Intervju, del 1: Richard Giulianotti, fotbollsforskare.
Richard Giulianotti har vänligt nog tagit sig tid att besvara SFSU:s frågor angående fotboll och ekonomi. Utgångspunkt för intervjun är vinterns heta fotbollspotatis, 51 %-regeln.
Professor Richard Giulianotti är av världens ledande forskare på fotboll. Han är anställd av Durham University i egenskap av sociolog och undervisar och forskar inom bl.a. globalisering, sport och sociologi, sport och ekonomi samt sociologisk teori. Giulianotti har under flera år publicerat vetenskapliga texter och böcker, Globalization and Football, Ethics, Money and Sport och Sport: A Critical Sociology för att nämna några titlar. SFSU har fått privilegiet att intervjua professor Giulianotti.
At the moment Swedish sports is preparing for a historic decision. The future of the 51 % rule is to be decided at Riksidrottsförbundets (RF) at their AGM in May 2011. What is your take on membership owned clubs?
I think anyone with an interest in issues of community, social/democratic participation, and social justice, would have a strong sympathy for the membership-owned model for clubs. It appears to me that there needs to be both an independent commission in Sweden, looking at the issue, and also a public debate. It would be premature to abandon the 51% rule without full consideration of the pros and cons. It is also worth keeping in mind that, if you abandon this model, it is very hard to get it back, particularly at top clubs.
Germanyand the Bundesliga are often mentioned as the good example of European football. The highest average attendance in the world and balanced books. To what extent is the German success due to their version of the 51 % rule, do you think?
I think this has made a strong contribution to the financial security and huge attendances at German stadiums. If you move towards a more privatized model of club ownership, then there is likely to be more focus on the generation of profits, which may in part result in higher ticket prices and a more ‘consumer-focused’ view of supporters.
In your book, Football and globalization, you point to the fact that the debt burden of clubs seems to be in direct correlation to the extent in which the football economy of the country is liberalized. Would you care to elaborate on that in a northern European perspective?
Lack of regulation is a major issue here. In France and Germany, there have been stronger economic safeguards to protect against club indebtedness; in France, this was established to ensure that the problems encountered about 20 years or so ago were not repeated. In less regulated contexts, such as England, debt burdens appear to be more substantial and complex: for example, some clubs may ‘owe’ large amounts to their individual owners, who agree to cover losses on an annual basis; some clubs may pick up enormous debts as the main part of the finance used by entrepreneurs can ‘buy’ the club long-term; other clubs generate large debts by over-speculating on future successes, through spending on player wages and transfer fees.
Those who argue for the removal of the 51 % rule in Sweden, argue that it would mean an almost automatic influx of money to the clubs. Is that a valid assumption? If so, what kind of investors do you think would be attracted by Swedish clubs?
It is crucial that these sorts of arguments are justified with some examples. Are there specific cases where investors have stated that they would definitely move in, if the rule was abandoned? And if so, are the investments guaranteed, do they come from ‘fit and proper’ sources (rather than individuals with murky backgrounds)? I have no way of being certain about this, but I would anticipate that, at least in the case of investment from foreign sources, the larger leagues look like a more tempting proposition than those in Scandinavia.
In light of UEFA:s new licensing system, Financial fair play, what system of club governing is best suited to face the new requirements, a membership owned structure or a privately owned structure?
This is a crucial point. At the moment, the plan to abandon the 51% rule is being put forward at a time when UEFA is attempting to accommodate more diverse forms of club ownership within its competitive frameworks. The Swedish debate on the 51% rule needs to take full account of the possible changes that will be wrought by the UEFA plans.
