The Americanization Of Football: "We Own Your Game"

European supporters talk about, 'We don’t want these [foreign owners] in our game, this is our game, you guys don’t understand.'

“Well what do you mean we don’t understand?! We own your game.”

  • Charlie Stillitano said while addressing the prospect of top European leagues taking matches to the United States.

Welcome to my new series "The Americanization Of Football". Don't mistake this one as a continuation of "The American Experience In Football" as these are completely different topics.

image.png

Fans were upset at the prospect of moving some league games to the United States which prompted Stillitano to say what I shared at the beginning.

We Own Your Game

"We", stands for American investors. You might not have noticed it but things were escalating for the last few years. You may recognize the European Super League. You should know that around 40% of club owners who supported the project were American investors who have gained the hostility of fans. No surprise since they were slowly doing what the media described as

The Americanization Of Football

You might have run into that term in the last few months. Last year, out of the forty top division teams in the Serie A and Premier League, 11 were owned by Americans. That's not a steady number and it could easily go up as there is still a wave of American buyers yet to purchase European. There are also American investors who have a non-controlling amount of shares they're trying to increase.

Should the current investors who share in clubs proceed with their plans, half the teams in the Premier League will be American-owned. The Serie A has currently 7 clubs that are American-owned after the club had been famously known for being owned by Italian families.

What Does The Americanization Of Football Mean? And Is It Bad?

Whenever you think of American owners, you probably think of Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Manchester United), and John W. Henry (Liverpool). All of those were the first wave of American investors. It should be worth noting that we mean actual investing, basically paying for something in hopes of making a profit.

Leveraged Buyout

Most of these investments and ownership-taking were done this way. A dumb way to explain this would be, that you'd take out a loan to buy a club using the club's assets as collateral. A simple example is how the Glazers bought Manchester United while paying for the loans they took to buy it with the club's profits. Manchester took around 1.5 billion to pay the 900 million loan and its interests.

The reasons for such purchases should be obvious as acquiring a Premier League is easier and cheaper than most clubs and franchises in any sport in the U.S. The Premier League fans worldwide are bigger than any American sports team. That reflects in advertisements and sponsorships.

The First Wave's Problems With Football

The first wave has problems with the current structure of football.

  • Promotion And Regelation

That concept doesn't exist in the USA, that's why it's expensive to invest there. Clubs are always in a stable condition with little to no room for surprises.

  • European Participation

There's no equivalence to having to be in the top 4 to qualify for the UEFA Champions League in American sports. That's why more than a third of the clubs supporting the European Super League were American-owned. That's why it looks so similar to the structure of American sports.

Project Big Picture

Since they can't change rules regarding who gets promoted and relegated nor not having a way into European football guaranteed. Project Big Picture was the best available step to control as much as they can to reach stability as it also grants them the right to veto any upcoming investments.

In Conclusion

The reason behind this post is to point out the attempts to change football and the reason behind it. Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal aren't afraid of regulation, that's not the reason they're doing all of that self-preservation. They have many problems, but the main problem here is actually about stopping the second and third waves of American investments.

I will elaborate on that in the next part.



0
0
0.000
19 comments
avatar

Congratulations @amirtheawesome1! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):

You have been a buzzy bee and published a post every day of the week.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Be ready for the 5th edition of the Hive Power Up Month!
Hive Power Up Day - May 1st 2022
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
0
0
0.000
avatar




This post has been added to the Rabona Curation Program!

We are curating Rabona-related content, as well as good quality football-related posts on Hive.

Learn more about the Rabona Curation Program


* * *


Manage your soccer club
Scout, train, and trade players
Build and expand your stadium
Become the champion

Rabona.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

If we look at the Premier League for example, the fans are happy with a new owner with money(Chelsea, Newcastle,etc.) but they will turn on you the second you try to change the structures of the game or a league. There is not enough money in the world to sacrifice over hundred years of tradition.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was going to mention it. Chelsea, PSG, Manchester City, and now Newcastle are projects with winning titles and growing the club as the end goal. Even with their brand success, they still aim to win titles. Compare that to Arsenal and United who if it wasn't for the pain to their brand, they wouldn't have cared about improving the club.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I remembered this plan of moving games to the USA caused serious uproar among la liga clubs and fans last year. Time will tell if the plan will indeed Materialize but it just feels strange at the moment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The subject just interests me. I am trying to take an unbias place until my conclusion in the end.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for sharing your post on ListNerds. Changes are inevitable in everything and use not appreciated in the beginning.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I dont think that only American investements are a problem. In general big investors who would ruin a club and have too much power in the club is a very bad mixture. One example could be 1860 Munich that got a very unresposible investor and who ruined the club.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The 1860 Munich thing wasn't an investor's doing but actually, Bayern Munich forced their man into the big seat and made sketchy decisions (I.E the sale of their shared stadium) Germany has the 49+1 rule, so the club couldn't have been ruined by an investor. I am actually working on a long piece about how Bayern Munich ruined German clubs.

But, whether yes or no. What I am talking about has nothing similar to what happened in 1860 Munich. I am not talking about dumb investments, but rather people seeking to change the structure of football.

I am talking about a specific type of investment and decisions that are mostly done by American investors. It relates to how sports are handled in America, so even if its not Americans doing it, even though it is them, it is American-inspired thus the title of the series has the word "Americanization"

0
0
0.000
avatar

I can see your point with the Americanization. I also would love to see your article abou Bayern Munich. While I would partially agree with your statment, the 1860 thing is surely not Bayern Munich's doing. It was their stadium and they wanted to have it on their own without sharing it with another club.

Great article by the way :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

It was their stadium and they wanted to have it on their own without sharing it with another club.

That's not the case at all. It was a stadium built by the city for both clubs. 1860 had 50%. Bayern "Financed our stadium completely by private means" with secret deals even though they weren't supposed to then took advantage of 1860's situation and had their own guy run the club and approve a horrible deal over the stadium, a deal they ended up terminating on one side.

The stadium was the result of a deal between the German FA, Munich 1860, and Bayern + Allianz. Bayern "paid" their share of the cost by selling 8.3 to Allianz. Then took advantage of 1860's financial situation and paid them 11 million for their share which equals Bayern's in a 370 million stadium.

It wasn't their stadium, that's why it is designed to have 3 different colors, red when Bayern are playing, White when the national team is playing, and Blue when 1860 are playing. After that, they had their man construct a deal where they would rent the stadium to 1860 with a rebuy clause (that's why 1860 agreed to only get 11 million), then Bayern conducted a one-sided termination.

You'd be surprised by how sketchy Bayern's history is. The simplest one would be their 2003 scandal with KirchMedia group.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am very itnerested to hear about the KirchMedia group. Also who was the inside man, you are talking about?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Interesting introduction. As a very occasional football fan/watcher I never put too much thought into the ownership intrigues. Looking forward to ur 2nd part.

0
0
0.000