'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Last week saw the return of controversial Premier League owners to the news, as plenty of time was dedicated to discussing Rafael Benitez’s exit from Newcastle United; according to most reports, the Spanish boss decided to walk away from St. James’ Park after disagreeing with owner Mike Ashley on exactly where the future of Newcastle lay.
Ashley – arguably the most disliked man in Newcastle’s footballing history at this stage – wasn’t the only controversial owner to make the headlines last week, though.
Once again, the Glazer family’s ownership of Manchester United has been brought to the forefront, as it has been suggested that over their 16-year ownership of the club, the family have not actually paid off any of the £500m debt leverage to buy United – instead, since 2011, only the accrued interest of around £786m has been repaid.
Also see : Copa America Standings, EPL Transfer News, Womens World Cup Bracket.
The same report also suggested that through the sale of shares in the club on the stock market, dividends paid to the owners and so-called “directors fees”, the Glazers have essentially siphoned almost £1bn out of United, and not really invested any of the money back into the club, and all of this during a period in which their local rivals Manchester City have seen unheard of investment from Sheikh Mansour.
Okay, so the idea that the Glazers haven’t been willing to spend any money while they’ve been in charge of United isn’t exactly true; the various managers who’ve taken charge at Old Trafford since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 have splashed the cash plenty of times, with Jose Mourinho even breaking the world transfer fee record to sign Paul Pogba for around £89m in the summer of 2016.
In reality though, United’s massive commercial success means a lot of that money being spent has been self-generated. Not that it would matter if it were being used right. The problem, if you ask United fans, has come from the way in which that money has been spent.
The buck when it comes to transfers appears to stop firmly with club CEO Ed Woodward – a Glazer man through and through.
United’s first transfer window with Woodward at the helm – the summer of 2013 – saw them linked with every big-name player imaginable only to come away with nothing more than an over-priced Marouane Fellaini, while 2018’s summer window saw him veto the majority of then-boss Jose Mourinho’s targets (Woodward apparently felt the side’s defence was strong enough without Toby Alderweireld) and seemingly place more emphasis on a sponsorship deal with Chivas Regal whiskey.
Essentially, to Woodward – and by proxy, the Glazer family – United feels less like a football team and more like a commercial opportunity.
Often, it feels like players have been signed purely to sell replica shirts rather than for their abilities on the pitch, and despite the lack of success for United in recent seasons, according to many fans, as long as the club remain financially successful, the Glazers are happy.
United fans would probably tell Newcastle supporters that while Mike Ashley’s refusal to spend money has undoubtedly harmed their club, at least he hasn’t been helping to crumble their empire from within as the Glazer family could be accused of doing.
Coincidentally enough though, United aren’t the only club whose fans have come into conflict with its owner – their great rival from the 1990s and early 2000s, Arsenal, have had similar issues.
Like United, Arsenal’s problems seemed to begin with American investment into the club. In this case, US billionaire Stan Kroenke – the owner of various American sports teams including the Los Angeles Rams (NFL), Denver Nuggets (NBA) and Colorado Rapids (MLS) – first began to buy shares in the London club back in 2007.
Over the next decade, Kroenke began to purchase more shares in the club, eventually becoming the majority owner last August.
When this news was announced, Arsenal’s Supporters’ Trust were immediately horrified, suggesting that, like the Glazer family at United, Kroenke – who apparently used short-term loans to finance the final stage of his takeover – could begin to restructure his debt so that the football club would essentially pay it off, while he could also pay himself dividends from any profits, meaning Arsenal could potentially become a prop for his other business ventures.
More controversy emerged in January, when it was revealed that Kroenke was the only Premier League owner not to spend any of his own money in investments into his club; according to figures, Arsenal spent £236m on transfers between 2008 and 2017 – a figure dwarfed by their rivals, but made more worrying by the fact that the spending was entirely funded from self-generated revenues such as television money and sponsorship deals.
This summer, of course, Arsenal fans have been led to believe that boss Unai Emery has just £45m to spend on new players – a drop in the ocean in a transfer climate where the likes of Aaron Wan-Bissaka are moving for fees upwards of £50m. It’s no wonder, in this case, why Gunners’ fans have become frustrated with their American owner.
Of course, it could be worse – Kroenke infamously moved his NFL team from St. Louis to Los Angeles for largely financial reasons, although thankfully for Arsenal fans, that won’t happen to them due to the system of the NFL franchises being completely different to the way in which Premier League football clubs work.
To compare the two US-based owners to Mike Ashley again brings up an interesting question, though: should fans really pillory club owners who aren’t willing to spend millions – if not billions – of their own money in a chase for on-pitch success that’s not necessarily guaranteed?
After all, even Manchester City took almost half a decade to win the Premier League despite Sheikh Mansour spending untold amounts from the very beginning of his takeover there.
It’s honestly tricky to say. In the case of Ashley, there’s certainly an argument to be made that the way he operates is simply smart business more than anything else.
He’s been trying to sell Newcastle for years now and the only reason he hasn’t sold the club is that nobody has matched his price, and while Magpies fans – and Rafa Benitez, apparently – might think bigger things could be just around the corner, that isn’t a given by any means.
With regards to the Glazers and to Stan Kroenke though, things get a little muddier. If reports and the fans are to be believed, both owners are more than happy to let United and Arsenal succeed in a commercial sense, but only because that success will bring in more money to them.
Throwing more money at the project doesn’t make sense to them because more on-pitch victories wouldn’t necessarily mean more cash flowing into the club.
And the idea of leveraged buyouts – financing a club takeover with debt and then saddling that debt onto the club itself – remains murky at best.
Quite what the future holds for United under the Glazers and Arsenal under Kroenke remains a question mark, but it’s still fascinating – and worrying to an extent – to see these famous rivals be able to find a common ground: the complete distrust of their American owners.
