At present we are witnessing a number of interesting attempts by fans to exercise what power they do have.
At Manchester, Cardiff and Hull the fans are letting the owners of clubs know that they are not happy with boardroom decisions.
Locally, at Birmingham City and Coventry City, for some time now fans have been making their views known about the ownership position of their clubs.
But where does the real power lie in football? Is it on the demand side, is it the fans who pay to watch the matches either live or on TV? Or is it with those involved with the supply of the game, namely the owners of the clubs, the players, the TV companies, the official sponsors and the so called governing bodies?
Barclays Bank, which at present sponsors the Premier League, patronises fans in its advertising. They thank the fans for making the league what it is and state “you are football”. The fans around the world watch the football, they spend money on football and on products they see promoted through football, but they do not control it.
If a team is successful the owners of the clubs often take the fans for granted.
A few years ago the well organised campaign by Manchester United supporters failed to unseat the Glazers, their unpopular US owners.
It will be argued the power within the game lies with those who control the money, not those who spend it. This should not come as a surprise, football mirrors what is happening in society.
It has been argued by one of the world’s leading economists that when wealth captures policy-making the rules bend to favour the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else.
Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz argues that those with wealth, and power are able to write the rules and to write them in ways which enhance their prospects of winning.
He is in fact discussing what happens at the level of the national economy but his words are applicable to football.
If one looks behind the hype of the Premier League, it is obvious something is wrong with the game. The continuing failure of the national team, the financial struggles of smaller teams and the lack of support for grassroots football all point to serious problems.
Basically, what is happening is the rich are getting richer and the rest are struggling. It is only when a club is in financial difficulties, such as now at Hereford United, where the fans have real power.
It is still too early to judge what the success of the boycott of Coventry City will be.
There are numerous calls for a change in the way football in England is being run but unfortunately the demand is not coming from those who can bring about change.
The recent debate in the House of Commons called for steps to be taken to ensure no clubs could be ruined again by mysterious foreign owners.
In a recent Birmingham Post, business of football columnist Peter Sharkey expressed the belief that “the time has come to insist upon the nurturing of indigenous talent as a condition of football ownership”.
The vast majority of football fans in England would agree with these two views but they are not the views of many of the owners of Premier League clubs nor of the overseas fans of English clubs, nor unfortunately of the so-called governing bodies.
We will first look at the supply side of the game. No single body controls football.
Organisations such as FIFA, UEFA, the FA, the Football League and the Premier League each has limited power and they each have their own agendas.
They are in competition with each other. The leagues and the cups they organise compete for sports space and for the money consumers can spend.
They also compete for the time and skills of the top players. UEFA claims that it seeks to maximise the benefit football can offer to society as a whole. It claim to see football primarily as about sport.
However, at the beginning of this year, its president admitted that the programme of matches for Euro 2016 was a political decision aimed as thrusting the international game back into the limelight.
The recent announcement regarding a new European national league, to replace friendlies, has a similar objective. These national competitions will lead UEFA into conflict with the top clubs who wish to control the use of the top players. Last time this happened, the top clubs formed the G14 group and UEFA gave way. The clubs are more powerful than the organisers of competitions.
When, in the 19th century, the Football League broke away from the FA, William McGregor, the founder of the league explained that “they must be a selfish body whose interests are wholly bound up in the welfare of the affiliated clubs”.
The Premier League clubs expressed similar sentiments when they broke away from the Football League. The Premier League is a company owned by its 20 clubs with the FA as a special shareholder.
The primary objective of any company is to look after its own shareholders’ interests.
It is not their prime responsibility to look after the interests of the national team or of grass roots football. The FA do have these responsibilities, but cannot control the financial matters. They do not seem to be doing a very good job with the grassroots, they seem more concerned with covering the costs of the expensive Wembley stadium.
FIFA regards itself as the international governing body. In the 1990s two researchers pointed out it was in fact mainly a power base for a small elite. This becomes more evident each year.
One scandal follows another, the latest being the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar – a country that has little to offer but money.
National governments are reluctant to interfere in what they see as the private affairs of the football business. They would clearly wish to intervene on matters of employment law, commercial law, contract law and health and safety.
In the UK, there have been a number of government inquiries on matters of football.
The latest was initiated by the Select committee of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The minister urged the football authorities to work together in the interest of the long-term health of the game. The responses of the FA, the Football League and Premier League made all the right noises about understanding their responsibilities but did point out that each had their separate interests.
Organisations such as Supporters Direct argue football differs from other industries and that football clubs should be seen as community assets and as such should be protected by Government.
The Government, however, likes to promote the country as one open to business.
Many famous UK brand names have been sold to foreign investors with the Government being reluctant to intervene. They should, however, be more concerned as to the source of the money that comes into the country, not all money is good money.
UEFA was, in 2005, concerned with the source of some of the money coming into football but it made the point that it was up to national governments to do something about this.
Why do fans not have more power? Unfortunately the amount of revenue that the large clubs receive directly from fans is a small proportion of their total income.
At Aston Villa, 16 per cent of total income comes from match receipts. It is even lower at West Bromwich Albion – 10 per cent. That figure stands at 17 per cent for Birmingham City and 19 per cent for Wolverhampton Wanderers.
The two Birmingham clubs both derive more money from commercial revenue than through the gates.
Commercial revenue is now key to success and it is those people who control the clubs which can attract this money that have the real power.
Those who control these clubs are either wealthy individuals or managers of funds, be they sovereign wealth funds, private equity funds, hedge funds or secret funds.
These owners have not only bought shares in the club, they have invest directly in the club. They invest because they believe the money spent will lead to success.
Fans are attracted to successful clubs and commercial sponsors are attracted to fans. It is those who attract the money that have the power. The clubs have shown that, if they do not like the so-called rules established by the organisers of one competition, they will help establish another. It happened following a row over TV money and resulted in the Premier League. At a European level, a disagreement led to the establishment of G14 which led to the European Club Association. This body is too big, the interests of the big clubs are different to those of the smaller ones.
Already there is talk of secret meetings leading to a possible European Super League, with or without UEFA . Unfortunately, it is doubtful if any Midland team was invited to join – they do not attract enough money.
The corporate business wants to be associated with a particular club because it provides it with access to the fans.
It provides them with an opportunity to advertise their services or products, be they drinks, sports goods, betting agencies, banks, etc.
The popularity of football provides the commercial sector with a huge audience. Now that the game is global, multinational companies can easily reach a global audience.
They do not care about football as a sport but as a means of helping them to make profits. It is the fans who have the emotional attachment to the clubs, but their interests are secondary.
If the fans want to show their power, it is not enough to stay away from matches to show their displeasure, they need to boycott the products of the companies which support the club.
The commercial companies may be the official partners of the club, they may be the official sponsors. The fans to show their power need to interfere in the flow of funds in the game.
If for example the fans of a club, nationally and internationally, decided not to use the services of a bank that was an official partner of that club the sponsor would soon lean on those running the club to change their policies.
The directors of the companies being boycotted would let the owners of the club know of their concern.
The owners would then have to decide whether or not to change their policies.
This would be the fans exercising their power. However, such a boycott would be very difficult to organise, particularly on a global basis.
* Professor John Samuels, of the University of Birmingham, is author of The Beautiful Game
