating
agonising supporters during Hillsborough, as shown on the front page of The Sun of the 19th of April
1989 below. Murdoch was the first to take advantage of football’s darkest days to sell his newspapers,
and was now the first to take advantage of its renewal to sell his monthly subscription to watch the
brand-new Premier League.
Figure 3: The Sun’s front page about Hillsborough.77
76.Ibid, p. 89.
77.Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster_and_The_Sun
25
Furthermore, this was a big risk for Rupert Murdoch. Some argued that he had spent way too
much in this battle with ITV and that he was never going to turn it into a profit. But it was
underestimating Sky, which had a clear view on how to make football attractive again.
2. Sky and the clubs’ work to rehabilitate the game.

On the 16th of August 1992, Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest took part in the first-ever Premier
League game broadcast on Sky Sports, which marked the beginning of a new era. Sky, between the 18th
of May 1992 and the 15th August of 1992, date of the beginning of the Premier League’s first season,
had worked tirelessly to promote the image of the brand-new FA Premier League, which was the first
of the many names of the Premier League. Sky, thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, could reach
millions of people in England and the United Kingdom. The company based its advertising campaign
around the fact that the Premier League was a totally different football from the one offered during the
Football League days. The slogan of this campaign was “IT’S A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME” as you
can see below.
Figure 4: “IT’S A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME” advertisement by Sky Sports.78
78.Retrieved from the Twitter account @90sfootball:

https://twitter.com/90sfootball/status/702221416859435008
26
In this advertisement was one player from each of the 22 teams that were to compete in the first
season of the Premier League. The fact that it was taken as a team photo showed the unity between the
clubs, and made it look more family-friendly. On the day of the photoshoot, Sky Sports recorded a
television promo. The promo, which can be found on Sky Sports’ website and YouTube channel, was
also named “A Whole New Ball Game”. 79 The publicity was aimed at families, as shown by the presence
of many kids. There is a kid playing football with his father in the garden, but there are also kids asking
a player for an autograph as well as many children following their father inside the football stadium.
This image of football as a safe place for children changed from what had been seen in the 1980s when
hooligans disrupted football games. By showing an image of football stadiums as a safe place where
one can encourage one’s team, Sky hoped to attract many more people to the stadiums. The promotion
was also meant to attract women into football. In addition to the fact that football stadiums were now
becoming a safe place for their families, Sky played on the players’ bodies. On many occasions during
the promo, players can be seen showering, dressing, or even exercising, thus showing their athletic
bodies. The total cost of the advertising campaign was £5 million, with posters such as the one below
being posted everywhere around the country.
Figure 5: Vinnie Jones, Wimbledon player, nails a Wimbledon jersey on the “A Whole New Ball
Game” promo poster.80
79.The video can be found at : https://www.skysports.com/football/story-telling/11661/11979300/alive-

and-kicking-behind-the-first-premier-league-promo or at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
EFiPldOq9s
80.Retrieved from Sky Sports’ article “Alive and Kicking: The First Premier League promo”:
https://www.skysports.com/football/story-telling/11661/11979300/alive-and-kicking-behind-the-first-
premier-league-promo
27
However, this promotion campaign won English football a £4.5 million over three years of
sponsorship from Ford Motors and Foster’s.81 It was at the time the biggest sponsorship deal for English
football, a good sign for the Premier League. Besides this expensive promo, Sky Sports wanted to lure
people into subscribing by lowering its prices before the beginning of the season. In fact, “viewers were
given until the end of August [1992] to sign up to BSkyB’s package at a discounted £2.99 a month, after
which the cost rose to £5.99 a month”.82 By lowering their prices, BSkyB hoped to get as many
subscribers as possible to showcase their “whole new ball game”. If the show proposed by Sky Sports
was good, people would most likely extend their subscription, and even tell their friends or families to
get Sky Sports. Thanks to their strategy, BSkyB quickly had a million subscribers to watch the Premier
League.83 Even though Sky Sports’ advert campaign was successful and attracted many people into
subscribing to their satellite channel, the broadcasting company and the Premier League had to convince
the people attending the games to come to the stadium and the people watching at home to switch their
television on.
Sky Sports decided to change the way football was broadcast. They had agreed to broadcast
sixty live games for each of the five years of their contract with the Premier League and decided to make
a special event out of each. Instead of the old two-hour formula, where the match was preceded by only
a few minutes’ chat, Sky decided that football was to be consumed in five-hour marathons.84 Sky Sports
launched shows such as Sports Saturday or Super Sundays where they would talk about football before
and after the game. But most importantly, they launched a TV show on a day that was rarely used before:
Monday Night Football. The show was clearly a gimmick imported from the United States, where the
NFL’s biggest game is broadcast prime time each Monday. Sky did not even bother to change the name,
which was exactly the same. The show aimed at including Mondays into the football weekend, and the
first-ever Monday Night Football match saw Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers go head-to-
head on Monday 17th of August 1992. The aim of these different shows was to educate people about
football. They offered the uninitiated public analyses from players to help them understand the tactical
aspect of the game. One of the men behind these changes was Andy Melvin. The Scotsman had started
his career as a newspaper reporter following Aberdeen FC. However, things would soon change when
in 1980 he was contacted by Scottish Television.85 There he became a producer and a director. He started
implementing some changes such as having more cameras to show live football games. In 1989, he was
offered a job at BSB and stayed there until Sky Television and BSB merged, but as the company
82.Ibid, p. 95.
83.Ibid, p. 95.
28
struggled to get any football TV rights, he could not experiment with his new ideas for football. In May
1992, after BSkyB won the rights to broadcast the new Premier League, Andy Melvin was given
permission to do whatever he wanted to make the Premier League and football look good on TV. Andy
Melvin and his creativity were to change how football was broadcast on live television. His first move
was to use Andy Gray, a recently retired footballer whom he had hired when he arrived at BSB in 1989.86
Andy Melvin felt that if he wanted people to understand the game, he needed someone who had played
it at a high level. Together, they created The Boot Room which aired from the beginning of the Premier
League.87 In this show, they would discuss tactical aspects of the game, using a board and pieces to
recreate playing systems and movement, one of their inventions. They also invited players or ex-players
to discuss football in general. By inviting famous footballers, Andy Melvin knew the audience would
be interested and would watch and listen to what players such as Eric Cantona, the French Manchester
United player, had to say. Melvin also made Andy Gray give the commentary on the games, and his
instruction was: “Don’t tell me things I can see. I can see it was a shot that went three feet over the bar.
Tell me why, how”.88 By reinventing commentary, Melvin aimed once again at explaining football to
the audience. He wanted them to have a decent commentary that would enlighten them when they did
not understand an aspect of the game. As he already started to do in his time with Scottish Television,
he also introduced many more cameras in the football stadiums. Instead of having only one camera
always showing the same angle, the different cameras positioned at different locations around the pitch
allowed the broadcast to switch from one angle to another to have a better view of the action. He even
used replays and cameras to film the dugouts so the audience could see the coaches. By having all these
different angles, the game was more entertaining to watch at home. The different cameras and the new
commentaries allowed the fans at home to see and learn more about the game than ever before. Sky
Television even introduced the time and the score on the screen, something that had never been done
before. Even though the idea was criticised by some fans, it made it easier to follow a game and is still
used today. Andy Melvin and Sky even tried to introduce cameras in the goal which would tell the
referees if the ball crossed the line or not. However, the referees did not agree to that as they did when
they were asked to wear microphones in order to give some feedback to the audience. Andy Melvin,
thanks to the freedom he was given by Sky Sports, revolutionised football broadcasting. The many
shows animated by footballers, the new way of filming a game as much as the score and the time being
put on screen were crucial in giving football and the Premier League a renewed and more glamorous
image. However, in order to be successful, the Premier League had to have the same improvements on
the pitch as there were in the broadcasting and advertising made by Sky.
86.Ibid, p. 101.
87.Ibid, p. 104.
88.Ibid, p. 106.
29
When the Premier League’s first game was broadcast on live television, the fans in attendance
discovered a totally different show. Sky even advertised its “whole new ball game” on the pitch
minutes before the game started, as we can notice below.
Figure 6: Advertisement of the new Premier League before the first televised game.89
Figure 7: Sky Sports’ advertisement of the Premier League before the first televised game.90
89.Retrieved on BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 1, 15min 23s.
90.Retrieved on BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 1, 15min 25s.
30
Sky Sports brought an American dimension to the game, where the fans were not only here to
watch a football game. As highlighted in the “Whole New Ball Game” campaign, the aim was to get
families and women into the stadiums. Sky Sports gave them something to occupy them before the
beginning of the game. For the 1992-1993 season, Sky introduced the Sky Striker pom-pom girls, who
you can see in Figure 7, to put on a show before the game.91 However, it was not considered a good idea
and was not renewed after the first season. Sky also introduced pyrotechnics before the game started, as
a way to announce the big event that was coming. The show even carried on at half time and the audience
was expected to participate. The aim was to create a healthy and fun environment around the football
ground, where families would want to come in order to spend a good time. By offering extra activities
to occupy the fans, Sky was also aiming at reducing the violence present around football grounds.
Premier League clubs also played their part by changing the stands of their stadiums. As advised by the
Taylor Report of 1990 following the Hillsborough catastrophe, the clubs had to put an end to the terraces,
these stands where the fans could not sit. Such a change was going to cost an enormous amount of
money to the clubs. According to Chris Horrie: “The estimated cost of carrying out the safety
improvements set out in the Taylor Report ranged from a minimum £120 million to as much as £200
million”.92 Clubs, that had three years after the publication of the report to implement these changes,
were in a delicate situation. However, public money was given to the clubs through the Football Trust,
which gave almost £80 million to the clubs.93 The amount received thanks to the TV rights paid by
BSkyB also helped the clubs to develop their stadiums, and by the beginning of the Premier League,
most of the work was completed to make the stadiums safe. Because of the improvements made to the
stadiums and the show proposed to the fans, the Premier League and its stadium became very quickly
family-friendly environments. The fans could watch a show, eat and drink in a good atmosphere,
something that seemed impossible only a few years earlier with the rise of hooliganism and the
dilapidated state of the stadiums.
The Premier League and BSkyB understood quite quickly what was to change in English
football in order to be successful again. The quality of the football on the pitch was not a problem.
However, everything surrounding the pitch was, from the stands’ safety to the broadcasting. Sky, thanks
to an expensive promotion campaign and the new ways of presenting and broadcasting football brought
by Andy Melvin, attracted many new customers. And by adding an American-inspired new dimension
to the football game that became a whole show hosted in freshly renovated stadiums, the Premier League
and BSkyB progressively brought people back into the stadiums. The first years of the Premier League
under Sky Sports’ broadcast were an immediate success as both clubs and broadcasters understood what
was to change. Thanks to the Premier League, “Sky’s £47 million a year losses turned into an operating
93.Ibid, p. 83.
31
profit of £62 million”.94 It was without any doubt a very promising start to the Premier League, however,
it needed confirmation.
3. Rise and rise: boom in the TV rights deals.

After a very promising first season that saw the Premier League regain credibility thanks to Sky and
the clubs’ work, it was time for confirmation. Throughout the remaining years of the contract BSkyB
had with the Premier League, the clubs as well as the broadcasters needed to get even more people
interested in football. One element that helped propel the League was the battles for the title that
occurred at the beginning of the 1990s. The first season, 1992-1993, saw Manchester United, which had
not won the First Division title since 1966-1967, win the first title of this new era. Despite tough
beginnings, the team managed by Sir Alex Ferguson won the title by an eight-point margin over Aston
Villa.
The next season saw Manchester United claim a second consecutive title, but also saw a new
challenger emerge. Blackburn Rovers, finishing second that season, wanted more than anything to take
the Red Devils’ place.95 The team had been owned by Jack Walker since 1991. However, Walker was
not one of these new business-like owners such as Irving Scholar at Tottenham or Martin Edwards at
Manchester United, two of the instigators of the new Premier League. Jack Walker was passionate about
football and Blackburn Rovers. He wanted more than anything to bring success to the city and the
football club that he supported. What he had more than passion was money to spend, since he sold his
family’s steel business for £330 million in order to buy and help Blackburn.96 Jack Walker was ready to
spend most of his money and started by rebuilding and renovating Blackburn’s stadium, Ewood Park,
which cost him more than £30 million. With better infrastructures, Walker’s aim was to compete with
the best English clubs, which was not the case when he took control of the club. His first months as an
owner ended with Blackburn scarcely avoiding relegation to the Third Division, but it did not discourage
him. Walker did not hesitate to spend a lot of money on players to assemble a competitive team. In 1992,
he beat the English transfer record when he spent £3.6 million to buy Alan Shearer from Southampton.97
Shearer, a very promising striker who ended up being the Premier League all-time top scorer with 260
goals, declined Manchester United’s offer to join Blackburn, a sign of Jack Walker’s power. Walker
even broke the transfer record again in 1994 when he recruited striker Chris Sutton from Norwich City
for £5 million.98 While other clubs had prestige, Blackburn could count on the man who is often
95.The Red Devils is one of Manchester United’s nicknames.
97.BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 1, 21min 16s.
32
considered as the first “super owner” of the Premier League. His investment proved to be worth it when,
during the 1994-1995 season his team battled with Manchester United for the third Premier League title.
The last matchday of the League was going to be decisive for Manchester United and Blackburn Rovers.
Jack Walker’s team had, entering the last game, 89 points, outdistancing Manchester United by only
two points. The math was simple: Manchester United had to win at Upton Park, West Ham’s stadium,
and expect Liverpool, their eternal rivals, to beat Blackburn Rovers in order to grab their third
consecutive title. This finish, one of the most exciting of the Premier League to this day, witnessed a
very exciting scenario. Liverpool and Blackburn were drawing 1-1 when, during extra time of the second
half, Jamie Redknapp scored a free-kick for Liverpool.99 2-1. Blackburn was not in control of its destiny
anymore and had to wait on Manchester United’s result. Then, in Anfield, Blackburn fans started
celebrating. It was over at Upton Park and Manchester United could not make better than a draw against
West Ham. Jack Walker had realised his and the city’s dream. Blackburn was at the top of English
football. Despite some minor criticism about the money spent by Jack Walker, Blackburn was
celebrating its heroes. This last-day drama to determine the League winners was all the League and Sky
needed to boost their audience. The finish was tense and undecided, and the two teams, playing at the
same time, could not know if they had the advantage. Furthermore, the challenger won against the
favourite that had won the first two editions of the Premier League, showing that with a good amount
of work and passion (and money), any team could lay claim to the title. During the three first seasons,
out of a potential nine, six different teams finished on the League’s top three: Manchester United three
times, Blackburn twice, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forrest, Norwich City, and Newcastle once. This
showed the league’s toughness, and even though Manchester United won two of the three first titles, the
Premier League proved tough to win, an important element to attract new fans into watching the game
in the stadiums or at home.
Sky proved to be very effective when it came to attracting new customers and fans. Events such as
the last-day drama between Manchester United and Blackburn helped them even more. While their first
marketing strategy was based around a fresh start for English football with the “Whole New Ball Game”
campaign, after only a few seasons they could count on what was happening on the ground. Of course,
everything was not perfect. Hooligans, although mainly removed from the football grounds thanks to
the new all-seater stadiums and bigger sanctions such as mandatory clock-on during game times, which
meant that a condemned hooligan had to clock on at the police station on each game day, still caused
minor disturbances. They were to be progressively eradicated from the football picture by the beginning
of the 21st century, but they were already erased from the news related to football. The Premier League,
thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, benefited from almost entirely positive publicity. Murdoch,
who owned major British newspapers such as the tabloid The Sun or even The Times, The Sunday Times,
or The News of the World, had a large influence on the United Kingdom’s readership. As the Premier
99.BBC’s series Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, episode 2, 47-53 min.
33
League became the main product and content for Sky Television, Murdoch needed to lure people into
subscribing to BSkyB’s Premier League package or going to the stadiums. During the games, the
commentary was a “non-stop hype of the wonders of the game” and “hysterically positive”, thus
“assuring the paying customers that the match they were watching was marvellous, no matter how dire
it was in reality”.100 The BBC, which was part of BSkyB’s deal with the Premier League in 1992, having
a contract to broadcast the oldest football show in England, Match of the Day, had a special clause in its
contract. The channel had agreed to present the new Premier League in a positive light.101 This
propaganda to show English football and the new Premier League, a project criticised by some for its
financial motivation, was working effectively, and the league became the product that made Sky sell
subscriptions. As Chris Horrie found: “Nine out of ten people with dishes subscribed to the Premier
League, which was shown on Sky Sports, the most expensive channel. Three quarters of all subscribers
had signed up solely or mainly to watch the football. Sky’s share of the total TV audience dropped by
half in the summer between Premiership seasons, despite heavy investment to buy summer sports such
as cricket”.102 These figures show that in a relatively short span of time, the positive setting around the
Premier League meant that the Premier League was the main source of revenue for BSkyB. Sky went
from losing money every year since its beginnings to turning an increasing profit each year, as shown
in the chart below.
Sky's annual profit 1992 - 1996 (in million of pounds)

300
257
250
200
150
100
67
50
0
-47
-50
1992 1993 1996
-100
Figure 8: Sky’s annual profit from 1992 to 1996.103
101.Ibid, p. 156.
102.Ibid, p. 155.
103.Chart made thanks to data found in Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National
Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p.155 and ‘Sky TV: 20 Years in Pictures’. The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2009.
34
On the graph, no information was put about Sky’s profit in 1994 and 1995, for lack of sourced data.
While the data on 1992, 1993, and 1996 was sourced, the only data found about 1994 and 1995 was not.
Therefore, putting data on the chart about the years sourced was a sure option and still representative of
the impact of the Premier League on Sky’s revenue. The broadcaster went from a loss to a profit in only
one year, and in only three years this profit was multiplied by five, with Sky turning a £257 million
profit in the year of the negotiation of the new TV deal. Besides, it also benefited the clubs who could
count on more gate money. Between 1985-86 and 1992-1993, total attendances climbed from 16.5
million people a season to 20.66 million people a season. Furthermore, from 1993 to 1997, at the
beginning of the second TV rights deal, the average attendance of the Premier League went from 21.125
people a game to 28.434 people a game.104 This represents an almost 35 per cent increase in only four
years. Of course, the increased popularity of the Premier League is not the only parameter to take into
account when looking at these numbers. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Premier League clubs had
to renovate most of their stadiums’ stands in order to comply with the Taylor Report. This meant that
for months, many teams could not let in as many people as usual, as some of the stands were unusable.
However, this parameter does not erase the efforts made by the League, the clubs, and Sky to attract
fans inside the stadiums. The clubs could also count, thanks to the rising popularity of the league, on
new sponsorship deals with brands interested in football’s new commercial potential. Furthermore, they
could also count on selling their merchandise, but we will see these two elements later on. Clubs such
as Manchester United went from a turnover of £11.6 million in 1990 to £25.3 million in 1993.105 Overall,
the Premier League was quickly becoming popular, attracting fans, customers, as much as brands and
sponsors. For example, in 1995 the Premier League signed a two-year £1.75 million contract with the
American fast-food giant McDonalds.106 This is with this highly favourable context that the League
started the negotiations to sell its TV rights, with Sky’s contract coming to an end in 1997.
With the early success of the Premier League and Sky’s live broadcast, and as investors were
progressively investing in the League’s clubs, the negotiation for the new TV deal that would start in
1997 was important for every actor involved in the Premier League. Rupert Murdoch, criticised in 1992
for the amount he spent on the Premier League, a £304 million contract on five years bonuses included,
had proved everyone wrong as Sky turned big profits in 1996 as seen earlier. The clubs knew they could
expect even more money with this new contract, allowing them to be even more powerful. Other
broadcasters that saw Sky’s success and the impact of football on their financial health would be ready
www.theguardian.com, http://www.theguardian.com/media/gallery/2009/feb/03/sky-tv-20th-
anniversary-bskyb.
104.Attendances England Average. https://www.european-football-
statistics.co.uk/attn/nav/attnengleague.htm.
106.Ibid, p. 360.
35
to offer much more money than they would have a few years back. Once again, the negotiations were
going to be ferocious.
However, the Premier League had changed the rules of the bidding process. This time, each
broadcaster would have to give its offer under a sealed envelope to avoid the irregular process of the
first negotiations. Nevertheless, Sky would still have the advantage over the broadcasters that wanted to
take their seat. During the 1992 negotiations, they included a clause in their contract allowing them to
match any bid made by another broadcaster once the offers were revealed.107 Sky would have three rivals
in these negotiations, but the outcome would be the same. During the meeting that would decide the
future broadcaster of the Premier League on the 6th of June 1996, the different chairmen of the clubs
evaluated each offer. The least considered options were those of Lord Hollick’s MAI finance group and
a Mirror-Carton consortium. Both were offering an enormous amount, with £1.5 billion over ten years
for MAI or £150 million a year, and £130 million a year for Mirror-Carlton on a similar length.108 Even
though these offers represented an enormous amount, the clubs were not interested because of the length
of the contract which scared the chairmen. The Premier League would be “stuck” for ten years with a
broadcaster while new technologies such as digital TV and pay-per-view were going to emerge, allowing
the clubs to earn even more from television. The most serious competition for Sky was from an ITV and
Mirror Group consortium. Mirror Group was formed by cable TV broadcasters, which because of Sky’s
satellite TV, could not lay a hand on the Premier League rights. They were a very serious contender, as
they were composed of Telewest and Nynex, the biggest cable TV companies, and they were backed by
the Daily Mirror, which, in exchange for their support, was granted a channel on their network.109
However, Sky was always one step ahead. Sam Chisholm agreed to give Telewest and Nynex access to
Premier League games for a reasonable price if they renewed the contract, and in return, the two
companies had to stop supporting the Mirror Group bid. The Mirror Group, with less support, worked
with ITV to raise a £650 million over four years deal.110 Unfortunately, their broadcasting method was
criticised by Alan Sugar, Rupert Murdoch’s ally, and with most of the clubs behind Sky, Sam Chisholm
only had to offer them a similar offer to win. Because of Sky’s success, the clubs knew they were a safe
option to continue with. Sky offered £670 million over four years, outbidding the Mirror and ITV
consortium. The vote was unanimous, with only Arsenal’s chairman David Dein voting against.
Sky had more than doubled the price it paid for the Premier League. They would still broadcast
sixty live games a season, but would pay £2.79 million a game instead of £640.000 a game between
1992 and 1997.111 The clubs were to receive more money than they ever had, allowing them and the
108.Ibid, p. 162.
109.Ibid, p. 158-160.
110.Ibid, p. 162.
36
Premier League to enter a new era. After successful beginnings, nothing seemed able to restrain the
Premier League’s rise. The League and its clubs were soon to be on top of the football world thanks to
a successful gamble. To be in a situation like that seemed impossible only a decade before, when English
football lived its darkest hours.
b. The Premier League taking over the world.

When the “Big Five” started to use the threat of a breakaway league in order to gain more power
and control over the Football League, they imagined a league where they could exploit the financial
potential of their clubs. They felt held back by the rest of the Football League and wanted a change. This
is what the Premier League gave them. This new league, composed of only 22 clubs, meant that clubs
did not have to share the money as much as they used to. The reduction of the number of teams from 22
to 20 at the beginning of the 1995-1996 season also went in that direction, as the TV money was now
shared between fewer clubs. The record amount offered by BSkyB, £670 million over four years and
starting in 1997-1998, made the clubs wealthier. In the meantime, with a growing number of people
following the Premier League, visionary owners and chairmen developed their clubs, making them
become more than simple football clubs. Starting in the 1990s and going until 2020, this part aims at
showing how the Premier League and its clubs, by various means, took over the world.
1. Development of merchandising: a new way to make money for the

clubs, offering a sometimes-dangerous new status to the players.
From the beginning of the Football League in 1888, surviving had always been a concern for English
football clubs. Gate money was always the main source of income for clubs and allowed them to pay
salaries to their players, who had officially been allowed to receive a salary since 1885 and the beginning
of professionalism. During the 1980s, the worst decade of English football’s history for many reasons,
attendance in English football stadiums was at a historic low. Many clubs struggled and went into
administration or became insolvent. In fact, between 1984 and 1994, a dozen professional English clubs
was wound up, while between the end of the Second World War and the 1980s, only two clubs went
bankrupt.112 Most of the clubs struggled, and new ways of making money were needed for clubs to
thrive.
Merchandising had already existed for some time, but was not greatly developed and did not allow
clubs to earn more revenue. As Mihir Bose stated: “But other than buying season or matchday tickets,
Books, 2015, p. 31.
37
fans were not seen as providing other sources of revenues”.113 During the interviews I conducted, I asked
my interviewees if they remembered seeing products with the logo of their clubs before the Premier
League Era. Robert Owensmith, who was born in the 1960s, recalled: “You know, merchandising
already existed. I guess it was like Chelsea always had a shop. They were not selling as much as today,
but they had lots of scarves and everything. You know, you would be able to buy the club shirts for that
year but then the colours wouldn't change like they do nowadays.” David Burrows, who was a West
Bromwich Albion supporter, the team with which he signed his first professional contract, gave a similar
answer to Robert Owensmith: “We used to have a souvenir shop and you'd have the shirts, but it was a
small business. Then it was a very small shop and people would buy little things and souvenirs.”
However, this would soon change. The first club to realise how much fans’ loyalty could serve the club
was Glasgow Rangers, a Scottish club. David Murray, the chairman of the club, was one of the first
people in British football to introduce dining rooms inside Ibrox, the Rangers’ stadium, that could be
rented for special events by fans. The club also sold products such as whiskey under the name of the
club.114 Many other chairmen and owners followed Murray’s example with Glasgow Rangers, and
realised that the fans were, for the most passionate at least, willing to pay to have access to special items
with the logo of their club.
The Premier League allowed English clubs to have a positive setting for their commercial activities.
With renewed stadiums following the Taylor Report’s guidelines, a better image in public opinion, and
a daily following of football thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, an increased number of people
followed the Premier League in the 1990s. This was the perfect setting for clubs to finally exploit their
commercial potential. During this part of the dissertation, we will mainly focus on one particularly
popular item for the fans, the kit. The jersey of a club represents its identity, from its colours to its logo,
and is supposed to give pride to the one wearing it. Until the 1980s, a team’s jersey was very different
from what we can find now. As we will see later on, sponsors were arriving on many clubs’ jerseys, but
apart from that, the kits were pretty much impersonal. A player’s number was decided regarding his
position on the field and went from one to eleven, the goalkeeper wearing the number one and the striker
wearing the number nine. Furthermore, the players’ names were not featured on the back of the shirt.
The result was a kit where the team was put in the spotlight rather than individuals. However, the Premier
League changed that vision of the team before individuals. At the beginning of the first season of the
Premier League, the 1993-1993 season, a major change occurred for the players, clubs, and fans. The
players’ names were to feature on the back of the jersey they wore, and each of them would now have
an assigned number that they could choose. As the Premier League marked a change in the way football
was perceived by the people, it also changed the way players were perceived and recognised.
114.Ibid, p. 251.
38
Before the 1990s, only a few players were considered domestic stars rather than simple footballers.
Bobby Moore, the emblematic captain of the English national team that won the country’s first and only
World Cup in 1966 was considered as such. After England’s World Cup win, football was more popular
than ever, with for example attendance being at a record 36 million people the season following
England’s win. Bobby Moore, as the captain, was naturally seen as a nation’s hero, an example for
young kids to follow. He has, even until this day, the image of the perfect footballer, “a working-class
gentleman, socially aspirant but publicly humble, vigorously physical and unambiguously
heterosexual”.115 At the same period, another player was becoming a star, but for other reasons. George
Best, a Manchester United player, was quite the opposite of Bobby Moore. The Northern Irish winger
was an eccentric character. He was known for his football skills, shown nearly every week in Match of
the Day and his outspokenness. He was not the perfect gentleman, as he loved alcohol, women, and cars.
To give an example, here is one of his most famous quotes: “If you'd given me the choice of going out
and beating four men and smashing a goal in from thirty yards against Liverpool or going to bed with
Miss World, it would have been a difficult choice. Luckily, I had both”.116 George Best and Bobby
Moore represented at an early stage the two different kinds of stars Premier League would create.
However, during the 1970s and especially during the 1980s, with the atrocious state of English football,
players were not given the same status as Best or Moore. Furthermore, the 1980s saw many of the best
British players flee the doldrums of English football. Players such as Chris Waddle, famous for his
mullet, was transferred from Tottenham to Marseille in 1989. Graeme Souness, a Liverpool legend,
signed with the Italian club Sampdoria in 1984. The 1980s were marked by a loss of player power, as
other leagues, especially the Spanish and Italian ones, were more powerful and attractive than the
English Football League.
However, as we saw, the beginnings of the Premier League era changed all that. Names of
players and assigned numbers helped the fans recognise players. Emblematic players such as the
charismatic Eric Cantona, the wizard David Beckham, the handsome David Ginola, or the talented Alan
Shearer had a platform to showcase their football skills. Great players with great personalities, thanks
to Murdoch’s media, were seen not only during the games but also in the newspapers and even on TV
shows. English clubs and their owners soon realised that their players could earn them a lot of money.
By signing contracts with shirt manufacturers, the clubs were able to produce many shirts with the names
and numbers of the fans’ favourite players in order to sell them. The fans could then be able to buy them
in the stores at the club’s stadiums. Wearing a team’s jersey with a player’s name on the back of it gave
a sense of belonging to the fans. It also made the players even more famous. The best of them became
more than players, they became marketing products that could make clubs sell thousands of jerseys or
Books, 2015, p. 287.
116.Beresford, Jack. ‘19 Iconic George Best Quotes’. The Irish Post.
39
derivative products, thus allowing them to have bigger revenues. David Burrows, who was a player
when the name of the player on the back of the jersey was implemented, remembers: “Now you have
the name of the players on the kits, which you didn't have at the time. I am quite sure it was 1993 when
it started. So, I think it changed things, because the biggest players they had their stuff. Maybe they were
not bigger than the club, but the merchandise they were selling was a huge, huge thing.” As David
Burrows mentioned, the question was asked at the time whether some players were becoming bigger
than the clubs they played for. The question was worth examining, as players such as the ones mentioned
above were idolised, not only for their football skills, but also for their personality and look. Kids in the
1990s would wear their polo shirts with the collar upturned like Eric Cantona, or try David Beckham’s
latest haircut. While before the Premier League era, these players would have had at most a national
notoriety, Sky’s broadcast of the Premier League as well as Murdoch’s newspapers gave them a bigger
audience. Sky, when buying the rights to the Premier League games, had the right to sell these rights to
broadcasting companies operating in foreign countries. This is how, for example, the Premier League
arrived in France, broadcast by Canal +. This gave a boost to the Premier League, the clubs and the
players’ notoriety, as they went from being broadcast to a local market to being exposed to an
international one.
Premier League’s best players became hot properties, and the clubs, helped by their shirt
manufacturers, understood that. Players were increasingly put in the spotlight, and many boot
manufacturers such as Nike or Adidas signed sponsorship contracts with some of the Premier League’s
biggest talents. A company such as Nike had players such as Robbie Fowler, Eric Cantona, or Ian Wright
under contract and used them in televised advertisements to sell their products, now associated with
renowned football players.117 The clubs, boot and kit manufacturers used the players as a showcase of
their brand identity. As Chris Horrie stated: “The clubs themselves relentlessly hyped individual stars
as the key to their merchandising activities- especially those aimed at a younger and more capricious
audience. Led by Nike, the shirt and boot manufacturers boosted the trend, marketing individual players
as one-off geniuses, promoting them on TV like pop stars and members of Team Nike”.118 Players had
a commercial value that no one foresaw. With a healthy environment around football, the players could
flourish and fans could identify with them, wanting to look and act like them. The best way to act like
these players was to reproduce their gestures on the football pitch, wearing the latest jersey they bought
at the club’s souvenir shop.
Selling kits was a lucrative activity, with each kit being sold at around £30 at the beginning of
the 1992-1993 season, a price allowing the manufacturers to have bigger revenues, and thus to offer
bigger contracts to the clubs they made shirts for, as the market was growing.119 As players became more
118.Ibid, p. 337.
119.Hyde, Ben. ‘Why Are Football Shirts so Expensive?’ FOOTY.COM.
40
and more famous, and as the Premier League became more and more open to the world thanks to the
TV rights sold by Sky to some foreign countries’ TV companies, some clubs literally took over the
world. By the end of the 1990s, a club like Manchester United, the most successful English club at that
time, went on pre-season tours to Asia and even opened many souvenir shops there to reach a larger
audience. The club would spend a few days abroad, training, seeing the foreign fans that could only
watch them through their TVs, and playing friendly games against local teams. This was all part of a
marketing strategy. It did not give them sporting advantage to spend days on another continent to train,
but it allowed the club to extend its influence and popularity to other territories as if they were spreading
a religion. This strategy worked as many foreign fans, mainly in Asia or in America, have been
supporting English clubs, watching the games early in the morning or late at night, and buying kits and
all kinds of merchandise. By opening itself to the world, the Premier League became more powerful and
was able to capitalise on its commercial potential. Ever since then, the clubs have not stopped to sell
more and more kits and merchandise. Knowing that the fans are willing to pay for it, clubs have changed
the prices of these goods. In less than 30 years, the clubs and manufacturers have been able to make
their shirts more and more expensive, doubling the initial price of 1992. They even added a new category
of shirts, the authentic shirts, made in the exact same materials as the ones worn by the players, costing
three times the price of a 1992 jersey.120 However, it is important to clarify that taken into consideration
with the inflation rate, these new prices are apparently not so high.121 In addition to that, the clubs now
wear more different shirts. At the beginning of the 1990s, clubs usually had two kits, one for the home
games and one for the away games, and these kits would stay the same for at least two seasons.
Nowadays, however, clubs tend to have three or four different kits each season. To the traditional home
and away kits were added a third kit made for special occasions such as European fixtures and the
goalkeeper’s kit, which is always different from the rest of the team to avoid any confusion. The
manufacturers and the clubs have maximised their commercial potential, as the most loyal fans will
often buy at least one or two kits each season, even though some kits are not too different from the ones
of the previous seasons. Even though most of these new kits look like the ones from previous seasons,
it does not prevent anyone from buying shirts, and this shirt selling business is growing each year.
This business of selling teams’ shirts has been very positive for the clubs and their
manufacturers, but not everything has been bright for players. With the celebrity came not only the
positives but also the negatives. Players have had a lot more pressure on their shoulders as they became
known worldwide. The British newspaper industry, known for its lack of professional conscience and
respect for individuals, has harassed many footballers. In the 1990s, Dwight Yorke, a Manchester United
player, was in a tabloid sex scandal, one of the many cases during the last 25 years.122 Players have been
120.Ibid.
121.Ibid.
122.Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002, p. 232-
233.
41
filmed, stalked, and spied on against their will, and have received the same treatment TV, movie, or
music stars have received. While mainly free to do whatever they wanted before, the players now had
to act very carefully on and off the pitch, as every single one of their actions was being scrutinised by
the media. Every faux pas is talked about for hours on television and makes the headlines of many
tabloids. It is even worse today as new technologies such as smartphones mean that everyone can record
a footballer at every moment, and the social media mean millions of people can see this wrongdoing.
Fame and increased wages come at a price, and for footballers, it is tranquillity. Even on the pitch,
players are abused by fans who only wait for a player’s angered reaction to castigate him. I have asked
David Burrows if he remembered any of the abuse a footballer could face, and here is what he told me:
Yes, I've been insulted. I was insulted many times by exterior fans in different grounds. But we
were told from an early age when you become someone in the spotlight, when you become a
celebrity, you have to accept this is what's going to happen because everyone is not going to like
you and everyone is not going to be warm and generous towards you. They don't want you to
succeed, they want their team to win and they will do anything even go as far as insults to try
and support their team to win.
And as I said I played through a period where black players were very much abused. I remember
playing when I was a schoolboy and apprentice at West Bromwich Albion, we had players in
the team like Cyrille Regis and Brendan Batson too, Laury Cunningham, who went later on to
play with Madrid. These were very popular players, very good players and I know listening to
the crowds in those days they were also abused, but again, we were told to expect it and to accept
it and to get on with it and it was as simple as that.
Abuse, even racial one, was very common in the 1980s with hooligans, but it persisted and still
exists even today, with many coloured players complaining about fan’s behaviour. Whether this kind of
behaviour happens on and off the pitch, it is unacceptable, as is every form of abuse. Even though the
Premier League has said on multiple occasions that they were acting against it with multiple TV
advertisements, the problem seems to persist. Even though fans are easily recognisable nowadays thanks
to the cameras filming games and the fact that their name is assigned to a seat in the stadium, this does
not stop some people, calling themselves fans, to verbally abuse players for their skin colour, country
of origin, religion, and even for their sexual orientation. This is what over exposition of footballers for
marketing and commercial reasons makes.
The kit and shirt business in the Premier League has become a very lucrative one over the years.
In 2016, out of the ten teams that sold the most jerseys worldwide, four were from the Premier League.123
Manchester United, at the top of that list, sold 2.85 million jerseys in 2016, far ahead of Real Madrid
with 2.29 million jerseys. Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal were the three other Premier League clubs in
the top ten. The Premier League, thanks to its renewed image and its will to export its clubs and products,
conquered the world in a way. Since the beginning of the 21st century, many English clubs have been
doing pre-season tours abroad, in the United States, Singapore, Thailand, or China, to expand their
123.‘Football Jerseys: Sales by European Club 2016’. Statista.
42
fanbases. Some English clubs such as Chelsea or West Ham have even played in the Major League
Soccer (the United States’ first division) All-Star Game to show their talents. Manchester United and
Manchester City even played a game in Houston in front of an American audience in 2017. As time
went by, clubs started playing in friendly pre-season competitions in China, Singapore, and the United
States, as clubs were offered money to participate in competitions such as the International Champions
Cup, a friendly tournament where the best teams in the world would play against each other to prepare
the new season. It gave English clubs, which have been invited on many occasions, to make new fans
from around the world. The Internet made it easier for fans to buy their favourite team or favourite
player’s jersey, by buying from the club’s web shop or the manufacturer’s one. Fans can now buy an
even bigger number of items at the effigy of their favourite player or Premier League teams, as we can
find products such as lighters, mugs, alcohol, keychains, sheets, and everyday clothing. The reality is
that nowadays it is hard to take a walk in a big city and not see someone wearing a Chelsea, Liverpool,
Arsenal, or Manchester United jersey, a sign of the Premier League’s influence and power as it took
over the world.
2. Sponsors and partners through the examples of jersey manufacturers

and jersey sponsors: a new economic asset for the Premier League
clubs.
In 1979, Liverpool became the first-ever English professional club to have a shirt sponsor. They
signed a two-year deal with Hitachi, a Japanese brand, which paid the club £100,000 to put their name
on their red shirt in non-televised games.124 This sponsorship with a foreign company was ground-
breaking. It was the result of good work by the Merseyside team, which was dominating domestic and
European football at the time. The team had won five First Division titles during the 1970s, as well as
an FA Cup in 1974, and two European Cups (the UEFA Champions League’s ancestor), in 1977 and
1978. Liverpool was clearly the best English team and arguably one of the top European ones too, which
certainly justified the amount paid by Hitachi to be associated with them. Liverpool was followed in
1981 by Arsenal which was sponsored by JVC, and in 1982 by Manchester United, which signed a
£500,000 a season contract with Sharp, a large amount of money for the time.125 Manchester United
could consider itself lucky to get such a deal in the 1980s, a decade when clubs were not often in
television and Manchester United were clearly not much successful as they would be in the 1990s.
However, during the 1980s, as English football was clearly at the lowest point of its history, sponsors
did not rush to be represented by football clubs playing a “slum sport”. With the new Premier League,
124.‘38 Years Ago Today: Liverpool Becomes First English Pro Team with Shirt Sponsor’. Footy Headlines.
125.Robinson, Joshua, and Jonathan Clegg. The Club: How the English Premier League Became the Wildest,
Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, p. 46.
43
things changed. The success of the first TV deal with Sky, which thanks to the clubs’ help, rekindled
English football’s image, paved the way for clubs to be attractive to sponsors again.
This is where the new owners and chairmen such as David Dein at Arsenal, or Martin Edwards
at Manchester United, played their cards right. Throughout this part of the dissertation, we will mainly
take Manchester United as an example, as the club was the most successful in England during the
Premier League Era from 1992 to 2020. Until 2020, the club has had only five different jersey sponsors:
Sharp, Vodafone, AIG, AON, and Chevrolet. However, it is interesting to study the money the club was
able to get from these deals.
Manchester United Jersey Sponsor deals 2000 -

