Ruth looks at how the ESL clubs ignored using history as a business advantage.
Much has been written and discussed about the haphazard and amateur launch of the European Super League. From the strange Perez ‘sales pitch’ on El Chiringuito TV, the tweet-based announcements, and pilloried logo. The whole endeavour was rushed and strangely inept for supposed industry giants.
Embed from Getty ImagesSomething very specific has been bothering me about the whole ‘American owners’ and ESL fall out related to their business naivety, though. Generally, I can see the logic in their actions from their side. Remove the risk of relegation, squeeze out any newly developing rivals, operate outside UEFA, grab even more TV money….
Whilst I abhor their actions, there is at least some notional business sense to their selfish, indulgent decisions. What I’ve found strangely unexplainable, is the American owners (in particular) disinterest in history.
Imagine being in the indulgent position of owning, say, Manchester United, and not looking to embrace the pain and glories of Sir Matt Busby’s reign. Or the treble winning season and that amazing night at the Camp Nou. The sadness of Dennis Law when he thought he’d relegated his former team. Glorying in the revered space that is ‘The Theatre of Dreams’.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe most successful and storied of English clubs, yet you opt out?
Short sighted
This disengagement from the history of the ESL teams (not just Manchester United) seems very short-sighted in a business context. Afterall, a deep understanding of past events, is one of the best tools for forming the future you want. By leaning on history, rather than ignoring it, owners and business leaders can create a shared, common purpose for an organisation.
For example, in Manchester United’s case, why not lean on the historic change from Newton Health almost a century and a half ago? Pitching that momentous and divisive shift as a ‘need to positively evolve’ would demonstrate that the club is not a static entity and has navigated significant upheavals before.
Don’t get me wrong, all of this process is immoral. I just find it surprising that history was so soundly ignored, when it could have been ‘spun’ to the owners’ advantage. By ignoring the cultural, historical context of the clubs involved, the owners sacrificed using that narrative for their gain.
Of course, this use of history would not have won over any true fans. It would be cherry picking past events for present gain. This would just be a selfish, purpose-serving, ingenuous use of history. And does not reflect any real understanding of the cultural of these clubs. However, the owners’ inability to use events past to their benefit is, I suppose, another example of the naivety of the ESL venture, and I ought not to be surprised at all.