Putting mutualism back at the heart of football

By David Mentiply

As Labour launched its manifesto back in April, one of the most radical and eye-catching policies was the commitment to “bring mutualism to the heart of football”. The manifesto pledged to enable Supporters’ Trusts to buy stakes in their club and a complete overhaul of the way the game is governed.

Professional clubs would have to hand a proportion of their shares – up to 25% – to democratically elected Supporters Trusts’, in recognition of their links with local communities. A change-of-control clause would allow Supporters’ Trusts to have first rights on organising a takeover bid if their club was up for sale or went into administration.

The Conservatives were initially critical of Labour’s commitment to increasing supporter representation, condemning it as a “pre-election gimmick”, but they soon changed tack. David Cameron welcomed the reform of football governance rules and backed the idea of co-operative ownership. In fact, the idea of developing mutualism in football was one of the few issues that united both red and the blue during the general election campaign.

How has the government put the idea of football mutualism into practice since the election? The simple answer is they haven’t. The government has been completely inactive despite clubs such as Manchester United, Liverpool, Sheffield Wednesday, Crystal Palace and Portsmouth all suffering the effects of financial mismanagement and many owners loading their debt on to clubs over the past year. The response to a petition sent to the government by one supporters’ group will be familiar even to those who are not into football:

“We understand why fans are becoming increasingly concerned at the level of debt accumulated at some clubs from takeovers and recognise that there are some tough challenges facing the game. However, it is not for the government to regulate football. It is for the clubs themselves to ensure they manage their finances well, and for the football authorities to regulate the game to the highest standards.”

This free market approach is by no means the norm in football. In Germany, 51% of each Bundesliga club must be owned by its supporters. Supporter involvement has had an overwhelmingly positive influence on the game in Germany. Average attendance figures in the Bundesliga are the highest in Europe. It is no coincidence that high attendances are coupled with some of the cheapest match-day tickets on the continent. In Spain, the reigning European champions, Barcelona, are run by their 170,000 members, or socis, The socis democratically elect the club president and have a real say in the way their club is run. Even in England, Supporters’ Trusts have stepped up to the mark to save clubs like Northampton Town from insolvency.

Clearly then, a different model to the status quo does exist. At present, however, it seems that not following through with pre-election pledges is the order of the day. So where does that leave those of us who favour the idea of bringing mutualism to the heart of football?

As far as I can see, there are two options:

First, we collectively “resign” from the football club we support. This could be, amongst other things: in protest against unaffordable match day tickets and merchandising; the rescheduling of kickoff times at the inconvenience of the majority of supporters to suit television broadcasters and their commercial interests; and against the ways in which some owners have exploited and nearly bankrupted football clubs for their own financial ends.

The second option is to fight on. We campaign and put pressure on the government and the Football Association to introduce sweeping changes to the structure of the professional game. This will involve Supporters’ Trusts from different clubs working together and organising targeted boycotts or peaceful protests before, during and after key matches.

The problem with option one, is that it is far easier said than done. The emotional pull of a football club is beyond rational explanation, as supporters of many different clubs will testify. To walk away from “my club” would be unthinkable.

On the other hand, if it isn’t really “my club” anymore then what is stopping me leaving except a misplaced sense of loyalty?

The founders and early supporters of FC United of Manchester (the “red rebel” breakaway group from Manchester United) have shown that a football club is what you make of it. The rebels were no longer prepared to sit by and watch the soul of their club destroyed by owners who seemed to have little interest in the long-term future of their club.

As a result, the FC United manifesto includes the following founding principles:

1. The Board will be democratically elected by its members

2. Decisions taken by the membership will be decided on a one member, one vote basis

3. The club will develop strong links with the local community and strive to be accessible to all, discriminating against none

4. The club will endeavour to make admission prices as affordable as possible, to as wide a constituency as possible

5. The club will encourage young, local participation – playing and supporting – whenever possible

6. The Board will strive wherever possible to avoid outright commercialism

7. The club will remain a non-profit organisation

These are seven principles that many supporters want for their club right around the world. However, I think we must be prepared to play the long game. On a personal level, many supporters would find it difficult to break the bond that they have with their club. Indeed, the history, songs and peculiarities of every club are special and should be protected, not broken up.

We need to organise and work alongside supporters and organisations from across the length and breadth of the country. It will be worth the fight. Mutualism in football will empower local communities and enable them to make decisions on how their club is run. If we achieve this, football may once again become the game of the people.