2020
(In million of pounds per year)
64
20
14,125
7,5 9
VODAFONE (2000- VODAFONE (2005) AIG (2006 -2010) AON (2010-2014) CHEVROLET (2014-
2004) 2020)
Figure 9: Manchester United Jersey Sponsor deals 2000-2020, in millions of pounds per year.126
This chart does not feature the first jersey sponsor deal Manchester United had with Sharp, as
very little information can be found on this topic. The only sure thing about the contract binding the club
and the Japanese brand was that the initial five-year deal saw Sharp paying £500,000 a season to the
Red Devils. The contract was then renewed until 2000, but no precise figure is available. However, one
trend is very clear on this chart: each new deal saw Manchester United getting an increased amount of
money from their jersey sponsor. As the Premier League became a must-watch after its early success,
with Sky Sports gaining new subscribers each season and an increasing attendance in the Premier
League stadiums, the league became a place where companies wanted to be seen. The more people
watch an event, or in this case a league, the more it is attractive to different investors and companies
126.Chart made thanks to data retrieved at: ‘Manchester United Chevrolet Kit Deal To Expire In
Exactly One Year’. Footy Headlines, Ends Man Utd Shirt Deal. 23 Nov. 2005. news.bbc.co.uk, Man
Utd Sign £56m AIG Shirt Deal. 6 Apr. 2006. news.bbc.co.uk, Joy, Oliver. ‘Manchester United Pen New
Multi-Million Dollar Aon Deal’. CNN, ‘United Announce £30m Vodafone Sponsorship’. The
Guardian, 11 Feb. 2000. The Guardian.
44
which consequently want to be associated with the league or even with one of its competitors, as it gives
them extended exposure. Manchester United is arguably the best English club of the Premier League
era in terms of results on the pitch. It has, as of 2020, won the Premier League a record 13 times, as well
as the UEFA Champions League twice in 1999 and 2008. The team became the first English club of the
Premier League era to win a European trophy and established itself as a top European club. These
elements attracted brands such as Vodafone, AIG, and AON, which saw Manchester United as the
perfect showcase. The club was, as we will see later, very popular around the world as early as the end
of the 1990s, and was ahead of the wave in terms of merchandising. The sponsors knew that with such
an institution, the return on investment was worth the amount spent. When Chevrolet agreed in 2012 to
sign a seven-year contract starting in 2014 with Manchester United, the amount offered to the club was
a record. Sponsors and clubs have a mutual interest. By signing big contracts with famous brands and
companies, the clubs can make bigger profits which will help them in most cases to develop their
infrastructures or teams. By having better infrastructures and teams, the clubs will be more competitive
and thus be more noticeable for sponsors willing to pay enormous amounts to work with them. Money
attracts money.
Even smaller Premier League clubs have the power to attract big companies, as the richer and
most influential clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, or more recently Manchester City
gave a boost to the Premier League. As the League grew bigger, with clubs being more and more
successful each year, brands and companies wanted to be seen on television representing the League or
the different clubs. For example, Brighton and Hove Albion, which was promoted for the first time in
its history to the Premier League at the end of the 2016-2017 season, signed a jersey sponsor deal with
the banking giant American Express. The club, arguably less attractive for investors compared to the
likes of Manchester United, signed in 2019 a twelve years extension worth over £100 million with
American Express.127 The amount, even though significantly smaller than the one paid by Chevrolet to
appear on Manchester United’s jersey, is still remarkable and helps the club to develop. The deal also
covers the naming of the club’s stadium, the Amex Stadium, which is the abbreviation for American
Express. In order to understand how big the amount paid to Brighton by American Express is, we can
take a look at another jersey sponsor’s deal outside of the Premier League to compare. For example,
French club Olympique de Marseille, an arguably famous club in France’s Ligue 1 and in Europe, signed
the same year as Brighton a deal with the food delivery brand Uber Eats to become their jersey sponsor.
The amount paid by the brand was said to be between €3 million and €5 million per season.128 When
compared to a club like Marseille, it is clear that Brighton, even though less famous, is able to bring in
bigger contracts, due to its participation in the Premier League. The Premier League is the most-watched
football league in the world, and it is why it costs so much to the brands to have this exposure. They
127.Brighton Confirm “UK£100m” American Express Cover-All Deal’. SportsPro, 9 Aug. 2019.
128.‘Ligue 1 : L’OM confirme son contrat avec Uber Eats’. RMC SPORT,
45
know that whatever teams of the English Premier League are playing, millions of people will watch the
game, either from England, the United Kingdom, China, or anywhere in the world. Overall, more than
three billion people watched the Premier League during the 2019-2020 season, making it the perfect
platform for brands to showcase themselves and their products.129
The same analysis can be made about jersey manufacturers. During the early days of
professional football, shirt manufacturers, that emerged as early as the end of the 19th century, were not
paying a large amount of money to represent the clubs. Martin Edwards at Manchester United was once
again one of the first to change that. As early as 1975, he signed a contract with Admiral, which paid
the club £15,000 a year until 1980 to produce the team’s kits.130 This amount, which was almost vital at
the time, seems insignificant when we see what shirt manufacturers such as Nike, Adidas, Puma, and
Umbro are ready to pay nowadays in order to represent clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, or
Chelsea.
Manchester United kit manufacturer deals from 1996 to

2020 (in million of pounds per season)
80 75
70
60
50
40
30
23
20
10
10
0
Umbro (1996-2002) Nike (2002-2015) Adidas (2015-2025)
Figure 10: Manchester United kit manufacturer deals from 1996 to 2020 in millions of pounds per
season.131
This chart starts with the sponsorship Manchester United signed with Umbro in 1996. They had
already been working with the brand since 1992, but the first four-year deal’s details are hard to retrieve.
Nevertheless, the chart underlines a clear trend. Each new contract earned the club at least twice as much
129.Walker, Charlie. ‘Prem Dominates Bundesliga and La Liga Attracting 3.2BN TV Viewers’. Mail
Online, 17 Jan. 2022.
131.Chart made thanks to data found at: Bray, Chad. ‘Nike and Manchester United Set to End
Equipment Partnership’. The New York Times, 9 July 2014. NYTimes.com, Blanchette, Rob.
‘Manchester United and Adidas Agree on New Kit Deal’. Bleacher Report, Unitedkits.Com - the
Definitive Illustrated Guide to Manchester United Kits | United’s Kit Manufacturers.
46
money per season. As we saw in a prior part of the dissertation, merchandising allowed the clubs and
some players to expand their renown. Thus, the jersey manufacturers became interested in working with
the Premier League clubs, as they could sell their products through the clubs’ stores and or moving
forward through their own stores and websites. With football’s extended fame, people became more and
more interested in buying clubs’ goods and especially the kits, as seen earlier. It made football a
profitable area for these kit manufacturers ready to pay an always increasing amount of money to be
associated with one of the clubs of the famous Premier League. In 2015, Adidas, the German kit
manufacturer, signed a £750 million ten-year contract with Manchester United, which represented a
huge amount for Manchester United. The club would be guaranteed £75 million per season for ten years.
This amount seems even more gigantic when compared to the £15,000 a season Manchester United
earned just 40 years earlier when it was sponsored by Admiral.
The most impressive part of the contract Manchester United signed with Adidas is that it is not
the most impressive one in the Premier League as of 2020, as shown by the chart below.
Amount earned by some Premier League clubs through their kit

manufacturer's deal as of 2020 (in million of pounds per season)
80
75
65 65
60
30
10 5
Manchester Manchester Arsenal Chelsea Tottenham Liverpool Everton West Ham

United City (Puma) (Adidas) (Nike) (Nike) (Nike) (Humel) (Umbro)
(Adidas)
Figure 11: Yearly amount earned by some Premier League clubs through their kit manufacturer’s deal
as of 2020.132
The figures below were taken from the contract in which the clubs were engaged at the end of
2020, and shows a clear trend. It is important to bear in mind that as of today, the initial “Big Five” is
not anymore, as Everton, unlike Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool, was not able to
exploit the potential of the new Premier League. Instead of a “Big Five”, we now have a “Big Six”, as
132.Chart made thanks to data retrieved from: Chelsea Signs Record-Breaking £900m Nike Kit Deal’.
BBC News, 14 Oct. 2016. www.bbc.com, Liverpool Announce £80m-a-Year Nike Kit Deal Smashing
Rivals Man Utd’. The Sun, 7 Jan. 2020, Reuters, CNBC com with. ‘Puma Signs Record-Breaking $860
Million Partnership with Manchester City’. CNBC, 28 Feb. 2019, ‘Tottenham Hotspur Reveal Details
of Bumper 15-Year Nike Deal’. SportsPro, 30 Oct. 2018, Verschueren, Gianni. ‘Arsenal Announce Kit
Deal with Adidas Reportedly Worth £65M Per Year’. Bleacher Report, ‘West Ham and Umbro Agree
“long-Term” Kit Deal Extension’. SportsPro, 30 June 2020.
47
Chelsea and Manchester City, both bought by rich foreign owners, were able to capitalise on the league’s
economic potential. It is distinctly visible in this chart, as the clubs of the new “Big Six” are earning
way more than the other clubs. Liverpool holds the record for a kit manufacturer contract for a Premier
League club, as the club earns £80 million a season in a long-term contract with Nike, the American
sportswear giant. The biggest clubs such as Manchester City, Chelsea, and Arsenal all have similar long-
term contracts with three different manufacturers. The “Big Six” clubs, except Manchester City, are all
under contract with the biggest kit manufacturers, Adidas and Nike. However, less powerful teams such
as Everton or West Ham do not earn as much money and have a contract with arguably less famous
brands such as Umbro or Hummel. Nonetheless, they still earn a decent amount of money each season.
The Premier League clubs, thanks to an increased popularity in England and throughout the
world, were able to capitalise by selling goods related to them and their star players. These players
became rockstars overnight, and the products at their effigy became very popular. This phenomenon,
combined with the regilded image of English football, attracted many brands and companies that wanted
to invest in the Premier League. By building a relationship with these clubs, both brands and clubs
benefited from positive publicity as well as increasing revenue. The examples of kit manufacturers and
kit sponsors are undoubtedly the most striking ones, as the kit became a place where both club and brand
identity were represented. Kits became fashion elements over the years, with growing popularity among
club supporters. However, these two examples are not the only ones of brands working with clubs. Clubs
now have official partners for a lot of different sectors. For example, Manchester United now has an
official tyre partner with Apollo Tyres, and also an official wine partner in Casillero Del Diablo.133
Since the beginning of the Premier League in 1992, the clubs have seized the opportunity to
develop themselves as global brands. While the economic model of the 1980s rested mainly on matchday
revenue, the new economic model that started at the dawn of the Premier League saw clubs taking
advantage of the new global market. Thanks to the broadcasting, the social media and the advertisement
around the League, clubs became targets for many brands and companies. This change in the economic
model of the Premier League clubs is clearly visible in the following charts.
133.Man Utd Global Partners & Sponsors. https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/global.
48
Figure 12: Revenue sources and percentages of Manchester United in 2005.134
Figure 13: Revenue sources and percentages of Manchester United in 2019.135
These figures were taken from the annual Deloitte Football Money League, a report showing
the twenty football clubs in the world with the biggest revenue each year. In 2006, Deloitte published,
the first available edition of this report, looking at the richest football clubs of the year prior, 2005. In
that year, Manchester United finished as the second wealthiest football club in the world, behind Spain’s
Real Madrid.136 What we are interested in is the commercial share of the club’s total revenue. In total,
the club earned £48.7 million through commercial activities such as merchandising and sponsoring,
which represented 29 per cent of the club’s total revenue. The biggest share of its revenue came from
matchday activities. However, in 2019, things were quite different. Apart from the difference in the total
revenue, which was nearly multiplied by three, it is the share of each sector that has changed the most.
Nearly half of the total revenue was earned through commercial activities, which became the main
source of income for Manchester United, the third club with the biggest revenue in that year. It shows a
clear trend. Clubs no longer rely on matchday activities, which had been their main source of income
134.Retrieved from: Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the
Ground. Feb. 2006, p. 7.
135.Ajadi, Théo, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 14.
136.Retrieved from: Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the
Ground. Feb. 2006, p. 4.
49
for decades. The Premier League, from which eight of the 20 wealthiest clubs in the world were from
both in 2005 and 2009, no longer relied on matchday activities as much as they used to. In 2019, clubs
like Manchester City, Liverpool, and Tottenham had broadcasting as their most important share of
revenues. None of the Premier League clubs present among the 20 richest ones of the world had
matchday activities as their biggest share of revenue. Such a change was a sign of the evolution of
football and the Premier League. The league went from a local market, relying mainly on matchday
activities, to a global one, relying on broadcasting and commercial activities. The Premier League took
over the world thanks to commercial activities which gave them a bigger audience, but also thanks to
broadcasting, which gave access to the biggest football league in the world to millions of new people,
especially in foreign countries, as we will see just now.
3. Overseas TV rights deals: attracting foreign fans and earning more

revenues.
The results of the commercialisation of the Premier League were visible in the evolution of the
TV rights deals as well as the places where it became progressively possible to watch the League. To
summarise everything that has been said about how the Premier League became so powerful and was
able to conquer the world, here is a recapitulative scheme.
Figure 14: Recapitulative scheme of the relation between the product’s quality and the investments it
can bring.137
137.Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute,

50
The Premier League, with the help of its historic broadcaster Sky, had created a brand-new
product, practically freed from the horrors of the 1980s. Sky had taken a huge gamble by offering £304
million over five years to broadcast the Premier League, but it had worked out exceptionally well for
them, as their number of subscribers kept growing. By having good content, that is intense, tough, and
suspenseful football in recently renovated stadiums, the Premier League attracted fans in the stadiums
and in front of their TVs. With a growing number of fans and a good reputation, sponsors as well as
media invested in the League, as shows the second TV rights deal signed with Sky in 1996, which
offered more than twice the amount paid in 1992, as well as the kit manufacturers and sponsors that
wanted to work with clubs and offered more and more money to sign long-term contracts. As the product
was good and watched by more people, the sponsors had the exposure necessary to showcase their
brands. This is basically how the Premier League became the most powerful and richest League in the
world. It is an exponential growth, where the quality of the product attracted investors. Then, the
investors, by signing expensive and long-term contracts with the clubs, allowed them and the Premier
League to develop the quality of the game, and so on. The Premier League entered a virtuous cycle.
This virtuous cycle can be seen in the amount the Premier League received from the different
broadcasters it worked with in the United Kingdom. Here are all TV rights deals the Premier League
signed in the United Kingdom from 1992 to 2019:
Figure 15: Every Premier League TV rights deal in the United Kingdom from 1992 to 1999.138
138.Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute, https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.
51
The figures speak for themselves. From 1992 to 2019, the Premier League has signed eight
different deals with Sky, which has split the bill with Setanta, ESPN, or BT Sports since 2007. The
figure of £191 million for 1992-1997 is quite different from the £304 million mentioned earlier. In fact,
the £304 million were to be paid if certain targets were met by the Premier League, and only £191
million of this sum were guaranteed in the deal. From 1992 to 2019, the Premier League was able to
multiply by more than 26 the money it received through the rights to broadcast its live games, and this
only in the United Kingdom. There was, however, a dip in the progression for the 2004-2007 deal, which
saw the League getting less money from its TV rights for the first time since its creation. This was not
a sign of degradation of the Premier League’s content, but an overvaluation of the 2001-2004 deal which
saw Sky spending more than £1 billion for the Premier League’s TV rights for the first time, as their
“optimism about the value of internet and television content was at bursting point”.139 The growth of the
Premier League’s United Kingdom TV rights has been tremendous, and in total, the Premier League
clubs have been sharing, since 1992, more than £14.500 billion. This colossal amount has helped the
teams develop their infrastructures, thus adding quality to the league, which produced even better
matches and seasons.
However, to develop its brand around the world, the Premier League needed to increase its
global influence and popularity. It needed to have its games broadcast in the most countries possible, as
it would attract new viewers that would eventually become fans. During the early days of the Premier
League, Sky, which held the Premier League rights in the United Kingdom, could then sell a package
of games to foreign broadcasters. As Clegg and Robinson describe it, “the league had auctioned off its
overseas rights package en bloc for a fixed fee, with the winning bidder then free to unpackage those
rights and resell them in different countries and territories they saw fit”.140 This way to sell the rights to
live Premier League games was certainly easy, but it did not allow the clubs to earn a consequent amount
from the overseas TV rights. As an example, in 1997, the Premier League sold its overseas broadcast
rights for £98 million, and in 2001, the Premier League sold its overseas rights for £178 million.141 These
amounts seem ridiculous when we know that in 1997 the United Kingdom rights for the Premier League
were sold for £670 million, and for more than a billion in 2001. At that time, some Premier League clubs
like Manchester United had started to explore the international market by going on tours around the
world, and had a growing popularity thanks to their 1999 UEFA Champions League victory over Bayern
Munich. The Premier League, thanks to its commercialisation, was starting to attract more and more
people from overseas, and Richard Scudamore, the new chief executive of the Premier League since
1999, knew how to capitalise on that. He decided to change the way the Premier League dealt with its
overseas right in order to negotiate bigger contracts. He convinced the different chairmen of the Premier
141.Ibid, p. 225.
52
League clubs that their clubs deserved more money and could do so by “breaking up the overseas rights
into separate territorial packages and dealing face-to-face with the TV companies”.142 This meant that
instead of selling to only one or a consortium of broadcasters that could then distribute the package
abroad the way the wanted, the Premier League was now going to sell its rights by countries or regions,
negotiating directly with the interested broadcasters in each area. This was to be a more difficult process,
as it required a bigger amount of work, but Scudamore thought it would be worth it. In 2004, the first
time the Premier League changed its way of negotiating overseas broadcasting contracts, the different
deals brought £325 million in, which represented an 83 per cent increase compared to 2001.143 As we
are going to see in the next chart, this strategy proved to be effective and allowed the League to earn an
ever-increasing amount of money.
Figure 16: Premier League’s overseas broadcast rights from 1992 to 2019, in millions of pounds.144
The same assessment can be made about the Premier League’s overseas rights as we did for the
United Kingdom’s rights. The growth of these contracts is exponential. However, the fact that foreign
broadcasters in foreign countries and regions have been willing to offer the Premier League more and
more money to broadcast its games live shows the influence and attractivity of English football.
Broadcasters in regions where the Premier League is live at unusual hours, such as early in the morning
or late in the night, are willing to offer millions to the Premier League, proof that no matter the time of
142.Ibid, p. 225.
143.Ibid, p. 225.
144.Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute,
53
the day, millions of people are ready to watch a game between two English teams. This is the result of
the commercialisation of the Premier League that we studied earlier. As most of the teams exported
themselves thanks to merchandise, sponsors, or by going directly to foreign countries doing their pre-
season tours, more and more people started to follow the Premier League. The success of the Premier
League teams was also a reason for this enthusiasm. As the Premier League was experiencing
commercial success, its clubs had more and more money to develop their teams, which became dominant
at a European level. Manchester United was, as stated earlier, the first-ever Premier League team to win
the UEFA Champions League in 1999. Liverpool did the same in 2005. The two teams won in what
were two of the most dramatic Champions League finals, as Manchester United won 2-1 in extra time
after being 1-0 down until the 90th minute, and Liverpool won in the penalty shootout after being led 3-
0 at halftime. These two resounding victories helped both clubs have bigger popularity, as such an event
was watched by millions of fans over the world each year. However, the moment that certainly helped
the Premier League take it to the next level was the final of the 2008 UEFA Champions League. On that
occasion, and for the first time in history, two English clubs were the protagonist of the most important
football match for European clubs. Manchester United and Chelsea battled against each other in Moscow
for the European crown, an event showing the new power of the Premier League. Manchester United
won its second UEFA Champions League over Chelsea, and the two teams featured in the semi-finals
of the following year’s edition, with Manchester United accessing the final. The Premier League was
dominating the European scene, and it increased its popularity, as was the case for Spain’s La Liga or
Italy’s Serie A before. It is certainly this European success at the end of the 2000s, coupled with the
growing presence of English clubs overseas, that allowed the Premier League to record its biggest rise
in the overseas broadcasting rights. The sum of the 2010-2013 contracts negotiated with different
broadcasters amounted to £1.437 million, a 121 per cent rise compared to the sum of the 2007-2010
contracts.
One of the most impressive examples of how the Premier League took over the world is the one
in the United States. The country has always been known for its interest in its own sports, basketball,
American football, baseball, and hockey. These sports are mainly American or North American sports,
mainly played and watched in this part of the world. Therefore, it might seem complicated for other
sports, especially those coming from Europe, to conquer the American market, as the time difference
makes it hard, especially on the west coast, to watch European live sporting events. However, English
football has proved many times that it was not like any other sport. After seeing his son and his friends
waking up early in the morning to watch Arsenal-Tottenham in the Premier League, Jon Miller, an
executive at NBC, an American broadcaster, understood what phenomenon the Premier League could
be even in the United States.145 Even though the Premier League was making a niche for itself in the
54
United States with a growing audience, Jon Miller felt that it could do even better. He managed to
convince the NBC executives that it was a good idea to pay a lot of money for a sport that was in the
“Saturday-morning time slot that typically drew 35,000 viewers”.146 Miller believed that with a better,
more authentic coverage, the same thing that Sky did in the United Kingdom, NBC Sports Network
could have a bigger audience following the English Premier League. In 2012, he offered $250 million
over three years to the Premier League, an offer three times superior to what Fox was paying at the
time.147 Miller managed to convince Richard Scudamore to give him the rights, and it proved to be a
success. NBC Sports Network aired eight of the ten most-watched live Premier League matches in
United States television history and offered “unparalleled access to Premier League matches through
multichannel broadcasts and a digital service that carried every single game live”. 148 The success was
such that NBC Sports Networks still holds the Premier League rights in the United States until 2022,
proof of the popularity of the league on the other side of the Atlantic.
The amount of money spent by broadcasters in many regions of the world proves how far the
Premier League has come. The early success of the Premier League in the United Kingdom gave the
clubs a positive setting to manage commercial opportunities. Premier League clubs were able to develop
their merchandise, sign huge sponsorships, and be dominant on the European scene. Their performances
opened many doors abroad, as many clubs started visiting foreign fanbases to develop their image
around the globe. The result was a growing demand for live Premier League games throughout the
world, with an ever-growing foreign audience. Therefore, the Premier League saw an increase in the
overseas TV rights deals, as foreign broadcasters were willing to pay huge amounts to broadcast games
that they knew were going to be heavily followed. The Premier League is, as of 2020, broadcast nearly
everywhere on the globe, from the Pacific Islands to Central America, by way of Mongolia.149 Yet
another proof that the Premier League has taken over the world.
c. The World taking over the Premier League.

As the Premier League progressively took over the world and became a force to be reckoned with,
the League and its clubs attracted more and more people. As the Premier League and its clubs became
financial powers and football giants in Europe and throughout the world, individuals, companies, and
brands started to get closer to the clubs. Foreign individuals, countries, and companies, all wanted a
share of the Premier League. The gold rush had started and no one wanted to miss this opportunity. In
this part of the dissertation, we will study how the Premier League, while taking over the world, was
also taken over by foreign influences. Rich owners coming from all parts of the world, international
146.Ibid, p. 246.
147.Ibid, p. 246.
148.Ibid, p. 249.
149.Premier League Broadcast Deals for 2019-2022. http://www.premierleague.com/news/970151.
55
companies, and foreign players all played a part in the rise of the Premier League and helped it establish
itself as the most powerful and richest football league in the world. We will see how these different
actors amplified the Premier League’s influence and power through different examples.
1. Foreign owners taking over the Premier League and its clubs.
While the Premier League was establishing itself as the most attractive and intense football league
in the world, its clubs became hot properties for many millionaires and billionaires, lovers of the sport
or not, which became interested in both sporting and business aspects. However, it seems important to
underline the fact that owning a football club has never been a very profitable business for owners. Rule
34 of the FA’s rule book, which we saw earlier, was made for owners not to make any profit from the
clubs they managed. However, when Irving Scholar and Tottenham broke that rule with impunity by
forming a PLC listed on the stock exchange, owners could, with this new technique, take dividends from
the PLC and actually pay themselves a salary. This opened the door to a new wave of owners interested
in the money they could get from football clubs rather than the sporting success it could achieve.
Unfortunately for them, owning a football club has never been the most profitable business. As the
owner is the one supposedly investing money into the club, he takes big risks with his own money, and
if his team does not perform well, he may not make profits from it. The revenue of football clubs have
never been so high, but so does the expenses, with the players’ salaries increasing each year. As David
Goldblatt argued: “The reason that the new economy has proved to be such a bad business is that, despite
discovering commercialism and having been flooded with new revenue, its key-decision makers have,
so far, retained the preferences and outlook of the old order, choosing competitive football and access
to social networks and status over bottom-line profits. If football is a business, it is a very unusual
one”.150 Whether these owners were looking for sporting success or new relationships and contacts with
other important personalities is not our focus here. Our focus is on the impact it has had on the Premier
League and its clubs.
Since the beginning of the Premier League, many clubs have been bought by owners coming from
all parts of the world. The first Premier League club not to be owned by a British personality or
consortium was Fulham. In May 1997, the London-based club was bought by Mohamed Al Fayed, an
Egyptian billionaire, while it was in the fourth professional division of English football. Buying the club
for £6.25 million, Al Fayed renovated Craven Cottage, the team’s stadium, and had only one goal:
bringing the team back to the Premier League, where it belonged.151 The team had not played in
England’s best football league since 1968, but Al Fayed, through many investments, managed to bring
Books, 2015, p. 3.
56
the team to the Premier League in only four years. Mohamed Al Fayed was the first of this wave of rich
foreign owners, coming to the Premier League for various reasons. In this subpart dedicated to the
foreign owners that took over the Premier League, we will take the examples of Chelsea, Manchester
City, Leicester City, and Manchester United, as their new foreign owners allowed them to take it to the
next level both on and off the pitch, helping the Premier League to be even more competitive and
attractive.
Roman Abramovich. Maybe the most secret and enigmatic football club owner on the planet.
When the Russian oligarch bought Chelsea in 2003, people knew very little about him. Abramovich
made a fortune at the fall of the USSR with his oil company and was worth £7 billion.152 That is about
everything Chelsea fans and Premier League followers knew of this man who had just bought Chelsea
from Ken Bates, the man who had established Chelsea in the Premier League. The Russian had a big
interest in football and wanted to buy his own club to make it succeed. At first, he was interested in
Manchester United, after watching the team’s Champions League quarterfinal against Real Madrid in
2003, then it was Tottenham, but it was finally Chelsea, “the Kings of Kings Road”, as Robert
Owensmith named the team, that caught the billionaire’s attention.153 In the summer of 2003, after the
team qualified for the Champions League, Abramovich officially bought Chelsea, a move that would
take the club to a whole new level. For his first transfer window as an owner (the period when players
can be bought from other clubs and sold to other clubs), Roman Abramovich spent £120 million on 14
new players to reinforce his team, and he would spend another £100 million the following year.154 It
worked out pretty quickly, as Chelsea won its first-ever Premier League title during the 2004-2005
season, only two years after the oligarch’s arrival. It was the first top-tier title for Chelsea since 1955, a
relief for the fans. Roman Abramovich’s era marked the most glorious pages of Chelsea’s history. From
2003 to 2020, the team won five Premier League titles, five FA Cups, three League Cups (basically an
FA Cup restricted to the four professional divisions of English football), and two Community Shields
(the Premier League and the FA Cup winner compete against each other in a one-off match at the
beginning of the season to win this trophy). However, what Abramovich wanted the most for Chelsea
when he arrived was for the club to be on top of European football. After having spent billions on
players’ transfers and salaries, and after having faced many failures, 2012 was the year of consecration.
Chelsea won its first-ever Champions League trophy, defeating Bayern Munich in their own stadium,
the Allianz Arena. This was the result of nearly ten years of implication for Roman Abramovich. Now,
Chelsea was a reference in Europe and went on to win the UEFA Europa League (the second European
cup) in 2013 and 2019, while still being one of the best teams in domestic contests. What Roman
Abramovich has done with Chelsea can be compared to what Jack Walker did with Blackburn. Two rich
152.Ibid, p. 87.
153.Ibid, p. 87.
154.Ibid, p. 89.
57
owners who have been willing to spend enormous amounts to see their team succeed. However,
Abramovich was able to keep the momentum going and built over the years one of English and European
football’s strongholds. Despite big debts caused by his early expenses, Abramovich never hesitated to
invest in the clubs and it worked out. From 2006 to 2020, the club never left the top 20 teams with the
most revenue in the world each year. Chelsea was fifth in revenue in 2005, sixth in 2006, and fourth in
2007.155 More recently, the team was eighth in revenue in 2018, and ninth in 2019, and has never left
the top ten since 2005.156 This is proof that the Premier League, an attractive product, attracted an
ambitious owner who transformed an average club into a football powerhouse, attracting investments,
sponsors, and selling a lot of merchandise. The arrival of Abramovich, the first of this new wave of
foreign owners, added competitiveness to the Premier League, as a new team was able to win every title
each season. By having another competitive team, the Premier League could attract even more viewers
and thus investors.
Manchester City has a similar story to Chelsea. In 1992, when the first season of the Premier
League started, the sky-blues (one of the club’s nicknames) had not won a first division title since 1968.
Even worse, at the end of the 20th century, the team dipped down to the third division and was stuck in
Manchester United’s shadow. While the Red Devils were enjoying success and prosperity, the second
club of Manchester was struggling. However, things were soon to change. In 2007, Thaksin Shinawatra,
former Thailand Prime Minister, bought the club. The fans expected a lot from this new ownership, but
it did not go according to what they had planned. Shinawatra’s assets were frozen by Thailand’s
government in 2008, as he was convicted in his country for corruption and had been forced to exile.157
This meant that with no money, he was forced to sell. This is when Sheikh Mansour of the Royal Family
of Abu Dhabi arrived, buying the club for a reported £150 million.158 As Roman Abramovich did at
Chelsea, the owner spent a lot of money to rehabilitate the club. According to the club’s chairman,
Khaldoon Al Mubarak, owning the club was key to “build a bridge between the Arab world and the
West”.159 The takeover was both a sporting and a political move, as it allowed the United Arab Emirates
to be seen and recognised through the world’s most popular sport which became a symbol of soft power.
Manchester City has been, since its takeover, a way for the United Arab Emirates to showcase their new
power and influence. Football, and especially the Premier League, is watched by millions of people
around the globe. This is why it was important for the country to possess a club in the most powerful
football league in the world. For this to work, Sheik Mansour and the royal family needed the team to
155.Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006,
p.4, Hawkins, Martyn, et al. Football Money League: The Reign in Spain. Feb. 2007, p. 1, Parkes, Rich,
et al. Football Money League: Gate Receipts. Feb. 2008, p. 2.
156.Ajadi, Théo, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 26-27, Ross, Calum, et
al. Football Money League; Bullseye. Jan. 2019, p. 26-27.
Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 292-293.
158.Ibid, p. 295.
159.Ibid, p. 295.
58
be successful. So, they did what Chelsea did. Manchester City moved to the City of Manchester stadium
that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and then rented to the club as it was not used anymore.
This allowed the club to have fresh infrastructures to start rebuilding its fame. Since 2009, the club has
spent billions in transfer fees and salaries, and it worked out. In 2012, the club won its first-ever Premier
League title in the most incredible league finish of all time. Before the last game, the two Manchester
teams could still win the title. Manchester City just needed a win over Queens Park Rangers to be the
Premier League winner. Manchester United had won its game and could only wait for City’s result,
which was playing the last moments of its game. The score was 2-2 at the end of the added time when
Sergio Aguero, one of the team’s latest arrivals, scored the winning goal. Manchester City had done it
in the most nail-biting fashion, another event at the advantage of the Premier League which showcased
its spectacle and incertitude. From Sheik Mansour’s arrival to 2020, Manchester City won four Premier
League titles, two FA Cups, five League Cups, and three Community Shields. The team was challenging
its biggest rival Manchester United for the top spot in the city and established itself as one of English
football’s strongholds. The only title the club is missing is the UEFA Champions League, but it is getting
closer, as the team has been a regular in the knockout stages during the 2010s. In 2005, two years before
Sheik Mansour’s arrival, the club was 17th in the world in terms of revenue generated that year.160 It was
already a sign of the power of the Premier League, as at the time the club was not even a contender for
the Premier League title, and still managed to be in the top 20 of the teams with the most revenue. In
2019, the club was sixth in revenue, racking more than £611 million that year.161 The club is now a
football and economic reference and has given the United Arab Emirates the exposure they wanted.
Manchester City is also the head of the City Football Group, a network of teams owned by the Emirati
Royal Family, which includes clubs such as New York City in the United States or Melbourne City in
Australia.
Leicester City has never been one of English football’s top clubs. From its creation in 1884 to
1992, the team had never won a single First Division title. Leicester was a regular in the first two
divisions but was never a serious contender for the different national titles. Even worse for the city, the
club was relegated to the third level of English football at the end of the 2007-2008 season. While other
English clubs were becoming football and economic powerhouses, Leicester was missing the gold rush.
However, in 2010, Leicester’s trajectory changed. While in the Championship (the new name of
England’s second division of professional football), the club was bought by a consortium led by Vichai
Srivaddhanaprabha from Thailand.162 The fact that Leicester, a club that was never one of the best in
England, attracted a foreign group of investors was a sign of the attractivity of English football and the
160.Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006, p.
4.
161.Ajadi, Théo, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 20-21.
59
Premier League. As many Premier League clubs at that time were owned by foreigners, such as Chelsea,
Manchester City, Manchester United, or Liverpool, some foreign billionaires decided to take on clubs
in lower divisions and invest in them to reach the top flight. This would be a bigger challenge, but a fun
one for rich men that saw this kind of situation as a game to play. Not only did Srivaddhanaprabha
manage to take the club back to the Premier League thanks to his investments, but he also did what
everyone deemed unthinkable: taking home Leicester’s first-ever First Division title. During the 2014-
2015 season, the team barely escaped relegation.163 Even though the King Power Group (the name of
the funders of the club under Srivaddhanaprabha’s ownership) was very wealthy, the club was not a
heavy spender like Manchester City or Chelsea. During the transfer window preceding the 2015-2016
season, the team spent £45 million on nine new players.164 However, no one could have predicted what
Leicester City was about to accomplish. Not only did the team avoid relegation, but it managed to beat
every member of the “Big Six” to win the Premier League. Leicester City became the most surprising
Premier League winner in the history of the league. The team was, on paper, less talented than many
other teams. However, this success story showed many that by spending carefully and cleverly, they
could compete with England’s biggest teams. This event once again proved the ferocity and the surprise
around the Premier League and was followed closely. Leicester City, the underdog, was supported by
many around the world during this season and became in a way the people’s champion. Vichai
Srivaddhanaprabha’s club management was rewarded. The next summer, the club sold some of its best
players for a much higher price than what they had spent on them. They kept working carefully and
became a regular in the Premier League’s first half of the table. Even though for now they have not
managed to win another Premier League, they finished fifth during the 2019-2020 season. Moreover,
Leicester City became, thanks to its peculiar story, one of the most powerful and richest football clubs
in the world. In 2016, the club entered the Deloitte Football Money League in 20th position, with £172.1
of revenue that year.165 The next year, the club was the 14th in the world in terms of revenue.166 The story
of Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and Leicester City is one of a careful rise to the top. Srivaddhanaprabha
was loved by the fans and his players, as shown by the homage he received from both after he tragically
passed away in his helicopter’s crash in 2018. His family still owns Leicester City and intends to
continue his work.
Manchester United has certainly been the first Premier League club to exploit its full commercial
potential. During the two first decades of the new League, as the club was dominating domestic
competitions and was one of the top European clubs. The club was always in the top five of the club
with the most revenue each year. Martin Edwards, whose family had been in charge of the club since
the 1950s, was looking for a way out since the 1990s. The first interest came from Sky, the Premier
163.Ibid, p. 254-255.
164.Ibid, p. 255.
165.Boor, Samuel, Matthew Green, et al. Football Money League: Planet Football. Jan. 2017, p. 39.
166.Boor, Samuel, Chris Hanson, et al. Football Money League: Rising Stars. Jan. 2018, p. 38-39.
60
League’s broadcaster. Sky made an offer in 1998, but both fans of the club and other clubs claimed the
takeover was not legal as it could affect the fairness of the game, with Sky being the League’s
broadcaster.167 Therefore, the bid was referred to the Monopolies and Merger Commission, which put a
stop to this takeover attempt, judged unfair for the equity and integrity of English football. However,
Martin Edwards, disappointed by this failure, finally had his way out in 2005. Malcolm Glazer, an
American businessman, and owner of the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers became the majority
shareholder with 98 per cent of the shares, and took the club out of the stock market, making it private
again.168 Malcolm Glazer had started buying shares in 2003, when he acquired 2.9 per cent of the club
and had since worked to get as many shares as possible.169 He became the first of a wave of American
owners, rich businessmen owning teams in the Premier League and major sporting franchises in the
United States. For example, Stan Kroenke, Arsenal’s owner, also owns NFL’s Los Angeles Rams and
National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Denver Nuggets, and John W. Henry, the owner of Liverpool,
also owns Major League Baseball’s Boston Red Sox. However, this arrival angered the fans, as the
Glazer’s family had made a leveraged buyout to acquire the club, a technique which, in a nutshell, meant
that “United was about to be saddled with an eight-figure debt on purpose, all for the financial gain of
some American”.170 The Glazers were met with “Die Glazers, die!” chants at their first visit of Old
Trafford, the club’s stadium.171 However, the Glazer tenure as owners has not been disastrous, at least
for some years. Since their arrival, the team has won five Premier League, one FA Cup, six Community
Shields, a Champions League, and a UEFA Europa League. However, since the departure in 2013 of Sir
Alex Ferguson, who had been in charge since 1986, the club has lost its splendour. Manchester United
has failed to win any Premier League and Champions League since Sir Alex Ferguson left the club. As
of 2020, it has been seven years without a Premier League trophy for the Red Devils, an eternity for
such a club. Maybe this drought is more related to the departure of one of the game’s best ever coaches
rather than the Glazers’ mismanagement, but this would require further analysis. The club still remains
one of Europe’s top clubs, mainly thanks to the commercial part of the club, which was developed even
more under Malcolm Glazer’s era, the main positive point of his tenure as the owner. The club has never
left the top five of the clubs with the most revenue each year since his arrival. The owners have spent a
lot of money on players, breaking the world record for a transfer when they bought Paul Pogba from
Juventus Turin for approximately €105 million, showing their will to assemble a competitive squad.172
The Glazer’s tenure as owners has been mitigated, and while the club is one of the best financial powers
in football, the lack of sporting results is frustrating the club’s fans, used to titles, who saw their club
169.Ibid, p. 103.
170.Ibid, p. 104.
171.Ibid, p. 104.
172.Paul Pogba - Transfer History. https://www.transfermarkt.com/paul-pogba/transfers/spieler/122153.
61
progressively focusing on selling merchandise and attract sponsors rather than having a decent team on
the pitch.
The Premier League, by taking over the world, attracted many foreign investors willing to invest in
teams for various reasons. Owners such as Roman Abramovich, Sheik Mansour, or Vichai
Srivaddhanaprabha have taken average English clubs and helped them achieve great things both on and
off the pitch. Using different approaches, the three of them put their respective team on the map of
English football and helped develop even more the Premier League. Manchester City and Chelsea
became regular title contenders, joining the elite of English football to form the new “Big Six”. By being
more competitive, they made the Premier League more ferocious, thus attracting even more foreign
investors and paving the way for future foreign owners. However, the Glazers’ ownership of Manchester
United has been criticised despite the undeniable financial success of the team. Many other foreign
owners such as Stan Kroenke at Arsenal or John W. Henry at Liverpool could be taken as examples of
foreign owners in the Premier League. Nevertheless, as we will see later in this dissertation, foreign
owners have not always been good for the clubs they took over, and have, in some instances, wrecked
the clubs they owned, leaving them in sometimes irreversible situations.
2. Foreign investments through the example of naming.

