Chin up, Pompey
Portsmouth FC's fall in to administration has ignited the debate about governance and ownership of football clubs, notes Dougal Paver.
In febrile times much bad policy is made on the hoof as politicians and administrators scrabble to create their own cover. Dangerous Dogs Act, anyone?
Portsmouth's decline, in giving sharp focus to concerns about the way our national game is governed, is causing a similar scramble. For lovers of the game the question is what the long-term impact might be on its structure; for PR professionals advising its administrators it's a time for calm heads.
Assuming the Premier League and FA want to sustain the status quo - a free market in the ownership of clubs and a laissez faire view of salaries and transfer activity - then the task is to placate the nay-sayers whilst stressing the benefits of the current model.
The nay-sayers - fans, commentators mostly, plus the odd politician of all stripes - are in a weak position if their unwillingness to boycott match attendance and souvenir purchases is any indication. They're weak, also, because (a) they don't own the clubs; and (b) the bulk of club revenue comes from TV rights, not match-day ticket sales and ancillary revenue.
The PR challenge, then, is to point to the upside of Murdoch's dollars: new stadia; European domination for English clubs; the world's best players appearing in towns like Blackburn, Wigan and Burnley each week; and mllions more pumped in to grass-roots football and youth academies.
Turn that on its head and you get poorer stadia, lower quality players, fewer European trophies for English clubs, a weaker amateur infrastructure and fewer matches on the telly.
Given the inertia in this country my money's on the status quo. Tell me I'm wrong.
COMMENTS
No comments added for this entry.
POST A COMMENT
