Americans actually dominate the EPL. Here's how

By Raj Padarath / Roar Pro

Middle Eastern and Russian billionaires grab the lion’s share of the headlines when it comes to English Premier League.

But when it comes to influence across the top teams and the breadth of league as a whole, the Americans have amassed far more influence. But who are the better owners? And why?

The Americanification (yes, I know that’s not a word) of the English Premier League began slowly. A family owned real estate business based in historic Rochester, New York, quietly bought just over 3 percent of the Newton Heath Football Club.

Just two years later, the family business had put together 29 percent of the ownership, launching a full takeover bid not long after.

Sound familiar? Unless you’re a fan who has been traumatised by the Glazer family’s ownership of Manchester United, then probably not. But that’s what you’ve just read about.

The billionaire US family first popped up as part-owners of Manchester United (named Newton Heath back in the early days) in 2003, and by 2006 were in full control after outlaying a tidy 800 million pounds for the privilege.

The most recent sale of an EPL club makes those valuations look quaint. Another American, Todd Boehly (along with a private equity firm), was recently approved as owner of Chelsea after paying an eye-watering 4.25 billion pounds. That’s about $7.4 billion Australian dollars.

Numbers like that are kind of hard to wrap our heads around. So, how about this for context? $7.4 billion is more than what the Australian Government spent in 2022 on air force or army capabilities ($7b spent on each in 2021).

The staggering amount of cash outlaid was the end result of the same dynamics as any good auction result: a motivated seller (Roman Abramovich was forced to sell the club after the UK government slapped sanctions on it after the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and 250 expressions of interest from deep-pocketed suitors.

Oh and of course, the key ingredient of an incredibly scarce and valuable asset in the form of the right to own and operate a successful top-flight Premier League club.

Roman Abramovich (Photo by Clive Mason/Getty Images)

Joining the club

But those two investments are just the bookends to a bigger story. Over the years there have been plenty more beachheads established in the EPL by American investors. And they tend to go for the top end of town.

Liverpool was purchased by Fenway Sports Group in 2010 for 300 million pounds. Fenway is also the owner of the Boston Red Sox (MLB) and Fenway Park is their home ground. No prizes for guessing where they’re from.

Meanwhile, since 2018 American businessman Stan Kroenke has been the owner of Arsenal. A football purist, he is not. His ownership of interests include professional teams in the NBA and NFL, as well as ice hockey and lacrosse teams with a couple of e-sports teamsd (yes, really) thrown in for good measure.

Less high-profile minority investments by American individuals or firms are also present in the ownership structures of Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Leeds United and Manchester City.

The American ethos

But why do billionaire American owners end up riling up the rank and file Premier League supporters of clubs more than, say, Middle Eastern sheikhs or Russian billionaires?

In a word: profit.

As in, the Americans expect to make one. The petrodollar-funded billionaires of the Middle East or Russia? Not so much.

For the latter group, prestige from rising to the top of leagues and collecting trophies matter far more than dull expense spreadsheets.

Must be nice. But perspective matters. For those owners enriched by the sale of the compressed organic remains of dead dinosaurs and plants (oil and gas) a single dollar bump in the oil price adds more to their overall wealth than the prize money from all the trophies in Europe.

In contrast, American owners have a clear profit motive. And they typically aren’t as enamoured with the history and prestige of the game and its clubs as other owners.

For example, the Glazers already owned the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (NFL) when they made their grab for Man United.

And Boehly is a co-owner of the LA Dodgers (MLB), though at least he had the good sense to not immediately irritate the faithful by calling the game ‘soccer’ or admitting that ‘it took me two years to learn the offside rule’ as Joel Glazer did.

(Photo by James Gill – Danehouse/Getty Images)

That profit motive has historically meant that spending on things like youth academies and player transfers that contribute to the long-term success of a club on the pitch come a distant second to the decidedly less interesting business of cash flow and profit and loss statements.

Not all billionaire owners are created equal

So, if you’re a fan of a club that’s up for sale and has billionaires circling, who do you want to run the show? Well, if it’s a strong bottom line and fiscal discipline, you’ll be wanting the Americans to get the keys.