Premier League clubs, since Mohamed Al Fayed’s takeover of Fulham in 1997, have been taken
over and bought by foreign individuals and consortiums, a change that would have seemed totally
impossible only a couple of decades before, as every professional and amateur football club was owned
by English or British personalities. As of 2020, 13 out of 20 Premier League clubs are majority-owned
by foreigners, which makes up almost the two-thirds of England’s top division.173 Some foreign
investors, seeing that most of the Premier League’s clubs were not for sale anymore because of this
wave of foreign takeovers, started looking at Championship clubs, a less expensive investment that
could, with the right investments, reach the Premier League and its riches. For example, in 2017,
Birmingham City, the second club in the city behind Aston Villa, was Chinese-owned, Millwall was
American-owned, and Nottingham Forrest was Greek-owned.174 Nevertheless, other ways to be
associated with the Premier League have been found and developed. In this part dedicated to foreign
investments, we will study how companies and brands took over the Premier League. We will see
different examples of foreign companies becoming name partners of the Premier League itself, the
domestic cups such as the FA Cup and the League Cup, but also of different Premier League club
stadiums which have changed their original names to display foreign companies’ names.
173.Article: Foreign Ownership of Premier League Clubs By Brian Beard’. My Football Facts, 30 Apr.
2020.
174.McGregor, Gregor, et al. ‘The Owners of Every Championship Club & How They Make Their
Cash’. Teesside Live, 18 Oct. 2017.
62
The Premier League has had, since its creation in 1992, different names. During the inaugural
season, 1992-1993, the new league was referred to as the FA Premier League, a name stressing the link
between this breakaway league and the Football Association, which played a preponderant role in the
establishment of the new Premier League.
Figure 17: The FA Premier League’s logo in 1992.175
The logo featured a lion and a crown, two symbols of royalty, especially in England with the
Royal Family. The lion is holding a ball under one of his paws, reminding us of what this league is
about, football. The lion is also England’s national football team symbol, as the team is wearing the
FA’s logo, which represents three lions. These three lions came, according to the Guardian, from the
12th century, when “a standard with three gold lions on a red field was carried into battle to inspire the
troops”.176 The FA, when it was established in 1863, decided to use it for its logotype.
However, as early as the second season of the Premier League, in 1993-1994, the FA Premier
League integrated for the first time a title sponsor. The 22 clubs present at the time signed a contract
with the Canadian brewery Carling which granted the beer-producing company the right to appear as a
title sponsor. The Premier League and Carling signed a deal that saw the brewery pay £12 million for
four years and the FA Premier League would become, for the length of the contract, the FA Carling
Premier League.177 This deal meant that Carling was paying £3 million a year to appear as the title
sponsor of the Premier League, which gave the brand a national exposure in the United Kingdom. Even
though Carling had always been a popular beer in England and the United Kingdom, to see it associated
with the Premier League certainly impacted some football followers, eager to drink the Premier
League’s official beer. This association worked so well that the Premier League and Carling continued
their partnership a further four years, from 1997 to 2001, this time for a reported £36 million.178 This
deal, which saw a 300 per cent increase in the sum paid by Carling compared to the amount the company
175.Retrieved from: ‘FA Premier League’. Logos Download, 5 Nov. 2017, https://logos-
download.com/19107-fa-premier-league-logo-download.html.
176.Ingle, Sean. ‘Why Do England Have Three Lions on Their Shirts?’ The Guardian, 18 July 2002.
The Guardian.
177.English Premier League Sponsors Through the Years’. Sports Ball Blog, 6 Jan. 2021.
178.Ibid.
63
offered in 1993, was a sign of common success for both the Premier League and the Canadian brewery.
Carling had arrived in 1993, a year after the beginnings of the Premier League, a moment when the
league was showing changes compared to the old Football League’s First Division, crippled with
hooliganism, and lack of safety and good content. The new positive image of the Premier League, thanks
to Sky’s broadcast and the different clubs’ efforts, attracted Carling which wanted to be associated with
this renewed image of the Premier League and English football (as seen in Figure 14). In 1997, when
Carling’s contract was expiring, Sky had already renewed its contract with the Premier League for a
reported £670 million for four years, a large increase compared to the amount offered by Sky in 1992.
This was a sign of the league’s general good state, as it had an increasing popularity and attractivity for
both fan and companies. This good atmosphere surrounding the Premier League encouraged Carling to
extend its contract with the League for an increased sum, as the brand knew being associated with an
emerging power such as the Premier League could be beneficial for their image and sales.
Figure 18: The Carling FA Premiership logo starting 1997/1998.179
This new Premier League logo saw the FA Premier League’s first logotype incorporated into a
new one where Carling’s name appeared in capital letters. Carling was the most visible element on the
logo, which gave the brand a big exposure, as the football side of the logo seemed to be put in the
background.
However, Carling and the Premier League’s partnership stopped in 2001, as the brewery was
replaced as the title sponsor by Barclays Bank. As Barclays is a British company, we are not going to
go into details of the deal it signed with the Premier League. However, for people born in the 1980s and
1990s, Barclays’ partnership with the Premier League, under the FA Barclaycard Premiership (2001-
2004), the FA Barclays Premiership or the Barclays Premier League, was certainly memorable, as the
banking company was the league’s title sponsor for more than 15 years and accompanied the League
when it reached the top. Nevertheless, the Premier League has decided, since the 2016/2017 season, to
operate without a title sponsor. This sudden change was due to the fact that the league wanted to imitate
American sports’ biggest leagues such as the NFL or the NBA, which do not feature a title sponsor to
179.Retrieved from : Limited, Alamy. Le nouveau logo de football de Carling Premiership pour la
saison 1997/8, qui a été lancé aujourd’hui (mardi). Image PA Photo Stock - Alamy.
64
have a “clean brand”.180 The Premier League has moved, like many clubs, to global partners that work
with them but do not appear on the visual name and logo of the league. For example, Carling became
the official beer partner of the Premier League in 2016, 15 years after being the title sponsor of the
league.181 They were replaced in 2019 by the American company Budweiser. Overall, the Premier
League can count on more than ten official partners and licensees, and have, for example, an official
Engine Oil partner.182
The FA, in charge of the Premier League and the FA Cup, went even further. The FA Cup, the
symbol of the essence of football, a competition where every English club, amateur or professional, can
compete, and the oldest football competition in the world, could not escape title sponsors. The FA Cup
has had title sponsors such as AXA, a French insurance company, or Capital One, an American credit
card company. Since 2015, the FA Cup has become the Emirates FA Cup, which includes the name of
Dubai’s state-owned airline.183 This was a big change for the FA Cup, as before that, the competition,
even when it had title sponsors, remained the FA Cup, and the sponsor’s name was put after its name,
with the following formula “The FA Cup sponsored by”.184 However, the FA Cup could consider itself
lucky, as the English Football League Cup saw its name disappear many times. This national cup,
created in 1960, became the first major cup competition to have a title sponsor replacing its name. In
1981, the competition became the Milk Cup as a deal was signed with the National Dairy Council.185
The cup was named after different English and British companies’ names until 1992 when the Football
League Cup became the Coca Cola Cup.186 This was ground-breaking as Coca Cola was an international
giant with an already enormous customer base. The tradition went on, with the League Cup becoming
the Carling Cup, or even the Capital One Cup. Since 2017, the Cup is named after Thai energy drink,
Carabao, and is named the Carabao Cup. This cup, which started by having local title sponsors, began
to attract many foreign companies as it beneficiated from the Premier League’s impulse. The Cup has
attracted American, Canadian, and even Thai companies that paid to be associated with this Cup,
arguably less famous and important than both the Premier League and the FA Cup, a sign of English
football’s appeal, led by the Premier League.
The Premier League and the domestic cups were not the only ones that had title sponsors. Clubs,
as seen earlier, attracted many kit and manufacturer sponsors over time, signing increasingly more
180.Sale, Charles. ‘Premier League to Be without a Title Sponsor from 2016-17 Season’. Mail Online,
4 June 2015.
181.Carling Announced as Beer Partner of the League. http://www.premierleague.com/news/60795.
182.Premier League Official Commercial Partners & Licensees.
https://www.premierleague.com/partners.
183.Emirates’ Millions or Not, This Competition Will Still Be the FA Cup’. The Independent, 29 Apr.
2015.
184.FA Cup’. Wikipédia, 5 May 2022. Wikipedia.
185.Competition History - EFL. https://www.efl.com/carabao-cup/about-the-carabao-cup/league-cup-
competition-history/.
186.Tickner, Dave. ‘League Cup Sponsors and Names Ranked from Worst To Best before Chelsea v
Liverpool Final’. Football365, 26 Feb. 2022.
65
expensive deals. They now even have many official partners, with for example Manchester United
having an official tyre partner. In addition to the LED perimeter boards, present around the pitch in
every stadium in the Premier League but also in other European Leagues, which allow many companies
paying a large amount of money to be seen on screen during games, companies found another way to
be associated with clubs. Over the years, many clubs’ stadiums changed names due to contracts signed
with title sponsors, wearing names of foreign companies which paid a decent amount to be associated
with the clubs and their stadiums. This new method for clubs to have a bigger revenue was used and
imported from American sports, where many stadiums and arenas wear a company’s name.
When Arsenal inaugurated its brand-new 60.000 seat stadium in 2006, it became, after
Sunderland’s Stadium of Light, the second entirely new stadium with more than 40.000 seats.187 David
Dein, the club’s chairman, was convinced that the club needed a bigger and better-looking new stadium,
inspired by the American super stadiums, to attract more fans and to generate more revenue.188 The club
left Highbury, which had been Arsenal’s emblematic stadium since the beginning of the 20th century. In
order to pay back the money spent on the new stadium, David Dein used once again what he had
witnessed in the United States, which was a title sponsor. In 2004, two years before Arsenal’s new
stadium was ready for use, the club signed a 15-year deal with Emirates, the actual FA Cup title sponsor,
to become the name of the stadium until 2021.189 This deal was worth £100 million over 15 years, which
would cover a quarter of the £390 million the new stadium cost.190 Emirates would also become
Arsenal’s kit sponsor later, a partnership that is still ongoing in 2020. Even though this deal with
Emirates allowed the club to have a guaranteed revenue for at least 15 years, it made the stadium lack
identity, as its sole name was a flight company’s name.
When Manchester City inherited the City of Manchester Stadium for a 250-year lease, with rent
due only if the stadium’s attendance was over 32.000, with the City of Manchester taking “half the
revenue from all tickets sold above that level”, it seemed like a pretty good deal for the club.191 The club
inherited a stadium only used during the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, and only had
to pay £20 million to make the stadium fit to welcome football games.192 With Sheik Mansour’s arrival
as the new owner, the club suddenly had more money than it never had. However, in order to generate
a bigger revenue, the club signed a sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways, which saw the company
become the title sponsor of Manchester City’s new stadium. Etihad, a United Arab Emirates flight
188.Ibid, p. 94.
189.Gibson, Owen. ‘Arsenal-Emirates Deal Worth £100m’. The Guardian, 5 Oct. 2004. The Guardian.
190.Gibson, Owen. ‘Arsenal-Emirates Deal Worth £100m’. The Guardian, 5 Oct. 2004. The Guardian,
and Robinson, Joshua, and Jonathan Clegg. The Club: How the English Premier League Became the
192.Ibid, p. 118.
66
company, signed a ten-year deal worth £400 million.193 The deal was criticised as the link between the
club’s owners, the Royal Family of the United Arab Emirates, and the flight company, was obvious.
Some clubs saw this as a way for the owner of Manchester City to invest in the club through a partner
company paying the club way too much for the naming rights of its stadium. However, it allowed Etihad
to be associated with a rising football powerhouse, as the flight company also became the kit sponsor of
Manchester City. This partnership was a win-win situation, as it gave Etihad Airways an important
exposure to expand its customer base while Manchester City gained increased revenue to develop its
team and infrastructures.
These two clubs were not the only ones to have a title sponsor in the Premier League, as this
practice became more and more regular for clubs, signing deals with foreign companies that granted
them the naming rights of their stadiums. Earlier in this dissertation, we saw the example of Brighton
and Hove Albion, which signed a deal with American Express, the American banking company. The
company was granted the naming rights of the stadium, which became the Amex Stadium as part of the
contract binding the two parts. Furthermore, Leicester City, owned by the King Power Group, a Thai
company, has seen its stadium renamed the King Power Stadium since the arrival of the
Srivaddhanaprabha family. The naming business is not restricted to foreign companies and investors, as
Newcastle’s St James Park was renamed the SportsDirect.com@ St. James’ Park Stadium, including the
name of the British retailing company owned by Mike Ashley, which also happens to be Newcastle’s
owner.194 Stoke City’s stadium, the Britannia Stadium, became the bet365 Stadium after the club signed
a deal with the British betting company.195 Even though some clubs have signed some decent contracts
for the naming rights of their stadium, it is reported that it remains a commercial field that the Premier
League has not fully exploited.196 As of 2019, Manchester United’s Old Trafford was reportedly the
stadium earning its club the most in terms of naming rights while not having a title sponsor. Furthermore,
only 30 per cent of the Premier League clubs have a stadium naming sponsor, while the NFL, the league
from which the Premier League learned the most, sees 80 per cent of its teams having a stadium naming
sponsor.197
Foreign companies willing to invest in the Premier League, a highly marketable product, found
over the year new ways of being associated with the league and its clubs. From the naming of the
Premier League in itself, the naming of domestic cups and Premier League clubs’ stadiums, countless
foreign companies coming from all over the world enjoyed growing exposure. They were seen by more
and more people coming from various parts of the world who positively associated them with the
193.Garner-Purkis, Zak. ‘Manchester City’s Infamous 10-Year Deal Enters Its Final Chapter’. Forbes.
195.Ibid, p. 116.
196.‘Premier League Clubs “Fail to Cash in on Stadium Rights”’. BBC News, 20 May 2019.
197. Ibid.
67
Premier League and its clubs. For the clubs and the League, these deals for various naming rights
allowed them to get a bigger revenue each year. This helped both the Premier League and its clubs to
develop the product, which became even better and attracted even more fans and companies from even
more countries and continents.
3. The Premier League taken over by foreign players and coaches: the key
for greater success.
Premier League clubs’ economic success was, as seen earlier, combined with success on the pitch.
On the European stage, from 1992 to 2020, English clubs won five out of the 28 UEFA Champions
League that took place, which is the second-highest total in that period behind Spanish teams, led by
their two giants FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.198 Furthermore, at the end of the 2019-2020 season,
English football clubs were ranked second in the association club coefficient of the UEFA, a coefficient
“based on the results of each association's clubs in the five previous UEFA Champions League and
UEFA Europa League seasons”.199 The Premier League clubs were first in this ranking from the 2007-
2008 season to the 2011-2012 season and have left the top two positions of the rankings only four times
since its implementation in the 2002-2003 season. This success on the biggest continental stage has
been able thanks to the clubs’ wealth, which allowed them to buy and acquire the best players in the
world. However, one player’s destiny changed football forever and gave the richest clubs, including the
English ones, the possibility to attract most of the best foreign players in their league.
During the 1992-1993 season, 54 foreign players (non-English, Irish, Northern Irish, Scottish, or
Welsh) were present in the 22 Premier League clubs, with players coming from Zimbabwe, Trinidad
and Tobago, and Israel for example.200 The Premier League’s 22 squads had in total 603 players,
meaning that foreign players made up approximately 8.9 per cent of the players present in the Premier
League. This number, which seems pretty low, was the result of strict regulations by the UEFA on the
number of foreign players that could play for a team, as well as further regulations in the United
Kingdom. English football had never been too kind towards foreign players coming to their teams to
replace local talents. As early as 1931, a rule was established forcing a foreign player wanting to play
for an English team to have been a resident in the United Kingdom for at least two years before being
able to play for that team.201 This rule lasted until it was ruled illegal during a meeting of the European
Community in 1978, which put an end to 47 years of a rule limiting foreigners in the Football League.202
198.‘Champions League Final: Full List of All UCL and European Cup Winners as Chelsea Look to
Defend Title’. CBSSports.Com.
199.UEFA.com. ‘How Association Club Coefficients Are Calculated’. UEFA.Com, 1 July 2018.
201.Foreign Players In Football - History and Future of Foreign Players in the English Game | Football-
Stadiums.Co.Uk.
202.Ibid.
68
However, the UEFA, European football’s reigning body, pushed by smaller European leagues,
implemented the “three plus two” rule. This rule meant that for each game a team played in Europe, the
squad could not have more than five foreign players, and two of them had to be from the club’s academy
(where young players develop their skills from a young age).203 Furthermore, in 1994, the UEFA took a
decision that bothered the Premier League clubs. In European contests, Welsh and Scottish players, part
of Great Britain, were now considered foreigners to whom the “three plus two” rule applied.204 These
limitations made by the UEFA aimed at keeping a competitive balance between the different European
clubs and leagues. A club could sign the number of foreign players that it wished, but some of them
would not be able to be in the squad. This rule meant that the players would most likely stay in their
home league, as they would not risk signing with a club where they were only guaranteed playing time
if they were part of the team’s best players. The choice was the same for foreign clubs, which would
most likely not pay a transfer fee and a salary to a foreign player if they were not sure to use him.
Therefore, the richest leagues and players could not buy every good foreign player from foreign leagues
and had to develop their homegrown players. The countries and leagues that had breeding grounds could
compete with the best teams from the best leagues, as they had talent they did not have to pay for. This
kept a balance between the wealthiest and the poorest teams and leagues.
However, one player’s fight against the institution was about to change footballers’ and clubs’
destinies. Jean-Marc Bosman was a Belgian football player for Royal Football Club Liege. In the
summer of 1990, as his contract with Liège ran out, the young player had an agreement with Dunkirk, a
French second division club.205 This is when Jean-Marc Bosman and European football’s destiny
changed. At that time, players signing with a club had to give their registration, which allowed them to
play professional football, to the club. When the contract binding the player to the club was over, the
club kept the registration, meaning that the player was not free to leave for another club. 206 If a club
wanted to have the player under contract, it needed to “buy” his registration from the club where he
played, even though he was out of contract. This gave clubs a great control over the players, as they
simply had to refuse the interested club’s bid to buy the registration, and force the player to sign a new
contract with them under their terms.207 If the player refused, he was simply forced to retire from
football, as the club kept his registration. This was a very controversial way of working, as players had
little control over their careers. This system had been a bit different in England since 1978, as a player
was then free to move at the end of his contract. The club where he was going to had to pay the club he
left even if he was out of contract, but if the amount was not considered enough by the club the player
203.‘How the Bosman Rule Changed Football - 20 Years On’. Sky Sports.
204.Ibid.
207.Ibid, p. 174.
69
was leaving, the price was decided by a football tribunal, which did not leave the player in a dead-end.208
This is precisely what happened to Jean-Marc Bosman. His club, Liege, refused to ratify his transfer to
Dunkirk while he was out of contract with them, and offered him a new contract with a large pay cut.
This scenario had certainly happened before, but Jean-Marc Bosman decided to fight against what he
saw as an injustice. His case was judged by a local court, which ruled illegal what Liege had done to
him, allowing him to join Dunkirk. After an appeal, the decision was confirmed in 1991, and the appeals
court “asked the European Court to analyse the transfer system under competition articles 85 and 86 of
the EC Treaty. But in addition, they also asked the court to rule on the “three plus two” rule and whether
this violated the free movement of workers across the EU under article 48 of the treaty”.209 The European
Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled the case five years later, in 1996. The Court declared that European
players, under the freedom of workers across the European Union, were free to play wherever they
wanted, thus putting an end to the “three plus two” rule. The Court also ruled that a player at the end of
his contract was free to sign where he wanted and did not need his former club to ratify his transfer nor
to receive any sum of money. This Bosman ruling was ground-breaking. It benefited the players, as they
were able to move wherever they wanted and ask for larger wages. If a club wanted to keep a player at
the end of his contract, it had to offer him a new contract on his terms, because if the offer did not please
him, he could simply sign with another club that would be ready to give him the contract he wanted.
This marked the beginning of the shift of power from the clubs to the players.
Nevertheless, it also altered the competitive balance between the richest clubs and leagues and the
modest ones. Now, the big wealthy clubs could have as many foreigners in their teams as they wanted,
as they did not have a quota anymore. Furthermore, they could wait for a player’s contract to run out
and offer him a bigger one, and since they did not have to pay a transfer fee anymore, they could offer
even bigger contracts to the players they wanted. The Bosman ruling in 1996 coincided with Sky
offering £670 million to the Premier League to broadcast their games from 1997 to 2001. The clubs,
having a renewed image and more money than they ever had, seized this golden opportunity to sign
more and better foreign players. Some very good foreign players such as Eric Cantona or John Jensen,
European champion with Denmark in 1992, were already in the Premier League as of 1992, but the
Bosman ruling and the rising popularity and appeal of the Premier League allowed the world’s most
talented players to join the league and propel it to the next level.
On the Boxing Day 1999, a starting eleven was lined up without any English nor British players
for the first time in the history of the Premier League and English football.210 Against Southampton,
Chelsea lined up Spanish, Dutch, French, Brazilian, Nigerian, Romanian, Italian, Uruguayan, and
209.Ibid, p. 138.
70
Norwegian players. This event that happened merely three years after the Bosman ruling showed its
immediate impact on English football. When Manchester United won its first-ever Premier League era
Champions League in 1999, its starting-eleven was made of five non-British players, none of them being
from the club’s academy. This event would have been impossible only a few years back. The winning
goal was scored by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, a Norwegian striker who came on as the sixth foreign player
in the squad that night. Only a few years later, when Liverpool beat AC Milan in the 2005 Champions
League final, its starting eleven was made of eight foreigners, with a further six starting on the bench.
We could go on for hours. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 season, 287 players came from outside
the British Isle, with clubs such as Arsenal having 27 foreigners and only six players eligible to play for
England.211 Out of the 618 players in the Premier League at the beginning of that season, foreign players
represented approximately 46 per cent of the league. Even though there were 20 clubs and not 22 since
the 1995-1996 season, both the number of players and foreign players had increased. A team like Arsenal
had, during the 2011-2012 season, more French players (7) than English ones (6).212 Foreigners have
left their mark in the Premier League. At Arsenal, for example, Thierry Henry the French striker is
considered by fans as being the best player in their history. The all-time top ten goal scorers of the
Premier League features two foreigners with Thierry Henry in seventh position and Sergio Aguero in
fourth, and the top ten of assist providers features four foreigners.213
The Bosman ruling certainly occurred at the right time for the Premier League. English football
was always reticent to let foreigners join its leagues but it is the country’s presence in the European
Union that forced a change. Without the European Union, it is hard to say whether the Bosman ruling
would have happened and applied to England. However, it happened when the Premier League was
rising, and its clubs started to have the fame and money needed to attract foreigners now in charge of
their future. As these foreigners arrived, they helped the Premier League clubs achieve better results,
and as the clubs grew richer thanks to their commercialisation and the ever-growing TV rights, which
resulted from the good state of English both on and off the ground, they were able to attract more and
more world-class foreign players. Nevertheless, we might wonder about the impact of these foreigners
on English football. As of 2016, according to the very serious Football Observatory, the English Premier
League was the European league with the biggest share of foreign players.
212.Ibid, p. 365-366.
213.Premier League Club Records, All-Time Team & Player Stats.
71
Figure 19: Percentage of foreign players by league in Europe as of 2016.214
This meant that English players had competition and were not guaranteed a place in their teams’
squads anymore. When we see England’s national team’s drought since the 1966 World Cup victory,
which seems unreal for the country that invented and codified football, we might wonder whether clubs
should rely more on homegrown talents. To encourage the clubs in doing so, the Homegrown Player
Rule has been implemented since 2014. This rule forces Premier League clubs to register eight
homegrown players out of a squad of 25 players. Their definition of a homegrown player is as follows:
“A Home Grown player will be defined as one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been
registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for
a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of
the season during which he turns 21)”.215 The English FA has also tried to limit the number of non-
European players in the Premier League. With the Home Office, they worked as soon as 2012 to make
it harder for non-European footballers to be granted a work permit.216 Furthermore, with the United
Kingdom leaving the European Union in 2020, we might wonder what will happen with the foreign
European players of the league, even though it seems unlikely that the clubs, relying heavily on foreign
talent, will agree to come back to a limit similar to the one in place before the Bosman ruling.
Foreign players have not been the only actors of the “beautiful game” to take over the Premier
League. Since the 1990s, foreign coaches have joined the biggest football league in the world and led
their teams to success. As for the players, we will consider Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish as
non-foreigners to make it clearer. The first foreign coach in the Premier League’s history was Osvaldo
Ardiles, an Argentinian who coached Tottenham for two seasons.217 After him, the number of foreign
214.Retrieved from: Poli, Raffaele, et al. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report: Issue No. 12 -
February 2016: Foreign Players in Football Teams. 12, Feb. 2016, p. 6.
215.Rapp, Timothy. ‘Premier League Homegrown Rules: Explaining EPL Player Quotas’. Bleacher
Report.
216.Delayed Entry: The FA’s “Highest Calibre” Standard for Non-EU Footballers - LawInSport.
217.Premier League - Foreign Coaches. https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-
league/auslaendischetrainer/wettbewerb/GB1.
72
coaches grew each year. The Premier League welcomed coaches who left their mark in the league and
Europe such as Arsène Wenger at Arsenal, José Mourinho at Chelsea and Manchester United, Pep
Guardiola at Manchester City, or Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool. In 1998, only two years after he arrived in
London, Arsène Wenger became the first foreign manager to win the Premier League. His technique
was clear, he changed the way his players trained, ate, slept, and played on the pitch. English players,
used to the tradition of drinking beer and eating steak and candy bars were not acting like professionals
in their approach to football.218 Arsène Wenger was the first coach to shift the culture of English football
and contributed to the success of his club, which had not won a first division title since the 1950s. But
he also contributed to the success of the league, which followed the path he had traced with Arsenal.
The Premier League then saw the best foreign coaches coming to their clubs, such as José Mourinho
who arrived in 2004 at Chelsea after having won the Champions League with Porto, a Portuguese club.
Other coaches such as Carlo Ancelotti and Claudio Ranieri the Italians or Rafael Benitez the Spanish
would come and have great success. From 1992 to 2020, not a single English coach won the Premier
League. The British can thank Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Kenny Dalglish, the two Scottish coaches
winning respectively 13 Premier League titles with Manchester United and one Premier League title
with Blackburn. Every other Premier League title has been won by a foreign coach, showing their
presence and skills in the Premier League. José Mourinho won three titles with Chelsea, Arsène Wenger
two with Arsenal. Manchester City was led by Manuel Pellegrini, a Chilian, for their first title, and by
Pep Guardiola, a Spanish, for the two others. Leicester City was led by Claudio Ranieri, an Italian, when
they surprised the “Big Six” to win their first-ever Premier League title, and Liverpool can thank Jurgen
Klopp, their German coach, who brought the club its first Premier League title in 2020. On the European
scene, Rafael Benitez, a Spanish coach, won the 2005 edition of the Champions League with Liverpool,
while Carlo Ancelotti offered Chelsea and Roman Abramovich their first-ever Champions League in
2012. Of the five Premier League sides that won a Champions League between 1992 and 2020, three
were coached by foreign coaches.
These foreign coaches, led by Arsène Wenger, added quality to the Premier League and shifted
the culture. The number of foreign coaches in the Premier League is growing each year. Winning the
Premier League or qualifying for the Champions League is in itself a real challenge, and clubs count on
foreign coaches, seen as better than local ones, to achieve their goals. These coaches have been
dominating the Premier League and allowed their clubs to shine on the continental scene as we just saw.
This is what Alan Pardew, English Premier League coach, thinks about the foreign coaches and players:
“The influence of the foreign manager, the foreign player, on coaching and playing in this country cannot
be under-estimated. I genuinely think that foreign managers have been the biggest influence in the last
20 years of the Premier League, in terms of getting into football clubs and changing the culture and the
73
thinking”.219 One thing is sure, the massive arrival of foreign coaches and foreign players in the Premier
League helped its club to take it to the next level and achieve big success in domestic and European
contests. When we mention the rise of the Premier League and its establishment as the most powerful
and richest football league in the world, we simply cannot forget how important these foreign actors
have been in the development and the betterment of football in England.
To conclude this part about how the English Premier League became the world’s richest and
most powerful football league, we are going to look through some graphs aiming at showing the upsurge
of the Premier League.
Figure 20: Revenue growth of the “big five” European leagues in 1996-1997 and from 2001/02 to
2010/11.220
This graph clearly shows how, in a matter of years, the Premier League became the league
generating the most revenue by far. In 1992, the league only generated £170 million, and in 1996-1997,
the year of the £670 million contract with Sky, the Premier League was already the league generating
the most revenue, but only by a small margin. However, as soon as 2001/02, this gap increased
220.Retrieved from: Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate
the World. Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 372.
74
drastically. Ever since, the other European leagues have struggled to catch up with the Premier League,
which always keeps, as of 2011/2012, a €700 million gap with its nearest competition, the Bundesliga,
Germany’s first division. As of 2020, this gap, stabilised for some time, has deepened, as shown by the
graph below.
Figure 21: Big Five European league clubs’ revenue in 2019-2020.221
In only eight years, the Premier League clubs doubled their revenues and increased the gap with
the second league with the most revenue to almost €2 billion, creating an enormous gap between them
and the rest of European football. The Premier League is first in every stream of revenue, and its clubs
are averaging revenue of €257 million a season, which is more than the total revenue of the league when
it launched in 1992.
The story of the Premier League sounds like a fairy tale. Criticised when it was launched, the
League was able to shift the momentum of English football. Hooliganism, abandoned and dilapidated
stadiums, low attendance figures, and TV blackout, all became vague souvenirs as the Premier League
rose to the top. The Taylor Report, Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, as well as the commitment
of clubs owned and led by a new wave of businessmen all played a part in the early rise of the Premier
League. New stadiums with renovated stands, a way more engaging broadcast, and a fun and healthy
atmosphere helped the Premier League conquer the local market as early as 1996, convincing Sky to
triple its investment to broadcast the Premier League. At the same time, Premier League clubs and their
221.Retrieved from: Ajadi, Theo, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2021: Riding the Challenge.
July 2021, p. 14.
75
chairmen started to conquer the world. The success on the pitch was followed by a popularity football
had rarely seen before. Charismatic players became more than footballers and were perceived by the
general audience as stars. The expansion of the Premier League’s broadcast overseas and the quality of
the football, helped by the first foreign arrivals following the Bosman ruling allowed clubs to attract
investors. The clubs, helped by manufacturers, produced more and more goods to sell to an ever-growing
fan base that started to extend to other continents such as Asia and America. The Premier League also
had perfect timing, as it appeared during the early days of globalisation, allowing countries from
different parts of the world to be in contact with each other. The businessmen that took over the clubs
knew that and took advantage of the situation, sending their teams for pre-season tours overseas. Once
the engine started, nothing was able to stop the Premier League, which became pretty quickly football’s
reference in terms of success on and off the pitch. Money, fame, and results kept coming, and as of 2020,
nearly 30 years after its beginning, the Premier League has conquered the world and is the most powerful
and richest football league in the world. In its rise, the league could count on foreign help, with investors,
owners, players, and coaches giving more exposure, money, and talent to the Premier League and its
clubs. This foreign impulse helped the Premier League and its clubs to be even more powerful.
The Premier League is engaged in what looks like an ever-lasting growth, and the positive
publicity around it makes it look like the league is perfect and that everyone benefits from this system.
However, this is far from true. Domestic fans and lower league teams are suffering from the situation.
As we are going to discover in the second part of this dissertation, the Premier League also has negative
sides that are not shown on TV or talked about in the newspapers, and is certainly the reflection of what
football has become in the 21st century.
76
II. The expansion and internationalisation of the Premier League: a dramatic change for
domestic fans?
In just over three decades, the English Premier League became the most powerful and richest
football league in the world. It is, as of 2020, the League with the biggest broadcasting contract in both
its home country and abroad. It is also the League generating the most revenue, with eight of its 20 clubs
featuring in the top 20 clubs with the most revenue as of 2019.222 In total, the Premier League clubs
represent more than a third of the clubs generating the most revenue (11 out of 30) in 2019, a sign of the
league’s superiority in economic matters. However, the power and influence of the Premier League have
attracted politics inside of English football. Football, because of its expansion, has now become a place
where money, power, and status collide. These elements mean that football has become a place where
“there is going to be a struggle over who makes the rules, who gets the loot and who takes the glory”.223
The problem that emerged with the new status of the Premier League is that it attracted people who were
interested in the status they could have, the money they could get, the power they could obtain, or in
some cases the three of them. In such context, the clubs and the FA started to drift away from the people,
as they became more interested in the political and economic aspects of the game. Each club wanted to
earn more money each year, and the fans paid the price of it, with everything surrounding football
becoming more and more expensive. The fans and their clubs started to distance themselves from each
other, as their goals and views on the game started to differ. In some cases, it created irreparable damages
to the club-fan relationship, with some clubs being mismanaged and fans protesting against it. This is
the other tale of the Premier League, the one that is hidden under the carpet.
a. Football: a popular sport that became more and more expensive over the years.
Football had been, ever since the 1880s, a popular sport dominated by the working class. It was
a place where the workers could spend time together outside the monotony of industries. However, the
advent of the Premier League and the money it generated changed English football’s economics.
Football, after being called a “slum sport” watched by “slum people” in the 1980s, became fashionable
and attractive as soon as the Premier League started. Its success brought more and more local and
international followers and the clubs and the broadcasters started to exploit their economic potential,
trying to see how far they could go before the majority of the fans started complaining.
222.Ajadi, Théo, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 3.
Books, 2015, p. 249.
77
1. Inflation of match and season tickets.
To watch a game of his favourite team, a fan needs a ticket at each game. This ticket can be bought
from the stadium’s ticket office, or more recently from the club’s online ticket office, which requires, in
England, the fan to have a membership card of the club he wants a ticket from. This membership card,
costing between £25 and £50 for the season, depending on the club, gives the fan access to the general
sale of tickets. However, even when you have the membership card, buying tickets to the biggest games
of the season, for example against the likes of Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester United, requires the
fan to have a certain number of points on his membership card. It works like a fidelity card. The more
you spend, the more you get points and the biggest price you get. However, unlike the classic fidelity
card, you will still pay full price for the biggest reward. The season ticket, however, allows the fan to
watch every home game of his favourite team, a good alternative for people able to be there at each
game. This is how, as of 2020, the football ticket business works in the Premier League, an important
context for this part.
To know how much cost a ticket for a First Division game before the Premier League, I asked Robert
Owensmith, one of my interviewees, if he remembered the price of the first ticket he bought: “I
remember, you know, quite frankly, it was never that cheap at Chelsea, because Chelsea was a
fashionable club back in the 60s and 70s. They were the Kings of Kings Road. It was the most
fashionable club in England, so the tickets, relatively speaking were at £1 or £2.” This kind of price
seems pretty low, but we have to keep in mind that the £1 or £2 Robert Owensmith paid were not worth
the same as they would today. According to the inflation calculator of the Bank of England, the £1 he
paid at the end of the 1960s would be worth £11.21 today with inflation.224 This means that, if the prices
had kept in line with inflation, Robert Owensmith would pay approximately £11 in 2020 for a ticket for
one of Chelsea’s home games. David Conn, a journalist, and specialist of the Hillsborough disaster,
remembered paying £3 in 1981 to see his team, Manchester City, play at Maine Road.225 If we take the
£1 Robert Owensmith paid at the end of the 1960s for his ticket as the benchmark, David Conn should
have paid £3.72, or £4 if we round-up, in 1981, if prices kept in line with inflation. However, as Robert
Owensmith mentioned, at the time he went to Stamford Bridge to see Chelsea, the team was quite
fashionable. A team’s location and success are important factors when we consider the price of a ticket.
Chelsea has always been a very fashionable and rich neighbourhood of London, while Manchester, as
of 1981, was an industrial city going through an unemployment crisis. This has an impact on the price
a club will charge its fans. For example, Manchester United’s most expensive ticket was worth 62.5p at
the end of the 1960s, while Robert Owensmith paid between £1 and £2 in the same period.226 As of
224.Inflation Calculator 1949-2021. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-

policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
226.Www.Red11. Org - Ticket Prices Since 1960. https://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/prices.htm.
78
1980-1981, the most expensive Manchester United ticket was sold for £3.20, a similar price to the one
David Conn paid the same year for a game of their rivals.
At the end of the 1980s, just before the implementation of the provisions of the Taylor Report, the
prices had not gone up too much. For example, the average price at Manchester United for the 1989-
1990 season was £4.71, while it was £6.71 at Arsenal’s Highbury.227 However, the first event that
changed the trajectory of the football ticket prices was the Hillsborough disaster. The aftermath of this
catastrophe, where 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives, saw the publication of the Taylor Report on what
had happened on the 26th of April 1989. The Taylor Report, published in 1990, recommended the end
of fencing and terraces which were stands in the stadium where the fans were not seated but standing.
Immediately after the Report, the Government made the standing areas illegal, and the clubs had until
the 1994-1995 season to make the necessary works to have all-seaters stadiums. However, the cost of
the renovation and rebuilding works for the clubs was believed to be between £120 million and £200
million.228 However, because the government knew the bad economic situation of English football, it
gave the clubs public money by “a reduction in the tax on football pools and diverting the money into a
fund operated by the Football Trust”.229 In total, the Football Trust granted more than £80 million to
help the different clubs renovate their stadiums and stands. The Taylor Report also mentioned that this
transition to all-seater stadiums should not in any case allow the clubs to raise the ticket prices, as they
were helped in part by public money to finance the works. However, most of the clubs, which lost a lot
of capacity due to this transition, did not respect the Taylor Report’s recommendations.
A club like Arsenal went from a maximum capacity of 55.000 to 36.000, losing 20.000 seats because
of the end of the standing areas.230 To finance the renovations that would see the club lose a third of its
attendance, Arsenal transgressed the Taylor Report. In 1991, the club was looking to rebuild one of its
stands, the North Bank, to respect the recommendations of the Taylor Report. While the club received
money from the Football Trust to make the necessary work to renovate the stand, it directly asked the
fans for money. The fans were asked to buy bonds, costing between £1.100 and £1.500, in order to help
the club to renovate the stand. The bonds the fans bought would entitle them to purchase season tickets
for the next seasons. This bond scheme was criticised, and the club came up with a new scheme, which
saw the bondholder be able to purchase a season ticket for nine years with inflation-only price rises.
This system basically meant that the fans were paying a large amount of money to have the priority to
buy a season ticket. It was like a nine-year membership card costing more than £1.000, and you still had
to pay for your season ticket each year. This was clearly an abuse from Arsenal and its board of directors.
Some fans created the Independent Arsenal Supporters Association (IASA) to protest against the bond
227.Conn, David. The Beautiful Game? Searching for the Soul of Football. 2010, p. 62, p. 338.
229.Ibid, p. 82.
79
scheme but were largely ignored by the club, which managed to sell thousands of these bonds. The
scheme had worked so well that the club decided to use it again in 2003 to finance its new stadium. This
time, fans were asked to pay £5.000 for the privilege to be in front of the queue to buy a season ticket.
However, this time, the season ticket was to pay in full, making the deal even less interesting for the
fans. The club still managed to sell thousands of bonds, earning millions of pounds that would help
finance the club’s new stadium. The fact that this scheme was relaunched ten years after the original
one, which was contested by many fans, shows how little the clubs cared for their fans, something the
Taylor Report pointed out, stating that it was “legitimate to wonder whether the directors are genuinely
interested in the welfare of their grass-roots supporters” and suggesting that “those involved are more
interested in personal financial benefits or the social status of being a director than in directing the club
in the interests of supporter customers”.231
During the 1990s, season and game tickets’ prices soared, as the clubs, which were renovating their
stadiums, used this as a pretext to raise the price, but also because of the new Premier League, which
attracted many new fans in the new stadiums, more welcoming with a safe and fun atmosphere. The
difference with the 1980s, when the Football League faced many problems that led to the lowest
attendance in the game’s history, was also used as an excuse by the clubs, who raised the prices as the
content was arguably way better and safer than in the 1980s. It is reported that in 1995, only three years
after the beginning of the Premier League, which was also the deadline year for clubs to have all-seater
stadiums, “the tickets cost roughly six times more than they did twenty years previously, even after
inflation had been taken into account”.232 A club like Manchester United, which was very popular and
successful in the early days of the Premier League, had increased its prices. The most expensive season
ticket in 1989-1990, just before the Taylor Report, cost £134, while in 1994-1995, it cost £320.233 The
price had doubled, and it was the same for the cheapest sitting ticket, which went from £4.50 in 1990 to
£10 in 1995. The owners justified these new prices by mentioning the players’ wages and the show on
the pitch. Ken Bates, Chelsea’s owner until 2003, declared “If you want five-star football it doesn’t
come cheap”, to which he added, “somebody’s got to pay and it’s going to be you” referring to the
fans.234 This would be the clubs’ way of doing in the Premier League: spending a lot on new players and
infrastructures, and instead of the owners injecting money to pay for it, the fans would pay the bills for
them. Ken Bates was one of the owners charging the most his fans, as Chelsea is known to have made
the season ticket cost more than £1.000 as early as 1999, the first club to do so. This was already
worrying, but the last years of the 1990s saw an even bigger increase in ticket prices. A survey showed
that “by the start of the 2001-2002 season ticket price had more than doubled in the second five years
of the Premiership decade, with the most expensive tickets – reaching £70 for an individual seat – on
232.Ibid, p. 82.
233.Www.Red11.Org - Ticket Prices Since 1960. https://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/prices.htm.
80
sale at Newcastle United’s refurbished leisure complex”.235 The average price of a Premier League ticket
in 2001-2002 was £25, while only 12 years before that, a Manchester United ticket cost on average
£4.71, meaning that on average, the ticket cost had been multiplied by five in 12 years. And this was
only the beginning.
As of 2011, two decades after the Taylor Report and the beginning of the Premier League, the
increase in ticket prices had not stopped. We might think that 20 years after having renovated their
stadiums, and with the enormous amount the clubs started to earn through broadcasting deals,
sponsorship and merchandising, the clubs could afford to decrease the price of tickets for their fans.
Apparently not, as the contrary happened. As of 2011, the cheapest ticket at Manchester United’s Old
Trafford cost £28, which was more than the average cost of a Premier League ticket in 2001. According
to David Conn, in 1990, the cheapest Manchester United ticket cost £3.50, and it should have, with
inflation, cost £6.20 to the fans in 2011.236 This represented inflation of 700 per cent, showing that the
clubs only looked to grab as much money as they could. The same thing happened to the season tickets.
The cheapest season ticket for Manchester United cost £96 in 1989, and if the price kept in line with
inflation, it should have cost £170 in 2011. However, the cheapest season ticket that year cost £532,
which represented a real rate of inflation of over 300 per cent. It was the same for Liverpool, whose
cheapest season ticket had witnessed a real rate of inflation of over 500 per cent, costing £725. From
2011 to 2015, the average price of the cheapest season ticket had risen by 20 per cent, from £25.56 to
£30.68.237 The average cost of the most expensive ticket also rose to £56.63, a 12 per cent increase
compared to 2011. Even more worrying was the price of the most expensive game ticket, sold at £97 by
Arsenal, a club where fans could watch a game for an average of £6.71 in 1990. From 2015 to 2020, the
cheapest season ticket went from £299 (Manchester City) to £340 (Fulham), but we can, however, notice
a freeze in the most expensive season ticket, with clubs such as Chelsea, Manchester City, Tottenham,
or Manchester United choosing not to increase their top price for a season ticket, which remains way
more expensive than it should be.238 However, Arsenal which already had the most expensive season
ticket in 2015, costing £2.013, increased this price to £2.755 in 2020.
This price increase, with the cheapest tickets going from around 50p in 1980 to more than £25 in
2020, left some of the fans in difficult situations. This increase modified the public in attendance in the
stadium. As of 1990, the crowd had “a stable class structure of around two-thirds middle class and one-
third working class” which predated the Premiership.239 This meant that as early as 1990, the football
235.Ibid, p. 329.
236.Conn, David. ‘The Premier League Has Priced out Fans, Young and Old’. The Guardian, 16 Aug.
2011.
237.‘The Price of Football Five Years On’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com.
238.Premier League Season Ticket Prices 2020/21 Comparison.
https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/sport/football/season-ticket-prices.html.
Books, 2015, p. 60.
81
crowds had already started shifting from a working-class majority to a middle and upper-middle-class
majority. However, the new Premier League and its economics accentuated this shift. In 2007, 70 per
cent of the crowds were upper-middle-class and middle-class, while approximately ten per cent were
semi-skilled working-class, meaning the industry workers that made up the majority of crowds for a
long time where now a minority pushed out of the stadiums. As, since 2007, the prices kept increasing,
it is certain that the proportion of working-class fans kept decreasing.
I asked my interviewees whether they thought the clubs were pricing out their more modest fans,
who could not afford to buy tickets anymore. Robert Owensmith mentioned the sacrifices some fans
make to follow their teams: “I think people on a modest income in England now have to choose between
whether they heat their house or feed their children. So obviously football is a luxury you know.” This
is very interesting, as football has not been the only area where costs have increased. The cost of living
is always increasing, and football fans may have to choose between going to the stadium or going on a
family trip for example. While football used to be an everyday-life activity, it has become a luxury for
the most modest fans. When I asked the same question to Suibhne Blaix, he mentioned an interesting
idea to help the ticket prices decrease: “I know there are different price ranges according to where you
are in the stadium. If they were allowed to bring the terraces back, even though I see why they can’t, it
could be a solution for those of modern revenue. The clubs see each seat as money coming in.” The
standing areas were ruled illegal after the Taylor Report of 1990, and their end was one of the reasons
why the prices increased drastically. However, we might argue that, with renovated and sometimes
brand-new stadiums, a strict ban on hooligans, and a scheme with membership cards making that each
fan holding a ticket is identified, reintroducing standing areas might be a good solution for the fans to
have tickets at a decreased price. It is the case already in France, with the Racing Club de Lens having
standing areas in Bollaert, their stadium. However, it might not be in the best interest of clubs, which
would have to make work in some areas of the stadium, and would have to reduce their prices.
David Burrows, while acknowledging the very high prices of football tickets, mentioned the supply
and demand.
The problem we have is people keep going to the stadiums and the stadiums are full. As long as
the stadiums are full, the prices will never drop. This is the whole problem. The supporters
dictate how much the clubs charge, so if you see a small decline in the number of people going
to the football matches, then maybe they have to think about slightly reducing. And maybe
there's the fact that maybe if some of the local fans don't go anymore, there will always be some
foreign fans that want to come in. All right, well I want to just point out as well, if you remember,
the World Cup in South Africa. Where it was, it was great seeing the World Cup go to Africa. I
think that's absolutely fantastic, but unfortunately, a lot of the local people could never see a
match because of the price of the tickets for the people to pay. So, the argument, the debate, is
should it have gone to South Africa, OK? Are the stadiums being used today after the World
Cup in South Africa? Or what are they being used for? So that's unfortunate that happened. But
as long as there's a demand for football the prices will not go down.
82
These comments by David Burrows highlight a sad reality. As of today, there is more demand
for football tickets than offer, so the prices can only go up. The Premier League’s popularity makes
everyone want to see games, even people who do not necessarily follow football or foreigners who take
the trip to England in order to watch their team. Some fans who cannot find tickets are ready to pay
double the price on resale websites or even to buy directly from people outside the stadiums, even though
they risk getting scammed. For the season tickets, most clubs have a queue. Clubs such as Manchester
United have 120.000 people on their waiting list, while Liverpool’s season ticket queue is closed since
2011, proof of the enormous demand for Premier League tickets despite the price.240 The fans’ loyalty
is also why the prices keep increasing. Some fans are ready to sacrifice other aspects of their life to go
to the stadium and support their team, and even when some protest, as long as the majority remains
silent, the clubs do not listen. It is precisely what happened at Arsenal with the bond scheme, when some
fans of the IASA contested the club’s decision, but were ignored as other fans remained silent and bought
these bonds even though they were only profitable for the clubs. David Goldblatt summarised the
situation pretty well.
The demand for football tickets proved to be remarkably price inelastic. Clubs raised prices in
every market segment and have found, overall, that demand increased rather than decreased. In
part this happened because the new football has been able to replace older, less affluent fans that
wouldn’t pay the new prices with new more affluent punters that would. In part it happens
because many fans are, for a complex mix of personal pleasure, obsessions and notions of
loyalty, ready to pay more whether they can afford it or not. They are not exactly a hard market
to work with.241
As we stated, blind love and adoration for their clubs mean that some fans are willing to do
basically everything for the “good” of their team. As long as football fans, who are the ones making
football live, will not unite and say that what is happening is too much, the clubs and the Premier League
will not listen and they will continue to extort them.
The increase in the season and game ticket prices is incontestable. The prices are exorbitant and
many modest fans have been priced out of the Premier League stadiums. The gentrification of the crowd,
which started in the 1980s, has been accentuated by this increase in the price of tickets. The Taylor
Report’s recommendations were not followed, and the clubs used the excuse of the cost of the
renovations, and then the players’ wages and quality of the games to raise the prices without being
blamed by the fans. The result is a crowd increasingly upper middle class, with fewer and fewer young
fans, who cannot afford to buy tickets. However, the stadiums are still full, as the Premier League had,
in 2019, the highest occupancy rate of the five biggest European leagues (the French, Spanish, German,
Italian, and English leagues), with 96.6 per cent of capacity, a small decrease from 2017-2018 and 2018-
240.‘Waiting List Times for Premier League Season Ticket - Liverpool’s Been Closed since 2011’.
GiveMeSport, 3 May 2022.
Books, 2015, p. 20.
83
2019, when the Premier League’s capacity was respectively at 97.3 and 97.7 per cent.242 A sign that
even though the prices are leaving some fans out of the stadium, clubs will always find other customers
to fill their stadiums. As long as the stadiums are full, clubs do not care who attend and do not care about
the fate of their most modest fans, priced out of the stadiums.
2. Watching the Premier League on TV: an increasingly high price to pay.

