Post by QPR Report on Oct 22, 2009 8:31:51 GMT
The Guardian/Marina Hyde
Why the Premier League needs to call in the KGBThe NBA, NFL and NHL are leading the way in protecting their brands against unsavoury owners - why can't the Premier League follow suit?
Comments (9)
For potential owner," reads a sports headline this week, "a background check worthy of the KGB." Not altogether shockingly, this isn't a reference to the Premier League's "fit and proper person" test, nor indeed the Football League's even ropier equivalent thereof. The article appears in the New York Times, and concerns the NBA's deliberations over whether or not to pop its Russian oligarch cherry.
The suitor in question is Mikhail Prokhorov, who last month agreed to purchase the New Jersey Nets. Mr Prokhorov is described by one Russian finance specialist as "not the worst offender in a system that was set up to benefit a few insiders" – which to the Premier League, of course, would be as good as having won the Nobel peace prize.
In the US, however, they do things differently, and so it is that Prokhorov must now submit himself to a process which merely begins with authorising his banks to verify his net worth. He has to win the approval of at least 23 of the 30 other NBA owners, who will scrutinise reports of investigations by from both the league and a security firm – investigations which will mine military, commercial, diplomatic and intelligence sources, and cost in the region of $50,000 (£30,000).
"They will try to ascertain his net worth, debts, character, associates, personal history and integrity," explains the New York Times. "The process is designed to rule out inappropriate buyers who lack financial clout or present public relations risks to the league."
But what an extraordinary idea. And hark at the NBA commissioner, David Stern, who, as the paper notes, has long been at the forefront of the league's efforts to export its brand. "We have a very extensive, stringent, some would say invasive, but I wouldn't, process for vetting the character and financial capacity of all owners."
Bizarre. Why can't they just ape the Premier League chairman Richard Scudamore's gossamer-touched stewardship of his "product", which – as the recent fiasco at Portsmouth goes to show – does not even involve bothering to find out whether owners actually have any money?
Who knows, but it's certainly been a lively few days for potential US sports owners. Last week, the odious right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh was effectively blackballed as a potential owner of the St Louis Rams. There simply isn't the space to chronicle Limbaugh's history of racist statements which made so many NFL players oppose the development. But it is notable that threequarters of league owners have to approve new additions to their ranks, and, though Limbaugh's name was never put to their direct vote, it was made clear that they viewed his membership of a consortium as a deal‑breaker. These guys aren't bleeding-heart liberals, but they are able to identify a liability to their brand.
Are the men who run English football capable of the same? "We are a good example of a self-regulatory progressive organisation," crowed Scudamore last year, days before the former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra was finally convicted of corruption – an eventuality at which a Google search might have hinted when the former Thai PM came a-knocking, nevermind the welter of allegations of human rights abuse.
Meanwhile, only this week, the Lord Mawhinney-led Football League announced that it will await the result of Flavio Briatore's appeal against his lifetime ban from motor racing, for one of the worst instances of cheating in the history of sport, before it decides whether to disqualify him as QPR owner under its own test. Elsewhere, Leeds United has yet to enlighten the league as to who owns them, with nary a word of public condemnation from top brass. Yet both Mawhinney and Scudamore will announce that Emmanuel Adebayor is a "bad advert" for the English game in a heartbeat.
So while the NBA, NHL and NFL have all banned potential owners, and doubtless will again, no one has ever been disqualified from Premier League involvement. Back when the prospective City manager Sven-Goran Eriksson sought reassurance as to Thaksin's record, you'll recall he merely rang the Premier League chairman. "It was enough for me to make a phone call to Sir Dave Richards," Eriksson explained. "He [replied]: 'Absolutely clean'."
Yet again, one has to say that doesn't really feel like "enough" any more. The image of a deregulated, prospectors' paradise which our football administrators appeared at pains to cultivate in recent years no longer suits the financial mood. If Scudamore and Mawhinney really are worried about bad adverts, perhaps they should start spending the equivalent of $50,000 on background checks worthy if not of the KGB, then at least of Spies Like Us.
