Arsenal’s majority shareholder Stan Kroenke is not known for his public pronouncements, a view reinforced when he mouthed platitudes for two-and-a-half minutes at the Arsenal annual general meeting last week. But now he has granted an interview to The Times which, of course, run its webpages on a pay-per-view basis, but fortunately the interview has been syndicated elsewhere.
Arsenal’s majority shareholder Stan Kroenke is not known for his public pronouncements, a view reinforced when he mouthed platitudes for two-and-a-half minutes at the Arsenal annual general meeting last week. But now he has granted an interview to The Times which, of course, run its webpages on a pay-per-view basis, but fortunately the interview has been syndicated elsewhere.
The most remarkable aspect of it is the way that he praises the Glazers. What the article brings out is the difference between the American and British approaches to running ‘sports franchises’ or ‘clubs’, although the difference between the two is less great these days than the labels imply.
Kroenke believes that his fellow Americans deserve admiration for what they have done for United in both football and money terms. He sets out a defence of the Glazers’ decision to take profit from their asset and suggested that disgruntled supporters should give them credit for the stabiity and success under their reign.
Kroenke explained, ‘We have a whole different philosophy in the States … you would never have this dialogue you and I are having, “He took money out of the club”. So what? … A lot of owners in the US do. No one ever says anthing about it.’
He defends Arsenal’s prudent financial strategy, arguing that it is possible to spend and hence waste money on the wrong ‘assets’. ‘You buy to win, but you might not.’ Of course, Arsenal fans might argue that the club should have been prepared to spend a little more on players that were proven assets over the summer.
Asked whether he expected to make money from Arsenal, Kroenke said, ‘Well, we’ll see. That’s the risk. There’s no guarantee I’ll make any money. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, guys, you can actually lose money in sports.’
Kroenke’s view is that there is nothing wrong about making money from sport, particularly if ownership is linked with success. It’s then a win-win situation. Tom Dart writing in The Times reckons that Kroenke will tread a middle path between being a trustee and guardian of Arsenal and making money from it. He will be ‘respectful of tradition and wary of making dramatic changes to a great football institution, but in the game to make money and develop his portfolio.’
Dart makes the more general point that ‘English football has always been suspicious of the profit motive, even though, logically, on-pitch success and off-pitch income can be intertwined in a mutually beneficial relationship.’ Of course, culturally, Britain is suspicious of wealth and success. The US sees itself as a genuine meritocracy where wealth is obtained by effort, skill and good fortune, whether or not this is the case – it’s the perception that matters.
In an era of globalisation, can business and sport be separated? This is an issue I tackle in a book shortly to be published by Manchester University Press. Many fans would like clubs to be run as mutual organisations on the German model or like Real Madrid or Barcelona, although the two Spanish clubs have still racked up big debts. However, perhaps such a model is more suited to football at the community level.