Television has, since the 1950s, been at the heart of the discussions around English football. It was
first rejected by most of the teams, especially the smaller ones. These teams heavily relied on matchday
revenue and feared that if the games were broadcast live on television, the fans would rather stay at
home to watch the game. When football arrived on television with Match of the Day on the BBC channel,
clubs realised that television offered publicity to the “beautiful game” and attracted people into going to
the stadium. During the 1980s, television was the cause of many disputes between the biggest and
smaller clubs, as some clubs wanted more of the share of television money. It was one of the reasons
that made some clubs push for a new breakaway league. When the Premier League launched, it is the
first broadcasting contract with BSkyB that enriched its clubs, with an initial contract of £304 million
over five years.
When the Premier League and BSkyB signed a contract tying them from 1992 to 1997, football was
going to be broadcast on satellite television for the first time in its history. When English football made
its way to television, it was on free terrestrial television. The BBC channel had Match of the Day and
broadcast the FA Cup final each year. ITV, BSkyB’s competition for the first TV rights deal of the
Premier League in 1992, had broadcast the Football League’s First Division for most of the 1970s and
1980s. So, when BSkyB became the United Kingdom’s official Premier League broadcaster, the fans
suddenly had to pay. First and foremost, the fans who wanted to follow their teams had to buy and install
a satellite dish, which was mandatory in order to receive satellite television. This dish already had a cost
that could make some fans think twice before subscribing to BSkyB’s offer. To attract a consequent
number of customers, BSkyB launched Sky Sports with a discount. The original price of £5.99 was
reduced to £2.99 for every fan subscribing before August 1992 and the beginning of the first season of
the Premier League. When this price is adjusted with inflation, the £2.99 paid by customers in 1992
would amount to £5 in 2020. Even though this price seems insignificant, the fact that fans now had to
pay to watch their teams on TV was already ground-breaking. However, as we saw earlier, fans’ loyalty
made BSkyB’s first season as the Premier League broadcaster a success, as more than one million people
subscribed to Sky Sports.
242.Premier League - Attendance Figures (Detailed View). https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-

league/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/1/galerie/0?saison_id=2019.
84
As the Premier League became a coveted product, Sky had to give the clubs more money to remain
their broadcaster. The broadcaster paid more than £1 billion for the first time in 2000, a sign of the
success of the Premier League and its profitability, as Sky would not have paid this much if they were
not convinced that they could turn a profit on it. Unfortunately for the fans, the same thing that happened
to game and season tickets happened to the price of TV subscriptions, as shown by the graph below.
Figure 22: Evolution of the cheapest Sky Sports package compared to inflation from 2004 to 2015.243
As of September 2004, the yearly subscription to the cheapest Sky Sports package cost £372 to
a customer, which amounted to £31 a month. This price seems extremely expensive when we know that
only 12 years before that, Sky Sports’ subscription was only £2.99 a month. The yearly subscription to
Sky Sports in 1992 was, taking the price of £2.99 a month, £35.88. In 2004, a customer could only buy
one month of subscription with this money. If the price of the subscription followed inflation, a customer
of Sky Sports’ cheapest package in 2004 should have paid between £3.50 and £4 monthly. However, it
had to pay £31. Sky justified this increase by the fact that they wanted Sky to be “the best value
entertainment choice for subscribers”, offering “an unrivalled choice of top quality sport” to its
subscribers.244 It is true that Sky had, between 1992 and 1994, brought technical innovations and new
sports. In 1993, Sky Sports bought the rights for live club rugby union, was the first broadcaster to have
an interactive Formula One coverage, and introduced super slo-mo cameras, TV mics, and even the
virtual replay computer animation.245 Even though all these innovations might have cost a large amount
of money to Sky, it does not justify a 1.000 per cent increase in the monthly subscription in 12 years.
Furthermore, this increase continued until 2015. The yearly subscription went from £372 to £564, which
represented a £16 a month increase, with the monthly subscription now at £47. While, from 2004 to
2015, the cumulative inflation rate was at 28.5 per cent, Sky’s price increase was at 51.6 percent, nearly
doubling inflation. This shows a clear abuse from Sky, which, even though it added quality content to
its offer, charged its customers more than it should have. To realise how expensive a £564 subscription
for one year is, we are going to compare it to the already very expensive prices of season tickets. In
243.Retrieved from: ‘Tips to Watch Sky Sports for Less’. Which? Conversation, 22 Apr. 2015,
244.Ibid.
245.‘Charting the Year-by-Year Changes to Sky Sports’ Broadcasts’. Sky Sports.
85
2015, when Sky charged £572 for its cheapest Sky Sports package, a customer could have bought a
season ticket at 14 out of the 20 Premier League clubs. This customer could even have bought West
Bromwich Albion and Sunderland’s most expensive season ticket. This is how expensive Sky Sports
got in 20 years.
Before going further, we are going to take a look at the habits of English football fans. As we
saw just now, in 2015, a season ticket was for 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs was as expensive as
Sky Sports’ cheapest package. We then may wonder why these fans do not go to the stadium instead of
paying the same price to watch it in front of their television. We have seen that they were excessively
loyal to their football clubs, willing to pay even if they cannot afford it, so why would they watch on
TV rather than in the stadium? The fans mainly watch football on television because they cannot get to
the stadium. Imagine a fan of Newcastle. His team is playing on Monday night in London. If he is
employed, it is very unlikely that he travels to London and back to Newcastle on the same day. This is
why he will watch football on his TV. Many other reasons such as work or proximity to the stadium
make those fans simply cannot go to the stadium. A study made between November 2004 and April
2005 on almost 2.000 Premier League fans showed that only six to ten per cent of the fans did not attend
games because they could watch the same game live on television.246 This proves that fans mostly watch
football on TV because they do not have any other choice, or because for some going to the stadium
once in a while was not worth it because of the prices.
When we look at some subscription offers from Sky, we realise that not only did Sky
tremendously increase the price of sports-related subscriptions, but it also made sure that these offers
were the ones increasing the most, as shown by the table below.
Figure 23: Total changes in charges in real terms of different Sky packages from January 2004 to
September 2009.247
246.Ec.europa.eu. 2005. Research into viewing trends, stadium attendance, fans’ preferences and
behaviour, and the commercial market Analysis advising the Commission of the European
Communities, p. iii.
247.Retrieved from: Sky Group, “Trends in charges for pay tv services, the quality of services provided
to consumers and subscriber numbers”. 2010, p. 36.
86
This table shows four of Sky’s most successful packages and the evolution of their price. This
table is pretty useful as it does not compare the price, which varies because of the number of channels
and content offered, but the change in charges in real terms, meaning that the figures are “adjusted to
account for inflation and exchange rate fluctuations”.248 The package interesting to us is the Dual Sports
including Family Pack/Six Mix one, as it contains Sky Sports. We can clearly see that in only five years,
the price of this package went up by between 4.2 and 8.1 per cent. But what is more impressive and
shocking is the difference in the change in charges with the other packages. The only other package that
saw an increase in its change in real terms was the Top Tier package, but it did not increase as much as
the Dual Sports package. Even worse is the fact that the two other packages’ price decreased. The Dual
movies and Family Pack/Six Mix both experienced a decrease in real terms, meaning that they were
below the inflation rate, while the Dual Sports package’s price increase was above the inflation rate.
The sports and Premier League fans are charged more than the rest of TV watchers.
Since 2007, Sky actually has shared the Premier League TV rights in the United Kingdom with
another broadcaster to reduce the costs. From 2007 to 2010, Sky shared the rights with Setenta and since
2010 the broadcaster is sharing the rights with BT Sports. This was bad news for football followers that
wanted to watch their teams on television, as they now had to pay for two TV subscription and two TV
sets. Let’s take once again the example of a Newcastle fan. As the two broadcasters share the games,
his team may be broadcast on Sky one week, but on BT Sports the next week. If this fan wants to watch
his team week in and week out, he will need to pay for two subscriptions, increasing the price he will
pay each month. As of 2020, Sky’s package with Sky Sports includes Sky Q (the mandatory basic
package) and Netflix, for a monthly price of £70 when we do not take the temporary discounts into
account.249 This price is nearly 50 per cent more expensive than the one in 2015, which was already very
expensive. Sky started its subscription price at £2.99 in 1992, and within 30 years the price witnessed
an increase of more than 2.000 per cent. Not even the biggest innovation could justify such a price
difference. Furthermore, as Sky shared the rights with BT Sports, a second subscription is necessary to
have access to the whole of the Premier League. BT sports’ cheapest package cost, as of 2020, £16
without temporary discounts.250 BT Sports has an alternative digital offer, which gives access to the BT
Sports channel on the app and not on TV, which spares the customer the TV set installation fees, but
which costs £25 a month. Until 2020, a Premier League fan wanting to access the whole of the Premier
League had to pay a total of £86, which was an astronomic amount. However, in 2020, Sky and BT
became finally available under the same Sky TV package, reducing the costs for the Premier League
fans. This package was at the price of £35, to which were added the costs of the Sky Q basic package,
allowing Sky, which already had 24 million subscribers in Europe at the time, to attract even more
248.‘In Real Terms Definition’. Law Insider.

249.https://www.sky.com/shop/choose/build/package?irct=deals-bns-deal-CTA2-utv-sports-buy.
250.Buy BT Sport | BT Sport Packages | BT Sport. https://www.bt.com/sport/buy#sportpackages.
87
customers, interested in this reduced price.251 Even though the offer was more interesting than having
two subscriptions, it remained extremely expensive, as to the £35 were added the £32 of the basic Sky
package. The customers thus had to pay £67 a month instead of £86 if they had the two different
subscriptions. However, as of 2019, the Premier League rights were shared between Sky, BT, and
Amazon Prime, which was able to get some games. This meant another extra subscription for the fan
wanting to have the games available on the streaming platform.
Overall, from 2014-2015 to 2019-2020, TV subscriptions have been the category of spending
that have increased the most for match-going fans, as shown by the graph below.
Figure 24: Changes in average spend per match-going fan by category from 2014/15 to 2019/20.252
As the price of life in the United Kingdom has increased by 8.4 per cent between 2015 and 2020,
the life of a football fan has increased even more. The cost of TV subscriptions for paying fans has
increased by 40 per cent, because of the many price increases as well as the arrival of a third broadcaster
in Amazon Prime. These repeated increase in the price of TV subscriptions, way above the inflation
rate, mean that many cannot afford to watch their team on TV, as it costs nearly as much as season
tickets, which are already expensive.
When I asked my interviewees whether they thought the price of TV subscriptions priced out
some of the most modest Premier League fans, Suibhne Blaix, who used to live in North America, gave
an interesting answer, mentioning football broadcasting in the United States and Canada: “I feel like it
may be more accessible in other countries than in England. I know for example when I was in Canada
or the United States, if you had ESPN, you could watch every single game. And I felt like everyone had
251.New Sky TV Packages Combine Sky Sports and BT Sport in One Single Subscription.
https://www.skygroup.sky/en-gb/article/new-sky-tv-packages-combine-sky-sports-and-bt-sport-in-one-
single-subscription.
252.Retrieved from: Football Benchmark - Cost of Fandom in the Premier League – the Etoro Fan
Financial Statement.
88
cable television, at least I reckon. It is in my opinion more affordable than getting Sky Sports and BT
Sports in England. The only games you can watch on public television in England are the FA Cup
fixtures every now and then.” This remark highlights what we mentioned earlier about the broadcasters
sharing the Premier League games. Having one subscriber broadcasting every game would benefit fans
who would not pay as much as they do today. However, it will not benefit the broadcaster, which would
have to pay an ever-increasing amount on its own. Robert Owensmith, gave what was in his opinion a
good alternative to TV subscriptions: “It's hard to watch every Premier League game. It's really
expensive. Not affordable for family, or at least for the average family, it's not affordable. However,
pretty well all the Premier League clubs have their own website and so you can watch the game after
they've been played, but not live. You can watch them afterwards for free on the website live streaming,
but that's late after the game.” This idea seems like a good alternative for patient fans who can wait a
few hours after their team’s game to watch it.
Finally, when I asked Mark Chapman that same question, he mentioned the price pubs paid to
show Premier League games to their customers.
In fact, it costs pubs a ridiculous amount of money, like a lot more than your normal
subscription. The pubs have to have a special license to show up. Small pubs, they can't afford
it so people won't go there and they'll go to a place that can afford it. It's crazy you get a little
village pub that wants to show the matches, and they have to ask people at the beginning of the
season: “Are you going to come and watch games and spend money? Are you going to come
and buy drinks here? Because if you're not then we can't afford this”. It's unreasonably
expensive.
Pubs are an alternative for fans who cannot afford to go to the stadium nor to pay the Sky Sports
and BT Sports subscription. It allows fans to be with other fans and to share a good moment in a good
atmosphere, kind of recreating the stadium’s atmosphere. However, the pubs have to pay a different
subscription to show live Premier League games. These subscriptions are expensive, and as for the fans,
if there are two or three broadcasters, the pubs will have to pay two or three subscriptions, multiplying
the costs. As of 2017, it cost pubs an average of £20.000 a year to show live Premier League games to
their customers.253 Furthermore, the prices keep increasing for pubs, as from 2016 to 2017, Sky and BT
Sports increased their prices for pubs by respectively ten and 8.9 per cent, because of they had to make
their new contract with the Premier League, signed in 2016 profitable. As mentioned by Mark Chapman,
the high prices mean that many pubs cannot afford to show Premier League games, which makes them
even less attractive for football fans, who are often looking for a place where they can watch a game.
As of 2005, 56 per cent of pubs not subscribing to Sky did so because of the price, and 82 per cent of
253.Devine, Joe. ‘Who Is Paying for the Premier League’s Bumper TV Deal? Your Local Pub’. The
Guardian, 13 July 2017.
89
the pubs having stopped their Sky subscription did so because of the price.254 The pubs, as well as the
fans, pay the heavy price of the Premier League’s new economics.
As of 2019, broadcasting deals were the biggest share of many Premier League clubs. Everton
earned 71 per cent of its revenue through broadcasting deals, for West Ham, it was 67 per cent, Arsenal
47 and Chelsea 44.255 This proves television’s importance for the clubs. The broadcasters are willing to
pay the Premier League billions to broadcast its games, as it knows it is profitable for them. However,
it is profitable because it costs the fans, too loyal to stop their subscriptions, a vertiginous amount of
money. The result is that many fans as well as pubs cannot afford to watch the Premier League on
television, as the monthly subscription went from £2.99 in 1992 to more than £80 in 2020.
3. Merchandising and its impact on fans.

As the Premier League emerged, the clubs and their owners realised that, with growing
popularity and reach, they could develop themselves and become more than football clubs. The clubs
soon discovered that fans were eager to buy products related to the clubs they supported. With the
starification of footballers, having a dedicated number and their names on their shirts, the clubs saw a
growing demand for products related to their star players, who were used by the clubs for their
commercial potential. Nearly 30 years after the beginning of the Premier League, the clubs have taken
the full measure of their financial potential. As of 2019, before the beginning of the COVID epidemic,
the commercial activities were the biggest share of Manchester United, representing 47 per cent of their
256
total revenue and £279.6 million. In 2005, the share of the commercial activities for Manchester
United was 29 per cent, representing £48.7 million.257 This trend is true for the whole of the Premier
League, with teams earning each year more from their commercial activities, largely surpassing the
matchday revenue, and for some of the biggest Premier League clubs, surpassing the broadcasting deals
revenue.
As we did for the subpart about the commercialisation of the Premier League, we will take the
shirt, or jersey, as our main example in this part about the rising price of merchandise sold by Premier
League clubs. The first replica kit a club sold was in 1973, when Leeds United started selling a replica
of their game shirts for the sum of £5.258 The price of £5 would, with inflation, amount to £43.85 as of
2020. When the Premier League launched for its first season in 1992-1993, the teams had already started
254.Ec.europa.eu. 2005. Research into viewing trends, stadium attendance, fans’ preferences and
behaviour, and the commercial market Analysis advising the Commission of the European
Communities, p. v.
255.Ajadi, Théo, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 26, 34, 48, 50.
256.Ibid, p. 14.
257.Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006, p.
7.
258.Henshall, Tony Jimenez and Angela. The Costs of Swapping Football Shirts.
90
selling replica kits on a larger scale, as most of the clubs had a deal with a manufacturer, producing a
large number of shirts. As early as 1992, the price of a replica kit was between £25 and £30, with clubs
like Tottenham, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal selling their jerseys for £29.99.259 If we take
the price of £5 in 1973 as a reference, if the price of replica kits had kept in line with inflation, a Premier
League fan should have paid around £25. This difference of £5 does not seem enormous, but it still
represents a difference of 20 per cent in the price paid by the customer. Nevertheless, the Premier League
kits were different from those sold 20 years before, as the material used to produce the shirts had
changed. Shirts also saw the appearance of kit sponsors which made the two products quite different,
and explains partially the price difference.
Despite the increased price of replica shirts, the Premier League clubs became, thanks to their
success on the pitch, heavy shirt sellers over the years. A clear link exists between the number of jerseys
a club sells and the success it has on the pitch, according to Doctor Peter Rohlmann, who stated in one
of his studies: “Changes of kit supplier and sporting success – as well as global appeal and international
presence – are the main reasons for shirt sales”.260 Doctor Rohlmann also saw the global appeal and
international changes as reasons for fans to buy clubs. These factors are linked, as sporting success,
especially in the biggest stage of European football for English clubs, brings big exposure as these
matches are broadcast in most parts of the world. A team being regularly present in the UEFA
Champions League and reaching the latest stages of the competition will have an unrivalled exposure.
As early as the beginning of the 21st century, the Premier League and its clubs started to conquer the
world through foreign tours as well as being competitive. For the period encompassing the 2007-2008
season to the 2011-2012 season, four Premier League clubs were part of the ten clubs selling the most
jerseys each year. Manchester United was the biggest jersey seller with an average of 1.4 million jerseys
sold each year during that period, and Arsenal Chelsea, and Liverpool all sold more than 800.000 jerseys
per year on average.261 The Premier League was, over that time period, the most represented league in
the biggest jersey sellers, and it was because of its clubs’ success. The Premier League was already a
very powerful league at that time, and the four clubs mentioned above were certainly the league’s best
clubs. Besides that, on the European scene, these four clubs were regular contenders for the UEFA
Champions League. Arsenal reached the final in 2004, Liverpool won the 2005 edition and was finalist
in 2007, Chelsea was finalist in 2008 against Manchester United, and while the club lost the contest, it
won the 2012 edition. These successes helped the clubs sell many more jerseys, as it certainly attracted
the fans into buying jerseys that saw their team winning a cup or the League. The fact that these four
clubs were under contract with arguably the two biggest manufacturers, Nike and Adidas, also helped
their sales. As these two manufacturers are the most famous and fashionable ones, fans and neutrals are
259.Hyde, Ben. ‘Why Are Football Shirts so Expensive?’ FOOTY.COM.

260.‘EXCLUSIVE: Manchester United and Real Madrid Top Global Shirt Sale Charts’ | Sporting
Intelligence.
261.Ibid.
91
more likely to buy the shirt of a team sponsored by Nike or Adidas. However, it is the sporting success
and economic potential of the Premier League clubs that attracted the biggest shirt manufacturers. Thus,
the manufacturers have a big interest in the successful clubs, which have a higher commercial potential.
The price of replica jerseys kept increasing throughout the 2010s, but it was a reasonable
increase compared to what happened to season and match tickets as well as TV subscriptions. As of
2017, the most expensive adult kit cost £60 at Manchester United, and the average cost of an adult sized
shirt was £50.90 in the Premier League, a two per cent increase compared to 2016, but also a 19.8
percent increase compared to the 2011-2012 season.262 If we take the price of £29.99 as of 1992 as a
reference, if the jersey price kept in line with inflation, it would have cost £49.53 in 2017, which was
actually near from the average price of a jersey on that year, with a £1 difference. The price of a jersey,
as opposed to the price of TV subscriptions and football tickets, did not witness an excessive rise, as
shown by the graph below.
Figure 25: Evolution of the price of an adult shirt from different Premier League clubs (2014-2017).263
262.‘Premier League Prices Frozen or Cut’. BBC Sport.

263.Retrieved from: Henshall, Tony Jimenez and Angela. The Costs of Swapping Football Shirts.
92
This graph allows us to see the tendency of the football jersey’s price for four consecutive years.
During these four years, eight of the 20 clubs have increased the price of their jerseys. For example,
Hull City’s jersey price went from £40 in 2014 to £50 in 2017, and Swansea’s jersey went from £45 to
£60 in the same time period. These are the most visible price rises. However, some teams such as
Everton, Chelsea, and Manchester City decreased their price. Chelsea’s jersey, which cost as much as
£55 in 2016, cost only £40 in 2017. Some teams such as Sunderland did not change the price of their
jerseys during these four years, but the general price of a Premier League jersey fluctuates between £45
and £55 for most of the clubs. However, if a fan wants to add the name and number of a player, which
is often the case, he will have to pay an extra cost of approximately £10. It is the same if he wants to
add the patch of the Premier League or the Champions League (if his team plays in it), as he will be
charged another extra cost, making the jersey cost around £70. Nevertheless, when compared to other
European clubs, the price of Premier League teams’ jerseys looks even cheaper. As of 2017, “in Italy,
fans pay an average €76.54 (£66.91) per shirt, while in France and Germany it can cost fans €78.03
(£68.21) and €81.34 (£71.10) per shirt respectively”, which represents at least £15 more than in England
in average.264
The jersey business is very lucrative, especially for Premier League teams. Already in 2015, the
Premier League clubs were the best jersey sellers in Europe, selling more than five million jerseys, while
the second biggest-selling league, the Spanish League, sold two million fewer jerseys.265 However, the
clubs are not the ones taking the most benefit from the shirt they sell. Of course, when a club sells a
jersey, all the benefits do not go to it. Very surprisingly, on a shirt sold at £50, the club is believed to
earn between £3 and £12, with the manufacturer taking most of the money.266 However, the clubs are
not losers in these arrangements, as the manufacturers pay large amounts to the clubs to represent them
and sell their jerseys. The Premier League teams are the teams in Europe earning the most from
manufacturer deals, as shown by the graph below.
264.Henshall, Tony Jimenez and Angela. The Costs of Swapping Football Shirts.
265.Srivastava, Nikhil. Analyzing the Importance of Shirt Sales to a Football Club.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/looking-importance-shirt-sales-club.
266.Hayward, Stephen, and Alex Miller. ‘Replica Football Shirts Rip-off as Fans Pay 1,000% Mark-up
on Manufacturing Cost’.
93
Figure 26: Annual money earned by some European football leagues through manufacturing deals.267
The amount the manufacturers pay to represent the Premier League and its clubs is proof that
they are selling an increasing number of jerseys, as these companies would not pay such vertiginous
amounts if they were not sure to make a profit from it by selling millions of shirts. Besides, it is the
manufacturer of a team that chooses the price at which it sells its jerseys. The clubs are certainly not to
blame for that, but they are not complaining about it either, as if the manufacturer sold its jerseys at a
lesser price, it would certainly offer less money to the club it signs a manufacturing deal with.
What has been reproached to the Premier League and its clubs is not the price of the jersey, even
though it is still expensive, but rather the excessive commercialisation of these clubs. I asked my
interviewees their thoughts on the new clubs’ megastores, where the fans can literally find every product
with the logo of their clubs. Mark Chapman mentioned the excessive number of jerseys nowadays: “Now
what I do think is that football shirts cost way too much money. It is shameful. I only buy them at the
end of the season when they are reduced because I don't want to spend the equivalent of €90.00. Now
you've got the matchday shirt and the training case. You have the pregame kits. I mean, it's all an attempt
to make some money.” Mark Chapman mentioned the excessive price of jerseys as well as their
excessive number, an opinion shared by Suibhne Blaix for example. When the Premier League began
during the 1992 season, the teams only had two different game kits. One for the home games and one
for the away games. However, the exploitation of the commercial potential of the clubs by manufacturers
meant that each season, clubs had more and more jerseys. Teams started changing kits each season,
while they usually lasted two or three seasons before the beginning of the Premier League. The clubs
started to have a third kit in case their away kit had the same colour as another team’s home kit, which
was often used for European contests. As time went by, fans could buy the training kits of their team,
267.Retrieved from: Nast, Condé. ‘Can the £1 Billion Football Jersey Business Overcome Covid-19?’
Vogue Business, 12 Sept. 2020.
94
jackets, hats, etc. This excessive production does not only apply to the kit industry, as the clubs’ stores
are now filled with products with their logo on it, such as corkscrew for example.
However, the key to the problem is at least partially between the fans’ hands, as mentioned by
David Burrows: “The clubs try to sell too many products, of course, and everything is overproduced,
everything is mass-produced and there's too much of everything. But they will keep trying and keep
trying and keep trying and as long as they can make money from it and as long as people keep buying,
it's always the same problem. It's mass market.” Even though the problem seems easier to resolve than
tickets and TV subscriptions, which, if not purchased, mean that the fan cannot follow his team, it
remains quite complex. Fans will often buy jerseys because it establishes a link between the fan and the
club. The fan is proud to wear his team’s jersey, and for fans that cannot go to the stadium and live far
from their teams’ stadiums, the jersey is their way of supporting and showing their belonging to the
club. As for the tickets and the TV subscriptions, some fans will, no matter the price, buy the latest
jersey. And as long as there will be enough people to do so, the clubs and manufacturers will produce
tons of products and increase their prices.
The Premier League, its influence, and its internationalisation have definitely changed the
economics of English football. While the clubs are getting richer everyday thanks to manufacturers’
contracts, broadcasting deals and matchday revenue such as ticket selling, the domestic fans are paying
the heavy price of that. The Premier League and its clubs have been more and more expensive to follow
for its fans. The price of season and match tickets as well as the price of TV subscriptions have
unreasonably increased from 1992 to 2020. The commercial potential of the clubs, developed thanks to
their commercialisation, was fully developed, as the clubs sell now too many products, trying to take
advantage of their fans. The clubs realised very early that the fans’ loyalty and adoration could be an
asset for them, as they kept pushing the limit in terms of pricing. The result is a gentrification of football
stadiums, as the working class is each day a bit more priced out. The rare working-class fans remaining
in the stadium are sacrificing a lot for their clubs, and continue paying even when they cannot afford to
do so. As long as the fans do not unite to denounce this constant abuse, clubs, broadcasters, and
manufacturers will try to push the limit even further every day.
b. Clubs trying to keep up with the Premier League leading to mismanagement.

As the 22 best clubs at the beginning of the 1992-1993 season became the founder members of the
Premier League, the 70 remaining clubs (72 since 1995-1996 when the Premier League went from 22
to 20 clubs) of the Football League stayed together and kept doing what had been done until then, but
with fewer clubs. However, the early success of the Premier League and the fact that the three best teams
of the Football League’s First Division (which became, in reality, the second division at the national
level) were promoted to the Premier League at the end of each season meant that a lot of clubs with big
95
hopes battled to get into English football’s elite. Nevertheless, this gold rush led to many clubs being
mismanaged by owners dreaming too far, too soon. The economic gap between the Premier League and
the First Division (which became the Championship) meant that being demoted was a huge risk for a
club’s stability while going up was like finding gold in a Californian river. This gold rush provoked
several mismanagements, bankruptcies, and insolvencies. In these cases, the fans risked losing the club
they supported and sometimes worked harder than their clubs’ owners and chairmen to save the
situation. This is yet another tale of the Premier League and English football. A tale where supposed
benefactors end up being villains, making thousands of fans suffer.
1. The consequences of the gold rush for the clubs missing it.
During the 1980s, as seen earlier, a dozen of clubs from the Football League became insolvent
because of the bad economic situation of most of its clubs. This was an alarming assessment, but most
of the Football League’s clubs survived thanks to its egalitarian system. This system, which meant that
the 92 clubs from the top four divisions shared equally the incomes related to their TV rights, kept a
certain balance between the biggest clubs and the smaller ones. However, the biggest clubs could claim
that the system was not benefiting them as they were more successful and popular and yet had to share
with clubs from the bottom of England’s fourth professional division. The smaller clubs, if they were
not associated with the bigger ones, would never have earned as much as they did through TV rights,
even though the amount was ridiculous at the time. The Premier League put an end to all that. The 22
best clubs were gone and the smaller ones could not count on them anymore. It had drastic effects on
the Football League. The simple fact that the Premier League was considered a breakaway league, with
no apparent affiliation to the Football League apart from the relegation-promotion system, was
prejudicial. Who, as the Premier League was making very promising beginnings and its clubs earning
more money than they ever had before, would want to be affiliated with the Football League rather than
the Premier League? As it was the real first division, home of England’s best clubs, the Premier League
attracted many investors, its clubs signed many sponsorship contracts, and sold many merchandises.
Meanwhile, the economic gap with the Football League and the money clubs could get by being
promoted through TV rights and potential sponsorship contracts, meant that promotion was targeted and
became a clear objective.
96
To get promoted, the formula was simple. Clubs needed to spend money to attract the best players
they could and hope their talent would help them get into English football’s elite. There has always been
a clear link between sporting success and money spent in football, as noticed by David Conn: “The
evidence showed that money determined playing success, because the better players were only attracted
by money. […] The three clubs [from the Premier League] with the lowest wage bills, Sheffield United,
Oldham, and Swindon Town, were all relegated [at the end of the 1993-1994 season]”.268 This
hypothesis is based on data, as shown by the chart below.
Figure 27: Comparison of league position and total wages in the Premier League (2011-2012).269
With this graph, the trend is clear. At the end of the 2010/2011 season, two of the clubs with the
lower wage costs were relegated. Blackpool, which had the lowest wage cost in the Premier League,
finished 19th and was relegated, as was Wolverhampton, which had the lowest wage cost. Surprisingly,
West Ham underperformed, as their wage cost, superior to nearly half of the league, did not prevent
them from finishing last. At the top of the league, the teams with the highest wage costs finished at the
top positions. Chelsea, the biggest wage cost in all the Premier League, finished second, right behind
Manchester United, the third biggest wage cost. Even though some teams such as Everton or Tottenham
overcame the financial expectations, the teams spending the most were at the top of the league, with the
three biggest wage costs finishing in the first three positions. This proves that, whether it was in 1993-
1994 or 2010-2011, the teams spending the most on players achieved the better results. It is also true for
the Football League and the Championship, and clubs willing to reach the summit of English football
understood that.
269.Retrieved from: Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate
the World. Marshall Cavendish, 2012, p. 368.
97
The consequence for clubs from the Football League has been a growing wage cost, with owners
counting on the Premier League promotion to soften their investment. While, for a football club to be
financially stable and working, its wage costs need to stay around 50 or 60 per cent of the revenue, the
Championship clubs did not act that way, risking it all for a ticket to the Premier League. As of 2011,
the Championship club spent, on average, 90 per cent of their incomes on players’ wages. As of 2019,
pre-COVID, it was even worse, as shown by the graph below.
Figure 28: Football League clubs’ revenue and wage costs in 2017-18 and 2018-19.270
As we can notice, the Championship clubs have been spending more on players’ wages than
they have had incomes from 2017 to 2019. This is the consequence of trying to get to the Premier
League. The owners are willing to put their clubs in danger to be promoted to the Premier League, where
they know they will have bigger incomes. As a comparison, in 2018-2019, Premier League clubs spent,
on average, 61 per cent of their revenue on players’ wages, nearly half what Championship clubs spent
in proportion. This mode of operating is unsustainable without owner funding. The result is that, before
taking into account possible transfers of players that allow a club to earn money, the vast majority of
Championship clubs are in structural deficit, meaning that they are losing money each year. As long as
the owner is willing to fund the club, or banks through loans with interest, it can survive. However, the
day an owner cannot or does not want to fund the club, or cannot repay the loans, the result is bankruptcy.
270.Retrieved from: Ajadi, Théo, Tom Ambler, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2020: Home
Truths. June 2020, p. 25.
98
But what happens when clubs actually get into the Premier League? Getting into the Premier
League is arguably hard, but avoiding relegation and becoming a regular in England’s top flight is even
harder. The economic difference between a Premier League club and a Championship one is simply too
big. When the Premier League started, the gap was not too big, but as time went by, it widened. To
visualise this difference, here is a Deloitte chart comparing the average revenue of Premier League and
Championship clubs.
Figure 29: Average revenue of Premier League and Championship clubs in 2018-2019.271
As we can see, the difference is abysmal. The difference between a Championship club and a
Premier League one that does not compete in any European cup is £138 million. The difference with a
club getting relegated from the Premier League to the Championship is more than £100 million. This
difference means that even the richest Championship club getting promoted to the Premier League will
look poor compared to the poorest of the Premier League clubs. The owner of the promoted club, to fill
the gap between his clubs and other clubs, will spend even more money trying to avoid relegation. This
is a suicidal approach, as it only has two outcomes. The first is that the club stays up. Then, with the
money earned thanks to the TV rights, the new sponsorships that may come thanks to the exposure
offered by the Premier League, and the matchday revenue, the club will be able to progressively balance
its spendings and its wage cost, which will represent a smaller proportion than it used to. We will see
later that even in this scenario, a club is not safe from trouble. However, the second outcome is not
merry. After having spent even more money, and despite a promising season, the club is relegated back
to the Championship. The owner’s gamble did not work out. The consequences are terrible, as the club
will go back to the Championship with a Premier League-type wage cost. As its revenue will decrease,
the club will be in a situation wherein the worst-case scenario, it cannot pay its players and the different
costs related to the functioning of a football club anymore, as the owner does not have the funds
necessary to fill the financial gap caused by this demotion. The new economics of the Premier League
271.Retrieved from: Ajadi, Théo, Tom Ambler, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2020: Home
Truths. June 2020, p. 17.
99
has created a system where clubs are forced to gamble their future to reach the riches offered by the
most successful and richest football league in the world.
The Premier League and its clubs are aware of the widening of this gap between them and the
old Football League. What is even more surprising is the difference between the top Premier League
clubs and the bottom ones. Even though the egalitarian system of the Football League is gone, Premier
League clubs have kind of kept this system between them. As far as TV rights money is concerned, 75
per cent of it (50 per cent of the domestic TV rights money and 100 per cent of the foreign one) is shared
equally between the now 20 clubs. The result has been that “no matter how much money flowed in the
ratio between the payments to the league’s top earner and those to its twentieth-place team would always
remain around 1.6 to 1. The equivalent ratio in Spain’s La Liga or Germany’s Bundesliga, meanwhile,
was around 3 to 1”.272 This meant that while the club finishing first in Spain and Germany earned on
average three times what the club finishing last did, this gap between the first and last team in the Premier
League was of approximately 60 per cent. This small gap was what made the Premier League so
competitive, as the Spain and German leagues have historically been dominated by respectively two
clubs (FC Barcelona and Real Madrid) and one club (Bayern Munich). However, this also meant that in
economic terms, the team finishing last in the Premier League was, economically speaking, closer to the
top of the Premier League than to the top of the Championship. With the gap between the two leagues
widening each year, this meant that a club getting promoted had a huge gap to fill, while a club getting
relegated lost a lot of its revenue and had difficulties surviving as it had too much to pay compared to
what it earned. Clubs, spending money like Premier League teams found themselves in delicate
situations when they were demoted. The solution for these clubs was often to secure loans with banks
or with friends of the owners. However, in many cases, this led to many clubs collapsing “almost
immediately on dropping out of the Premiership, owing many millions to creditors large and small”.273
This is why parachute payments were implemented, supposed to help the clubs that get relegated
to the Championship. These payments consist of half of the previous season’s television money and are
supposed to fill the drop in money a relegated club will experience when coming back to the
Championship.274 Even though these were in place as soon as the Premier League started in 1992, they
were only recently increased. As of 2011, with the gap between the Championship and the Premier
League widening, the English football authorities realised it was getting harder for clubs getting
relegated to survive. As of now, “relegated clubs get 55% of their previous earnings in the first year,
45% in the second and, if the club was in the top flight for more than one season before going down,
274.Ibid, p. 129.
100
20% in the third”.275 This did not have the expected effect. As of 2011, when the payments were
increased, the clubs receiving them had an average income of £29 million, while clubs that never reached
the Premier League and thus never received any parachute payments had an average income of £15
million.276 This gap widened over the years, as shown by Figure 29. By the end of the 2018-2019 season,
the Championship clubs not receiving any parachute payments had an average revenue of £23 million,
while those with parachute payments had an average income of £57 million. In eight years, the clubs
receiving parachute payment doubled their revenue, while those who stayed stuck in the Championship
earned, on average, £8 million more than in 2011. This has created a situation where the clubs getting
relegated did not fold anymore but immediately came back to the Premier League, altering the
competitive balance even more. Clubs like Norwich, Watford, and Fulham have benefited from this
system, doing the yo-yo between the Premier League and the Championship for most of the 2010s.
Instead of saving the relegated clubs, this new system has condemned the many Championship clubs
that could not compete with the clubs receiving parachute payments, which when they got relegated
knew they had the money to get back up as soon as possible.
The Premier League did not resolve any problems, it created new ones. Clubs already went bust
before the beginning of the Premier League, but the new economic situation of English football, extoling
individualism (Premier League) over collectivism (Football League), and the lack of trickle down meant
that the situation worsened. Between 1995 and 2002, 27 clubs went into administration, with eleven of
them in the same year, and during the 2000s, a further thirty clubs followed their path, some of them
entering administration for the second time.277 In total, since 1992, half of the Football League clubs
have been “in one form of insolvency or another, usually administration”, meaning that 36 out of the 72
clubs making up the three divisions of the Football League went bust at some point under the Premier
League era.278 Even worse is the fact that 80 per cent of insolvencies were because of too little incomes
and too many expenditures, that with bad results on the pitch, put the club into a negative spiral. This is
the description of what the gold rush made to half of the Football League. Clubs tend to spend way too
much on players hoping to get into the Premier League. They then have debts, and if they cannot reach
their goal, comes a time when they cannot pay the players or repay their debts. Even if they get into the
Premier League, a bad season and the club is back to the Championship, where it will have to start
everything all over again.
Bradford City is certainly the example of the consequences of the new economics of English
football that shocked me the most. Bradford had never been one of the best clubs in England. Until
275.Garner-Purkis, Zak. ‘Fulham’s Premier League Promotion Will Underline The EFL’s Parachute
Problem’. Forbes.
Books, 2015, p. 31.
101
1995-1996, they were stuck in the third division of English football. However, thanks to good
management of their money, such as the likes of Leicester 20 years later, the club got promoted to the
Championship for the 1996-1997 season. This club, which stadium took fire in 1985 because of the
club’s lack of enforcement of safety instructions resulting in the death of 56 fans, had drastically changed
its way of doing. The club was not a heavy spender, and tried to buy good players for lesser prices. This
strategy opened it the door to the Premier League by the end of the 1998-1999 season. The club kept
that strategy for its first season in the Premier League, and avoided relegation, finishing 17 th, while
everyone thought they could not stay in English football’s toughest league. However, this event was
surely the worst thing that could have happened to them. Geoffrey Richmond, the club’s chairman,
thought that surviving one season was proof his club could compete with the best teams. So, instead of
keeping the same strategy that had helped his team go from the third division to the Premier League, the
club started acting like it was an established Premier League team. During the summer of 2000, the club
bought ten new players, including Benito Carbone, an Italian striker paid £40.000 a week and to whom
the club had bought a seven-bedroom five-bathroom house costing millions of pounds.279 This would
later be called Richmond’s “Six Weeks of Madness”. The result was a relegation at the end of the 2000-
2001 season, and debts. The club had simply too much to pay. It was in the Championship, with fewer
revenue, and had to pay Premier League like wages, and also had loans to repay. The situation became
unbearable, and the club, in hock to 26 leasing companies, had to enter administration.280 The club soon
was in the fourth division, where it still is in 2020. This example shows how the gold rush of the Premier
League impacted most of the clubs. Had Bradford avoided relegation, no one would have talked about
the club’s spending, as it was common in the Premier League. However, the problem is that the smaller
clubs have to extend themselves to try to keep up with the Premier League, a situation that often ends
in catastrophe. The economic gap between the Premier League and the rest of the Football League is
simply too big, and the money does not trickle down.
The first people to suffer from this situation are the fans. The fans supporting smaller clubs
trying to reach the Premier League often end in distraught as their clubs, not able to fill the gap with the
Premier League, end up bankrupt. The end of the egalitarian system of English football has widened the
gap between the Premier League and the rest. The riches of the Premier League mean that every club
wants to be a part of it and risk it all. Often, it does not work out, and clubs disappear into the abyss of
English footballs, and the fans, helpless, witness their teams’ downfall while the best clubs are getting
richer. Fans suffer from the Premier League’s lack of effort to guarantee fairness. In 2003 already,
Richard Scudamore, the Premier League’s chief executive, declared that the balance in the redistribution
of money was “about right”, meaning that the Premier League clubs did not need, in his opinion, to help
280.Ibid, p. 66.
102
the smaller ones.281 This system could have been tailored to help the smaller clubs, rallying points in
their towns and communities, thrive and enjoy a bit of the Premier League money. However, the bigger
clubs decided that they deserved this money, and let the smaller clubs die egoistically, most of them
being saved by the efforts and commitment of their supporters, willing to do everything possible to save
a club that was important to them and their community, as we will see just now.282
2. Clubs’ mismanagement leading to catastrophe.

