Brits lose one to capitalism
CAPITALISM remains, as ever, a double-edged sword.
That's the bitter reality confronting millions of lifelong supporters of Manchester United, the world's most famous sports franchise, after last week's takeover of the English club by American financier and Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer. Glazer has paid an estimated $1.47 billion to acquire more than three-quarters control of United's shares, enough to take the club private and install his own front office team.
In the weeks leading up to yesterday's FA Cup Final against hated rival Arsenal, United supporters were already taking action, staging protests outside the club's stadium and burning jerseys and ticket forms. But neither that opposition nor the reported 18 percent of the club's shares held by supporters proved sufficient to fend off a determined takeover.
United fans' anger about the deal is rooted in both pragmatics and principle. Many supporters of the ''Red Devils" have expressed alarm at the reported $490 million of debt assumed by Glazer to finance this deal, debt that will be transferred to the club. That level of debt might seriously constrain United's ability to keep pace with free-spending Chelsea (the newly crowned English champions) and its Russian billionaire owner, Roman Abramovich. There is no salary cap in European soccer, and competitiveness on the field is directly related to financial muscle off of it.
The anger at Glazer's takeover runs to deeper concerns as well. Soccer clubs in England have long been premised on the idea that the clubs belong to the local communities they inhabit and to the loyal fans who support them. The American practice of the professional sports franchise, movable from town to town at will and unambiguously the property of the private owner, is viewed with revulsion by the vast majority of English soccer fans.
It is particularly galling to United supporters, then, that an American investor with or little or no understanding of soccer, who has reportedly never visited venerable Old Trafford stadium, suddenly has control of what is seen as ''their" club. In response, some United supporters are planning boycotts of the club's merchandise and tickets, in hopes of bringing the club to financial ruins and forcing Glazer to sell; others are exploring the idea of forming a new independent club altogether to carry on the ''true" Manchester United tradition.
Yet other English soccer fans, fans of the other clubs United has so regularly humbled in the past 15 years, will wonder if United fans are not guilty of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. After all, the club's extraordinary success since the early 1990s rests on two quintessentially capitalist features, the very same features which have now made it possible (and desirable) for an outside figure such as Glazer to step in.
First, United formed a holding company that went public in 1991, raising roughly $20 million to bankroll a stadium renovation. It has also provided a way for the club to raise capital in subsequent years, inspiring a number of other clubs to go public themselves. Second, United has boosted its revenues by aggressive marketing of merchandise on a global level, ranging from the standard replica kits to subscriptions to the club's own satellite TV station. No club has been more successful in positioning itself as a globally known brand than Manchester United, and it is the strength of that brand name which has helped inspire Glazer's interest in the club.
But the same financial innovations that helped give United a financial leg up on their opponents also left the door open for a hostile takeover like Glazer's. United fans are learning the hard way that capitalism rarely permits commodification to go halfway. Once the club made the fateful decision to organize itself as a for-profit company rather than a traditional soccer club, it was only a matter of time before market forces melted the once-solid United tradition into air.
That is a bitter truth of capitalism; if a depressed Manchester United fan asks for help understanding why his world has come crashing down, advise them to go read their Schumpeter or Marx. For years, worried observers of English soccer have wondered what the logical conclusion would be to the initial steps towards American-style franchising of soccer clubs taken by industry leaders such as Manchester United. In the form of Malcolm Glazer, those observers (and all of the soccer world) are about to find out.
Thad Williamson is a lecturer on social studies at Harvard University. 
