A Moral Stain on Football
An article I read in the Guardian recently on the Abramovich revolution at Chelsea and how that came about. Very interesting ..
This weekend sees what is likely to be the climax of the domestic football season, as Chelsea, the wealthiest club in Britain, take on Manchester United, the biggest, and almost certainly clinch their second successive league title.
Nothing better encapsulates this money-dominated football era: the combined salaries of the two squads would probably be enough to finance the average eastern European country. But the crucial difference between the two clubs has been lost because, in their routes to wealth, United and Chelsea are at opposite ends of the morality spectrum.
United have earned the right to be the highest spenders. They became the nation's best-supported club because their dramatic history captured the public imagination: a manager who moulded a title-winning team, the "Busby Babes", but lost most of them in a tragic plane crash, then built another team, which within 10 years became the first English club to win the European Cup.
United's support swelled, so when money did enter the game they could make the most of this support in gate receipts, merchandising and TV money.
Chelsea had none of this, but had just qualified for Europe's Champions League when Russian oil company Sibneft paid out billions of pounds in dividends to its major shareholders, one of whom was Roman Abramovich. It was relatively easy then for a tiny group of well-connected businessmen to exploit their links with the post-communist regime of Boris Yeltsin, and persuade ordinary Russian workers into giving up their individual share vouchers, unaware of their real value.
The obscenity of this is borne out by figures out last week which show that the 100 richest Russians are worth more than a quarter of Russia's GDP. There is vast inequality in Britain, but Russia is another universe: 18% of its people live below the poverty line; the average wage is the equivalent of £2,000. Yet last year Abramovich sold off his last Russian business interest for £7bn, bringing his total wealth, as estimated in this week's Sunday Times Rich List, to £10.8bn.
But what can someone with such wealth spend it on? In 2003 he was flying by helicopter over London when he saw a football ground. Within a couple of months he owned Chelsea. In another few weeks he'd spent £100m on players. In a year, having failed to win a trophy, he'd sacked the manager and brought in the man who'd just won the European Cup, Jose Mourinho, himself lured by the £4m salary. Mourinho spent £100m more on players and went on to win the title for Chelsea a year later - their first in 50 years, and only their second ever.
Of course, wealthy benefactors have often backed clubs - Chelsea had Matthew Harding in the 1990s. But he was a fan of the club and wanted to realise his dream. Abramovich had no previous connection with either England or Chelsea. And no one has had such a distorting effect on the game.
When Arsenal offered to double the wages of their full-back Ashley Cole, Chelsea said they'd triple them - to £80,000 per week. What was already an obscene amount became pornographic. Clubs across the league are having to up their players' wages. So the cash spent by ordinary fans is being eaten up by fewer and fewer super-wealthy people.
At Chelsea they all know where the money has come from. Football agents, of course, don't give a damn about its source. And football pundits and commentators talk about the quality of the players, or the tactics, or the managers' quotes, turning a blind eye towards the mass poverty left behind.
The fact is, Chelsea now stands for nothing but greed; the club has become a moral stain on the face of the sport. The more these injustices are tolerated, the more we are all corrupted.
This weekend sees what is likely to be the climax of the domestic football season, as Chelsea, the wealthiest club in Britain, take on Manchester United, the biggest, and almost certainly clinch their second successive league title.
Nothing better encapsulates this money-dominated football era: the combined salaries of the two squads would probably be enough to finance the average eastern European country. But the crucial difference between the two clubs has been lost because, in their routes to wealth, United and Chelsea are at opposite ends of the morality spectrum.
United have earned the right to be the highest spenders. They became the nation's best-supported club because their dramatic history captured the public imagination: a manager who moulded a title-winning team, the "Busby Babes", but lost most of them in a tragic plane crash, then built another team, which within 10 years became the first English club to win the European Cup.
United's support swelled, so when money did enter the game they could make the most of this support in gate receipts, merchandising and TV money.
Chelsea had none of this, but had just qualified for Europe's Champions League when Russian oil company Sibneft paid out billions of pounds in dividends to its major shareholders, one of whom was Roman Abramovich. It was relatively easy then for a tiny group of well-connected businessmen to exploit their links with the post-communist regime of Boris Yeltsin, and persuade ordinary Russian workers into giving up their individual share vouchers, unaware of their real value.
The obscenity of this is borne out by figures out last week which show that the 100 richest Russians are worth more than a quarter of Russia's GDP. There is vast inequality in Britain, but Russia is another universe: 18% of its people live below the poverty line; the average wage is the equivalent of £2,000. Yet last year Abramovich sold off his last Russian business interest for £7bn, bringing his total wealth, as estimated in this week's Sunday Times Rich List, to £10.8bn.
But what can someone with such wealth spend it on? In 2003 he was flying by helicopter over London when he saw a football ground. Within a couple of months he owned Chelsea. In another few weeks he'd spent £100m on players. In a year, having failed to win a trophy, he'd sacked the manager and brought in the man who'd just won the European Cup, Jose Mourinho, himself lured by the £4m salary. Mourinho spent £100m more on players and went on to win the title for Chelsea a year later - their first in 50 years, and only their second ever.
Of course, wealthy benefactors have often backed clubs - Chelsea had Matthew Harding in the 1990s. But he was a fan of the club and wanted to realise his dream. Abramovich had no previous connection with either England or Chelsea. And no one has had such a distorting effect on the game.
When Arsenal offered to double the wages of their full-back Ashley Cole, Chelsea said they'd triple them - to £80,000 per week. What was already an obscene amount became pornographic. Clubs across the league are having to up their players' wages. So the cash spent by ordinary fans is being eaten up by fewer and fewer super-wealthy people.
At Chelsea they all know where the money has come from. Football agents, of course, don't give a damn about its source. And football pundits and commentators talk about the quality of the players, or the tactics, or the managers' quotes, turning a blind eye towards the mass poverty left behind.
The fact is, Chelsea now stands for nothing but greed; the club has become a moral stain on the face of the sport. The more these injustices are tolerated, the more we are all corrupted.
ads scored @ 6:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home