The new economics of the Premier League was not the only reason a lot of clubs struggled to
survive. The league’s power, influence, and economic potential attracted businessmen, from the United
Kingdom and abroad, who wanted to hold a small part of the league. As we saw earlier in this
dissertation, many foreign businessmen and even Royal Families bought Premier League clubs for
various reasons. Some of them even bought Football League clubs, aiming to bring them to the Premier
League, where they could enjoy prosperity and riches. However, for some clubs, the story did not end
well. A lot of them were bought by liars and crooks who let them down when things got complicated.
Disasters that could have been avoided happened, letting many fans distraught as their clubs were
sinking.
While approximately 80 per cent of insolvencies in English football after 1992 were, as we saw
earlier, caused by a financial structure where some clubs had too little revenue compared to their
expenditures, there is a further 20 per cent of insolvencies that had other causes. In fact, it is proved that
“around 10 to 20 per cent of football insolvencies have an element of criminal or fraudulent behaviour
as one of their causes. Given the exceptionally weak financial and legal regulation of football clubs,
they have proved very attractive to a variety of hucksters, fraudsters and villains bent on insurance fraud,
money laundering, dodgy land deals and straightforward embezzlement”.283 Now we may wonder why
and how criminals have been able to buy English football clubs in the first place? Obviously, they
supposedly cannot buy any club, but the real problem with English football is the lack of regulations
and protection of football clubs. During the 1990s, we saw that many owners and chairmen, willing to
make money from their positions, circumvented Rule 34 of the FA’s rule book and found a way to list
their clubs on the stock market. The result was that rich individuals could buy shares of clubs easily and
enter the boardroom. This is thanks to the stock market that the Glazer family bought Manchester United
in 2005, buying shares after shares to become the majority owners. Once they were in charge, they
delisted the club from the stock exchange to be sure that no one could contest their power at the club.
This was arguably the first mistake of the FA, the ruling body of English Football, which failed to
282.Ibid, p. 373.
Books, 2015, p. 31.
103
enforce a rule it had created almost a century beforehand. The tenure of the Glazer family at Manchester
United has arguably been mitigated, as many supporters have kept protesting against the way their club
was managed. This could have been avoided if the FA had stuck to its own values.
After this wave of clubs entering the stock exchange, with foreigners starting to invest in English
football, and as some fans were unhappy with the alarming situation of many clubs which entered
administration, the FA began trying to protect its clubs. At the beginning of the 20th century, the FA
launched a Football Compliance Unit, which aimed at controlling financial malpractice inside English
football.284 However, this unit was fairly criticised by fans for its lack of efficiency. The real change that
was supposed to protect the clubs from abusive owners was the implementation of a test. In 2003, the
FA set up the Financial Advisory Committee, which produced a report on football management in
England.285 The result of this report was that there was “desperately poor management within clubs”
that they aimed at fighting thanks to “a code of good practice to which directors would have to report”.286
The result was the “fit and proper person test”, which was implemented by 2004. The main restrictions
of the test were that an individual could not buy a football club if he had an “unspent criminal conviction
involving dishonesty”, or if he had “run a football club into administration twice”.287 However, there is
a difference between the test in the Football League and the Premier League. The Premier League makes
the test before the club is bought, checks where the money is coming from and asks the clubs to reveal
the name of every person owning ten per cent or more of it, things that, as of 2009, have not been done
by the Football League.288 The test has now changed name and is called the “Owners’ and Directors’
test”, and the FA says its purpose is “to meet standards greater than that required under law so as to
protect the reputation and image of the game”.289
Seen that way, the test looks to be a good way to protect a club from owners lying about their assets
or their criminal past. However, this is not really the case in practice. A lot of clubs have been bought
by individuals and consortiums who had unclear pasts. Why could Thaksin Shinawatra, convicted in
Thailand for corruption and forced to exile, be able to buy a Premier League club? Had the “fit and
proper person test” been so effective, the ex-Thailand Prime Minister could not have been able to buy
Manchester City, as he entered the category of an individual having an unspent criminal conviction
involving dishonesty. Fortunately for the Mancunian club, the outcome of this story was not a disaster,
as the club was only in Shinawatra’s hands for one year, until the club was bought by Abu Dhabi’s
Royal Family.
285.Ibid, p. 368-369.
286.Ibid, p. 369.
287.Conn, David. ‘What Is the “Fit and Proper Person Test”?’ The Guardian, 7 Oct. 2009.
288.Ibid.
289.The Football Association. ‘Financial Regulation’. Www.Thefa.Com.
104
West Ham, one of East London’s best football clubs, also had its share of bad owners even after the
“fit and proper person test” was implemented. At the end of the 2000s, the club changed ownership
several times, with each new owner having more troubles than the last. It started in 2006, when Terry
Brown, the British owner of the club, decided to sell the club to new owners. At this point, football
agents were very close to the club and recommended one of their friends. Israeli super-agent Pini Zahavi,
considered by most football observers as the most influential football agent of the 21st century,
introduced one of his friends, Kia Joorabchian, also an agent, who then introduced a millionaire, Eli
Papouchado.290 This was the man supposed to buy West Ham, and it was already contentious, as the
club was going to be in the hands of football agents, who would most likely direct football operations,
with Eli Papouchado paying for the players his friends would bring to the club. Eventually, after some
bad results that saw the club nearly getting relegated, Eli Papouchado decided not to buy the club.
However, it did not prevent Pini Zahavi and Kia Joorabchian from controlling the club, as they were
influential in most of the club’s signings, some of them bringing troubles to the club. The two agents
brought two Argentinian players playing in South America, Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez, to
London. The agents used a technique called Third-Party Ownership (TPO), which is now banned from
the Premier League. The principle was not complicated and brought a lot of money to some of the
individuals “buying” players. The system was summarised by Robinson and Clegg: “A club has a player
on its books but needs to raise some cash quickly – except it does not want to sell him. So instead of
losing him entirely, it pawns off a stake in his “economic rights” to any third party prepared to stump
up the cash. […] In exchange for their investment, the third party Is entitled to an equivalent share of
the transfer fee received by the club when it sells the player on”.291 This technique was used a lot in
South America, with football agents buying parts of players through companies or sometimes under
their name. These agents would then sell these players in Europe where they would make a profit as
they would receive money equivalent to the share of the player they had. If they had bought 50 per cent
of a player and the player was sold for £10 million, they would earn £5 million. What is controversial
with this system is that most players owned by a third party were and still are used by liars and crooks
to make money, and the agents have no concern for the player and his fate. This is why Javier
Mascherano and Carlos Tevez landed in West Ham. Pini Zahavi, who had a great influence inside the
club’s board and who was a third-part owner of the rights to the two players, had made them move to
West Ham to earn some money. When the Premier League discovered it, they ruled the two players’
registrations illegal and fined the club £5.5 million.292 This whole affair led to the end of Third-Party
Ownership in England, and luckily for the club, the fact that at the time of the dispute the club was not
owned by Eli Papouchado, Pini Zahavi’s friend, meant that the sanction was only financial and not
292.Ibid, p. 182.
105
sportive. However, the club was bought by an Icelandic businessman, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson. His
tenure as an owner was mitigated. He did not get involved in the club, as he named one of his friends,
Eggert Magnusson, as the club’s chairman.293 The result was enormous debts for the clubs. Between
2007 and 2009, the club’s debt rose from £20 million to £110 million, most of it being owed to banks
which loaned money to the club.294 The coup de grace occurred when Iceland went through a financial
crisis. We might wonder why a country’s crisis could impact the ownership of a football club. The
reason was simple. West Ham was not owned by Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, but by Icelandic banks,
meaning that the club was basically bankrupt and depended on Iceland’s fate.295 This once again makes
us wonder if the “fit and proper person test” was conducted correctly. In the first place, the club was
literally controlled by Pini Zahavi, an agent who thought of his personal interests and brought troubles
to the club. Besides, the club was basically owned by Icelandic banks. This certainly means that the
Premier League’s research on the owner’s funding was not so advanced. Fortunately for the fans, the
club was saved by David Sullivan, a fan of the club and former owner of Birmingham, who bought the
club.296 Thanks to this purchase, the club avoided bankruptcy and is still, as of 2020, in the Premier
League.
Other clubs and fans cannot claim to be as lucky as West Ham was at the end of the day. Just ask
Portsmouth fans. The club had always been good on the domestic level, winning the FA Cup in 1939
and being a member of the First and Second Division of the Football League for most of its history.
However, like many other clubs at the same time, Portsmouth went into administration in 1998.297 The
club was bought and saved by Milan Mandaric, a Serbian-American businessman certainly attracted like
many foreigners by the dream of the Premier League. With him as an owner, the club earned its spot in
the Premier League in 2004, before being sold to Alexandre Gaydamak for around £30 million in
2006.298 The club has won its first FA Cup since 1939 in 2008, but Gaydamak, unable to finance the
club, sold it in 2009. The club would change owners two times in five weeks, and was finally bought by
Balram Chainrai, a Hong-Kong businessman.299 However, the club soon went bust and went into
administration, the first Premier League club to which such a thing happened, before being temporarily
saved by Gaydamak, who helped while he was not the owner anymore. However, in 2011, after another
change of owner, who was arrested for asset stripping, saw the club enter administration for the second
time in two years. The club had been relegated from the Premier League in 2010 after suffering a nine-
point penalty because of their economic troubles, and was relegated from the Championship in 2012 as
294.Ibid, p. 308.
295.Ibid, p. 308-309.
296.Ibid, p. 309.
297.Ibid, p. 312.
298.Ibid, p. 313.
299.Ibid, p. 313-314.
106
they faced a ten-point penalty.300 The fans saw their clubs winning an FA Cup, and not even five years
later, they were back in the abyss of English football, while their club had the potential to be a regular
in the most powerful and richest football league in the world. This was another proof that the clubs were
not protected enough by the FA and the Premier League, and the fact that for the first time it was a
Premier League team that went into administration proved even more the lack of work and efforts done
by English football. How could Portsmouth have changed owners four times in only two years so easily?
How, after the club went into administration, did football institutions let an owner later arrested for asset
stripping buy a Premier League club? So many questions for the Portsmouth fans who, because of crooks
and the Premier League and FA’s inaction ended up in the third division of English football.
When I conducted my interviews, I asked each of the people I talked with if they thought that the
“fit and proper person test” should be reinforced. It is important to precise that when I conducted these
interviews early in 2022, Newcastle was about to be bought by the Saudi Arabian Royal Family, and
this raised a lot of concerns as the country was accused of disrespecting human rights, and still managed
to pass the “fit and proper person test”. This may have influenced the answers of my interviewees.
Everyone agreed that the test should be reinforced, with a deeper look into the accounts of the buyer for
example. However, David Burrows gave me an interesting answer:
The problem with the UK is that it is now ultra-capitalist and it comes with these problems.
Where do you stop? Where, where? Where do you stop the greed? At some point you have to
say no. This is breaking regulations. You have to have some kind of organisation and it just
seems to me that it's not the case for football in the UK. It seems to me there is a lack of
discipline, financial discipline in the UK when it comes to football. If there's an opportunity the
regulations seem to go out of the window. Regulations are broken too many times, especially
when there's money involved. I think that's what concerns me is that the rules seem to change
very often, according to the people. Because, I don't mind foreign owners as long as they're good
for the club. I mean, if you take someone like Roman Abramovich for Chelsea, he is willing to
give and invest a lot of money in the club. He's not counting his money. He's been a great
example. He's been a real success and a good example for all the other clubs to follow.
David Burrows highlighted the lack of discipline in English football when it comes to money,
and I personally think that it is the main reason the clubs are not protected as they should. The people
ruling English football are now centered on making money and have little concern about the game in
itself. The “fit and proper person test” is definitely not working as shown by the fact that so many clubs
entered administration because of the ownership. However, as David Burrows stated, it is not only the
foreign owners who put the clubs they buy at risk. Just ask the York City fans for example, who saw
their owner since 1978, Douglas Craig, transfer Bootham Crescent, the club’s stadium, to a holding
company. As he wanted to sell his shares in the club, who no one wanted to buy, he announced his
departure for the end of the 2001-2002 season and as he owned the stadium, asked the club to vacate it
300.Ibid, p. 314-315.
107
or to pay £4.5 million to keep it. However, thanks to the city’s solidarity and a campaign led by fans and
former players, the club was able to keep the stadium, Douglas Craig his money, and the fans the club’s
identity. The fans also became minority owners of the club. David Conn stated about this case: “After
all the York fans went through it is bitter to reflect that Douglas Craig appears to have achieved on of
his aims – York City were out of the Football League. He’s been paid his money too, a strange, lonely
revenge, although we don’t know if it will make him happy. One thing, though, he didn’t manage: he
never killed York City”.301
Like so many other teams, York City faced extinction because of an owner, but like so many
other teams, its fans fought to save their clubs and did more than the FA and the Premier League and
Football League did. This alarming assessment shows how much English football needs to improve in
terms of control. Clubs cannot rely only on their fans’ passion and investment; they might be able to
count on a system that for now is more focused on the money it can get rather than the safety of the
clubs that help them earn fortunes.
c. Fans and institutions, once united, now divided.

The new economic situation of English football, the numerous changes in football clubs’ owners,
and the new status of football players have changed the way football fans and their clubs interact. Since
the beginning of the Premier League, the football fan life has experienced many changes, from an
increasing cost to follow their clubs to many administrations and bankruptcies of clubs trying to keep
up with the Premier League. The system of English football has gone from an egalitarian and rather
communist one where every team shared the pot to a capitalist and individualist system, which has
harmed the relationship fans enjoyed with their clubs and their players. Over the years, this deteriorated
relationship led to many disputes, protests, and even divorce between clubs and some of their fans.
1. A proximity with the institution now lost as clubs seem to be more

focused on the business side of the sport.
As new owners bought many of the top Premier League clubs, and as the money clubs received
at the end of each football season increased exponentially, some clubs started changing the way they
operated as well as their objectives at the end of each season. This change of sporting strategy irritated
some fans that felt disrespected by the way these owners treated their clubs and led to many virulent
disputes as well as protests. Since the beginning of the 21st century, fans have asked for changes in the
way clubs are directed and managed by owners that seem less and less concerned by their loyal fans’
opinions.
108
Arsenal is arguably one of the clubs where the relationship between domestic fans and
ownership has been tumultuous for some time. The club has been one of the most successful of the
Premier League era, at least for the first 15 years, but this glorious past seems distant. The North London
club was not, when the Premier League launched, one of the best clubs in England while being part of
the “Big Five” of the time. The club struggled with internal problems, as their manager, George Graham,
and his assistant manager Steve Burtenshaw were sacked following a bung affair. The two
representatives of Arsenal had worked since the beginning of the 1990s with a Norwegian called Rune
Hauge, a football agent who brought many Scandinavian players to England and the rest of Europe, but
who was also known for taking a lot of money from the transfers he was involved in and selling his
players to clubs he had contact with, which was the case with Arsenal. This case put both the Gunners
and English football into disrepute and became a symbol of what Arsenal had become. However, the
arrival of Arsène Wenger, as we saw earlier, changed the trajectory of the club. With his way of seeing
football and professionalism, Arsène Wenger revolutionised English football and allowed Arsenal to be
the main rival of Manchester United, which dominated the Premier League at the time. However, this
did not last forever. The building of Arsenal’s new stadium, the Emirates Stadium, as well as a change
of owner, meant that the club has experienced, since the end of the 2000s, a period of austerity.
The arrival of Stan Kroenke as the majority owner of Arsenal in 2009, coupled with the
inauguration of the very expensive Emirates Stadium in 2006 seems to have changed the club’s
ambitions. At the end of the 2003-2004 season, the club became the first to end a season undefeated in
the Premier League, a performance that has never been equalled as of 2020. The team managed by
Arsène Wenger became known as the Invincibles but has however failed to win a single Premier League
title since. Even worse is the fact that since the arrival of Stan Kroenke, owner of the Denver Nuggets
in the NBA, the club has failed to do better than a quarter-final in the Champions League, and has even
failed to qualify for the Champions League since 2016-2017.302 This shows a certain decline for a club
that is part of England’s new “Big Six” and that has consistently been one of the ten clubs with the most
revenue in the world since the Premier League became so powerful. This is mainly due to the sporting
strategy of the club since its American owner arrived. While some clubs such as Manchester City or
Chelsea have been bought by foreign owners willing to invest, Stan Kroenke has been very careful with
his money. Of course, in a period when clubs spend a lot, provoking some of the smaller clubs’ decline,
it is hard to criticise an owner who spends carefully. However, it seems pretty strange that a club such
as Arsenal, installed in the Premier League’s top six biggest English clubs for nearly three decades now,
is not able to compete with the other English top teams, which spend more without experiencing
financial troubles.
302.Arsenal FC - Cup History. https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-arsenal/pokalhistorie/verein/11.
109
Stan Kroenke’s strategy, as the club had to repay the price of the construction of the new
Emirates Stadium, was to limit the expenses and try to earn as much as possible through the different
streams of revenue. One of the main objectives of the club has not been to win titles but to finish in the
top four of the Premier League. But why a top four finish? Since the beginning of the 2003 season, the
UEFA Champions League has consisted of 32 teams from all over Europe. However, the highest a
country is ranked in the UEFA coefficient ranking, the most teams it will have in the Champions League.
The top four countries all have four teams qualified for the Champions League, which has been the case
for England and the Premier League since 2003. A qualification to the Champions League brings extra
money to a club, and the further it goes in the competition, the most money it gets. This is why Arsenal
has had the qualification for the Champions League as its main goal. Fighting for the Premier League
title each season costs a lot as a club needs the best players, but a lower goal such as qualifying for
European contests is a cheaper alternative for a club like Arsenal that has a different sporting strategy.
However, missing this qualification for the Champions League can have a negative impact on Arsenal,
which economic and sporting strategy relies on this competition that brings a lot of worldwide exposure
and revenue. As of 2016, the Gunners were the seventh team in European football in terms of generated
revenue, only beaten in England by the two Mancunian clubs.303 However, the club has failed to qualify
for the Champions League since 2017, and its revenue have not been the same. As of 2019, the club
ranked 11th in revenue and had been passed by Chelsea, Liverpool, and their rivals Tottenham in terms
of revenue.304 The strategy of aiming for the Champions League was already not very popular with the
fans, used to titles and glory, but this decline in sporting and economic performances did not repair
things between the owner and the fans.
The result of this sporting decline was protests by the fans, taking place outside the Emirates
Stadium. As soon as 2017, fans targeted Arsène Wenger, one of the historic coaches of the Gunners, for
the lack of good results.305 However, the fans have lacked vision, as their manager was also suffering
from the lack of means given by the ownership of the club since the inauguration of the Emirates
Stadium. It is only when he left the club that the fans realised his importance. Since his departure in
2018, the club has not done better despite new managers, and the fans have started criticising the
ownership of Stan Kroenke. His goals are simply not in line with the fans’ ones, who want a competitive
team capable of winning titles. This led, in 2020, to some Arsenal fans creating Dial Square FC, the
latest alternative club created by fans.306 The club has been created by angry Arsenal fans, simply
disgusted by the club’s management but also by what football has become, and plan on playing at
303.Boor, Samuel, Matthew Green, et al. Football Money League: Planet Football. Jan. 2017, p. 22-23.
304.Ajadi, Théo, Zoé Burton, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020, p. 9.
305.‘Wenger Praises Fans despite Protests’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com.
306.Arsenal Fans To Set Up New Club In Ninth Tier Of English Football.
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-arsenal-fans-to-set-up-new-club-in-ninth-tier-of-
english-football-20200124.
110
Woolwich, the first location of Arsenal in the 1880s and 1890s.307 The club is “run by the fans, for the
fans” and is sponsored by the Arsenal Independent Supporters’ Association.308
Figure 30: Dial Square FC’s official logo.309
This initiative by fans was not the first of the kind as we will see just now but was the sign of
the fans’ despair of what football had become as well as the disparity in the view fans and ownership
have over football.
Manchester United, arguably the best team of the Premier League era as of 2020, with 13
Premier League titles, has witnessed the same phenomenon that Arsenal witnessed, but earlier. The club
was dominating the first decade of the Premier League, winning eight of the ten first titles, and even
winning a Champions League in 1999, while before 1992, the club had not won a First Division title
since 1966-1967. However, the arrival of the Glazers in 2005 changed many things. As explained earlier
in this dissertation, the way the Glazers took control of Manchester United was controversial and their
first visit to Old Trafford was tumultuous, as they were welcomed by angered fans asking for their
immediate departure. The leverage buyout they used to buy Manchester United was clearly seen as a
problem by the fans, as the club suddenly had enormous debts on purpose. Right from the beginning of
the 2005-2006 season, many fans launched the “Love United, Hate Glazers” movement, while their
team was still very successful.310 Ever since, as the club has become less successful and the Glazer
family does not seem to try to make the team competitive, regular protests keep happening outside Old
Trafford. In 2010, the club’s debt reached more than £700 million while the Glazers “took £10 million
in ‘management and administration fees’ from the club” the same year.311 The fans have never stopped
protesting against their owners, who were focused on commercial success rather than sporting
performance. This sporting decline became even more visible when Sir Alex Ferguson left the club in
307.Ibid.
308.Dial Square F.C. https://www.dialsquarefc.com/.
309.Retrieved from: Dial Square F.C. https://www.dialsquarefc.com/.
310.‘A Timeline of Manchester United Fan Protests against the Glazers’. United In Focus, 28 Apr.
2022.
311.Ibid.
111
2013. Since his departure, the club has failed to win another Premier League and has been passed on the
national scene by clubs such as Liverpool, Manchester City, and even Chelsea. The fact that the club,
which had dominated the two first decades of the Premier League, was finishing behind rival teams such
as Liverpool and Manchester City, which became the best team in Manchester, angered the fans even
more. This scheme of a historic coach leaving and his team struggling to succeed reminds us of what
would happen later at Arsenal with Arsène Wenger.
The fans’ protests in Manchester have been gaining influence and power. In 2010 for example,
as Manchester United was set to play the Carling Cup (League Cup) final in Wembley, its fans showed
up with green and gold scarves to the game.312
Figure 31: Manchester United fans wearing green and gold scarves at the Carling Cup final in 2010.313
This was a symbolic gesture resembling what Arsenal fans have done with the Dial Square FC
for example. Green and gold were the colours of Newton Heath, the club founded by railway workers
of Lancashire that became Manchester United. This was a call for a return to old football values and a
rejection of what football had become. Manchester United fans were also the first Premier League fans
to create their alternative football club. In 2005, some fans, angered by the Glazers takeover, created the
FC United of Manchester.
312.Bainbridge, Luke, and Ed Vulliamy. ‘Manchester United Fans Go Green and Gold at Wembley in
Colour-Coded Protest against Owners’. The Observer, 28 Feb. 2010. The Guardian.
313.Retrieved from: Ibid.
112
Figure 32: FC United of Manchester’s official logo.314
Even though the Glazers’ takeover of Manchester United was the main reason behind the
creation of the club, it was not the sole reason. As the fans mentioned “the material theft of a Manchester
institution, forcibly taken from the people of Manchester, was the tip of a pyramid of destruction, with
changing kick off times for the benefit of television, soulless all-seater stadia full of 'new' supporters’
intent to sit back and watch rather than partake in the occasion, heavy handed stewarding and
ridiculously priced tickets propping it all up” as the other reasons that led to the foundation of this fans’
alternative club.315 The club, like Dial Square FC, is owned by the fans and acts for their good, something
that has been reproached to Manchester United and Arsenal amongst others.
The fans of Wimbledon AFC were also victims of their owner’s mistreatment. During the 1980s
and the 1990s, the players of the club were nicknamed the Crazy Gang and managed to reach the Premier
League for its inaugural season in 1992. However, the fans did not live the Premier League dream for
much time, and that was because of the club’s owner since 1981, Sam Hammam.316 The club played at
Plough Lane, a modest stadium in southwest London. Hammam wanted a bigger stadium for his club,
as it would allow more fans to come in and the club would earn more through gate receipts. He started
by moving the club to Selhurst Park, Crystal Palace’s stadium, in 1991, where the two teams would have
to share the ground, a move justified by the Taylor Report’s requirements that would apparently reduce
Plough Lane’s capacity to 6,000.317 His next move would be even more scandalous for the fans who lost
their home ground. In 1997, he sold the clubs to two Norwegians, telling them that he was moving the
club to Dublin where it would become the Irish franchise of the Premier League.318 Fortunately for the
fans, the move was blocked by the Irish FA. However, troubles were not over. While the fans were
314.Retrieved from: ‘Football Club United of Manchester’. Wikipédia, 1 Jan. 2022.

315.Football - History | FC United of Manchester.
317.Ibid, p. 237.
318.Ibid, p. 238.
113
already contesting the ownership choices, that would have simply removed Wimbledon from its fans,
the new owners plotted for another move. As the Dublin move failed, the club changed chairman, with
Charles Koppel taking over. In 2000, he was approached by a music producer to move Wimbledon to
Milton Keynes, in the north of London. This move was voted by a three-member panel after much
contestation and a refusal from the Football League’s board meeting in 2001.319 Two members of the
panel voted in favour of the move, which allowed the club to be relocated to Milton Keynes. The move
was said to be accepted to save Wimbledon from economic demise as the club was struggling at the
time. The fans had lost their club, relocated 70 miles north of Wimbledon and renamed Milton Keynes
Dons (MK Dons). However, the fans’ answer was surprising and inspired, for example, the fans who
created the FC United of Manchester. They recreated the AFC Wimbledon, the same name the club had
known before moving north, and put the club’s start date to 1899, the original date of the club that
became a franchise.320 The Football League did not protect the fans, who lost their clubs, but brought it
back thanks to their passionate work. To make this even more beautiful for the fans, as of the end of the
2019-2020 season, MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon were both in League One, the third level of English
professional football. The fans had managed to catch up with their former club.
Overall, many fans have created new alternative clubs as they grew dissatisfied with the path
football has taken since the end of the 20th century. Over-commercialisation of the clubs, owners who
were more worried about commercial success rather than sporting success, and the overall gentrification
of football meant that many fans wanted to come back to the good old days of local football. To defend
their rights and interests, many fans have created supporters’ associations at their own clubs. On the
national level, the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) was founded in 2018 to defend English and
Welsh fans’ interests. The FSA are the self-proclaimed “advocates for supporter ownership, better fan
engagement, cheaper ticket prices, the choice to stand at the match, protecting fan rights, good
governance, diversity, and all types of supporter empowerment”.321
One of the main concerns of football fans is the ownership of clubs. We have seen that many
clubs have been badly run and that fans were clearly not listened. This is why many fans have started
advocating for different ways to run football clubs in order to give the fans more decision-making power
over their own clubs. As we have seen, some clubs have been taken over by fans, but this kind of pattern
happens only after disasters where the club is close to disappearance. What is needed is a change that
occurs before a disaster. Two alternatives used by other European football leagues have been asked by
fans to gain control over their clubs. The 50+1 rule, applied in Germany, and the socios system, used in
Spain, have been asked by many fans. The 50+1 rule is quite simple. It means that “football clubs will
not be allowed to play in the Bundesliga if commercial investors have more than a 49 percent stake”,
319.Ibid, p. 242.
320.Ibid, p. 247.
321.‘About Us’. Football Supporters’ Association, https://thefsa.org.uk/about/.
114
which means that “private investors cannot take over clubs and potentially push through measures that
prioritise profit over the wishes of supporters. The ruling simultaneously protects against reckless
owners and safeguards the democratic customs of German clubs”.322 This rule was introduced in 1998,
a moment when football clubs became more and more powerful, and was meant to keep the clubs as
non-profit organisations. Simultaneously, the socios system is similar, even though it gives arguably
less power to the fans than the 50+1 rule. First of all, not every Spanish football club follows the socios
system, which differentiates it from the 50+1 rule. The socios elect the club’s president every four years,
which obligates him to be efficient and act for the benefit of the club and the fans if he wants to be re-
elected. However, the whole of the socios only count for one vote in every decision, so it is hard for
them to obtain what they want, which makes it a better system than the classic one used in England, but
arguably worse than the 50+1 system of the Bundesliga.
The fans and their clubs seem to be, for the majority, more distant than ever. Both of them seem
to have different goals and expectations from their clubs. As the fans are not the ones in power, they can
only witness the change of directions of their clubs and cannot act in any way as their voice seems to be
muted by the owners. The example of the German and Spanish leagues looks like doable alternatives
giving the fans the power and control they deserve, so their clubs keep on the right path.
2. A proximity with the players now lost as the actors of the game are now
stars.
The Premier League and its ever-growing exposition offered players a new status to which they
had to adapt. They started earning more and more money, being more and more seen on TV and having
a bigger influence on fans who started looking up to them. However, this new status also had negative
sides, as the players became stars increasingly difficult to approach for fans and who had to be careful
about what they said or did, as tabloids and more recently social media were ready to criticise them at
the first faux pas.
The money that flooded the English Premier League meant that teams, richer than ever, were
able to pay ever-growing salaries to players. The Premier League became the richest football league in
the world, thus allowing its clubs to pay the best players better than any other league could. Overall, the
322.‘German Soccer Rules: 50+1 Explained’. Bundesliga.Com - the Official Bundesliga Website.
115
average salary of a football player in England has witnessed a large increase since the beginning of the
Premier League era, as shown by the graph below.
Figure 33: Evolution of the average weekly wage of a footballer in England’s first division from 1961
to 2010.323
As we can see in this graph, the growth of players’ wages can be separated into two trends. From
1961 to 1991, the average weekly wage of a football player in England’s first division went from £20 to
£1.600, representing an 8,000 per cent increase. This amount of £1.600 a week represented a salary of
approximately £83,000 a year, an already very important amount as of 1991. If the salaries had kept in
line with inflation, a football player should have earned, on average, £168.85 a week in 1991. This was
already a sign of the increase in players’ wages that occurred after the end of the maximum wage in
1961. However, what had started in 1991 was amplified by the Premier League. While the average salary
experienced a £1.580 a month raise in 30 years from 1961 to 1991, it experienced a £32.268 a month
323.Retrieved from: ‘From £20 to £33,868 per Week: A Quick History of English Football’s Top-Flight
Wages’ | Sporting Intelligence.
116
raise from 1991 to 2010. Had the average salary as of 1991 followed inflation, it would be approximately
£2.380 a week in 2010. However, the new riches of the Premier League and its clubs meant that players
were able to claim bigger salaries. For example, Carlos Tevez, moving from Manchester United to
Manchester City, became the first player to have a salary of £200,000 a week in 2009, meaning that he
earned around £10 million a year as a football player. This increase in players’ wages had not stopped
as of 2020, with the highest-paid player in the Premier League, David De Gea, the goalkeeper for
Manchester United, reportedly earning £375.000 a week.324 This represented an annual salary of more
than £19 million, a vertiginous amount of money. This meant that in only nine years, the highest-paid
player in the Premier League saw his wage almost doubling. Furthermore, as of 2019, the average salary
of a Premier League player was £61.024 a week.325 This meant two things. The first one was that the
average Premier League player earned more than £3 million a year, and the second was that this average
wage had almost doubled from 2010 to 2019.
This contextualisation of the evolution of the players’ wages is important as it is what provoked
many changes for players as well as fans. The ever-increasing wages as well as a growing exposition,
as football, and especially the Premier League, was watched by more and more people over the world
meant that players’ faces became familiar to a lot of people. The best players became some kind of
rockstars as we saw earlier in this dissertation. They started working with brands that were aware of
their commercial potential, and became a lot of kids’ inspiration as well as role models. Which British
kid has never tried to “bend it like Beckham” while taking a freekick? Which kid in the 1990s has not
turned his collar up to impersonate the mesmerising Eric Cantona? Which kid has not tried to reproduce
Cristiano Ronaldo’s dribbles while playing for Manchester United? The TV broadcast of Premier
League live games allowed many kids to discover their idols whom they tried to look like in their
everyday life. Kids nowadays dream of being footballer players at least as much as they dream of
becoming astronauts.
However, as much as this exposure brought a lot of fame, money, and exposure to football
players, it brought a lot of criticism from fans. One of the most common critics of players is that they
are paid too much. Who has never heard someone say, or even said that “these guys are paid millions
for running after a ball”? To tackle this delicate question and assumption, I asked David Burrows, who
has been a player in both the pre-Premier League era and the Premier League era, if he thought that
football players were paid too much and if he also experienced this salary increase in the 1990s. His
answers are very interesting. When it comes to his own salary, he confirmed that his salary increased:
“Yes, because it’s how it works.” He then continued his explanation of why the wages increased so
much.
324.O’Brien, Josh. ‘Every Highest Paid Premier League Player Each Season from 1992 to 2022’.
Mirror, 28 Mar. 2022.
325.Ingle, Sean. ‘Average Annual Salary of Premier League Players Tops £3m for First Time’.
117
If the league receives more money for whatever reason, normally the money is filtered down.
Yes, that's how it goes to the clubs and then goes to the players, and because of the success of
the Premier League, we were generating more money and our crowds were getting bigger. The
TV was also important because people were watching more football on TV again and the
promotion of the Premier League was incredible, and it generated straightaway a hell of a lot
more income. It did filter down to the players and we started to receive more money. The
contracts were getting bigger because people again wanted to watch football. That’s how it
started. I think the period from about 1988-1989 onwards was where we started to see players
earning a much bigger salary. From a player's point of view, we have to remember a big point.
A player is an employee and he doesn't own the club. He will try and negotiate. A player has a
very short career where normally if he reaches 35 with no major injuries, he has done very well.
So, a player will try and negotiate as much as he can. But at the end of the day, it's up to the
people who pay the players whether they say yes or no. A chairman and sponsors have to agree
to the player’s demands. So, a player has to look after himself in these situations. And this is
what sometimes annoys me when I speak to people who say, uh, football is too much money.
Maybe they do earn too much, but it's not their fault. It's not their fault. Then I posed the question
back to them: “Where do you work?” “Oh, I build houses.” “So, someone says alright, if you
build that house, we're going to give you ten times your money compared to your normal money.
You’re not going to say no.” Have a think before you start saying a footballer earns too much
money because it comes with consequences.
These comments by David Burrows, a former professional player, can hardly be contested. What
we can notice, however, is that he seems pretty bored and tired of people’s comments on footballer
wages. It is indeed because football, and especially the Premier League, is generating this much money
that the players are paid this much. Generally, even though we have seen some counter-examples, the
clubs pay what they can afford to players. The more money they have, the more they will be able to give
to players. Of course, some solutions such as a salary cap, which was implemented some times in the
Championship, could limit the players’ salaries, but it seems too late for this kind of solution. In fact, as
ITV Digital, the broadcaster of the Championship for 2003-2004, collapsed and made clubs lose millions
of pounds, the Football League introduced a cap, limited to 60 per cent of a club’s revenue, for the 2003-
2004 season, but has since been abandoned.326 The American sports league such as the NFL or the NBA
both have a salary cap, which is the same for every team every season. This allows a certain competitive
balance, as the teams cannot, in principle, lure a player over money. However, this system has its limits.
Even though there is a salary cap, the average salary of an NBA player as of 2019 was more than £6
million a year, doubling the average salary of a Premier League player at the same time.327 So, even
though there is a salary cap, it does not prevent players from earning millions. The difference is due to
the fact that these leagues are closed and based on an egalitarian system when it comes to revenue,
allowing every team to have similar revenue, which then allows them to give similar wages to their
players. Furthermore, for a salary cap to work, it should be applied to the whole of European football.
If not, it would create a situation where the players would sign with the teams that can offer them the
327.Ingle, Sean. ‘Average Annual Salary of Premier League Players Tops £3m for First Time’.
118
most as they would not have to comply with the salary cap policy. This would alter the competitive
balance. Besides, the question of how to apply this salary cap would also be important. If this cap is a
percentage of the revenue of a club, the biggest clubs will be able to offer the biggest salaries as they
earn the most revenue. As all my interviewees agreed, it seems too late now for such change, and players
will see their salaries increase as long as football’s popularity increases.
Furthermore, this new status and celebrities brought to the players the same problems it brought
to other stars. While before the 1990s, for most of them, players could hang out in the streets without
being bothered, their sudden fame changed that. Tabloids started to follow them everywhere, as well as
fans. For them, there was simply no room for mistake. Players became targets for these newspapers as
well as for angry opposition fans. This led to some catastrophes. For example, football fans remember
the Eric Cantona incident at Selhurst Park in 1996. As he was being sent off after a second yellow card
during Manchester United’s game against Crystal Palace, the Frenchman was going to the locker room
when he jumped into the crowd and gave a kung-fu kick to a fan, provoking the general
incomprehension.
Figure 34: Eric Cantona kicking a fan at Selhurst Park in 1996.328
It was later revealed that the fan he kicked, Matthew Simmons, had kind words about Eric
Cantona’s mother as well as his nationality, which angered the Frenchman. Following the incident,
Cantona was suspended for several months from playing football, but the trial revealed the fan’s
connections to far-right movements. This led to anti-racism and anti-xenophobia campaigns, as racism,
common for players in the 1980s, was not eradicated. As players became public figures, and with the
advent of social media, they became even more exposed to hatred, racism and criticism. New
328.Retrieved from: ‘Cantona on His Infamous Flying Kick on a Fan: I Would Have Loved to Kick
Him Harder’. MARCA, 26 Jan. 2022.
119
technologies such as smartphones allowed fans to take a picture or record players every time they saw
them, creating situations where players’ whereabouts were scrutinised. Social media, allowing anyone
to register anonymously, also became a place where some people discharged their hatred and frustration
on players. It is not rare that after a poor performance, a player is attacked by “burner accounts”, accounts
created by some people to hate and criticise without being identified. The player is attacked over the
money he gets for his poor performance, but also his nationality, skin colour, and religion. These
elements create an environment where the players are more and more suspicious and careful with fans,
as they fear unappropriated behaviours. These behaviours were common inside football stadiums, but
now the players face it in their everyday life.
The combination of money and fame undoubtedly affected the proximity between fans and
players. While players, even during the 1990s, had the same working-class and middle-class roots as the
fans, this was not the case anymore starting in the 2000s. Players became stars paid millions from a very
young age and entered the biggest club’s training centres before they turned ten years old. This created
young adults who had not known anything other than football, and who were told from a young age that
they were going to be the best in the world. This was accompanied, because of the social media, by a
glorification of young players, idolised before they turned eighteen. How, with this setting, a player can
grow in a healthy and sane environment? Players have to deal with pressure from the media as well as
the fans, expecting the world from players paid millions. This pressure pushed some players to simply
delete their social media, which were work tools for them, as they faced too much abuse.
I asked David Burrows if he thought that when he played, the relationship between him and the
fans was changed because of his new status as a player.
No, from my point of view I always had a good relationship with the fans. I've always been very
open with fans and I've always done interviews. I've always signed autographs. I've always done
exactly as much as I can for the fans and that's a very, very important part of the relationship
with the football club. We need to be able to sometimes reach out to the players and in some
capacity to feel them. You know a player he's only going to pass through a club. He's going to
be there maybe one year. Sometimes he may be there for 15 years. But the fan is there for life
and all the players come and go, but the fans are the most important part of football. And if you
have fans, you have a business. If you don't have fans, you have nothing.
He highlighted the importance of fans, who are the heart and soul of football. According to him,
being there for the fans is a duty for the players, as it is the fans’ involvement and support that make the
players who they are. However, it is not because David Burrows sees things that way that every
footballer from his time or from nowadays does.
The relationship between fans and players has undoubtedly been damaged by the new
economics of the Premier League. Players became rockstars, paid millions per year and scrutinised by
tabloids and media in general. The enormous amounts they are now paid cause some people to think
120
that they are not human beings and that they cannot live a normal life. On one hand, some fans, because
they are anonymous on social media, think they can abuse players and that they have to live with it. On
the other hand, the players are now used to fame and have lost this connection with fans, as they are told
that they are better than the rest and start earning colossal amounts from a young age. The players are
also now less loyal to clubs. Seeing a player staying ten years in the same club is now rare, as they often
change clubs when their salary demands are not met. This leads to a situation where players cannot
create connections with fans, making it difficult to interact with them. Both players and fans have
distanced themselves from the other, which is a shame as they need each other.
3. Football stadiums: the perfect example of the gentrification of football.

