Four options for the sale of Chelsea FC

The UK's sanctioning of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich resulted in Chelsea going up for sale. Matthew Lynn explains four options that should be considered.

The sanctioning of Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch who has controlled Chelsea football club for nearly 20 years, and who started the flood of foreign money into the game, resulted in the club going up for sale. By the time you read this we might know who has bought it.

Potential bidders for an asset that was expected to command well over £3bn included a consortium led by the owners of the LA Dodgers; another led by the Ricketts family who own the Chicago Cubs; a team led by the property developer Nick Candy; and one or perhaps two others who may yet make the final round. An offer from Amazon, Netflix, Disney, or Sky’s owner, Comcast, would really shake things up – there could well be a surprise before the deal is finalised.

But whoever ends up buying it, there was a missed opportunity here – this could have been the moment to reinvent the way one of the UK’s most successful industries is run.

Britain’s Hollywood

The UK government is, quite rightly, vetting all the bids. It has said that all the money from the sale will go to charity, with much of it ultimately dedicated to helping the refugees flooding out of Ukraine. 

But why are we selling it to another foreign multinational sports franchise? The Premier League is a great UK commercial success. It is the most popular sporting contest in the world; in many ways it is an asset as valuable to the UK as Hollywood is to the US.

But its ownership is a mess, dominated by an odd mixture of Gulf States, absentee American sports conglomerates, or Asian or Russian billionaires. Only a handful of clubs still have British owners.

None of them have any links to the towns where the teams are based and many owners are using the clubs simply to improve their reputations.

They have no interest in the towns where they are located, or even the long-term success of the sport. The sale of Chelsea in such strange circumstances is a chance to try something new. Here are four options we should be thinking about.

First, give it away. The club could simply be placed in the hands of a supporters’ trust, with anyone who had held a season ticket for five consecutive years given a share. After that, it would be up to the fans to decide what to do with it. They could run it as effectively as they pleased. They could list it on the stockmarket, or if they really wanted to they could sell it to someone else. Sure, it would not have as much cash to spend on transfers as it might with another mega-rich owner. But there is plenty of money in football these days. Free of debt, there is no reason why Chelsea should not be self-sufficient financially and still do well.

Second, donate it to Chelsea. One share could be given to every resident in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. With 156,000 of them, and a £3bn price tag for the club, that would come to almost £20,000 per person. Alternatively, why not give a share to everyone in London? Either way, the club would be owned by its local community.

Experimenting with ownership

Third, turn it into a national asset. The club could be put into a new company owned by the government and then floated. The money raised would be enough for at least a small temporary tax cut, which might help with the cost of living crisis. Finally, it could be placed in the hands of a broadcaster. Folded into the BBC, ITV or Channel 4, it could be the basis for a new sports streaming service, and at virtually zero cost. If streaming is the future, as many experts believe, that could create a powerful new UK company.

There may be other options, but the point is this: there is nothing necessarily wrong with foreign owners and global sports franchises. Over the last two decades they have brought a lot of money into the game and turned it from a domestic into a global contest. But the Premier League could use some different forms of ownership. The sale is a chance to try something new, creating models that might work better. We should take some time to debate that – not just flog it off as fast as possible.

Recommended

Diesel price ‘scandal’ ‒ how to cut your fuel costs
Personal finance

Diesel price ‘scandal’ ‒ how to cut your fuel costs

With forecourts accused of ripping off motorists, we explain how you can save on fuel
30 Mar 2023
Best easy access savings accounts – March 2023
Savings

Best easy access savings accounts – March 2023

Rising interest rates have boosted the returns on instant-access savings accounts. We look at the top rates available on the market now.
30 Mar 2023
Government confirms delay to increase in state pension age to 68
Pensions

Government confirms delay to increase in state pension age to 68

The increase in state pensions age to age 68 is to be shelved amid concerns over falling life expectancy
30 Mar 2023
The best one-year fixed savings accounts - March 2023
Savings

The best one-year fixed savings accounts - March 2023

Earn over 4% on one-year fixed savings accounts.
30 Mar 2023

Most Popular

The MoneyWeek portfolio of investment trusts – March 2023 update
Investment trust model portfolio

The MoneyWeek portfolio of investment trusts – March 2023 update

A decade ago we set up the MoneyWeek portfolio of investment trusts. It proved a success, says Andrew Van Sickle.
27 Mar 2023
Will energy prices go down in 2023?
Personal finance

Will energy prices go down in 2023?

Ofgem’s price cap is now predicted to fall below £2,000, based on average typical use, from July, for the first time since 2022. We have all the detai…
21 Mar 2023
11 investment trusts for inflationary times
Investments

11 investment trusts for inflationary times

Inflation eats away at the value of your money, but these investment trusts can help you grow your wealth.
28 Mar 2023