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/22/nba-ownership-premier-league-kgb
Why the Premier League needs to call in the KGBThe NBA, NFL and NHL are leading the way in protecting their brands against unsavoury owners - why can't the Premier League follow suit?
Comments (9)
For potential owner," reads a sports headline this week, "a background check worthy of the KGB." Not altogether shockingly, this isn't a reference to the Premier League's "fit and proper person" test, nor indeed the Football League's even ropier equivalent thereof. The article appears in the New York Times, and concerns the NBA's deliberations over whether or not to pop its Russian oligarch cherry.
The suitor in question is Mikhail Prokhorov, who last month agreed to purchase the New Jersey Nets. Mr Prokhorov is described by one Russian finance specialist as "not the worst offender in a system that was set up to benefit a few insiders" – which to the Premier League, of course, would be as good as having won the Nobel peace prize.
In the US, however, they do things differently, and so it is that Prokhorov must now submit himself to a process which merely begins with authorising his banks to verify his net worth. He has to win the approval of at least 23 of the 30 other NBA owners, who will scrutinise reports of investigations by from both the league and a security firm – investigations which will mine military, commercial, diplomatic and intelligence sources, and cost in the region of $50,000 (£30,000).
"They will try to ascertain his net worth, debts, character, associates, personal history and integrity," explains the New York Times. "The process is designed to rule out inappropriate buyers who lack financial clout or present public relations risks to the league."
But what an extraordinary idea. And hark at the NBA commissioner, David Stern, who, as the paper notes, has long been at the forefront of the league's efforts to export its brand. "We have a very extensive, stringent, some would say invasive, but I wouldn't, process for vetting the character and financial capacity of all owners."
Bizarre. Why can't they just ape the Premier League chairman Richard Scudamore's gossamer-touched stewardship of his "product", which – as the recent fiasco at Portsmouth goes to show – does not even involve bothering to find out whether owners actually have any money?
Who knows, but it's certainly been a lively few days for potential US sports owners. Last week, the odious right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh was effectively blackballed as a potential owner of the St Louis Rams. There simply isn't the space to chronicle Limbaugh's history of racist statements which made so many NFL players oppose the development. But it is notable that threequarters of league owners have to approve new additions to their ranks, and, though Limbaugh's name was never put to their direct vote, it was made clear that they viewed his membership of a consortium as a deal‑breaker. These guys aren't bleeding-heart liberals, but they are able to identify a liability to their brand.
Are the men who run English football capable of the same? "We are a good example of a self-regulatory progressive organisation," crowed Scudamore last year, days before the former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra was finally convicted of corruption – an eventuality at which a Google search might have hinted when the former Thai PM came a-knocking, nevermind the welter of allegations of human rights abuse.
Meanwhile, only this week, the Lord Mawhinney-led Football League announced that it will await the result of Flavio Briatore's appeal against his lifetime ban from motor racing, for one of the worst instances of cheating in the history of sport, before it decides whether to disqualify him as QPR owner under its own test. Elsewhere, Leeds United has yet to enlighten the league as to who owns them, with nary a word of public condemnation from top brass. Yet both Mawhinney and Scudamore will announce that Emmanuel Adebayor is a "bad advert" for the English game in a heartbeat.
So while the NBA, NHL and NFL have all banned potential owners, and doubtless will again, no one has ever been disqualified from Premier League involvement. Back when the prospective City manager Sven-Goran Eriksson sought reassurance as to Thaksin's record, you'll recall he merely rang the Premier League chairman. "It was enough for me to make a phone call to Sir Dave Richards," Eriksson explained. "He [replied]: 'Absolutely clean'."
Yet again, one has to say that doesn't really feel like "enough" any more. The image of a deregulated, prospectors' paradise which our football administrators appeared at pains to cultivate in recent years no longer suits the financial mood. If Scudamore and Mawhinney really are worried about bad adverts, perhaps they should start spending the equivalent of $50,000 on background checks worthy if not of the KGB, then at least of Spies Like Us.
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/22/nba-ownership-premier-league-kgb