Football stadiums are the most important part of football dramaturgy. This is where all the action
happens and where history is made. A stadium is linked to a club. When we talk about Manchester
United, we immediately think of Old Trafford, “The Theatre of Dreams”. When we talk about Liverpool,
we directly think of Anfield, the Kop, its main stand, and the magical “You’ll Never Walk Alone” that
precedes every home game. Football stadiums are as much tied to the people as they are tied to their
clubs. During the early days of the “beautiful game”, most English football stadiums were built inside
cities and were a part of the neighbourhood they were from. However, the Premier League and the clubs’
need for more revenue meant that some of these stadiums were relocated or renovated in a way that
affected the domestic fans, who lost a part of their identity.
As we saw in the introduction of this dissertation, as English football clubs were created early,
during the Victorian era, their stadiums were built in the middle of Victorian neighbourhoods. This
created a link between a neighbourhood and a club, as its stadium was in the heart of people’s lives.
Even nowadays, as stadiums’ areas have expanded to allow car parking and better access for the different
public transport, it is not rare to find houses right beside the stadium. When you leave the tram at
Trafford Depot heading to Old Trafford, you go through Warwick Road, a street full of brick houses
from the industrial revolution. The last of these houses is located merely 100 meters from the stadium,
showing its anchoring in the neighbourhood. It is the same for Stamford Bridge, Chelsea’s stadium,
which is located, as the name of the club indicates, in Chelsea, one of the busiest neighbourhoods of
London, or for Everton’s Goodison Park and Liverpool’s Anfield, only separated by the Stanley Park
and Garden, and both at the heart of their neighbourhoods.
121
Figure 35: Brick houses just outside of Manchester United’s Old Trafford.329
Going to the stadium was also a ritual for fans. Generally speaking, fans arrive around two or
sometimes even three hours before the beginning of the game. The fans usually grab something to drink
and eat before the game. A beer, a coffee, a tea, soda, candy bars, hot dogs, French fries, and the famous
meat pie, the choice has not changed much since the beginning of the Premier League and is considered
to be “the one element of match day that has stubbornly resisted the tide of change”.330 One of the other
rituals for fans is to buy the matchday programme, where the fan can find information about the match,
the opposing team, and the activities before the game. This programme, which cost around £1 in 1992
at Old Trafford, for example, now costs between £3 and £4 according to the stadium.331 Overall, fans
have many rituals on matchday, varying from one fan to the other, and that makes English football so
special. English football stadiums are special places for the fans and have a much stronger connection
than anywhere else in Europe. The first reason is that in most other European countries, football stadiums
are not so close to houses and neighbourhoods. Very often, while English fans can walk to the stadium,
or sometimes take public transport, other European fans usually have to take their cars to the stadium
which is often located in the suburbs of towns. This means that the clubs are less anchored in their
communities, as their stadiums are located in empty spaces near commercial zones, similar to the giant
American sports stadiums, which sometimes require the fans to drive an hour from their city to the
329.Retrieved from: KGGucwa. English: The MUFC’s Stadium and the Houses in Its Neighbourhood.
6 June 2009. Own work, Wikimedia Commons.
Books, 2015, p. 51.
331.‘Price of Football: Full Results 2017’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com and Www.Red11.Org - Ticket
Prices Since 1960. https://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/prices.htm.
122
stadium. However, the Taylor Report’s requirements and the rush for revenue of the Premier League
modified the relationship between fans and their clubs’ stadiums.
As we saw many times earlier, the Taylor Reports required English football stadiums to end the
terraces for Premier League clubs, which had to have all-seaters stadiums. This meant that every Premier
League club had to renovate at least one of its stands if it was lucky. The result, as we know, was an
astonishing increase in the price of game and season tickets, causing gentrification of the audience,
which became increasingly upper-middle class and middle class. However, there were other
consequences that we have not covered yet. As the Taylor Reports required some clubs to rebuild the
majority of their stands, a choice had to be made. We saw that it was the case at Arsenal, which asked
for its supporters’ financial support first to rebuild one of its stands, and then to build their new stadium.
The club took the difficult decision to move from Highbury to the new Emirates stadium, a decision
which left the fans around Highbury orphan. Fortunately for the fans, the two stadiums are not too distant
one from each other, as shown by the picture below.
Figure 36: Highbury Stadium and the Emirates Stadium.332
The construction of a new football ground is always a challenge, especially in England. The
older stadiums are anchored in their neighbourhoods, and have never caused any problem as they were
literally always there in the cities. However, building a new stadium in already stacked cities causes
much more problems. First, there will be the angry fans who, logically, do not want the emblematic
stadium of their club being replaced. Besides, there is the problem of the location of the new stadium,
which will require some people to be relocated as their houses are going to be destroyed to create a new
stadium. The solution would be to make like other European teams, build a new stadium outside of the
332.Retrieved from: Limited, Alamy. Vue aérienne du Club d’Arsenal montrant le stade Highbury &
l’Emirates Stadium, domicile des artilleurs ou les Gunners Photo Stock - Alamy.
123
city, but it will anger even more the fans who would lose the proximity to the stadium. Even though
Highbury (in the foreground), is not far from the Emirates Stadium (in the background), we can see a
difference in the surroundings of the two stadiums. Highbury is surrounded by old houses, which are
literally meters away from it, while the Emirates is in an emptier set-up. This creates lifeless stadiums
that have not followed the tradition of English stadiums since the Victorian Era. Of course, we know
that these new stadiums are not built by clubs for their practicality, but for the money they can bring to
the club. Arsenal went from a stadium capacity of 38,500 at Highbury to a capacity of 60,000 at the
Emirates Stadium.333 It was the same for Manchester City which went from a capacity of 35,000 to
55,000 when they moved to the city of Manchester Stadium, for West Ham, which went from 35,000
seats at Upton Park to 60,000 at the London Stadium.334 The latest club to have built a new stadium,
Tottenham, moved from the 36,000 seats of White Hart to the 62,000 sets of the Tottenham Hotspurs
Stadium in 2019.335 All the clubs mentioned nearly doubled their capacity, which, combined with the
increased prices of season and game tickets, allowed them to earn extra revenue. However, even though
more fans are now able to watch their teams at the stadium, the clubs have chosen to lose a big part of
their history to make more revenue. Other clubs such as Manchester United, Chelsea, or Anfield acted
otherwise by renovating and extending existing stands. This allowed domestic fans not to lose their
stadium, a part of their neighbourhood and their life, and clubs to be able to welcome more fans.
I have asked my interviewees “What do you think of the new stadiums built recently by some
Premier League clubs such as Arsenal or Tottenham? Do you think it breaks the link between the club
and its fans by replacing iconic stadiums such as Highbury or White Hart Lane?”. All of them agreed
that the clubs and their supporters lost something by moving into new stadiums, and Robert Owensmith
told me:
Of course [it breaks the link]. I mean, I'm happy that Stamford Bridge wasn't knocked down and
rebuilt because for me it's the same as it ever was. Well, no, it did change in the 80s. They
expanded it, made all new stands and all that. But yeah, I think it's difficult. You've got so many
people that want to go to a game, you have to have the capacity. Chelsea could fill the double
of places every single week that they can't, so it's limited. But it makes sense to increase the
capacity. You could maybe find a compromise like adding in some capacity without having a
new stadium.
Robert Owensmith underlined one of the main challenges for football clubs nowadays. As the
new economics of football has forced clubs to try and earn as much revenue as they possibly can, some
clubs, seeing that renovating their stadium was going to be expensive, decided to build a new one. We
can argue that these clubs chose ease over what most of their fans wanted. I then asked my interviewees
what they thought about the idea of their clubs having a new stadium replacing the actual one. Once
333.English Football Stadiums - The Stadium Guide.

334.Ibid.
335.Ibid.
124
again, all of them agreed that they would not be in favour. David Burrows gave the same arguments that
we gave about the importance of local communities and their link with the stadium: “But for example,
Everton might be, I think, going to a new stadium now. This could be, I think. I'm not sure whether it's
been accepted. It's very often a problem of where you put the stadium they're going towards the docks.
So away from Everton. Yeah, that's the problem with the local communities because a lot of the time
the local communities are really centred around the football club because it's not like in France.” So, as
some clubs are building new stadiums, they are distancing themselves from their fans, who have a deep
connection with the club, its history, and the stadium.
Moreover, an innovation brought to the football stadiums by Irving Scholar, the chairman of
Tottenham, at the beginning of the 1980s, also has had a negative impact on the fans going to the
stadium. The corporate boxes or executive boxes, experienced for the first time by the visionary Irving
Scholar, have been a clear sign of the gentrification of football. These boxes have been introduced in
the new stadiums as well as in the older stadiums that have been renovated. This is how Manchester
United describes these executive boxes: “Experience the exclusivity of your own private box at Old
Trafford. With stunning, panoramic views of the pitch, you won't miss a single second of the action.
Add to this fantastic food, plus your own dedicated service staff to tend to your every need, and you can
be sure of an unforgettable day out at the Theatre of Dreams”.336 From this description, we understand
that these boxes are not for the most modest football fans.
Figure 37: Executive box at Old Trafford in 2019.337
336.Manchester United Executive Boxes. https://www.manutd.com/en/matchday-vip/executive-boxes.

337.Retrieved from: ‘Manchester United Hospitality Viewing Box Old Trafford 2019/20’. The
Hospitality Broker.
125
Figure 37 shows what a hospitality or executive box looks like. As we can see, the experience
is totally different from the one of the fans sitting in the stands. Fans or companies renting these boxes,
for one game or one season, can choose between different packages that will offer them various
exclusive content before and during a game. From a visit of the ground to a meeting with players by
way of champagne, petit-fours, and great comfort, these fans pay for more than a football game. Of
course, this comes at a price, as shown in the picture below.
Figure 38: Seasonal Hospitality Prices at Old Trafford for 2015/2016.338
As we can see, the prices for the different boxes are extremely high. The least expensive option,
at £1,995 a season, is more expensive than a normal season ticket at Old Trafford. Now, with these
boxes come problems. The first one that we can see is that this installs a hierarchisation of fans, as the
richest ones, capable and willing to pay for these boxes, receive a special treatment while other fans,
paying already expensive tickets, do not have the luxury to have a private service in a warm room.
Besides, while clubs have renovated their stadiums, or sometimes built new ones, a strategy adopted to
earn more revenue as more fans can enter the stadium, they have incorporated these boxes, more and
more numerous and which lower the stadium capacity. This strategy makes them lose capacity as they
offer a special treatment at a higher fee to richer fans. This capacity loss could have been used to have
more seats for more modest fans, a strategy that could allow clubs to reduce the price of their tickets.
These executive boxes are the incarnation of the gentrification of football, which became glamorous and
338.Retrieved from: ‘How Much Would You Pay for a Box at Old Trafford?’ R/Reddevils, 2 Apr.
2015.
126
elitist. While the poorest fans struggle to buy tickets always more expensive, and have to stay in
uncomfortable seats under sometimes harsh conditions, the richer ones can watch the games in warm
boxes, where they can eat and drink while watching the game in home-like conditions.
This is an alarming assessment, as this shows a clear fracture between the fans and the clubs.
Clubs are now more focused on fans that are willing to show their support by spending large amounts
for the club and are creating an environment where the more modest domestic fans are nearly put aside.
It is the same thing as commercialisation and ticket prices. As long as fans will be willing to pay for
these boxes, nothing will change. However, it shows a clear trend in English football and football in
general, which is now more centered on making money rather than taking care of their fans, the heart
and soul of their football clubs.
Overall, it is hard to deny that being a British football fan has never been so hard. Everything
related to football has witnessed an excessive increase. Season and game tickets, TV subscriptions, and
merchandising have all witnessed a price increase. Clubs as well as broadcasters have pushed the limits
as to see until where fans are ready to go to support their teams. This represents an abuse of power which
is definitely pricing out the most modest Premier League fans, who simply cannot afford to go to the
stadium or to watch their team on television anymore. Some of these modest fans still spend a lot,
sacrificing other parts of their daily lives to support their team. Football has become a luxury for the
lower classes, who have been historic followers, supporters, and actors of a sport they popularised.
Owners and chairmen are showing to the world that they do not care about the fate of these modest fans.
As long as other richer fans are willing to pay, the clubs earn money, and simply do not care about who
has spent this money and how. The institutions such as the FA and the Premier League do not seem to
care much either for the safety of their clubs and their fans. During the last 30 years, an alarming number
of clubs has faced administration and bankruptcy, either because of bad owners, or because of a system
that forces clubs to spend more than what they can afford to be sure to be a part of the gold rush of the
Premier League. When clubs fold, it is the fans and the people of the city involved that suffer the most.
They lose an important part of their life and of their communities. The result of increased prices and a
broken system that only advantages the richer clubs, has been disputes between the fans and the clubs
and institutions. The clubs seem to listen less and less to the fans who are the heart and soul of this sport.
Some of these fans, tired of this sport that has become a business, simply abandon the glitters of the
Premier League to focus on grass-roots football, far from the money and struggle for power of modern
football, to come back to the authentic values of the “beautiful game”.
127
Conclusion
When I started my research about the Premier League, I did not know what I was going to find.
The project of the Super League that was activated in the spring of 2021 was the latest sign of how bad
football’s situation was. As a kid who started watching football at the end of the 2000s, I was certainly
not aware of most of the negative sides of the “beautiful game”. Working on such a subject has been the
occasion to learn a lot about the sport that I enjoy every day as a football fan. However, I did not expect
to discover that football had shifted in such a way. Football has nearly always been the people’s game.
It is the most followed sport in the world as well as the most popular. As we noticed throughout this
dissertation, football clubs are predominant parts of a lot of football fans’ lives, who spend their life
following and cheering for what means the world to them. Even though football looks like a slight
subject of little interest, this dissertation showed otherwise. As Bill Shankly, a legend of Liverpool
stated: “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that
attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”339 This famous quote, although
exaggerated, is certainly the best way to describe the importance of football for some part of the British
people, deeply attached to its national sport for now more than one and a half century.
The first assessment that we can make is that the Premier League has been, on the one hand, a
superb creation. English football was, by the end of the 1980s, at an all-time low, overwhelmed by
various problems, on and off the pitch. Some of the new chairmen and owners of the time, the first
businessmen who took over football, had a clear vision of how to shift the culture and path of English
football, which was a national embarrassment. Thanks to the help of the FA, which wanted to gain power
over the Football League, these new actors of English football got their way. This was a risky gamble,
as another failure for English football would have been hard to take. However, the Premier League,
thanks to great work done by the FA, BSkyB, and the football clubs, supported by the English
government, became an instant hit. As of 2020, 28 years after the establishment of the new Premier
League, English football was back to its former glory. The Premier League is the most powerful, richest,
most-watched, and most popular football league in the world, no less. English football is a symbol of
the country’s soft power and shows the standing of England and the United Kingdom.
However, there is a negative side of the story, one which is often forgotten or put under the
carpet. The Premier League put an end to the egalitarian system on which the Football League had rested
since its establishment in 1888. A system where the 92 clubs, whether they were fighting for the title of
the First Division or trying to avoid relegation from the Fourth Division, shared the revenue of television,
and partially shared the turnstiles on game day. This system allowed to keep a certain competitive
339.‘25 Top Bill Shankly Quotes | Commemorating the Anniversary of His Death’. Shankly Hotel in
Liverpool.
128
balance and to keep the League entertaining. However, the new Premier League changed all that. The
egalitarian system was no more, as the 22 and then 20 best clubs of the countries now did not have to
share the revenue with the rest of the Football League. Instead, these clubs shared only between
themselves, which is why they became so rich so fast. This new system shook the competitive balance
of English football and created an economic gap between the Premier League and the Football League.
As time went by, this gap widened. This created a situation where clubs, which all wanted to reach the
Premier League and its guaranteed large amount of money, spent more than they could afford. Other
clubs were bought by crooks, who tried to take advantage of the clubs for their personal interests. The
Premier League attracted sharks who were ready to do anything, even risking the disappearance of some
football clubs, to have their share of the Premier League’s money. The fans have been suffering the most
from this change. Of course, the fans of the biggest English clubs would not agree with that, as their
clubs are the richest in the world and are enjoying domestic and European success. However, the fans
of the smaller clubs, have seen their clubs facing disappearance because of the new economics of the
Premier League as well as the liars and crooks it attracted. Being a supporter has also never been so
expensive, and the working class has been gradually priced out of football. To sum it up, the Premier
League and English football went from a rather communist, egalitarian system in a local market to an
ultra-capitalist, individualist system in an international context. This came with its positive sides, which
were largely reported, and its negative sides, which were very often forgotten, to give the Premier
League a positive image.
I did not expect the situation to be this worrying. What is happening right now in English football
is, in my sense, extremely serious, and, even though some people, such as the author David Conn,
sounded the alarm, the situation does not seem to be changing. Football in general is generating so much
profit for most of its actors and has become such a business that it seems hard to raise awareness on such
a subject. As we saw with what happened with Hillsborough in 1989, as long as a tragic event does not
occur, things in football are unlikely to change. It would maybe take the vacillating of one of England’s
football powerhouses to change things. It would maybe take a worldwide fans’ coalition, which
happened in 2021 when the Super League was announced, for clubs and institutions to realise that
football and the business side that took over the game have gone too far.
I have decided to take the example of the Premier League to show how football had become
elitist and controlled by business simply because it is the most striking example, as the league is the
most powerful and richest in the world. However, this is a general assessment, as the situation is similar
in the rest of Europe, where clubs have become businesses and rich men’s toys, sometimes bought by
states to showcase their soft power, which is the case, for example, of Paris Saint-Germain in France,
bought at the beginning of the 2010s by a Qatari investment fund. Football has drifted away from its
original values and has become a middle controlled by money, power, and politics. The Premier League
129
is certainly the most striking example of that, and was, in a way, the precursor of the Super League, as
Robinson and Clegg argued:
Picture a Champions-League-type tournament featuring the biggest clubs in Europe

supercharged by a fresh influx of television-rights money playing one another year-round and
not bothering to deal with the smaller clubs that used to clog-up their schedule – not unlike what
goes on stateside every summer in the ICC [International Champions Cup].
But above all, it would look like the richest clubs in England deciding once and for all that they
weren’t getting their due; that they simply wouldn’t carry the burden of the poorer, smaller, less
popular teams any longer.
In other words, it would look an awful lot like 1992.340
This assessment was not what I expected when I started my research on this subject but is hard
to deny. The Premier League was simply the first Super League. The Premier League was the catalyst
of the change of culture around football. The Premier League was the first domino that fell, leading to
football becoming an elitist and business-controlled sport, drifting away from the people and its original
values.
130
Bibliography
Articles:
Baker, W. J. ‘The Making of a Working-Class Football Culture in Victorian England’. Journal of

Social History, vol. 13, no. 2, Dec. 1979, pp. 241–51. DOI.org (Crossref),
https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh/13.2.241.
Books:
Bose, Mihir. Game Changer: How the English Premier League Came to Dominate the World. Marshall
Cavendish, 2012.
Conn, David. The Beautiful Game? Searching for the Soul of Football. Yellow Jersey Press. 2010.
Goldblatt, David. The Game of Our Lives: The Meaning and Making of English Football. Penguin
Books, 2015.
Horrie, Chris. Premiership Lifting the Lid on a National Obsession. Pocket Books, 2002.
Piskurek, Cyprian. Fictional Representations of English Football and Fan Cultures. A. Sonntag and
D. Rane, Palgrave McMillan, 2018.
Robinson, Joshua, and Jonathan Clegg. The Club: How the English Premier League Became the
Wildest, Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018.
Definitions:
‘In Real Terms Definition’. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/in-real-

terms#:~:text=In%20real%20terms%20means%20that,Sample%201.
Fan blogs and websites:
‘A Timeline of Manchester United Fan Protests against the Glazers’. United In Focus, 28 Apr. 2022,
https://www.unitedinfocus.com/glazers-out/a-timeline-of-manchester-united-fan-protests-against-the-
glazers-2/.
Requiem01. ‘How Much Would You Pay for a Box at Old Trafford?’ R/Reddevils, 2 Apr. 2015,
www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/316kis/how_much_would_you_pay_for_a_box_at_old_traffor
d/.
131
Tickner, Dave. ‘League Cup Sponsors and Names Ranked from Worst Ot Best before Chelsea v
Liverpool Final’. Football365, 26 Feb. 2022, https://www.football365.com/news/ranking-league-cup-
sponsors-carabao-milk-worthington.
Unitedkits.Com - the Definitive Illustrated Guide to Manchester United Kits | United’s Kit
Manufacturers. https://www.unitedkits.com/articles/manufacturers.php.
Www.Red11.Org - Ticket Prices Since 1960. https://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/prices.htm.
Official websites of clubs and institutions:
‘About Us’. Football Supporters’ Association, https://thefsa.org.uk/about/.
Buy BT Sport | BT Sport Packages | BT Sport. https://www.bt.com/sport/buy#sportpackages.
‘Carling Announced as Beer Partner of the League’. http://www.premierleague.com/news/60795.

Competition History - EFL. https://www.efl.com/carabao-cup/about-the-carabao-cup/league-cup-
competition-history/.
Dial Square F.C. https://www.dialsquarefc.com/.
Football - History | FC United of Manchester. http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/history.
‘German Soccer Rules: 50+1 Explained’. Bundesliga.Com - the Official Bundesliga Website,
https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/german-soccer-rules-50-1-fifty-plus-one-explained-
466583.jsp.
Manchester United Executive Boxes. https://www.manutd.com/en/matchday-vip/executive-boxes.
Man Utd Global Partners & Sponsors. https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/global. 2022.
Premier League Broadcast Deals for 2019-2022. http://www.premierleague.com/news/970151.
Premier League Club Records, All-Time Team & Player Stats.

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/all-time.
Premier League Official Commercial Partners & Licensees. https://www.premierleague.com/partners.
The Football Association. ‘Financial Regulation’. www.Thefa.Com, http://www.thefa.com/football-

rules-governance/policies/financial-regulation.
The Super League. https://thesuperleague.com.
132
UEFA.com. ‘How Association Club Coefficients Are Calculated’. UEFA.Com, 1 July 2018,
https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/news/0252-0cda3876cf40-3b08507f16f2-
1000--how-association-club-coefficients-are-calculated/.
Reports :
Ajadi, Theo, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2021: Riding the Challenge. July 2021.
Ajadi, Théo, Tom Ambler, et al. Annual Review of Football Finance 2020: Home Truths. June 2020.
Ajadi, Théo, Zoé Burton, et al. Football Money League: Eye on the Prize. Jan. 2020.
Boor, Samuel, Chris Hanson, et al. Football Money League: Rising Stars. Jan. 2018.
Boor, Samuel, Matthew Green, et al. Football Money League: Planet Football. Jan. 2017.
Hawkins, Martyn, et al. Football Money League: The Reign in Spain. Feb. 2007.
Houlihan, Austin, and Rich Parkes. Football Money League: Changing in the Ground. Feb. 2006.
Parkes, Rich, et al. Football Money League: Gate Receipts. Feb. 2008.
Poli, Raffaele, et al. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report: Issue No. 12 - February 2016:
Foreign Players in Football Teams. 12, Feb. 2016.
‘Price of Football: Full Results 2017’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com,

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41482931.
Ross, Calum, et al. Football Money League; Bullseye. Jan. 2019.
Sky Group, “Trends in charges for pay tv services, the quality of services provided to consumers and
subscriber numbers”. 2010.
TV Series:
Fever Pitch: The Rise of the Premier League, BBC.
133
Web Articles:
‘38 Years Ago Today: Liverpool Becomes First English Pro Team with Shirt Sponsor’. Footy
Headlines, https://www.footyheadlines.com/2017/07/liverpool-becomes-first-english-pro-team-with-
shirt-sponsor.html.
‘Arsenal Fans To Set Up New Club In Ninth Tier Of English Football’. Sport Bible,
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-arsenal-fans-to-set-up-new-club-in-ninth-tier-of-
english-football-20200124.
Bailey, Ryan. ‘Why the Premier League Needs a Foreign Player Quota’. Bleacher Report,
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1685147-why-the-premier-league-needs-a-foreign-player-quota.
Bainbridge, Luke, and Ed Vulliamy. ‘Manchester United Fans Go Green and Gold at Wembley in
Colour-Coded Protest against Owners’. The Observer, 28 Feb. 2010. The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/feb/28/manchester-united-green-gold-wembley.
Beard, Brian. ‘Foreign Ownership of Premier League Clubs’. My Football Facts, 30 Apr. 2020,
https://www.myfootballfacts.com/2020/04/article-foreign-ownership-of-premier-league-clubs/.
Beresford, Jack. ‘19 Iconic George Best Quotes’. The Irish Post, https://www.irishpost.com/sport/19-
iconic-george-best-memorable-quotes-155063.
Blanchette, Rob. ‘Manchester United and Adidas Agree on New Kit Deal’. Bleacher Report,
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2128723-manchester-united-and-adidas-reportedly-agree-on-new-
kit-deal.
Bray, Chad. ‘Nike and Manchester United Set to End Equipment Partnership’. The New York Times,
9 July 2014. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/business/international/nike-and-
manchester-united-set-to-end-partnership.html.
‘Brighton Confirm “UK£100m” American Express Cover-All Deal’. SportsPro, 9 Aug. 2019,
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/brighton-confirm-uk100m-american-express-cover-all-deal/.
‘Cantona on His Infamous Flying Kick on a Fan: I Would Have Loved to Kick Him Harder’.
MARCA, 26 Jan. 2022, https://www.marca.com/en/football/premier-
league/2022/01/26/61f12d2f46163f09b08b4586.html.
‘Champions League Final: Full List of All UCL and European Cup Winners as Chelsea Look to
Defend Title’. CBSSports.Com, https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/champions-league-final-full-
list-of-all-ucl-and-european-cup-winners-as-chelsea-look-to-defend-title/.
134
‘Charting the Year-by-Year Changes to Sky Sports’ Broadcasts’. Sky Sports,
https://www.skysports.com/other-sports/news/12028/10244170/charting-the-year-by-year-changes-to-
sky-sports-broadcasts.
‘Chelsea Signs Record-Breaking £900m Nike Kit Deal’. BBC News, 14 Oct. 2016. www.bbc.com,
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-37652612.
Conn, David. ‘The Premier League Has Priced out Fans, Young and Old’. The Guardian, 16 Aug.
2011. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-
blog/2011/aug/16/premier-league-football-ticket-prices.
Conn, David. ‘What Is the “Fit and Proper Person Test”?’ The Guardian, 7 Oct. 2009. The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/oct/07/fit-and-proper-person-test.
‘Delayed Entry: The FA’s “Highest Calibre” Standard for Non-EU Footballers’ - LawInSport.
https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/competition-law/item/delayed-entry-the-fa-s-highest-calibre-
standard-for-non-eu-footballers.
Devine, Joe. ‘Who Is Paying for the Premier League’s Bumper TV Deal? Your Local Pub’. The
Guardian, 13 July 2017. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/football/the-set-pieces-
blog/2017/jul/13/football-watch-pub-sky-bt-cost-rise-tv-premier-league.
‘Emirates’ Millions or Not, This Competition Will Still Be the FA Cup’. The Independent, 29 Apr.
2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/fa-league-cups/fa-cup-name-change-emirates-
millions-or-not-this-famous-old-competition-will-still-be-the-fa-cup-10213690.html.
‘English Premier League Sponsors Through the Years’. Sports Ball Blog, 6 Jan. 2021,
https://www.sportsballshop.co.uk/sportsballblog/english-premier-league-sponsors-through-the-years/.
‘EXCLUSIVE: Manchester United and Real Madrid Top Global Shirt Sale Charts’ | Sporting
Intelligence. https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/10/08/exclusive-manchester-united-and-real-
madrid-top-global-shirt-sale-charts-081001/.
‘From £20 to £33,868 per Week: A Quick History of English Football’s Top-Flight Wages’ | Sporting
Intelligence. https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/01/20/from-20-to-33868-per-week-a-quick-
history-of-english-footballs-top-flight-wages-200101/.
Garner-Purkis, Zak. ‘Fulham’s Premier League Promotion Will Underline The EFL’s Parachute
Problem’. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2022/04/17/fulhams-premier-league-
promotion-will-underline-the-efls-parachute-problem/.
135
Garner-Purkis, Zak. ‘Manchester City’s Infamous 10-Year Deal Enters Its Final Chapter’. Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2020/07/27/manchester-citys-infamous-10-year-deal-
enters-its-final-chapter/.
Gibson, Owen. ‘Arsenal-Emirates Deal Worth £100m’. The Guardian, 5 Oct. 2004. The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/05/business.marketingandpr.
Hayward, Stephen, and Alex Miller. ‘Replica Football Shirts Rip-off as Fans Pay 1,000% Mark-up on
Manufacturing Cost’. Mirror, 27 Feb. 2016, http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/replica-
football-shirts-rip-fans-7455562.
Henshall, Tony Jimenez and Angela. ‘The Costs of Swapping Football Shirts.’ BBC,
‘How the Bosman Rule Changed Football - 20 Years On’. Sky Sports, https://uk-sport-
web.prod.oceanusorigin.com/football/news/11096/10100134/how-the-bosman-rule-changed-football-
20-years-on.
Hyde, Ben. ‘Why Are Football Shirts so Expensive?’ FOOTY.COM,

https://www.footy.com/blog/shirts/why-are-football-shirts-so-expensive.
Ingle, Sean. ‘Average Annual Salary of Premier League Players Tops £3m for First Time’. The
Guardian, 23 Dec. 2019. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/23/premier-
league-salaries-manchester-city-nba-barcelona.
Ingle, Sean. ‘Why Do England Have Three Lions on Their Shirts?’ The Guardian, 18 July 2002. The
Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/jul/18/theknowledge.sport.
Joy, Oliver. ‘Manchester United Pen New Multi-Million Dollar Aon Deal’. CNN,
https://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/business/manchester-united-aon-deal/index.html.
‘Ligue 1 : L’OM confirme son contrat avec Uber Eats’. RMC SPORT,
https://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/football/ligue-1/ligue-1-l-om-confirme-son-contrat-avec-uber-eats_AV-
201907010293.html.
‘Liverpool Announce £80m-a-Year Nike Kit Deal Smashing Rivals Man Utd’. The Sun, 7 Jan. 2020,
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/10687723/liverpool-announce-80m-a-year-nike-kit-deal-
smashing-rivals-man-utd-and-arsenal/.
‘Man Utd Sign £56m AIG Shirt Deal’. 6 Apr. 2006. news.bbc.co.uk,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4882640.stm.
‘Manchester United Chevrolet Kit Deal To Expire In Exactly One Year’. Footy Headlines,
https://www.footyheadlines.com/2020/12/manchester-united-chevrolet-kit-deal-to.html.
136
McGregor, Gregor, et al. ‘The Owners of Every Championship Club & How They Make Their Cash’.
Gazette Live, 18 Oct. 2017, http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/listed-owners-
every-championship-club-13778193.
Nast, Condé. ‘Can the £1 Billion Football Jersey Business Overcome Covid-19?’ Vogue Business, 12
Sept. 2020, https://www.voguebusiness.com/companies/football-jersey-sales-premier-league-messi.
O’Brien, Josh. ‘Every Highest Paid Premier League Player Each Season from 1992 to 2022’. Mirror,
28 Mar. 2022, https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-highest-paid-players-
26572588.
‘Premier League Clubs “Fail to Cash in on Stadium Rights”’. BBC News, 20 May 2019.
www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48336453.
‘Premier League Prices Frozen or Cut’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com,

‘Puma Signs Record-Breaking $860 Million Partnership with Manchester City’. CNBC, 28 Feb. 2019,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/puma-signs-860-million-partnership-with-manchester-city.html.
Rapp, Timothy. ‘Premier League Homegrown Rules: Explaining EPL Player Quotas’. Bleacher
Report, https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2137974-premier-league-home-grown-rules-explaining-epl-
player-quotas.
Sale, Charles. ‘Premier League to Be without a Title Sponsor from 2016-17 Season’. Mail Online, 4
June 2015, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3111413/Premier-League-without-title-
sponsor-2016-17-season-bid-mirror-major-American-sports-clean-branding-strategy.html.
‘Sky TV: 20 Years in Pictures’. The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2009. www.theguardian.com,

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gallery/2009/feb/03/sky-tv-20th-anniversary-bskyb.
Srivastava, Nikhil. ‘Analysing the Importance of Shirt Sales to a Football Club.’

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/looking-importance-shirt-sales-club.
‘The Price of Football Five Years On’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com,

‘Tottenham Hotspur Reveal Details of Bumper 15-Year Nike Deal’. SportsPro, 30 Oct. 2018,
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/tottenham-hotspur-spurs-nike-deal/.
‘United Announce £30m Vodafone Sponsorship’. The Guardian, 11 Feb. 2000. The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2000/feb/11/newsstory.sport9.
137
Verschueren, Gianni. ‘Arsenal Announce Kit Deal with Adidas Reportedly Worth £65M Per Year’.
Bleacher Report, https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2799680-arsenal-announce-kit-deal-with-adidas-
reportedly-worth-65m-per-year.
‘Vodafone Ends Man Utd Shirt Deal’. 23 Nov. 2005. news.bbc.co.uk,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4463534.stm.
‘Waiting List Times for Premier League Season Ticket - Liverpool’s Been Closed since 2011’.
GiveMeSport, 3 May 2022, https://www.givemesport.com/88002706-premier-league-tickets-how-
long-is-the-wait-for-a-season-ticket-at-each-club.
Walker, Charlie. ‘Prem Dominates Bundesliga and La Liga Attracting 3.2BN TV Viewers’. Mail
Online, 17 Jan. 2022, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10409843/Premier-
League-dominates-Bundesliga-Ligue-1-La-Liga-Serie-attracting-3-2-billion-TV-viewers.html.
‘Wenger Praises Fans despite Protests’. BBC Sport. www.bbc.com,

‘West Ham and Umbro Agree “long-Term” Kit Deal Extension’. SportsPro, 30 June 2020,
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/west-ham-umbro-premier-league-sponsorship-kit-deal-
extension/.
Web pages:
‘25 Top Bill Shankly Quotes | Commemorating the Anniversary of His Death’. Shankly Hotel in
Liverpool, 25 Sept. 2018, https://shanklyhotel.com/blog/bill-shanklys-best-quotes/.
Arsenal FC - Cup History. https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-arsenal/pokalhistorie/verein/11.
Attendances England Average. https://www.european-football-

statistics.co.uk/attn/nav/attnengleague.htm
‘FA Cup’. Wikipedia, 5 May 2022. Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FA_Cup&oldid=1086389008.
Football Benchmark - Cost of Fandom in the Premier League – the Etoro Fan Financial Statement.
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/cost_of_fandom_in_the_premier_league_the_etoro_fan_f
inancial_statement.
‘Football Jerseys: Sales by European Club 2016’. Statista,

https://www.statista.com/statistics/945048/football-jerseys-sales-by-european-club/.
138
Foreign Players In Football - History and Future of Foreign Players in the English Game | Football-
Stadiums.Co.Uk. https://www.football-stadiums.co.uk/articles/foreign-players-in-football/.
‘Manchester United Hospitality Viewing Box Old Trafford 2019/20’. The Hospitality Broker,
https://thehospitalitybroker.com/manchester-united-hospitality-viewing-box-old-trafford-2018-19/.
New Sky TV Packages Combine Sky Sports and BT Sport in One Single Subscription.
https://www.skygroup.sky/en-gb/article/new-sky-tv-packages-combine-sky-sports-and-bt-sport-in-
one-single-subscription.
Premier League - Attendance Figures (Detailed View). https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-

league/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/1/galerie/0?saison_id=2019.
Premier League - Foreign Coaches. https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-

league/auslaendischetrainer/wettbewerb/GB1.
Premier League Season Ticket Prices 2020/21 Comparison.

https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/sport/football/season-ticket-prices.html.
Paul Pogba - Transfer History. https://www.transfermarkt.com/paul-pogba/transfers/spieler/122153.
‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute, https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.
‘Tips to Watch Sky Sports for Less’. Which? Conversation, 22 Apr. 2015,
Websites:
English Football Stadiums - The Stadium Guide. https://www.stadiumguide.com/present/england/.
Inflation Calculator 1949-2021. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-