But if you’re hoping to see some more shelves of the trophy cabinet occupied? Bring on the petrodollars.

The Crowd Says:

2022-07-24T00:23:45+00:00

Ben

Guest


Americans dominating anything is usually bad.

2022-07-22T09:32:43+00:00

Joshua Makepeace

Roar Rookie


Nice article Raj. Americans have taken their model to the Prem, with mixed results. Fenway have done brilliantly with Liverpool, but the profit-driven Glazers are hated by Manchester United fans. The oil and gas billionaires are sportswashing by owning Prem clubs, they're trying to create a better reputation by pouring billions into English clubs. If you want instant success, as you said it's the petrodollars, and I fear more fans will be wanting this than ever before.

AUTHOR

2022-07-22T04:25:22+00:00

Raj Padarath

Roar Pro


You’re 100% right, not just about cash, a longer term mindset and planning for the future also matter just as much (arguably more)

AUTHOR

2022-07-22T04:24:27+00:00

Raj Padarath

Roar Pro


But in the alternate scenario, without the foreign owners there’s probably not enough local cash to buy and maintain those clubs at the same standard. Would fans be happier with local owners but a less competitive club locally and in Europe?

2022-07-22T03:13:18+00:00

TheSecretScout

Roar Guru


Foreign ownership of clubs should be outlawed, its why football has been a shambles for a long time now What do americans know about football? Or better yet, middle eastern owners (that just cheat to try and win and then pay themselves out of any fine or suspension

2022-07-22T00:54:36+00:00

Coastyboi

Guest


Yup. Man U’s gloss had faded recently. Need some bigger signings.

2022-07-22T00:44:06+00:00

Brainstrust

Roar Rookie


Investing in the EPL is dumb, American sports they have salary caps at a fixed percentage of revenue, their sports all make money. The other thing is American sports reward failure financially, you came last you get the high draft picks which lets you put players on lower salaries. The luxury tax system allows a few clubs to spend more but pay a very high penalty to the other clubs . EPL you can can invest a lot and get relegated if your really dumb. If you get relegated and you have a huge wage bill then welcome to financial ruin. American sports with no relegation the owners are guaranteed their position no matter what they do. The distribution of revenues as well , its based on ladder position, and then you have champions league on top of that and then the prospect of relegation. Success is rewarded and failure is punished. I suppose the big difference is that you can buy into the EPL, or even a low level club and think you can spend big and win, its the ultimate ego trip. MLS used to have a salary cap but they were stupid enough to copy the Australian marquee system. A marquee player system just encourages stupidity. Instead of evenly paying better quality players you pay over the odds for a famous has been. Its ultimately who benefits the owners or the players, in American sports the clear beneficiary is the owners they all make the profits, the players are well paid enough compared to revenue but nowhere what they would be paid if there was no salary cap. The lack of promotion and relegation means a lack of a second tier and earning opportunities for lower level players. The median wage is low in American sports. The top players can get big money the competition for squadies because of a lack of second tier is low. its about 1 million in the NFL,MLB and 3 million for the NBA. Football the players are the kings, they get a lot more money than revenue in a lot of leagues, in the case of Messi and Barcelona his actual wage was 175 US million a year, thats as much as an American. Who are big losers well cricket and AFL, these sports have low wages compared to revenue. To make it even more complicated you have organisations taking most of the revenue instead of owners in BCI, cricket Australia , ECB. In the case of the IPL they have owners but BCI gets it cut of the revenue. The real beneficaries are the execs, Demetriou was easily the highest paid person in the sport rather than an athlete, Cricket Australia has had a 400% increase in revenue and managed to do something with it , BCI in the thousand of percent and where that money goes no one knows. Amazingly you will find the head of the EPL is paid less than median salary in the EPL.

2022-07-21T17:23:43+00:00

Ad-O

Guest


Its not just about profit. Apart from Fenway, American owners have seen their teams go backwards on the pitch. United and Arsenal spend plenty of money. But they've made a over a decade's worth of bad decisions at board level. That's why they were pushing for a Super League. To bail their behinds out of being unable to qualify for the Champion's League. Arsenal seem to finally be turning it around. Building from youth and operating intelligently in the market. United still don't get it.

Read more at The Roar