This week the All Party Parliamentary Football Group (APPFG) delivered a frank set of suggestions regarding the finances of top English football clubs, in publishing the findings of a six-year report. Speaking to BritSport Weekly, the Premier League expressed its disappointment with not only some of the Group’s suggestions, but also its exclusion from elements of the Group’s research.
The report complimented the Premier League on its status as the top domestic club competition in the world, but criticised amongst other things the levels of debt in English football. According to the report, debt is arising because of clubs being taken over using borrowed money, and clubs are increasingly building up debt in their own right by being run without any operating profits whatsoever.
Manchester United has debts of over £750 million and Chelsea £736 million, £578 million of which came from an interest-free loan from its billionaire owner Roman Abramovich. Prior to United’s takeover by the Glazer family in 2005, the European champions had no debt at all.
The Premier League emphasised, in response to the inquiry, that there must be focus on the commercial success of the League and its reinvestment of money back into sport in the country. A Premier League statement said: “[The Premier League’s] levels of success are the product of a virtuous circle, whereby high playing standards generate high levels of interest, which in turn drive commercial revenues which are then invested in football’s fundamentals – players, youth development, coaching, stadium facilities, and training ground improvements.”
However also of concern to the APPFG is what it terms “financial doping” in the Premier League clubs, suggesting that club finances should be brought in line by limiting expenditure to a proportion of revenue, thus stopping the top sides “buying success”. Dan Johnson, Head of Communications at the Premier League, told BritSport Weekly that the League is working with Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burnham on issues of finance and questioned the ability of the APPFG to make meaningful suggestions about club finances.
“It is difficult for these groups to devote the resources and the time necessary to consider these issues in the kind of detail required to reach meaningful conclusions that reflect the scope and nature of the business of football at the highest level,” he said.
“We made [the APPFG] aware of the significant steps made in the last decade in terms of governance and our commitment to this going forward - especially in respect of the Burnham process. What was disappointing was the focus of elements of the report on areas that weren't included in the Inquiry's Terms of Reference - specifically the 6+5 recommendation.”
Asked to give evidence to the report were the Football Association, the Football League and the chief executive of the Premier League. Only three clubs were called to give evidence, none of which were from the Premier League.
“The APPFG has no statutory powers and say themselves that the purpose of this report is to stimulate a debate rather than change any laws or tell the football authorities how to run the game. All I would say is this is a debate we are already fully engaged in at both a national and European level,” Johnson added.
The Report was launched at the House of Commons on Monday and aims to influence parliamentary activities on the subject of football over coming months.