calculator.
139
Appendix
In the appendix, you will find the five oral interviews I conducted within the framework of this
dissertation. They are numbered from one through four, and were all recorded with the consent of the
participants. These interviews were all conducted in person between the months of February and March
2022. There is a difference in the five interviews I conducted, as some of the people I talked with did
not answer some questions for various reasons, or gave the answer to two questions in one. Interview
three, with Robert Owensmith and Richard Pierce, is not separated in two as I interviewed them together,
so some of their answers will be identical as one of them answered, and when the other agreed, he did
not add anything. As for Interview number four, with David Burrows, you will notice additional
questions, which relate to my interviewee’s former career as a professional football player.
140
Appendix n°1: Interview n°1: Suibhne Blaix
Interview recorded on the 16th of February 2022.
What is your name, your age, and the club you support?
Suibhne Blaix, 34 years old, Liverpool fan since 1996.
According to you, what place does football hold in English society?
From what I’ve seen, you can sense that it is a sense of enormous pride for some of the supporters. They
go every weekend to watch matches, often in harsh and cold conditions to support their team, and it is
not only in the Premier League but also in the lower divisions. Football is something they hold dear to
their hearts.
Do you think there’s an indivisible link between football and the English people?
I think if their club would go down it would leave a gaping hole in their lives. For some people it could
be as important as religion.
When you first heard about the Premier League project, what did you understand it was going to
be? What were your opinions on it?
I was nine years old in 1996, so I have always known the Premier League. I only watched the football;
I did not know what was going on behind the scenes. I am not even sure I know what the project is
today. I do not have anything to compare it with.
What do you think of the Premier League now, more than a quarter of a century after its creation?
Did it prove your views wrong or right?
It attracts all the superstars, for me it is the best league in the world. Some people might disagree, but
everyone is aware of how competitive and how important the English league is for the rest of the world.
Did you ever imagine it was going to conquer the world like it is currently doing?
I think it’s good because it is the league that I watch. I am happy that the best players in the world come
to the league because I do not have time to watch other leagues. I am a bit wary about the future because
you have a lot of foreign investments and billionaires that are coming in. But it is a very exciting league
to watch, even the lower-placed teams are very good to watch.
How often do you attend games?
I have never had! It is my dream to go to Anfield! Maybe next year... The price of the tickets is not
something that I know much about. It was a story last year I heard; it was about Liverpool trying to
141
increase the price but it did not go too well. I am not surprised by the price because of the amount of
money they are putting into, investing in the stadiums as well, and just offering a better experience to
the fans. They can afford to do so because, for the big clubs at least, the stadium is always going to be
full.
Do you think that, with the current ticket prices, the club price out some of its fans on modest
incomes?
Certainly, yeah... It must happen. I know there are different price ranges according to where you are in
the stadium. If they were allowed to bring the terraces back, even though I see why they can’t, it could
be a solution for those of modern revenues. The clubs see each seat as money coming in.
Do you think that it is harder nowadays to get a ticket for a Premier League match?
Absolutely. There is a friend of mine who lives in London, a big Liverpool supporter as well. He used
to have a season ticket for Fulham because it was one of the easiest clubs to have a ticket for. I know
for Liverpool you have to buy a whole package (hospitality). If you are not a member or a season ticket
holder, which is very expensive, you need to buy from resale sites and hope the ticket is legit.
Did you watch football on television before the Premier League Era?
In 1996, I watched the FA Cup final in France between Liverpool and Manchester United. For the first
years I did not watch full games. I used to watch Match of the Day and shows like that that came on
after and were about highlights.
Do you watch it now? How often?
I do it every weekend. I made the mistake of getting the RMC Sports’ subscription so every time I can
I watch the games.
If yes to both questions, do you feel a difference in the price to watch Premier League football on
TV now?
I don’t, I think RMC Sports is part of the SFR package which is around 20 euros. It is affordable for me
but I would not go much higher.
Do you think that some fans may not be able to watch their football team on TV because of the
price of the subscription?
Oh, I would not be surprised. I feel like it may be more accessible in other countries than in England. I
know for example when I was in Canada or the United States, if you had ESPN, you could watch every
single game. And I felt like everyone had cable television, at least I reckon. It is in my opinion more
affordable than getting Sky Sports and BT Sports in England. The only games you can watch on public
television in England are the FA Cup fixtures every now and then.
142
Do you recall seeing a lot of products with the logo of your football team before the Premier
League Era?
Yeah, in sports shops. I mean, I'm sure yeah, if I got to go to Liverpool, I'd probably see Liverpool
official stores everywhere. But yeah, if you go to sports shops, they don't have the jerseys of all the
teams, but Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea, and the big clubs. You can find that and some other
merchandise as well. I think I did go to a Liverpool store once. I don't remember but I feel like I did
when I was younger. I don't think it was a big store. I don't really remember those, I've got a vague
memory of going to at least.
What do you think about the new megastores, where you can literally find anything and
everything with the logo of your club?
Oh, I think it is fine. But I don't know for jerseys. It's gone up to £60 or £70. But I think it's ridiculous
because when you look at the quality of the material, if you just pull it, that's pretty crash, right? And
you have to pay if you want a name on your back. I mean, it’s temporary, right? And yeah, they don't
even stay more than four or five years at the club usually, unless you get a Steven Gerrard. You have to
pay for the badges, you have to pay for everything. It's not really worth it. I think the jerseys are too
expensive, but the rest of the merchandise, I'm not sure actually.
Do you think clubs now sell too many products?
No, I don't think so, because there is a different price range, so maybe if you can only afford a key ring,
that's still nice. It's still way to show support to the club and if they sell all kinds of products, it means
that there's something for everyone.
What about the kits? They used to remain the same and now each year, each team has three or
four new kits. Do you think it is an exaggerated commercial strategy by the club and their kit
sponsor?
I find that maybe there are too many jerseys. I feel like there's a third or fourth kit every year. Yeah,
that's three or four kits every year. But I think it’s a kit that they're only going to be wearing maybe five
or six times a season and then you have the training kit. So yeah, maybe it's cheaper than the jerseys. It's
more affordable, but I don't know if that's necessary, really.
Do you think Premier League clubs are now too centered on making a profit by selling their
products rather than having great results on the pitch?
I'd say it's probably linked. I mean the merchandise and everything there. There is a lot of business now
around the clubs. I mean again, taking the Liverpool FC owners, they are American businessmen, so
they see that as a company. And so, merchandise means money coming in. But I think that they also do
focus on improving their teams because they know that everything is connected and that's why they're
143
going into Asia and other markets. I think that the current owners of Liverpool, I think they're sitting
quite favourably, and there's been a few contrary controversies, but the ones before them, they were also
American and we were so happy to get rid of them.
Do you recall seeing m any foreign fans in English stadiums before the beginning of the Premier
League?
I've never been there. I've heard stories. I think in Norway or Denmark, they've got a massive fan club.
They tend to travel and you hear stories. Yeah, I've got some friends in Ireland who've been to matches,
and I know there's a Liverpool fan club in Bordeaux and sometimes I see that they post on Facebook
that they're going to the match. People are coming from Asia as well. So, I feel like there are a lot of
foreign fans coming.
When you go to support your team, do you think there are more foreign fans in the stands now?
Yes, I would say so. Because I think that even now, let's take by continent, English football wasn't really
popular in Asia and North America ten or twenty years ago. And for Africa, I think football has always
been something close to religion over there, but you're seeing a lot more African players in the Premier
League, which can help. For example, Liverpool, we have Salah and Mané. I think they are worshipped
by some fans. So, because football is growing and the best players are in England and also because you
have players representing all these continents, even Asia, as there are a lot of Asian players and players
from the United States. Some of them are coming to England, so I think that is also attracting fans. I'm
a massive fan and we have a huge fan base in Senegal because there's a huge link between the club and
the country. So, I think it's each club as it sounds.
Do you think richer foreign fans are replacing the domestic fans in the stadiums?
It wouldn't surprise me. Yeah, I find that maybe football and I know rugby is going that way as well. It's
becoming less and less accessible to the general public. Like you're hearing a lot about tickets in the
corporate boxes. Yeah, there are more and more corporate boxes inside the stadiums. So, is it becoming
more like in the United States where people maybe take on clients and they go to a football match and
things like that? It's a real shame if it continues going this way because I think English fans are very
vocal in a good way. They sing and you see them outside and they bring the atmosphere into the stadium.
Do you think the clubs are now more centered on their foreign fans who tend to spend more money
in the club stores and whom they often visit on tours and friendly games?
Again, I'm not sure. I would be inclined to say yes. They know that they already have their local or
domestic fans so they need to focus on other foreign fans. So yeah, I would say they're probably making
more of an effort for these foreign fans. The tours I don't think it would bother me because it's mainly
in the summer. And if it can bring in money and so we can buy more players, it's fine. But I think they
144
still need to have maybe friendly local matches and just make sure that the locals do have their say and
then they can still get season tickets very easily.
Do you think your football team should make more for its local community such as financing local
projects?
Yeah, I do believe so. Again, it's like, I'm in a different position because I am not from Liverpool, but I
do think that when you’re making so much money you should be able to give back to the community. I
think the club maybe does it, but I can see sometimes the players do it. Of course, I'm sure they're being
told by their sponsors or clubs to go to the hospital to see sick children or so, but yeah, it's nice that they
do these things. I mean look at Sadio Mané. I think he has built many hospitals and houses in his home
country. I think he's given jerseys to all the kids as well in his hometown or something like that. And
maybe even financing those projects, it could benefit the clubs too, because if you have better
infrastructures for the kids, to play football and to have something for them, like playing areas, the clubs
will benefit from it in the future. And it gives a better image as well.
If I say to you that the Premier League is the most powerful, most-watched, and richest football
league in the world, what are your feelings? Are you proud?
No, I wouldn't say I'm proud because I'm not English, I'm Irish. My league technically is the Irish League
but because it's so bad I follow the English League. I don't have that same connection. I'm happy in a
way because like I said earlier, it's bringing the best players into a very competitive league. But I'm also
worried about the direction they're going and whether it's going to be a very Elite League. At the moment
you still have some of the lower, you know, the promoted teams. They can still have a really good season
and it's always nice to cause upsets. I'm afraid that would stop one day and it's all going to be just clubs
owned by billionaires.
And yeah, I find some of them have a model which baffles me like for example take Burnley. They’re
clearly going to go down one day. They're not spending as much as the other teams. They spend maybe
£20-30 million this season and they're just surviving. It's like they're on an adventure. They know it will
end one day. Whereas you have teams such as Aston Villa and Brighton who are really trying to stay
up.
Do you think this globalisation of the Premier League is good, or do you see some negative points?
If yes, what are they?
Again, I guess if I was an English person, I would probably. I'll take Liverpool as an example. I do love
to see local guys coming through such as Alexander Arnold. We have Henderson who came from
another club but he is English. It is nice to have English players leading the club.
145
It's great to have players from all over the world don't get me wrong, but I think then it needs to be that
ideally you should be speaking English in the dressing room. I don't think it's happening in the Wolves’
locker room. But that's good because I know in England they have laws, regulations, where they need
to have a certain number of home-grown players. But I think the number is getting lower and lower
every year. It doesn't bother me as much as it would bother an English person because I think as an
English person, I'd be worried because national team it would affect them. I think in the long run it will.
As the Premier League reaches a lot of foreign countries, more and more owners have taken over
many Premier League clubs over the years, with different outcomes. What is your opinion on these
foreign owners?
At the end of the day, I don't know if it matters that much. They're all billionaires and I think it's going
to go this way anyway. You look into it every few weeks you hear rumours about one team that might
be bought by a billionaire, whether they're English or not, I'm not sure it matters that much. For example,
for Liverpool, it never really bothered me that the owners were American honestly. It's more about what
they do with the club. If I take it just for my own personal view of Liverpool, it never really bothered
me, but it just shows the way football is going.
Do you think the FA should reinforce its “fit and proper person” policy to control which
individuals can buy a Premier League club?
Oh, absolutely yes. Well yeah. I mean, if you had asked me that question six months ago, I would have
said no, it seems OK to me. But yeah, when you see that the Saudi owners were able to go through that
net to buy Newcastle given their questionable human rights policies, I think that yes, something needs
to be changed and we need to look at the moral ethics of this. I mean, I think if you're going to invest
in such a club that is supported by so many people, you need to be very transparent with your dealings
and then you should have your account details in your history. It should be available for anyone to see.
What was your opinion on the many clubs that entered the stock exchange at the end of the 1990s?
Do you think it made it easier for unknown persons to buy into the club as they just had to buy
shares from the different shareholders?
It never bothered me to be honest. This kind of thing, I guess, gives a bit of variety, so it seems like a
good idea. On paper, I know but I don't know if it works. I think the system has its limits. It's very shady.
Foreign investors are present everywhere in the Premier League, from kit sponsors to stadium
names. Do you think there are too many of them?
No, I don't. I think it's OK. I mean it amuses me to look, I see “Visit Rwanda” on the jersey or if I see
the boards by the side of the pitch and there is some Asian language advertisement. It makes me think
that it's more open to the rest of the world. It's not just for the English-speaking world.
146
Should the club look for more local businesses to sponsor them?
That would be great, yeah. The problem is, can they? Maybe not on the kits or boards, but I know how
they've got like, you know, many clubs have like their official drink partner so it would be nice to have
local businesses like that. If you go to the stadium, maybe you would buy a local beer and have a burger
made from local sausages or local meat and it could be nice. Because I don’t know how they could
compete with them, with the major companies in India in the major sponsorship deals.
Do you think the Premier League era has changed the way the players are seen by public opinion?
In what way?
Yeah, I think so, especially with social media. They're not allowed to make as many mistakes and they're
seen as role models and we have a lot more insights into their everyday life, not just on the training pitch
or the pitch. But you know you see photos on Instagram. Things like that. So, when they do make a
mistake such as Kurt Zouma for example, it will be seen by the entire world.
They might have also changed their hygiene. I think nowadays they have a strict dietary regime. Some
might struggle a bit more to deal with us. We deal with their private life. Being on social media, things
like that I think, I don't know if it's linked, but you hear a lot more about depression nowadays, but that
could also be the fact that nobody spoke about depression 15 or 20 years ago. So, I'm not really sure if
it's directly linked.
Do you think the players are paid too much now?
Yes, yes, they are, absolutely. I mean you wonder what is a player doing with £400,000 a month? Well,
how can you spend that much money? That's the way it's done now, but it's not going to change. It's
because there's this much money in the league that they're paid this much.
Do you think the Premier League should install a salary cap based on a percentage of the club’s
revenues as it was proposed some years ago?
I don't believe in salary caps. I don't think it has ever worked unless everyone does it like all the major
clubs in the world and every league in the world. Because if only some do, the players will just go
somewhere else and I'd rather see all the main players going to England instead of China for example.
Do you think that, since the Bosman Ruling, the League has been taken over by foreign players?
Yes, the thing is, because of this ruling we have so many good players in the Premier League right now.
I mean. It took a while, 15 or 20 years ago you wouldn't have any Spaniards or Italians playing in
England, but with more money coming in, more foreign investors, foreign coaches, and foreign players
were able to move to the country. It has allowed the biggest stars from all over the world to come to
England.
147
What do you think about it? Is it a good thing for English players and English football in general?
It's OK because there's more competition for them. Great for the fans. I know that England for so long
struggled to have a proper keeper. And so maybe focusing on developing a good British keeper would
have been better than bringing in the best ones from all over the world, but I think there are more pros
and cons. Honestly, I think it's a good thing.
What would you think about coming back to a limit on the number of foreign players a team can
use?
If today the league said we come back to the limit on the number of foreign players in a team. It might
happen with Brexit. It might be more difficult to get visas and stuff. I mean, would it make a big
difference? Yeah, I think the league might lose its appeal. I think people might start watching other
leagues.
What do you think of the new stadiums built recently by some Premier League clubs such as
Arsenal or Tottenham? Do you think it breaks the link between the club and its fans by replacing
iconic stadiums such as Highbury or White Hart Lane?
Yeah, maybe it does at the beginning. Yeah, but I think at the end of the day we all adapt. So, for a few
years, it might be a bit of distance for the fans. I think it was West Ham with the Olympic Stadium. They
struggled to fill the new stadium and to have a good attendance to make it their home ground. But I think
after a few years you see that everyone is adapting.
Do you think having bigger stadiums is good for the fans or is it only a sign of immense greed
shown by the owners?
It's a bit of both, I think. Fans will still be happy because it gives them yeah more of an opportunity to
buy tickets and more money coming in also, if you are the owner. It's also more money to build a strong
team.
Would you personally be in favour of a new stadium for your club?
No, let me put it that way. I think there are plans on maybe not replacing it completely, but rebuilding
and changing it. I wouldn't be against it, but I hope it will always have this communion with the fans.
As long as it stays as Anfield. If they change the name, I'd be pretty disappointed though. I would be
against that. I mean, many people would.
Do you think the atmosphere in the Premier League stadiums has changed? In what way?
I haven't noticed no, uh, I mean. No, no, I haven't seen that change.
148
What do you think about the corporate boxes that have been more and more numerous over the
years?
Yeah, it needs to stop. I think they need to stop adding more because as we mentioned earlier you could
have more fans if you have them standing. You could bring a lot more fans in where these corporate
boxes are, taking the seats of a lot of real fans. I understand the appeal, but I think there needs to be a
limit on the number of corporate boxes.
Don’t you think they show a clear fracture between the fans and the owners?
Yeah, absolutely, yes. And also, the fans who can't get tickets because they don't have the money or they
just are on the waiting list. And then you have people who go to these boxes and they don't care about
the match. They don't even know what the score is. There's a clear division there.
Do you think there has been an evolution of the proximity the supporters have with the owners of
their clubs? In what way?
It depends. If you take the example of Leicester, when the owner tragically died there, it felt like
everyone was sad that he died and even the players, if you remember Kasper Schmeichel, he was
devastated. So, you could see that in this example this was an owner who had a close relationship with
the players. But it depends on the club and the ownership.
Do you personally think that the owners of the club you support care about your opinions?
I'll say no because if they did, they would ask before they do things. I think what they do is they do
things, they see the fans reactions and then they go back on their decision, which seems like a lot of a
waste of time, and it damages their reputation. So, if they asked first, I think it would show that they
care more.
Do you think the Premier League clubs should change the way they are run in order to give the
fans a voice in the decisions of the club, as is the case in Germany, Spain, or even in England’s
lower divisions?
About that, for me, it seems like a good idea because the supporters always have the club's best interest
at heart. They will always stay no matter the results and the owners. They might not be as adept
financially, but it doesn't matter if everyone is on the same page. I guess everyone will have the same
obstacles, and the same advantages and it might also give the lower ranked clubs more of a chance to
compete. Maybe, but I don't see it happening now.
149
Appendix n°2: Interview n°2: Mark Chapman
Interview recorded on the 9th of March 2022.
Mark Chapman and I'm 33. So, I support Liverpool and I've supported them since I was about five or
six. I have to say coming from near to Derby, I had a Derby County season ticket for two years and so
they're kind of my second club as well. But Liverpool has been my club all my life. I have lived in
France, well since 2009. It's been a long time since my dad took me to some Liverpool games when I
was young, but as you probably know, it's quite difficult to get tickets. Easier a little bit since they
increased the stadium but still not very easy.
Really important, actually. The fact that a football player like Marcus Rashford can have a huge impact
on government policy suggests that politicians are forced to listen to footballers because they have a lot
of influence in society. So, football is a massive part of society and basically, when I was at school,
everyone had a team. You know, even if they don't support it that much, they still have a team. And
everybody plays. Uh, it's by far the most popular sport in England, definitely.
I would say so, yes. Even my mum doesn't really care about football. In fact, she doesn't care at all. But
when the Euros are on, or when the World Cup is on and the media is following the England team,
particularly this England team that is actually very popular, she gets interested. She's always talking
about the manager Gareth Southgate: “Oh yeah, Gareth was in the news today.”
There's an indivisible link. As you said, it's a concrete link. This is definitely a religion for some people.
Of course, the ones who are going to the matches every week. There are different types of football fans
and you get the ones who go to matches every week. They could follow the team home and away and
you get other fans who are just as interested but maybe they don't have the economic means to go to the
match and then the time also. It's difficult to get season tickets now. So, they follow more from a
distance, but they listen to podcasts and they subscribe to the TV channels you know, things like that.
So, I think Premier League started in 1992 or 1993. I was four or five so I've always had the Premier
League. I mean, I've watched documentaries about it, but I didn’t live through it. But Sky has had a huge
influence on English football.
150
It is indisputably the best league in the world. I think globally there is an argument that it is the most
successful league in the world including all sports. But certainly, it's the best Football League, that's for
sure. In terms of quality and salary, the two most important things really. You have to say that this is the
league where players want to play now. You still have clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Munich
where they have this aura. But the league that people want to play in is the Premier League. As you
know I watch French football. I go to watch Bordeaux. The ultras are amazing. I am honestly amazed
by their passion and their commitment, but the team itself is, the quality is terrible. It's also quite
different. The ultras in France and England, yeah it is pretty different. It seems a different sort of vibe.
It's very intense here. You know if you think about Italian fans as well. The Italian ultras, you know,
they go to the training ground. That doesn't really happen in England.
I didn't really imagine it no. And when I moved to France when I was a student, I was surprised that I
could watch the Premier League. I have the RMC Sports’ subscription to do so. And you can watch
more football in France. Because in England they don't show the 3:00 PM kick-off and they show the
3:00 PM kick-off here in France. The idea in England is that they don't show the 3:00 PM kick-off, so
people go to the match, which I think is great. I think it's good. It's pretty unique and I think it shows the
importance that football has in the country. They used to have 3:00 PM games when I was very young,
but they stopped doing it so people went to matches.
How often do you attend games? (How often did you attend games?)
There are only a few clubs where it's still affordable in the Premier League. You know the kind of super
clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, and Manchester United are expensive. I don't think Manchester City is
that expensive, I'm not sure. I think Liverpool is one of the cheapest among the big clubs. To be honest,
that doesn't really surprise me because they have a very strong social conscience. It's about the culture
of the club.
When I go back, I don't always go to a Liverpool game. I’ll go to a Derby game. Sometimes I'll go to
see Brighton because my dad is from Brighton. Well, we're all born there in my family so the last game
I saw was actually Brighton. That was a decent price. It wasn't too expensive, but it was great to go back
and see a Premier League game.
151
Do you feel a great difference in the price of season and match tickets between the beginning of
the Premier League era and now?
I remember having a season ticket at Derby which was not in their Premier League. They were just
below and the season ticket was £300. So that was quite reasonable, but still one of the most expensive
teams in the Championship. I mean the price has exploded since I was young. I'm sure some of the older
people whom you speak to it's ridiculous for them. Yeah, it's massively increased. It's not aimed at the
same section of society as it used to be. You know, before it was affordable, they wanted people to be
in. They wanted to fill the stadium. Now they know they can fill the stadium. So, they charge as much
as they can get away with. It is the impression I have.
Do you think that the club price out some of its fans on modest incomes?
The fans, yeah, definitely speak to Arsenal fans who have been following all their lives. It's crazy, you
know you can't afford £2000 a year. I mean, that's going to be in London. I'd say that's some people
salary, for a lot of people is more than what it is elsewhere but still, that’s crazy. So, the type of support
you get going to the match is different. As well, so the atmosphere won't be the same either.
Yeah, it is. It's more difficult because it's more popular now. Yeah, except Man City. Cheap joke.
Yeah, we had Sky Sports. But I do not remember the price because my dad paid for it.
There was only Sky that showed football. You had to pay for the dish I remember. Yeah, you had to pay
for a satellite dish and you had to pay the subscription. There was only Sky so you're only paying one
provider. But now it's divided between Sky and BT Sports and even Amazon Prime for some matches
on Boxing Day. So now you need three providers. Yeah, and you have to pay each of them. And they're
not cheap, it's very expensive.
If yes to both questions, do you feel a difference in the price to watch Premier League football on
TV now?
Yeah, so I watch RMC Sports. It's €20 a month but I get RMC only to watch Premier League and
Champions League. But you know I'd love to watch the FA Cup and the League Cup. But because it's
on BeIn Sports and I don't want to pay for it, I go to the pub so, in fact, I watched most of the games in
a specific pub. We watch all of our games there which is an expense as well. You know you have to pay
for your drinks and your food.
152
In fact, it costs pubs a ridiculous amount of money, like a lot more than your normal subscription. The
pubs have to have a special license to show up. Small pubs, they can't afford it so people won't go there
and they'll go to a place that can afford it. It's crazy you get a little village pub that wants to show the
matches, and they have to ask people at the beginning of the season: “Are you going to come and watch
games and spend money? Are you going to come and buy drinks here? Because if you're not then we
can't afford this”. It's unreasonably expensive.
League Era?
Yeah, I know when I was young, I had the Liverpool curtains bedspread. I've got a lot of old kits that I
gave in to my nephew. I went to the store in Liverpool. I remember thinking it was huge because I went
when I was three or four years old. I'm being young and be like “Oh my God this is amazing, this is
heaven.” They've got a lot of Liverpool stores in Liverpool Centre now. So, there's not just one anymore.
We used to get the catalogue. Pre Internet, we used to get the catalogue and buy stuff from the catalogue.
Honestly, it's awesome. Like genuinely, it's cool because it depends on your budget. Now what I do
think is that football shirts cost way too much money. It is shameful. I only buy them at the end of the
season when they are reduced because I don't want to spend the equivalent of €90.00. Now you've got
the matchday shirt and the training case. You have the pregame kits. I mean, it's all an attempt to make
some money.
Not too many, just I think they charge too much. It's related to what we said before. It's pricing people
out.
What about the kits? They used to remain the same and now each year, each team has three or
four new kits. Do you think it is an exaggerated commercial strategy by the club and their kit
sponsor?
Well, it doesn't bother me. And if people buy it then why not? But I do have a problem with the price
and it's I think it's mainly about the kits because that's the thing that everyone wants. Yeah, and each
and every year you have three or four new kits, so you have to buy them.
153
Yes, look at Manchester United. Yeah, that's a clear example. They've paid a lot of attention to their
business empire, but they haven't paid enough attention to their results on the pitch. So different clubs
have different priorities. And most of them have it right, I think.
Do you recall seeing many foreign fans in English stadiums before the beginning of the Premier
League?
Younger, not many at all. Now in the Premier League people talk about Anfield being so you get a lot
of tourists they say, and you know the fans who go every week it irritates them. Uh, obviously the stuff
you hear is that if people are going, they are supporters, they don't mind, but I think if they're going just
to take the pictures, it is a problem.
When you go to support your team, do you think there are more foreign fans in the stands now?
Yes, 100%. Particularly in places like London or with the massive teams like Liverpool, Manchester
United, Manchester City, yeah, definitely. And it is a shame. But I've met a lot of people over here who
are really passionate about, you know, Manchester United or Liverpool. And, uh, someone just got me
in touch with the guy who goes to Liverpool very regularly. I don't know if he's rich, but he certainly
spends a lot of money to go there and that's cool. I don't see a problem with that. But I guess people who
live around the stadium might see a problem a bit.
Do you think richer foreign fans are replacing the domestic fans in the stadiums?
Maybe, maybe I imagine you can get some Groupon experience to go to the Emirates Stadium or
something. Maybe it will be sad because of course you should be open to foreign fans, but you know,
clubs are supposed to be rooted in their community, and that's what we've always been told anyway.
Well, living abroad, it's hard to say really. I don't, but I can imagine that a lot of people do, but mainly
if they see the prices going up and foreign fans coming and replacing them, then that is probably the
case.
projects?
Yeah, yeah, definitely. And I mean I do not follow all of the clubs, but I know there are two clubs that
I've been connected with Liverpool and Derby and they do a lot of stuff in their communities and it's
great to watch the videos about them visiting hospitals and so on. Liverpool does an awful lot. It looks
154
like. I mean that's what their social media team wants you to think, but it does look like they do a lot in
the community and it is a positive thing. You know they have the wealth to make a difference in their
community, particularly clubs that are in poorer areas like you look at Old Trafford around there. I think
that they do quite a lot already but of course they could always do more.
Yeah, yeah, definitely yeah. I mean, it's complete chance that I was born in England and that the league
is the most popular but I think the reason why I'm proud is that there are a lot of people that see England
as like the home of football because of the passion and the fans. Like the game itself, it's quick, it's
physical. You don't get penalised for like just brushing past someone. You know the game itself has got
more of what English people see as the roots of the game, the passion, and the fans. The songs are
excellent. You know every team has their songs in there. That’s the one thing I found different with
France for example. I came to Bordeaux when they were good and I used to go to Chaban-Delmas and
here and all the songs were always like you know, “Marine et Bleu”. It's always the same and every
team has the same songs. And I found that a shame, but in England, no, you get some really inventive
songs. The fans are what make it so great I think as well. Actually, another big difference is a
geographical thing. England is smaller, so you get more away fans, which creates more of an
atmosphere. In France you know someone coming from Lille, they're not going to go to Bordeaux to
watch the game.
If rich foreign fans are replacing local fans, that's negative, that's for sure. Because it means that it's not
as much part of the soul of the community anymore, which is kind of what ties people to the club and
made such a passionate place. Are there any other downsides? The fact that it's a political decision too.
You can’t show any sort of symbol that might offend a foreign market, uhm? You know Russia didn't
show any Premier League games this weekend because of all of the support for Ukraine. I've seen a big
change in the sponsorship in the English football. So, we used to have the Carling Cup. Then it became
the Coca-Cola Cup. Now it's Emirates FA Cup, Carabao League Cup, etc.
foreign owners?
Well, I mean look at Newcastle and it's a disgrace. There's supposed to be a test called the “Fit and
Proper Person test” but apparently it does not apply when you are rich. Russia is invading Ukraine and
Roman Abramovich has to sell his club to avoid sanctions. Only now they're saying they might include
155
a clause that you can't be related to human rights abuses or something like that. But why only now you
know? Everybody knows where the money is coming from at Newcastle. Same for Man City as well,
you know. Completely shameful.
Yes, yes 100%. I mean not only for foreign owners. I mean, someone is to come and buy the club but
finally, they don’t have any money. So, you have to wonder how he was able to buy the club.
Yes, I think that maybe there are too many forms of advertisements around the English stadium. Just
doesn't really bother me, but it is sometimes weird seeing “Visit Rwanda” on an Arsenal jersey as
someone who, when they grew up didn't see that at all. It was all that local businesses and stuff like that.
It's kind of sad because those businesses were like part of the community as well. And you know, it's
funny. You'd see some of the advertisements and it'll be so local. You know if you go down to
Bournemouth, it would be about fishermen or something like that. I think to stay up with the global
game they have to make money. Yeah, football clubs are first and foremost businesses nowadays.
In what way?
I think they became kind of stars. It is both positive and negative. Positive in that they have a platform
now. It's not just the Premier League itself and social media, they have a platform to speak on issues.
But it also means that they have to be very careful about their private life. And it's very intrusive for
them, I think. That is pressure on the individuals. You know you hear people like, my granddad will say
“Oh they get paid all this money why can't he score?” So, it's not that simple, is it? And you know, a
lot of people don't realise that you know they're just products of the market. So, if you're paying a vast
amount of money for a player and he's getting paid a lot of money, it's because the club will stand to
make a lot of money from that. You know it's the market rate, so a lot of pressure on players there. A
lot of pressure on players to be more than human. And I think that must be quite challenging. I mean
especially in England, with tabloids, which are known to be extremely aggressive.
Do you think it gives players more pressure as they are now supposed to be role models for kids?
Yeah, I really do and I think it has a huge impact on their mental health. If they don't succeed, they are
criticised. I think it takes an awful lot of mental courage to be a Premier League footballer.
156
Yes, totally. OK, maybe the quality of the league will get worse, but clubs won't go bust, and for me,
that's the most important. They want to give more money to the players, but if the club goes down, it's
all over because it has the TV money. The Premier League is so lucrative that clubs in the Championship
gamble to try to get there, which is a kind of a risk it all strategy, and if they fail then look at Derby. I
think that if you have a salary cap, you'll have fairer competition as well. You can't just have an owner
who is going to put tonnes of money into salaries. That's not fair. That's not real competition. We don't
want to have a situation where you have just Bayern Munich at the top because they earn so much more
money than everybody. I don't want Man City to win every year. I don't want Liverpool to win every
year. I want it to be a competition, otherwise, what's the point? What's the point in watching if you know
who's going to win every year? Yeah, but I think if we want this kind of thing to work, you have to make
it like a European thing. Every football league in Europe has to do it because yeah, if you don't, most of
the players are going down into another league because they're going to get the money they don't get in
England, definitely.
Well, yes, it has, and for a long time to the detriment of the English team. But now, I don't think it does.
I think the FA have been really smart and they've actually used foreign influence to improve English
football. It's hard for English players to get promoted to the first team. It's hard for English players to
even play for their own teams, but I think overall the influence is it's been positive on the English national
team.
use?
Yeah, I think it was three foreign players in their squad at some point. But I think we can't do it anymore.
The football is international now and, you know, I can't think of Liverpool without Mané or Salah. You
know, in fact, the United Kingdom isn't in Europe, so that would make another a bigger impact as well.
So, I think that it's unrealistic to expect that, and it's not something I necessarily want to see. I love
seeing great players in the league wherever they come from.
But of course, it's really sad that the old stadiums like Highbury, which was supposed to be a fantastic
stadium, and West Ham ground as well, are not anymore. The Boleyn Ground or Upton Park was
supposed to be amazing. But unfortunately, it's the nature of football now. You know, every team wants
157
to be more successful than the other, and there's a lot of money in the game, so they need to increase
revenues. I love what they've done at Liverpool, which is they've kept Anfield and redeveloped it. And
then you know you need to do the same at Old Trafford because it is a shithole at the moment apparently.
Do you think having bigger stadiums is good for the fans or is it only a sign of immense greed
shown by the owners?
Kind of both. They increase the capacity so that fans can have more access, so that's good. But
sometimes if you change your stadium for this new modern thing, it doesn't have the same atmosphere
as West Ham saw when they moved to the big stadium. It's even worse because it's an Olympic Stadium,
so you have the running track around the pitch.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely it's definitely lost a little bit of atmosphere and fever, but if you go to clubs
like Burnley, you know which don't have the money, they're all locals. You've got a good atmosphere.
Crystal Palace apparently is still really good. But yeah, definitely. Before the fans were singing whatever
was going on on the pitch. Now they're waiting for something on the pitch to stir them. That’s what it
feels like anyway. So yeah, it definitely feels it's got a bit softer for sure.
years?
So expensive. I looked at how much it was at Liverpool in the corporate box. Wow, it's a real shame
they built corporate boxes into stadiums is what I would say. It's taking space away from fans, but it's
also putting a lot of money into club finances.
Don’t you think they show a clear fracture between the fans and the owners?
Oh yeah, definitely, I don't think anyone has ever seen Roman Abramovich. And the people who own
Newcastle, we don't even know exactly who they are. So yeah no, of course, it's different. It's very rare
now to see someone local own the club.
They pretend to. They pretend to because it keeps people on their side, like with the Super League thing.
Even to think about it, that showed they didn't care about supporters’ opinions. But then afterwards,
John Henry, Liverpool’s owner, was like: “We hear you, we heard what you said we're sorry”. If they
really cared about it, they would have asked before, yeah? But they knew that it wasn't going to be
popular. They must have known; it seems crazy to think that it would work.
158
lower divisions?
Yeah exactly. In Spain, it's the socios. I think it was recently in Barcelona that you had the vote for the
President and the socios they're the ones who vote for the next president. I think Germany, with the 50+1
rule, is the model of how a league should be run, to be honest.
Do you think the owners, in general, are more centered on making a profit from the club than
having great results on the pitch?
Well, unfortunately, some owners are there purely for sports washing, which is to basically cleanse their
reputation like Saudi Arabia, Newcastle’s owners. And also, vanity. It's a vanity project. It's soft power.
But you know, these people are representing their sovereign funds in their countries. So, if Manchester
City does well, then it makes them look good and their people, their country look good. If Newcastle is
going well, so are their owners. But some of them, I hate to always use Liverpool as the example, but
they do have a proven track record of success for their clubs like in a baseball with the Boston Red Sox.
When they arrived in Liverpool, the club was in a desperate situation because the owners before, other
Americans, were awful and Liverpool was terrible and had a lot of debt. And then look now, you know,
Champions two years ago, Champions League three years ago, Champions League Final four years ago,
one League Cup, could win the league this year. They are popular with their fans as you can imagine,
because they didn't come just for profit. They've actually had results and success.
159
Appendix n°3: Interview n°3: Robert Owensmith and Richard Pierce:
Interview recorded on the 11th of February 2022:
Robert: My name is Robert Owensmith. I was born and raised in Chelsea one kilometre from Stamford
Bridge and my age is 61. I am a Chelsea fan.
Richard: My name is Richard Pierce. I'm 52 and I support Ipswich Town since 1975 or 1976. And the
reason is that I grew up a long way from Ipswich Town, but they had a footballer called Paul Mariner
who used to play for Plymouth Argyle in the southwest of England. And that's where I grew up, and
that's where my dad took me to watch football. But when Paul Mariner left Plymouth Argyle and went
to Ipswich Town, he was my hero. So, I followed Ipswich Town after that.
Robert: I think it's hugely important. I think every club, from the smaller clubs to the bigger clubs is at
the centre of their community. Unlike in France, which is maybe more and more bending towards rugby,
in the Southwest anyway. In England, the football club is the beating heart of a city. And for example,
I know the big clubs like Chelsea, they do a lot of charitable work with the Chelsea Foundation, so
they're helping out children. They're helping out people in need there. During the pandemic, they made
11,000 hotel room nights available for free to the NHS for the first-aid workers you know, so that the
people could have a break and did not have to travel home. And they gave meals, you know, to all those
workers as well. Aside from that, the foundation deals with lots of anti-discrimination, anti-racism, anti-
misogyny, and so on. The more money they have, the more they put into the communities to help out
with charities and foundations and also with education. Big thing for education. I know also with the
smaller clubs they do whatever they can in their villages or their towns, but the football club in England
is generally the heart of the community.
Richard: I think it's kind of a religion. I mean it's so important. You know it's like going to church on a
Sunday.
Robert: Absolutely, absolutely. It's like a religion a bit, but in South America, it's a religion. In England,
you have people that are into rugby and not really football, but I think that football clubs do more for
the communities than cricket clubs, or rugby clubs, or any other sport. They do more so they are really
intermixed with all parts of society.
160
Richard: Between football and the English society and the people well, there have been different links
throughout the decades because in the 80s there were problems with the violence. Football violence was
brought back to football. However, in the 90s when there was a lot more, you know, people were trying
different drugs and things, ecstasy comes into it because ecstasy wouldn't have done so well had there
not been any football violence, so when everybody was taking ecstasy, then football violence calmed
down.
Robert: It’s just that they wanted to give it a new name, increase the amount of money coming into it, I
guess. For me, it was just the change of name. There were four Divisions, four main professional
divisions in England Division 1,2, 3, and 4, which changed to Premiership, Championship, League One,
and League Two. I don't think it changed an awful lot, but maybe on the commercial side for the foreign
TV rights it sounded more exciting. I think it was a fine thing. It didn't change anything for me.
Well, this and these big clubs they needed to make money. They needed to compete with all the clubs
in Europe. You know the more money you make, the more you can put into everything, and the better
players you can have. I don't think you can say they were greedy; football is a business now. These big
clubs are businesses, you know, so they have to make money. But the good thing is that they put a lot
of that money back into the community. You know there are thousands of people working around
football. For example, I know about Chelsea, there are thousands of people working for Chelsea and the
periphery. The clubs create a lot of jobs and the owner, the Russian owner has put £2 billion into the
United Kingdom’s economy. So big investments really. I mean, for me, we've only got closer from when
I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s. They weren't so involved in all the community, you know? I mean
you had the football club and the supporters, but now the club reaches out to the whole community.
Richard: I wasn't convinced because I thought it might affect the lower clubs, yes. With the money and
because the divide between the divisions is enormous in the amount of money that clubs can earn,
because the league used to be some kind of equality. And since the Premier League, that money has
really gone up and players demand more money to move more weight. Money was divided between the
different divisions but not anymore, so it's much more difficult for a small club to arrive to the
Premiership. Yes, and to stay in the Premiership it's even harder.
I think it was absolutely about greed yeah. I blame Margaret Thatcher.
And at that time were you aware that it was going to be a big fracture between the First Division,
now the Premiership, and the other divisions?
Robert: No, no, for me it was still Division 1, 2, 3, 4. It was just a name change really. Just a name
change. That's how I saw it.
161
Robert: Oh yes, yeah, I think, for example, the Chelsea Foundation was only founded in 2010. Since
then, they've got a huge push out, so they're going ahead. You know it's advancing in its ways of helping
the community. As they go along, it must be hard for some clubs, like for example if I think of Derby
County, in the Championship, who are going into administration, they have financial difficulties, so
they're obviously limited. They can't even pay their players, so how can they pay charities and
foundations? But I think that the wealthier clubs generally give back a lot.
Richard: No, because Ipswich Town isn’t in the Premier League anymore. They're in League One now.
Robert: I mean English football, it's turned into the most competitive league, I think. Probably the most
competitive league because there are 20 teams that can all beat each other, whereas in Spain or other
countries you have a few top teams that usually always win, but in England, anybody can be beaten by
anybody.
Yeah, I think in England it's funny because the national team is always failing apart since 1966. When
I was a kid, we thought, well, England is the best football in the world. But then as time goes on, the
national team has been crap and then really poor. They always fail. They go to the quarter-finals. They
fail, but the thing is that the clubs and the teams are so multicultural, they have so many different players
from different places. That comes, and I guess they come because they're attracted by the money, but it
makes it a beautiful league. Of course, it will be interesting tomorrow night to see who wins the Club
World Cup Championship between Chelsea and the winners of the Copa Libertadores, Palmeiras, from
Brazil in South America, where football is a huge religion, less money, but still the national sport. It'll
be interesting to see who wins that.
Richard: I'm not surprised because of the amount of money and also everybody around the world,
especially in Asian countries, loves English football. So that's fuelled. The growth as well, you know,
and the richness of the Premier League are getting bigger every day.
How often do you attend games? (How often did you attend games?)
Robert: Oh well, when I used to go, I was eight years old or something. My auntie brought me because
my father didn't like crowds and my auntie would take me whenever she could take me. She would take
me and we got the best seats always. It wasn't that expensive. Then you know I travelled the world so I
didn't go quite often. Maybe on average once a month or something. So, 12 or 15 games a year, maybe
when I was young. Of course, I moved to the other side of the world after being back in France. I now
get to see maybe three or four games a year because I fly back and I usually stay there at the Chelsea
162
Hotel. But if I was living in Chelsea now, I would have a season ticket. I would be at every single match,
but I just can't afford to.
Richard: I was about seven years old. So, it was at Plymouth Argyle, yes, and the price would have been,
my father would have paid approximately £1 or £2. I still attend games nowadays, but only locally or
maybe on occasions if Ipswich is doing well in the FA Cup when they were playing a bigger team. I
may go to Portland Road and watch.
Robert: I remember, you know, quite frankly, it was never that cheap at Chelsea, because Chelsea was
a fashionable club back in the 60s and 70s. They were the Kings of Kings Road. It was the most
fashionable club in England, so the tickets, relatively speaking were £1 or £2. You know now, for
example, you can get a ticket for a big Premier League game, they start at £50. But people in England
earn quite a bit of money, so it seems to be affordable. The stadium is full every single game. It is full
so I don't think it's too expensive. For example, my whole family or my children, even my sister
everybody, we're all members of Chelsea Football Club. We pay £26 or £30 a year for the membership
card. A membership card means that you can buy tickets. Otherwise, you can never bite the gift. With
that you also get newsletters. You know stuff like that, so I think that's reasonable.
Richard: Oh yeah, massive. Well, for example, I went to see Plymouth Argyle last year with my brother.
Yeah, and we paid £17.50 each. But also, it was different. The prices were different depending on where
you were in the stadium and we had the cheapest seats. 25 years the price had gone from a pound or two
pounds to £17.50.
Robert: I think people on a modest income in England now have to choose between whether they heat
their house or feed their children. So obviously football is a luxury you know. so, but I think I mean the
stadium is full all the time and the season tickets are not that expensive. I think of course it depends on
the club. I think it's affordable for Chelsea. I think it's reasonable, but nobody at Chelsea has ever
complained about the ticket prices.
Richard: Absolutely, yeah, definitely. And it's also interesting that the owners of a lot of the Premiership
clubs don't live in England. Yes, it is the case now. Yeah, Robert can tell a lot about that.
Robert: I don't know if it's harder. It depends on the capacity, for example, you know Arsenal,
Tottenham, for example, have a huge stadium now like Manchester United. You can probably get a
ticket when there are 76,000 seats it's easier. Whereas at Chelsea there are 41,000 or 42,000. And also,
163
it depends on whether it's Liverpool-Manchester United. You know if it’s Chelsea-Tottenham, or a
Champions League or FA Cup game, or if it's Chelsea-West Bromwich, the price changes.
Richard: They know who's coming to watch the game so if there is a problem with anybody, they know
who it is, you know. Because there's rarely violence at English stadiums now, as there was in the 80s
but now it has stopped. They could even bring back the standing now, aren't they? I know, for example,
on the television on Sky and BT they're not allowed to show the Saturday afternoon games at 3:00
o'clock. Yes, that's so that everybody in the country can go to their local club, be well familiar with the
family, and watch the games.
Robert: Well, when I could, whenever we could, but there wasn't a lot of choice before Sky and BT.
Yeah, it would have been FA Cup and it was only a few games a year.
Richard: You could see Match of the Day with the highlights.
Robert: No, you never saw live games, but then of course came Sky and BT. But that's where I think
they're very expensive. You would never see the full game at the time. I believe it's £120.00 per month
if you want to have access to Sky and BT to watch every Premier League game. So that is in England,
very expensive, I think.
Were you sceptical about live TV diffusion of games? Why?
Robert: I was watching my first games on television, and it was just a delight to have a game of football
on the television you know. Because if you could go to the stadium then you would, everybody would.
The stadiums are always full.
Richard: Also, I think everybody knows that the atmosphere is different when you're at the stadiums
when you're watching it on a TV, you know. I mean, it's very different.
Robert: Oh, definitely. I mentioned £120 a month. It's hard to watch every Premier League game. It's
really expensive. Not affordable for a family, or at least for the average family, it's not affordable.
However, pretty well all the Premier League clubs have their own website and so you can watch the
game after they've been played, but not live. You can watch them afterwards for free on the website live
streaming, but that's late after the game.
164
League Era?
Richard: Yeah, there were lots of. I mean, there are better ones now, but there was no advertising on the
shirts. There was no advertising because now you look, they're covered with it, and back then you would
always see the kits looked much better, they didn't have any writing on them.
Robert: You know, merchandising already existed. I guess it was like Chelsea always had a shop. They
were not selling as much as today, but they had lots of scarves and everything. You know, you would
be able to buy the club shirts for that year but then the colours wouldn't change as they do nowadays.
For me, it’s amazing, shirts, merchandising, and toys. Yes, and there wouldn't be three kits but only two.
Right now, every year there are three or four new kits. Yeah, home and away that was. That wouldn't
change year in and year out.
Did your club have a store where it sold its products?
Robert: Yeah, there was always a shop at Chelsea. A little shop, but stores are bigger now, but there
were few of them at the time.
Richard: There was a shop at Plymouth Argyle as well. It was a little shop there and always at the club.
That would have been in the 80s. No, in the 70s.
Richard: I think it's if people want that, it's fine. A lot of people want stuff, most of those kids want stuff.
I think if it makes a difference to the kid and he's happy it’s okay.
Robert: I mean the Chelsea Megastore at Stamford Bridge is not that huge, it's probably the size of this
on two floors. It's not like a huge store, but there is a lot of different stuff you can find and buy.
Robert: Well, they probably do, but for the international market, around the world, they sell a lot online
I think, which is because it's a global thing though, isn't it? You know the big teams have fans all over
the world, and so they want to get hold of merchandise. They want to wear the shirts of the team, etc.
Yeah, I suppose it's easier for them to be able to get it so I don’t see a problem.
Richard: It's just yeah. I mean, it's just the difference between then and now. I mean merchandising is
massive now, isn't it? You know. And if somebody can make a buck they will.
165
Robert: I don't think for Chelsea it's the case. The managers of the teams, down there, they are 100%
focused on football. The owners, however, it's a different story. They got to make money. But I know
they do have a lot of money with merchandise, but I think the TV rights are the biggest income you get.
And then you've got attendance which will also help. That would be logical for a business to work right?
It's just logical for them to make money.
Richard: And since when is football a business? It's not supposed to be a business, doesn’t it? It is a
shame when it is made into a business.
Robert: But then you look at teams like Derby County which are one of the founding teams, and if they
had been more of a business-like club, they'd still be alive. So, I think it's important that the club stays
alive however they need.
Richard: I mean, it depends on the owners. Also, not everyone has the luck to have a Roman Abramovich
as an owner.
Robert: No, but you can run the club well. A team like Derby County was badly run. That's stupid.
Richard: But then, even before Abramovich arrived at Chelsea, they were in distress.
Robert: Well, we had Ken Bates. He wasn't that great and we were relegated to the Championship or the
Second division in the 1980s a couple of times up and down. But a club like Chelsea would never go
under because it's such a cultural club as the likes of Manchester United. They wouldn't have gone out
of business because the towns really need it. It's interesting to note that in London there are like six
Premier League teams, while it’s only two in Manchester as well as in Liverpool. But it's quite
interesting as well when you look at League Two. Now you look at some of the teams like I think Bolton
is like at the bottom of the League Two. I think they were a big club in the Premiership, you know,
which is kind of great. So obviously the business has been run badly. I think the logic behind the owners
of these clubs now has changed somewhat. You know, I think during the late 90s, and early 2000s,
players were demanding whatever they wanted, and it's kind of changed a bit. Now, it's like that's not
possible. It's too much money there because they’re still not capping wages. For example, at Chelsea
right now, Antonio Ruediger is holding out for £260,000 a week and Chelsea is going like: “You mad,
you know, you're not John Terry and not even a bloody magician.” And I guess most Chelsea players
on average earn about £100,000 a week, which is not bad, but it is before tax. Because the thing about
that is the clubs are paying that money and a lot of it go in tax, like 40%. So that goes back to the country,
so people that complain about players being paid too much, it all helps taxes, so you know if the clubs
are willing to pay it, I say right? What's the problem? You're basically giving the government tax money,
helping to pay for poorer people, yeah.
166
Richard: That's one way of looking at it. Wouldn’t it be better if they were paying fewer wages so the
players were paying less tax, so it's more affordable for families to be able to go, you know?
Robert: I don't think it's that unaffordable to go to football games. I mean, you know, like that depends
on the division you're in. You know Chelsea, for example, they've got special family rates and stuff like
that, you know. And if I go and see a game, the best tickets are £70. Often some games are £26. It’s not
that much. It's not that bad.
League?
Robert: Oh well, I didn't go to many games at the beginning of that era, so I can't say. I mean, there's
always been a certain amount of that, but not much. But it depends on the club. Chelsea, of course, is in
the very centre of London. It's a very fashionable area. There's lots to do around there. So, you'd have
foreign people you know. But I don't know about Manchester, or Bolton, or Liverpool.
Do you think richer foreign fans are replacing the domestic in the stadiums?
Robert: Oh, not that I would say no. I think the wealthy fans can rent hospitality boxes, but now they're
often empty, and when they're full, they're often full for businesses, and they often have foreign clients
for insurance companies or other kinds of companies or banks and stuff. They rent a box and then you
can have foreign people, but I don't think you'll find a lot, from what I remember. Anyway, there are
only a few foreigners in the Upper West hand. And for most of the stadium, the fans are season ticket
holders that live in Chelsea or nearby Fulham or whatever. You know it's a real passion, it’s every
weekend. You know it's really important for them. And let's not forget that people earn more money in
England than they do here in general. Wages are higher. Oh yeah, at least 20% higher than the average
wages for people in France. I don't even know what the price here is in France, so I've been to Bergerac
to watch the Chelsea Youth Team play a couple of times and that was cheap as chips.
Robert: Not at all. Not at Chelsea anyways.
Richard: There is a lot of local population watching the games in Ipswich or Plymouth. Chelsea is not a
very multicultural place but I don't know how many foreigners buy tickets.
projects?
Robert: I think a lot of them. I know Chelsea is one of the biggest ones. They have the Chelsea
Foundation there, one of the most charitable. They were the first sporting business in England to offer
everybody above the living wage. They do a lot. They do a lot more though. For example, they were the
167
only club that really gave 11,000 hotel room nights to the NHS during the pandemic. They also paid
40,000 meals a week, to all the NHS. So, they've given a huge amount. But also, the Premiership clubs
have now realised that if they invest in youth, the youth teams, they're likely to benefit from it in ten- or
15-years’ time. They're going to constantly have replacements for their team. But also, even if they don't
end up playing for Chelsea, they're going to get a healthy amount of money. I think they've realised that
investment in youth projects, as in training grounds for the kids, or even indoor training for when it's the
wintertime, is important. So that all helps, and I think it's completely changed the thinking of how to
invest.
Richard: And obviously all the charities that they give, it's tax deductible. It's tax-deductible, so it’s in
their best interest because it spreads goodwill, and they can also deduct it from taxes.
Robert: I think it can only be a good thing, really. Globalisation of the sport? I mean, why not? You
know, why shouldn't it be? Yeah, and if people feel they belong, they've got something to look forward
to every week, then that’s fine.
Richard: It's got to be a good thing. I mean it is popular around the world. If it makes them happy to
support whomever they support and wherever they live, good for them.
foreign owners?
Robert: Foreign owners, I think it all depends on the owner. Also, I don't think it's any different from an
English owner. There are some English owners that are crooks so really bad and they can’t manage
anything. I think it's basically a personal thing on the integrity of the other person.
Richard: Yeah totally, I agree with that.
Richard: I didn't even know that. I don't know. I don't think it's a very good idea because football clubs
have a moral obligation to be transparent. And because they're involved with the youth or involved with
the whole community, so I don't think that's a good idea, yeah. And also again, it's about making money
and not the game.
168
Robert: I guess whoever pays the money is having a contract. I mean advertising is everywhere now,
isn't it? I don't think it's too bad. I think it doesn't, it doesn't bother me to see this. It's nicer without it,
but that's for a purist idea.
Robert: Yeah.
Richard: I think so.
In what way?
Robert: I speak for Chelsea; they were already known as the Kings of the King’s Road. There were also
other footballers like George Best at Manchester United that everybody knew. But he was an alcoholic
and a party animal. So, I know there are so many more foreign players right now. I think the players
changed because of money.
Do you think it gives players more pressure as they are now supposed to be role models for kids?
Robert: Yeah, because back in the day they used to be less known. Like nowadays, you have the kid
called Mason Greenwood. He plays for Manchester United. He's just been fired by Manchester United.
Richard: What did he do?
Robert: He's been beating up his girlfriend. Well, well, then Kurt Zouma is in big trouble because there
was a video of him kicking his cat and slapping him. But it must make footballers, especially Premiership
footballers, think a lot more about how they go through their lives. Because there are many, many, many
kids that are looking up to these players. When you have all this exposure and clubs are giving you that
much money, you've got responsibility.
Richard: Definitely.
Robert: As I was saying, it's down to the clubs how much they pay them. A lot of money goes back into
the system and then you have players like Didier Drogba who put a huge amount of his own money into
the community. He built a Children's Hospital in his home country. You also have Marcus Rashford.
When he thought the club wasn't doing enough for the local community during the pandemic, he put his
own money into providing meals, so some of them are doing a lot. But that's a personal thing as well.
You know, and at the end of the day it is their personal money, but yeah, it's still a tax deduction.
169
Robert: I don't know. But I think it may be too complicated to do it now. Because like the top players
that might want a lot of money, if they can’t have it because of the cap, what will they do? They'll move
from the country.
Richard: Maybe do a general cap for the whole of football.
Robert: Why would they do? I don't see that as a problem because I said a lot of money goes back into
the communities, you know if the clubs are willing to pay it. And also, it's a bit like you know, like any
type of work, if you're good at what you do, you demand more money than somebody who isn't so good.
Robert: Maybe more fine players, quality players came to the Premiership. I think it must have affected
how the clubs themselves buy players and how the players demand a contract. Because I mean clubs, if
they're buying somebody for £15 million and then accordingly, they can’t put as much in the wage.
When you don't have to pay for the transfer you can give a better wage to the player.
Richard: That's very true. Yeah, and it's also removed the limit for the number of foreign players in a
side, because before that I think it was only up to three players.
What do you think about it? Is it a good thing for English players and English football in general?
Robert: Maybe the impact is that if you're good enough as an English player, you're going to get more
playing time. So, you're going to get a contract. If you're not quite as good as a foreign player, they'll
get the contract and not you.
Richard: I think it was a good thing for the English national team. They get to a certain point where, I
mean, they're playing in the best league with the best players. They are not as shit as they used to be.
use?
Robert: Well, they are bringing the limit back. They're going to bring it down again. I can't remember
the numbers but I just read that a few weeks ago. In the next couple of seasons, they are going to bring
down the number to encourage homegrown players. It is for the national team specifically. So obviously
the FA thinks that it is going to make a difference, but can you trust the FA because they mismanage a
lot of things.
170
Robert: Of course, I mean, I'm happy that Stamford Bridge wasn't knocked down and rebuilt because
for me it's the same as it ever was. Well, no, it did change in the 80s. They expanded it, made all new
stands and all that. But yeah, I think it's difficult. You've got so many people that want to go to a game,
you have to have the capacity. Chelsea could fill the double of places every single week but they can't,
so it's limited. But it makes sense to increase the capacity. You could maybe find a compromise like
adding in some capacity without having a new stadium. Yeah, there was a problem in Chelsea because
of the cemetery right next to it but they still had plans to bring it up to 60,000 people. The problem is
that the majority of British grounds are in the cities, yeah, and like they're part of the neighbourhood,
but not like in France or elsewhere, so it’s harder to expand.
Richard: The thing is, again, I don't think it's going to happen with smaller clubs like Ipswich. You know
it's only the big clubs in the big towns, the big cities that it affects.
Robert: At Chelsea, they had this plan that was accepted to knock down the old stadium and build a new
one. I wasn't happy because there would no longer be the hotel, the Millennium and Copthorne Hotel
which is stuck onto the stadium where I stay and that is very reasonable. It's a four-star hotel Centre of
London. I pay £60.00 a night to stay, and I think that is amazing. I didn't want the new thing to go
through, so I'm glad that they abandoned the idea. But it means it's harder to get tickets because the
capacity is only 42,000. They have this whole beautiful thing, a little beauty from the New Age kind of
thing, but it would have gotten to the hotel and for me, I didn't like that, but that's purely personal. I
think if you live in Chelsea and you're having difficulty getting tickets, you'd be happy.
Robert: Definitely, which is why they're now starting to bring back some standing areas there. They're
in a trial at Chelsea. And I remember when I was a kid going to Chelsea, there were a lot of standing
areas and there were a lot more people getting in there. Chelsea had a capacity of 100,000 people 50 or
60 years ago.
Richard: Well but back then I went to see Plymouth-Derby when Plymouth nearly made the FA Cup
final. They lost to Watford in the semi-final, but before that we beat Derby down in Plymouth. But the
crowd was enormous. It was massive because everybody was standing. It's huge. So, they're bringing
that back, which is a good thing. I mean you often find people will stand up anyway.
171
years?
Robert: Well, no, because like there aren't that many of them. There's only a little line of them around
at Chelsea. It is only one line on the West Stand, and that's the only corporate boxes there are and some
of them are often empty.
Richard: I mean, that's expensive you're talking about. And, you know there's a division, but it's not just
in football. I mean, it's just society. There's still enough place for everybody else. Yeah, some people
hold all levels of tickets.
Robert: At Chelsea they do. Because for their career it is the best. And I think if owners don't recognise
their fans nowadays that's bad business. Then they're out. I think they do. I think there's more of a link
now, you know. There's a real link. I think there's a huge and better-organised connection now from the
club to the fans with all the Internet things, and all the foundations, and all the groups that happen. It
made it a lot more accessible. It's more accessible now to be a part of your club. For everybody there.
lower divisions?
Robert: I think that's a fine idea. That's a fine idea, yeah?
Richard: Absolutely, yeah, it's the way to go. But that just proves how important the supporters are.
Without fans, there is no football. You know where there is no club without the fans.
172
Appendix n°4: Interview n°4: Interview with David Burrows:
Interview recorded on the 11th of February 2022.
My name is David Burrows and my date of birth is the 25th of October 1968.
First, it is the national game, the national sport and football is everything in many towns. What football
has done for many cities is bring togetherness and if you look in-depth at some of the deprived areas,
the football stadium is a place where people can meet. People can watch their national sport. People can
talk about their national sport; children can learn about the sport. But then there are many sports. But
football has still been maintained as the national sport and that's how I see it. It's a collective thing, a
reason for everybody to get together and there's not enough of that in today's world.
Oh yes, football is the passion. Football is not only the actual match. The fans come to meet, and they
talk about it two days before the match. They're getting the build-up to the match. They have the match
they go to the pub or wherever they go. After that, they talk about the match. They go to work on Monday
and Tuesday, and rival supporters work together because you know how it is in England. There are many
clubs that are close together. And then in some areas, there's a lot of people working in the same
factories, offices, and so football is talked about all week, all year and wherever you go, you will hear
about football.
First of all, it bought a lot of prosperity to a lot, a lot of sportsmen, a lot of clubs, a lot of owners, and
shareholders. The complex is now a hell of a lot better. The stadiums are better, cleaner, and more
modern. The Premier League has generated a world game in England. It's incredible that a small country
like the United Kingdom, even England, can attract players from every corner of the world and every
continent of the world. And this is the power of the Premier League. There's no other league like it in
the world for football and it's incredible. But again, at the end of the day, it's a business, and when
business comes into sport, it's very, very delicate to try and balance how far to go with the business. If
you go too far you ruin the sport. If you don't go far enough then you underfund the sport and it's very
delicate.
173
No, no, no we never envisaged that in the early 90s. That 30 years later, this is where we would be it's
incredible, and it has its plus points, and also, its negative points, which is a problem I am sure we will
come to.
I don't watch many games live, because, if I go to Liverpool I don't have to pay. I don't have to pay for
any league clubs in the United Kingdom where, as an ex-professional, I have a place free. But I
understand, I understand I have many friends, many, many friends who take sometimes their families.
And they go to watch games rather than maybe going to the seaside for a weekend or going away to an
expensive restaurant on Saturday night or Sunday night. Now they're using their finance to take the
whole family to the stadium, and they use that for the whole day. They get there early; they eat before
the match. They watch the match. They have something to drink after the match, but that's really all they
can afford for that weekend. A lot of families put time and money into football and as long as there's a
spectacle on the pitch, I think they will keep doing that. The moment that the football, the quality of the
football starts to resign, then you see that there might be a little bit of a problem where they won't pay.
Yes, I remember the price at Anfield. I could take Liverpool as an example. Anfield, I think it was £12
in 1988, in the cop to stand. Now, if you want to sit in the cop, you will pay roughly between £40 to
£50. I think I got some tickets two months ago for a couple of people who paid £54.00 each, but that
was to sit down not on the Kop stand but another stand. But generally, there won't be a big price
difference. It is roughly that if you look at an average at Liverpool, which is one of the cheaper stadiums.
If you go to Chelsea or Tottenham then you're talking more towards £100 for a seat in the main stand.
So, it's not cheap, no.
The problem we have is people keep going to the stadiums and the stadiums are full. As long as the
stadiums are full, the prices will never drop. This is the whole problem. The supporters dictate how
much the clubs charge, so if you see a small decline in the number of people going to the football
matches, then maybe they have to think about slightly reducing. And maybe there's the fact that if some
of the local fans don't go anymore, there will always be some foreign fans that want to come in. All
right, well I want to just point out as well, if you remember, the World Cup in South Africa. Where it
was, it was great seeing the World Cup go to Africa. I think that's absolutely fantastic, but unfortunately,
a lot of the local people could never see a match because of the price of the tickets for the people to pay.
So, the argument, the debate, is should it have gone to South Africa, OK? Are the stadiums being used
174
today after the World Cup in South Africa? Or what are they being used for? So that's unfortunate that
happened. But as long as there's a demand for football the prices will not go down.
You've just hit a point there. To tell you how difficult it is to even get a ticket, even if you have the
money, sometimes you can't have a ticket, this is how it is at the moment with the top clubs. You can
see a lower league, a lower club in the Premier League, perhaps a little bit easier, but the top six clubs
have waiting lists for season tickets and this has been going on for many years and it's very difficult to
buy tickets. I do help some of our local people here. They go to Anfield and watch matches and I am
allocated two tickets for every match to buy. So yeah, sometimes I can have more pending on the match.
See if it's for potential league-winning, it is very difficult. It is sort of towards the end of the season and
there's no nothing on the match, then I can maybe have a couple more tickets. We're getting back to the
reason why the tickets are so expensive. It is because everybody wants to go.
Yes, very much so. I was watching football on the TV from the 70s and we were watching Liverpool in
the European Cup but then it was free. Yeah, we didn't have to pay. We, when Sky took over the Premier
League rights, paid to have it because I have children who wanted to watch it and not only watch me
but they also wanted to watch other people bigger stars and so yeah, we subscribed to BSkyB. I was
giving back to BSkyB what they're given to us so it was money well invested.
Were you sceptical about live TV diffusion of games? Why?
But if you talk to many fans, a majority of fans, they'll say that yeah, TV is good, but it's nothing like
going to the stadium. Absolutely nothing. So, although it gives fans an opportunity to watch other teams,
no, it's not a problem. If you speak to, I think 90% or 95% of fans, they will tell you exactly the same
thing. Football on the TV is great, but it's just nothing compared to being in real life.
Uhm, no I don't. I don't have it anymore. And because my son moved out, he has his own place so I
don't watch much TV but I always watch the highlights, the programme on Saturday night, which is
Match of the Day, which is a programme very close to my heart so I make sure I tune in as much as I
can to watch. And what I like is that it is a programme introduced by a former player. It's talked about
by former players and that's what I like. I have an opinion from an ex-footballer. I like the Champions
League and if I subscribe, I'll subscribe for the Champions League, which is I think the best competition,
the strongest competition in the world.
175
And it seems very much so, and this is why where I am from, for example, you have West Bromwich
Albion, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Aston Villa, and Birmingham but also you have a lot of lower
teams and even non-league teams. Now the non-league teams are attracting a lot more supporters
because of the exact point of that question and this is where the non-league teams can progress and can
see an opportunity to trap some of the fans. You can afford to go to little clubs like Solihull, which is in
between Birmingham and Aston Villa. They're a team in the fifth level of English. They can trap some
of the players, some of the supporters from Birmingham from Aston Villa, and so on. It’s good in a way
that they have another opportunity to still watch live football and it's local for them as well. So, it's
filtered. Unfortunately, if they can't watch the Premier League, there is a possibility of watching a lower
team still in their area, and they're supporting the local community also. That’s the good thing about
England. You can’t do that in France. Yeah, there are not as many clubs. No, that's different. I’ve noted
for French people whom I know, many friends I have, don't get it. They don't understand why it's so
expensive, and until they go and then they see. They're there for the weekend and they see the spectacle.
And then they understand why people are paying the premium money to it. I don't think there are many
places in France where you can see the same spectacle, maybe one or two stadiums. Yeah, and that's it,
yeah, so I understand the point.
League Era?
We used to have a souvenir shop and you'd have the shirts, but it was a small business. Then it was a
very small shop and people would buy little things and souvenirs, but now the shops are like houses.
They're very big. Huge buildings because of the merchandise side of a football again. For example, if
you go to Newcastle, yes, and you see the percentage of shirts per supporter in the stadium. I think
they're the club that has the biggest percentage of the supports who wear shirts. For example, again,
Paris has signed Messi because they know that they have to pay his wage, but they know with the
merchandise it will be worth it. Same with Ronaldo and the merchandise at Manchester United. But
also, there are the souvenirs from the 70s and 80s, which now, as the cards which players signed over
the years, are sold on eBay or Vinted and things like that. And maybe that's the difference because now
you have the name of the players on the kits, which you didn't have at the time. I am quite sure it was
1993 when it started. So, I think it changed things because the biggest players had their stuff. Maybe
they were not bigger than the club, but the merchandise they were selling was a huge, huge thing. And
also, every player was individualised, yes, so you had your own number.
176
The clubs try to sell too many products, of course, and everything is overproduced, everything is mass-
produced and there's too much of everything. But they will keep trying and keep trying and keep trying
and as long as they can make money from it and as long as people keep buying, it's always the same
problem. It's mass market.
This is what we've seen over the last ten years, especially where we talked about the sports side and the
business side. I think business now is if you take ten years ago the split between sport and business was
50-50 for an example. Today I think the business side is creeping toward 75% yeah. And that's very
worrying for future years to come. And we've already seen the possible breakaway of a Super League,
yes. We have not seen the end of that. Because also I just want to go a little bit away from the question,
I just want to bring up a point about all the owners of the clubs. Now when I played a majority of the
owners or shareholders were British companies, British individuals who grew up playing football or
watching football. Maybe even supporters of their club. They wanted to cash in or whatever, but now
there are a lot of foreigners who own most of the clubs. There's nothing wrong with the principle of that,
but the only problem you get is that the owners probably don't have an affinity. They never displayed
with the supporters, with the club, they see it as a business. They see it as a commodity and they want
to push that commodity as far and as big as possible and they won't stop. I think now it's inevitable that
we will see a Super League within the next ten years. Now clubs are brands. When the owners and the
ownership of the clubs are taken away, if you're like from Britain, then there's nothing you can do. As
we spoke about before, the Premier League is a completely world global market.
They don't say we're going to win the title. They say we're going to qualify for the Champions League.
It is the main objective. Now it's not to win it’s to qualify to have more money, yeah? Most definitely,
and that is the big business side of it. The Champions League now is the biggest league. The biggest
spectacle in the world with football and it's very, very important that the clubs qualify. If a club doesn't
qualify for the Champions League and it's really invested a lot of money in these two, it's a disaster for
them. So, the pressure is on.
So that's what they know about the owners of the clubs: the Champions League revenues are incredible.
But it's only for a short time of the year. They only play once a month or once every sort of six weeks
or whatever. And if you exit early in the competition, you don't win as much money. So, if you're playing
over a period of time, say if you have a six-month period where you're playing and you can never get
relegated, but you're always seeing a good quality match with the best teams in the world, with the best
players in the world.
177
League?
No, I'm from a multicultural area in the United Kingdom anyway, but we didn't see enough of the
different countries. The different nationalities did not come into the grounds, perhaps because in those
days it wasn't desirable, it was not a big spectacle. And there were lots of problems and they weren't
encouraged to go, so yeah, those foreign fans, we didn't see them before.
Yeah, I think that’s a good point with access now that people can travel around the world. Much easier
flights, trains, everything. It is much easier to travel. Uh, and I know a lot of foreign people travelled to
matches when I was at Liverpool in the 80s. We used to have a big supporters club in Scandinavia and
they used to come to every match. Then we just have people from Ireland coming, even from America,
and they would stay for a weekend and watch the game. It's in my mind more and more common now
because we've got a global game, we have a global, an international crowd. If you have a foreign player,
for example, Messi going to Paris. You know that there are going to be several people from Spain to go
and watch Messi in Paris every match. They will follow him. It's the same for Ronaldo. It was the same
when Eric Cantona played and the fans followed him around, a group of fans, his own supporters’ club.
They don't care where the fans come from, the clubs do not care where the fans come from. Who buys
their tickets? They don't care. And because they give them money, as long as they come and pay, you
could be from another planet, it doesn't matter if you have the money to buy a ticket or to be a member
of the supporters’ club and buy a season ticket. That doesn't even come into consideration. Yes, they
really don't care, but they try anyway to attract them, because now I think maybe half of the Premier
League clubs, they go on summer tours in Asia, in South America, in Africa, so they try to learn it
through these funds. For example, we used to go to Scandinavia at the end of the season and to the start
of the season, because we knew there, we at Liverpool had a big fan base in Scandinavia. It was always
Scandinavia. For example, Manchester United may have a big Asian market. It's Thailand, Singapore,
all that. So, they will do their summer tours out there. I think clubs, you know, are very clever. They
identify where there are big supported areas in the world and also for the supporters to say thank you
also for spending so much money, time, and efforts to come and see your club, we're repaying you a
little bit by coming out to your place so you could see.
178
projects?
I know that. I think Arsenal when they built the Emirates tried to invest in the community with a lot of
new complexities, sports complexes. That is the future. That is the future with new stadiums built now
and I think Chelsea was the first club to build a new launch, which was called the Chelsea Village. This
was when I played in the 90s. It was built and it gave the support an opportunity if they wanted to stay
over or come the night before. There were shops, cafe bars, restaurants, and different shops all connected
with the club, so a supporter now is getting a whole package. It's all to try and get as much money as
possible.
Of course, the negative side is what we spoke about before and one negative side, I think eventually you
will see a Super League. Yes, that's the negative side. The positive side of it is it's a global spectacle, we
have new stadiums, and we have the best players in the world who play here. We have perhaps, it is
debatable, but the best supporters, the most passionate supporters. If you like the most intense
supporters. The Premier League has given England a product to sell everywhere. And the people talked
about it because the product was good and it was accessible for the supporters. That’s the positive side
and I know communities have been helped as well. A lot of money has been injected into areas where
new stadiums have been built.
The problem with the UK is that it is now ultra-capitalist and it comes with these problems. Where do
you stop? Where, where? Where do you stop the greed? At some point you have to say no. This is
breaking regulations. You have to have some kind of organisation and it just seems to me that it's not
the case for football in the UK. It seems to me there is a lack of discipline, financial discipline in the
UK when it comes to football. If there's an opportunity the regulations seem to go out of the window.
Regulations are broken too many times, especially when there's money involved. I think that's what
concerns me is that the rules seem to change very often, according to the people. Because, I don't mind
foreign owners as long as they're good for the club. I mean, if you take someone like Roman Abramovich
for Chelsea, he is willing to give and invest a lot of money in the club. He's not counting his money.
He's been a great example. He's been a real success and a good example for all the other clubs to follow.
179
I don't know too much about how the clubs are run from that point of view, but again, the thing is you
have a lot of shares and the shares are put on the market. Yeah, so the owners are already off the shelves,
but there are more shares to be sold. Anyone can buy the shares right there. We don't know where they
come from. Sometimes we don't know the name we don't know the location. It's the dark side. There's a
dark side that I've never probed into. It's a side of the game that has been maybe a bit unknown because
now many of the clubs are not on the Stock Exchange anymore.
And as long as there's an opportunity to make money, they'll get there in the end somehow. That side of
it I don't like.
It's the case of who has the most money gets the sponsoring, and even if you have a local company
around the corner who's trying to grow their business or trying to grow their brand it’s hard for them to
have a partnership. Most of the clubs are capitalist clubs. They want to use the sport as a business.
If the league receives more money for whatever reason, normally the money is filtered down. Yes, that's
how it goes to the clubs and then goes to the players, and because of the success of the Premier League,
we were generating more money and our crowds were getting bigger. The TV was also important
because people were watching more football on TV again and the promotion of the Premier League was
incredible, and it generated straightaway a hell of a lot more income. It did filter down to the players
and we started to receive more money. The contracts were getting bigger because people again wanted
to watch football. That’s how it started. I think the period from about 1988-1989 onwards was where
we started to see players earning a much bigger salary. From a player's point of view, we have to
remember a big point. A player is an employee and he doesn't own the club. He will try and negotiate.
A player has a very short career where normally if he reaches 35 with no major injuries, he has done
very well. So, a player will try and negotiate as much as he can. But at the end of the day, it's up to the
people who pay the players whether they say yes or no. A chairman and sponsors have to agree to the
player’s demands. So, a player has to look after himself in these situations. And this is what sometimes
annoys me when I speak to people who say, uh, football is too much money. Maybe they do earn too
much, but it's not their fault. It's not their fault. Then I posed the question back to them: “Where do you
work?” “Oh, I build houses.” “So, someone says alright, if you build that house, we're going to give you
ten times your money compared to your normal money. You’re not going to say no.” Have a think before
you start saying a footballer earns too much money because it comes with consequences.
180
I know in the 80s, there was talk, there was talk of a cap. There was talk of a transfer platform. It didn't
work there and it's certainly not going to work now, no. That will never ever come into consideration.
use?
That will never happen either no. Because again, it’s too complicated with the global market and once
you start, it’s too complicated. If you look at every aspect of life, for example when you want a global
market, you have to accept competition. You have to accept competition and then it will never go back,
never go back to the “three-players rule”.
I remember my father going to the old ground and I remember West Bromwich’s football ground. It was
not in good condition. Wolverhampton Wanderers’ stadium was not in good condition either. So, they
have to modernise, and sometimes it's cheaper to have a new stadium rather than to refurbish the existing
stadium. But from a nostalgic point of view, I used to love playing football at Upton Park, West Ham’s
stadium. I'm sure the new stadium is fantastic, but Upton Park was an iconic stadium. I mean, even for
me, and I only merely watch for 15 years now. Yeah, I mean, I remember White Hart Lane but don't
remember Highbury. I was too young but I loved watching games as well on the TV. It was really good
to watch and it's really different because I like and I love the English stadiums. How they are with the
crowd really close to the ground. That's what I love. Actually, yeah, for the local supporters and the
ambiance, the atmosphere at these grounds was good, but we have to move on and we have to have new
generation’s stadiums and you know if you speak of this, there are new generations of supporters who
want nicer stadiums. That is, they don't want to have to queue for half an hour to get in. They want to
go to a nice toilet complex. They want to go and buy a nice something to snack on some fish and chips.
Yeah, I think it's a question of taste according to anyone. Exactly, but the older generation was happy to
go and stand but the new generation they don't. They want a little bit of something.
As a football player, you want a good atmosphere, but also you want a fantastic pitch. These new
complexes all have fantastic pitches. I remember going to the old Middlesbrough at Ayresome Park and
when they built the new stadium it was: “Wow”. This is where all footballers want to play, with nice
facilities.
181
No, that's because I think there's no need. But for example, Everton might be, I think, going to a new
stadium now. This could be, I think. I'm not sure whether it's been accepted. It's very often a problem of
where you put the stadium they're going towards the docks. So away from Everton. Yeah, that's the
problem with the local communities because a lot of the time the local communities are really centred
around the football club because it's not like in France.
For example, do you know how much if Chelsea’s stadium was knocked down tomorrow? Do you know
how much the lands themselves would be sold? Unbelievable, they are sitting on millions and millions
and millions of pounds of land. It's right in prime London.
years?
I remember West Bromwich had a new stand and they're all corporate boxes and, sometimes, if people
don't want to watch the football in the cold it is better for them. I mean, I remember my girlfriend whom
I'm married to now. When I first took her to the ground if you said to her: “Do you want to go sit in that
box?” Oh, she would have gone to the box straight away and left me in the stand, so they're catering for
everybody. And if that means that someone can sit into a box of maybe 10/12/14 people to have
something to eat, sit down, have a chill chat in warmth on a nice chair and watch the game, I mean right?
In the United Kingdom, you would accept that. It's because France, where we are, is very still very much
a socialist country, and people in France are generally not allowed to have big amounts of money. We
have to pay our way and I think it's more equal in France than it is in England. It's very capitalist and
there's more money now in the United Kingdom than there's ever been. It's crazy.
lower divisions?
Of course, no that, again, will never happen, but that's too complicated and it will cause too many
problems for the owners and now it's too late. No, it's too late for that. We've passed that period, I think.
And so on. Unfortunately, I think it might have been a good idea if you give the supporters the
opportunity to have a stake in their club. We're at the stage now where the next stage will be the Super
League so we will see.
182
You started your playing career in West Bromwich in 1986, a year considered by much as the
worst for English football, with many problems with hooliganism and a record low attendance.
Do you remember any of that?
I remember I was not only a player; I was also a supporter in the early 80s. So, I saw it at West Bromwich
Albion which was the club I supported. I also saw Wolverhampton Wanderers and as you say there was
a big decline and especially in the football in the Midlands. Teams like West Bromwich, Aston Villa
and I remember watching a local derby between Wolverhampton and West Bromwich, normally years
before would be at capacity. And the match was played in front of just 13,000 supporters which was a
sign of the times, unfortunately. I remember making my debut at West Bromwich Albion in 1986. With
just a Premier League crowd, it was not the Premier League. Then it was the Barclays First Division,
but the crowd was 7,700 while the capacity was at 32,000. I mean the Premier League, as you say, was
in a period of decline and this was caused by different factors, but mainly because of hooliganism which
started in the 70s and became very popular, unfortunately through the early 80s until the late 80s and
early 90s, where it seemed to be stopped.
Have you ever been abused by fans during a game? Or any of your fellow players/teammates?
Yes, I've been insulted. I was insulted many times by exterior fans on different grounds. But we were
told from an early age when you become someone in the spotlight, when you become a celebrity, you
have to accept this is what's going to happen because everyone is not going to like you and everyone is
not going to be warm and generous towards you. They don't want you to succeed, they want their team
to win and they will do anything even go as far as insults to try and support their team to win.
And as I said I played through a period where black players were very much abused. I remember playing
when I was a schoolboy and apprentice at West Bromwich Albion, we had players in the team like
Cyrille Regis and Brendan Batson too, Laury Cunningham, who went later on to play with Madrid.
These were very popular players, very good players and I know listening to the crowds in those days
they were also abused, but again, we were told to expect it and to accept it and to get on with it and it
was as simple as that.
You were also at Hillsborough in 1989. If that is not too sensitive, could you please tell me what
you recall of that day? Do you know about the Taylor Report that followed the disaster? Do you
think it changed football by forcing the clubs to change their stands and stadiums?
The day was, well, first of all, it was an early kick-off which no one liked. The players don’t want to
play at 12:00 o'clock. We wanted to play at the usual time at 3:00 o'clock. This causes problems for
players and for supporters arriving from their cities. So, it was a day where we prepared, we had played
at this time before, so we know how to prepare and we arrived at the stadium as normal. Everything
seemed normal when I went out to warm up before the match, I noticed that the Liverpool section was
183
not getting very full and I wondered where everybody was. And it was very strange because normally
at 15 minutes before the kick-off, the crowd is there. But they've been a bit of a problem for a lot of
Liverpool supporters on routes to the match, but unfortunately again we can talk about errors and
misjudgements and the match was not delayed. It went ahead at the specific time and the match started.
A few minutes into the game, well, I noticed that the supporters weren’t concentrating on the match.
They were concentrating on something else. They were concentrated on the start of the crush and
everybody wanted to see the match. Everybody arrived a little bit late so everybody was scrambling to
get into the ground, and unfortunately this was the problem where big mistakes were made from all
angles and hence the start of as we know now the 96 deaths. From my point of view, as a football player,
I just joined Liverpool in October of 1988, so everything was going fantastic for me personally I had
got in the England under 21 team I joined Liverpool, I became a regular in the team. I got into the team
very quickly so everything was fantastic. And all of a sudden, my heart came shattering down and
completely broke. And this was the ups and downs of not only life but also football. One minute you're
in there on cloud nine and the next minute, back right down to Earth with a Big Bang.
By seating everybody, you take away that aggression during a football match or some of the aggressions,
and you encourage families to restart bringing their children. And this is what happened gradually over
the next ten to 15 years. The game had a big shake-up. Stadiums became much more accessible for
families, and gradually we sort of eased back into where the game was in the 60s and where crowds
came back with their families. But it's always the way. Exactly, something has to happen before we
change, and it's not only football, it's you know many walks of life where unfortunately we go along and
go along until something happens. Then if I gave you, normally a disaster, and people lose their lives
and then all of a sudden there's a change of situation. But unfortunately, that's the way it is.
Your club at the time, Liverpool, was one of the instigators of the new Premier League. When did
you learn about the project and what did you think about it?
Well, when we were told there was going to be a change at the FA and the new sponsors and they wanted
to revamp the whole league. And now it was going to be called the Premier League, but we were told as
players that nothing would change, nothing will change, it will just be a different name and that nothing
was going to change. It was always going to stay the same, it was just going to be called the Premier
League, and that's how easy it was for the players. There was no change for us at all, and the only
difference was we wore Premier League on our arms with the shirts and that was it. Because when I
won a championship with Liverpool, it was Barclays, the bank, which sponsored the football. So, yeah,
the change to the Premier League didn't affect us, not whatsoever. We just thought it was just to change
the name and we were just carrying on just the same as we always did.
184
But did you know it was going to be like a totally different thing from the point of view that the
Premier League was going to be separated from the three other divisions?
We weren’t told all this information. I think sometimes if something is changed, they don't want to tell
you too much, just in case we would not be happy with it, we would maybe strike or oppose the ideas
of this change. So no, we carried on and then gradually bit by bit by bit over the next 12 months we
realised what was happening. There was a separation and it's obviously been the same since. And there
is a bigger separation now, there's an even bigger gap than there was before.
Did this change anything for you when the “whole new ball game” started?
Completely nothing at all from that point of view it changed nothing. Money was the same. You know
where the salary didn't change at that time straight away and so for us, it was just the carry-on as normal.
Did you remark any change around the ground regarding cameras, wires, etc…?
We noticed that the grounds looked very much prettier with seats and coloured seats, and this was it.
Then we noticed that TVs were changing the world. As you say, a lot more cameras. There was a lot
more. There was a close-in on players and the replays. And this was one of the big changes of the first
season. But they were trying to promote this new name of the Premier League not only in the United
Kingdom but all over Europe and all over the world.
If that is not indiscrete, with more and more money pouring into the game thanks to the TV rights
and sponsorship deals in the 1990s, many players were on higher wages such as £10,000 a week
for John Barnes, your teammate. If that is not indiscrete, did you start earning more money thanks
to football at the time?
Yes, because it’s how it works. If the league receives more money for whatever reason. Normally the
money is filtered down. Yes, that's how it goes to the clubs, and then goes to the players, and because
of the success of the Premier League, we were generating more money and our crowds were getting
bigger. The TV also, because people were watching more football on TV again, and the promotion of
the Premier League was incredible, and it generated straightaway a hell of a lot more income. So yeah,
it did filter down to the players and we started to receive more money. The contracts were getting bigger
because people again wanted to watch football. That’s how it started. I think the period from about 1988-
1989 onwards was where we started to see players earning a much bigger salary. From a player's point
of view, we have to remember a big point that a player is an employee and he doesn't own the club. He
will try and negotiate. A player has a very short career where normally if he reaches 35 with no major
injuries, he has done very well. So, a player will try and negotiate as much as he can. And but at the end
of the day, it's up to the people who pay the players whether they say yes or no. A chairman and sponsors
have to agree to the player’s demands. So, a player has to look after himself in these situations.
185
Do you think players’ status and importance changed with the higher wages and exposition? In
what way? Was it all positive?
Correct, we had to change our ways. We had to be much more professional off the pitch when we were
going about our business, shopping, where we had something to drink to eat, and drink. And this is
because the Premier League got bigger, the names got bigger, the money got bigger and so yes there
was more responsibility on players to make sure that away from the football they were behaving
themselves, and as we say in England, keeping their noses clean.
Do you think some players started to distance themselves from the fans as they became rockstars
known around the globe? Do you think they also changed attitudes with fellow players?
No, from my point of view I always had a good relationship with the fans. I've always been very open
with fans and I've always done interviews. I've always signed autographs. I've always done exactly as
much as I can for the fans and that's a very, very important part of the relationship with the football club.
We need to be able to sometimes reach out to the players and in some capacity to feel them. You know
a player he's only going to pass through a club. He's going to be there maybe one year. Sometimes he
may be there for 15 years. But the fan is there for life and all the players come and go, but the fans are
the most important part of football. And if you have fans, you have a business. If you don't have fans,
you have nothing.
Did you have more pressure on your shoulders, being more exposed in the media?
No, no, again we had to adjust and make sure that we behaved. So, it comes with the job. You have to
make sure that everything you do is professional on and off the pitch. And with the new exposure, this
was part again of our general learning. When we were apprentices, we were told, if you want to be a star
you have to accept everything that goes with being a star and that means you must make sure you do the
right things. You have to respect clubs and fans, and this is how it was and it was a little bit more
responsibility I suppose.
Maybe as well, when players were coming celebrities, it became a little bit more difficult for the fans to
be in touch with the players. When we used to play at Liverpool, sometimes we had to have escorts to
our cars not because the fans were abusing us but because of the number of people who wanted
autographs, who wanted to sign shirts and we would stop for five to ten minutes. But you couldn't do it
because you would have been there till the next day.
What do you think changed for British players with the Bosman Ruling? Do you think it brought
more competition?
But this was a little bit of a gamble. For the top players, the Bosman ruling was fantastic because they
could let their contracts run out and they knew then that there was going to be no transfer fee so they
186
could negotiate an even bigger wage. But the only problem was for the lesser players. If they thought
about letting their contracts run out, there might be a point where no teams will pick them up, yeah, they
might be thinking well so it all depends who you were. But the Bosman ruling had a big impact again
on finance on players. I remember very well the Bosman ruling coming in and it was again a big part of
our football history. We didn't think so at the time, we thought again it may be a little thing, but we
didn't realise how important it was going to be later on because it turned out to be very big for the English
Premier League. Because at the time, the league was in a big boom financially. So, the clubs were able
to attract many of the best players that were run out of contracts and given the biggest salary, correct?
So maybe it created a bigger competition for British players that were already in the league. Exactly
that's what happened.
Yeah, more competition. But again, you can only do your own thing. I would make sure that I always
did my routine but they were getting more and more people to take your place if you like. So, you had
to stay focused and it added a little bit more pressure, but then there's nothing wrong. You know, we
were playing in a high-pressure game in a big high-profile league. And again, this is what comes with
the job. I've always been at clubs where there's always been another player to replace me. After the
Bosman ruling, there was a much more choice, wider choice. So yeah, it was much competition and I
think it helped the game as well as the quality of the Premier League.
Do you think this influx of foreign players added quality to the League? And what about the
British national teams?
This is the only, probably the only negative thing from the national team’s perspective. We always say
that some of the British youngsters weren't given an opportunity as quickly or there were fewer
opportunities for them. But we were going into a global market and the global game just didn't want to
see mainly British players.
They wanted to see the world’s best players playing in the Premier League on that stage. And again, this
is the start of how we get to where we are today, and so it was very, very instrumental at this period in
the Premier League.
187

