The State Of Football
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:27 pm
A good piece here, found on historicalkits.com
The decision by Cardiff City's owners to go ahead with rebranding the club despite an outcry from supporters has prompted considerable media coverage as well as an unsightly bulge in HFK's mail box. The change from blue to red is the idea of Malaysian owner, Vincent Tan, who wants to increase market appeal in the Far East where red is considered a lucky colour, and is part of a package that will bring £100m investment to the club.
Changing colours is far from being a new idea. If success follows, the new look is soon accepted - think of Coventry City, Leeds United and Crystal Palace. The transformation of Wimbledon into MK Dons aside (an altogether different exercise) there have been no major rebrandings on this scale for over 30 years during which time the professional game in England has changed almost beyond recognition. Thanks to the growth of the market in replica kits, fans identify more than ever before with their clubs through buying their shirts. This has, in turn, led to growing interest in the heritage of their club's colours down the years.
While some supporters welcome the considerable investment on offer, others question whether more than a century of tradition should be ditched for purely commercial considerations.
This goes to the heart of the matter and illustrates the conflict that is damaging the professional game. Many owners treat football clubs as just another part of their business portfolio; vehicles to generate profit (or "shareholder value"). Success is pursued by spending beyond the club's means, an unsustainable approach that has led to disaster at Rangers, Portsmouth, Plymouth Argyle, Darlington and too many others.
The aim in business is to out-compete your rivals and dominate market share. This is why we now have a small number of clubs, funded by billionaires, dominating the Premier League.
In business, consumers frequently switch brands but how many Manchester United supporters are going to watch City just because they have achieved success and have a smart new stadium?
The fundamental point is that football clubs are not like other businesses. Their aim is to compete on level terms through sport, not to drive rivals to the wall. They rely not on shareholders for their existence but on emotional stakeholders, the fans who will turn out regardless of whether their team is winning or not.
The behaviour of City's owners would be perfectly acceptable if they were dealing with a chain of high street stores or a group of insurance companies. But a football club is not like that.
(c) Dave Moor