|
|
Joint Statement to the Director General of Fair
Trading,
Against the BSkyB Take-Over of Manchester United
Monday 5 October 2020
Introduction
The following is a joint statement signed by nine individuals who
include representatives of most of the leading organisations in
football and who are all members of the Government's Football Task
Force or Task Force Working Group. This should not be taken as
an official statement by the Football Task Force, but it is wholly
supported by the following members:
Graham Kelly, Chief Executive, Football Association (0171 262
4542)
Gordon Taylor, Chief Executive, Professional Footballers
Association (0161 236 0575)
John Barnwell, League Managers Association (01926 882 313)
Graham Bean, Football Supporters Association (01226 717 580)
Ian Todd, National Federation of Football Suporters Clubs (0181
847 2905)
Colin Barclay, National Association of Disabled Supporters
(01254 693 793)
Chris Heinitz, Local Government Association (01924 830 579)
Dr Rogan Taylor, Football Research Unit, University of
Liverpool (0151 794 2401)
Dr Adam Brown, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture,
Manchester Metropolitan University (0161 247 6580)
Whilst some of these people and organisations may have made
submissions on behalf of their own organisations, it is strongly felt
by those involved that a joint statement representing a such broad
cross section of interest in the game, illustrates the great depth and
strength of feeling against the BSkyB take-over of Manchester United.
It has not been possible to make this statement earlier and we hope
that you can still consider it in your deliberations as we feel that
the interests of all in football are under threat by this
take-over.
We are asking you to recommend to the Secretary of State that the
take-over of Manchester United by BSkyB is refered to the Monopolies
and Mergers Commission on a number of grounds.
|
1.
|
Fair Competition
|
| |
|
1.1
|
Football Competition
|
| |
Football is a game, and an industry, which thrives on
competition. The success of the product and the interest of
the supporter (or consumer) is based upon the notion that
success or failure is determined on the field of play. Thus,
it has been possible in recent years for 'smaller' clubs such
as Wimbledon to emerge from non-league football to compete at
the highest level. The maintenance of such possibilities is
essential to the future health of football and the interests
of the vast majority of football fans. Recent years have
already seen this eroded with a widening of the gap between
the richer and poorer clubs, therefore reducing the ability of
some clubs to compete. The importance of television income
cannot be underestimated in this process.
|
| |
The proposed take-over of by far the richest club in the
game by the monopoly supplier of television income to
football, would create an intolerable dominance of one club
and make fair competition impossible. This would be totally
against the interest of the fan as consumer.
|
| |
|
1.2
|
Competition in Televised Football
|
| |
There are also two concerns over the possibility of
maintaining fair competition within televised football.
|
| |
|
1.2.1
|
Conflict of Interest
|
| |
There appears to be a clear conflict of interest in a
situation where the existing monopoly supplier of live league
football wholly owns the biggest club. In short, BSkyB will be
sitting on both sides of the negotiating table. There are two
possibilities here: i) that BSkyB will have secured a vote at
the Premier League; and ii) that they will have carte
blanche to set their own terms for the rights to televise
Manchester United games, should clubs choose or be forced by
the OFT, to negotiate individually. This threatens the
interests of the television football consumer as well as for
competition for television revenue between clubs.
|
| |
|
1.2.2
|
Market Distortion
|
| |
Further, a scenario which sees the major supplier of
television football owning Europe's richest club, raises grave
concerns that the market will be distorted.
|
| |
|
2.
|
Independence
|
| |
Football has until now been able to decide upon its future
direction and development itself. The take-over would
essentially mean that the football club would become a
subsidiary of a television company, a change likely to be
followed elsewhere. This will threaten the independence of the
game and make it merely part of the broadcast and television
industry. Thus, for the fan as consumer, decisions will be
made in the interests of the profitability of television
companies rather than in the interests of supplying a better
football product at a better price to the fan.
|
| |
|
3.
|
National Interest - A National Asset
|
| |
Finally, we believe that football is a national asset. It
is a game which has for over a century been a central part of
national life: it is part of our culture; it helps form our
identity and image; it contributes significantly to the UK
economy. For the most profitable sections of the game to be
sold to foreign-owned television companies threatens this
position. It is an asset which needs protecting in the
interests of the consumer and of the nation.
|
We urge you to refer this case to the Monopolies and Mergers
Commission.
|
cc:
|
Peter Mandelson MP, Secretary of State, Department of Trade
and Industry
|
| |
Tony Banks MP, Minister for Sport, Department of Culture,
Media and Sport
|
|