The Gentrification of Football or How A Popular Sport Has Become Elitist Controlled by Business The Example of The English Premier League From 1992 To 2020.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gentrification of Football or How A Popular Sport Has Become Elitist Controlled by Business The Example of The English Premier League From 1992 To 2020.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mémoire de fin d’études :

Année universitaire 2021-2022

THE GENTRIFICATION OF FOOTBALL OR HOW A POPULAR

Présenté par : Antoine CHEVALLEY

Mémoire de master recherche en études anglophones.

Année universitaire 2021-2022:

THE GENTRIFICATION OF FOOTBALL OR HOW A POPULAR

Présenté par : Antoine CHEVALLEY

Je soussignée, Antoine Chevalley, étudiant à l’Université de Bordeaux Montaigne, déclare sur

Fait à Bordeaux, le 12 juin 2022.

26.Retrieved from: ‘Https://Twitter.Com/Lewispringle/Status/971135690741374977’. Twitter,

a. Making a good start.

Figure 3: The Sun’s front page about Hillsborough.77

2. Sky and the clubs’ work to rehabilitate the game.

Figure 4: “IT’S A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME” advertisement by Sky Sports.78

78.Retrieved from the Twitter account @90sfootball:

79.The video can be found at : https://www.skysports.com/football/story-telling/11661/11979300/alive-

3. Rise and rise: boom in the TV rights deals.

Sky's annual profit 1992 - 1996 (in million of pounds)

Figure 8: Sky’s annual profit from 1992 to 1996.103

b. The Premier League taking over the world.

1. Development of merchandising: a new way to make money for the

123.‘Football Jerseys: Sales by European Club 2016’. Statista.

2. Sponsors and partners through the examples of jersey manufacturers

Manchester United Jersey Sponsor deals 2000 -

Manchester United kit manufacturer deals from 1996 to

Amount earned by some Premier League clubs through their kit

Manchester Manchester Arsenal Chelsea Tottenham Liverpool Everton West Ham

133.Man Utd Global Partners & Sponsors. https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/global.

Figure 13: Revenue sources and percentages of Manchester United in 2019.135

3. Overseas TV rights deals: attracting foreign fans and earning more

137.Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute,

138.Retrieved from: ‘Sports Business Institute’. Sports Business Institute, https://www.sbibarcelona.com/.

c. The World taking over the Premier League.

2. Foreign investments through the example of naming.

Figure 17: The FA Premier League’s logo in 1992.175

Figure 18: The Carling FA Premiership logo starting 1997/1998.179

Figure 21: Big Five European league clubs’ revenue in 2019-2020.221

224.Inflation Calculator 1949-2021. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-

2. Watching the Premier League on TV: an increasingly high price to pay.

242.Premier League - Attendance Figures (Detailed View). https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-

248.‘In Real Terms Definition’. Law Insider.

3. Merchandising and its impact on fans.

259.Hyde, Ben. ‘Why Are Football Shirts so Expensive?’ FOOTY.COM.

262.‘Premier League Prices Frozen or Cut’. BBC Sport.

b. Clubs trying to keep up with the Premier League leading to mismanagement.

2. Clubs’ mismanagement leading to catastrophe.

c. Fans and institutions, once united, now divided.

1. A proximity with the institution now lost as clubs seem to be more

302.Arsenal FC - Cup History. https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-arsenal/pokalhistorie/verein/11.

Figure 30: Dial Square FC’s official logo.309

314.Retrieved from: ‘Football Club United of Manchester’. Wikipédia, 1 Jan. 2022.

Figure 34: Eric Cantona kicking a fan at Selhurst Park in 1996.328

3. Football stadiums: the perfect example of the gentrification of football.

Figure 36: Highbury Stadium and the Emirates Stadium.332

333.English Football Stadiums - The Stadium Guide.

Figure 37: Executive box at Old Trafford in 2019.337

336.Manchester United Executive Boxes. https://www.manutd.com/en/matchday-vip/executive-boxes.

Figure 38: Seasonal Hospitality Prices at Old Trafford for 2015/2016.338

Picture a Champions-League-type tournament featuring the biggest clubs in Europe

In other words, it would look an awful lot like 1992.340

Baker, W. J. ‘The Making of a Working-Class Football Culture in Victorian England’. Journal of