Written evidence submitted by Rick Duniec
1. BIOGRAPHICAL
NOTE
I have been a match-going football fan for about
45 years and currently still attend games, mostly at Elland Road,
Leeds United. I am a former chairman of the Leeds United Supporters
Trust and am currently the Trust Secretary. The Trust is a member
of Supporters Direct and also a member of FSE—Football supporters
Europe. I was previously heavily involved in SLU (Save Leeds United)
which was an ad hoc group of concerned supporters during the time
of the meltdown of the Leeds United Plc and up to the winding
up of the Plc. I am personally also a committee member of the
Yorkshire Division of the Football Supporters Federation and I
attend Executive meetings of the Leeds United Supporters Club.
This submission is, however, a personal submission.
2. SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The formal recognition that Football clubs
are Monopolistic suppliers as far as the vast majority of their
fans are concerned and that this monopolistic position in itself
means that football clubs are not just like any other (non-monopoly)
business. Such monopolies exist even when clubs are in close geographical
proximity to each other.
2.2 The recognition of this monopolistic position
presents legislators with an easily understood and generally accepted
basis that may be used to justify intervention and regulation
beyond that which applies to other (non monopoly) UK businesses.
2.3 The encouragement of the use of the "monopolistic"
description at every available opportunity in relation to the
football business and to football clubs so that public perceptions
may be changed over time and with the objective that football
clubs can no longer use the spurious argument that they are just
like any other business and that they should be treated as such
by law.
2.4 That additional legislation is enacted to
better control footballs monopolies in ways that the Football
League (for example) may never find itself in a position to do,
as a result of its internal mechanisms for voting upon such changes.
(Turkeys needing to vote for Christmas)
3. STATEMENT
OF EVIDENCE
I personally endorse the evidence of the Football
Supporters Federation, the evidence of Supporters Direct, and
the evidence of the Yorkshire division of the FSF. This is a statement
of evidence based specifically on my personal experiences as a
supporter.
4. THE FOOTBALL
FAN AND
CHOICES OF
SUPPLIER
4.1 There is a well known joke that says whilst
you might change your wife (or your husband) you can NEVER change
your football club. Within this joke lies a profound truth which
reveals the nature of the relationship between the fan and their
"chosen" football club. There are of course a small
number of exceptions but these serve to prove the rule more than
anything else.
4.2 Bill Shankley is well known for his un-PC
joke that essentially football was more serious than life or death
(to its fans).
4.3 Mrs Sophie Ridsdale gave her husband, Peter
Ridsdale, a present of a cushion embroidered with the words—"Life
is a game. Football is more serious". She was closer than
most to the reality and intensity of the game.
4.4 All of the above are light-hearted acceptances
of the deep importance of football to its followers and of the
fundamental, even blind, loyalty which many fans show to their
chosen club.
4.5 Not only is football a vital product to those
who consume it, it is almost beyond comprehension that for example
a fan might willingly decide to change his allegiance and move
to another club. Players, managers and coaches will do it as a
matter of course, board members and administrators might do it,
increasingly we see owners doing it, but the fans remain in place
and as loyal as ever. The fans do not move to follow another club.
Even if they attend another clubs game from time to time, their
thoughts will always be on their "real" clubs result.
4.6 The reality for most football fans is that
no matter what their club does, no matter how much it takes them
for granted, no matter how badly it treats them, no matter how
much it attempts to exploit them, they will remain loyal to the
brand. Fans will find some part of the clubs organisation to vent
their anger and frustration upon but loyalty to the "concept"
of the club does not significantly waiver. In many ways the fans
ARE the club and everything else is temporary and transient.
4.7 There is little known evidence that Fans
of Bristol City for example will in any significant numbers simply
up sticks and take their business to Bristol Rovers.
Everton fans were not known to cross Stanley park
and become Liverpool fans even when Liverpool were dominating
Europe. Huddersfield fans do not change allegiance to Bradford
City.
4.8 Football shows almost zero similarity to
the situation where a bad experience or overcharging at Sainsburys
will result in customers drifting away to Tescos and any suggestion
that the market for football fans custom works in this way is
misleading.
4.9 In economic terms this is very imperfect
competition and represents something approaching a monopoly supply
situation. Take it or leave it but you can't get it from anywhere
else.
4.10 This is very different to the market competition
which other businesses experience and which imposes checks and
balances upon the behaviour of businesses operating under such
competition.
4.11 Football clubs are privileged to have the
captive market of their fans and this situation allows them to
abuse this privilege and in some instances this produces the inappropriate
financial exploitation of the fan base.
4.12 An example of this might be an official
membership scheme with arrangements such that paid up members
can buy, say, four tickets for the same game with the result that
almost nil tickets are available for sale to non members. In other
words—if you want a ticket you must pay up and become a
member even if there is no other benefit of membership for that
individual fan. One ticket per member and the opportunity to have
first choice may be justifiable, but as the member can only use
one ticket themselves, there is little justification for them
having access to more than one ticket as a result of their membership.
Such practices are naked exploitation.
5. ECONOMIC,
PUBLIC, AND
POLITICAL PERCEPTIONS
OF MONOPOLIES
5.1 In the UK there is a long history of recognition
of the dangers (and sometimes the benefits) of monopolies. Even
where monopolies are permitted (or even protected) there is a
long accepted understanding of the need for additional controls,
focussed legislation, checks and balances, and sometimes all-powerful
independent regulators or ombudsmen, all of which has the objective
of preventing the monopoly from inappropriate exploitation of
its position.
5.2 Football has escaped such controls by perpetuating
the fallacy that it is no different from any other business.
5.3 In reality football clubs are no different
from any other monopoly. Some may be benign or benevolent but
others are far from being either of these things.
5.4 Fans who are customers of these monopolies
deserve to be protected from potentially excessive exploitation
in the same way that customers of other monopolies need and deserve
similar protection.
5.5 Economists have demonstrated, and politicians
have taken on board, that additional constraints are required
in order to moderate the potential worst excesses of monopoly
suppliers. Monopolies cannot be relied upon to always restrain
themselves in all potential circumstances.
5.6 The public will generally understand the
need for additional controls when the example of monopolistic
utility suppliers is used for example.
6. CHANGING PERCEPTIONS
AND JUSTIFYING
INTERVENTION
6.1 Emphasising the reality of football monopolies
and encouraging the common use and reference to this concept will
gradually result in the truth of the position of football clubs
to become more commonly accepted and understood. The argument
that football clubs are just like any other business will be revealed
as the falsehood that it is, and may be replaced by the statement
that football clubs are just like any other monopolistic supplier.
6.2 Far from imposing special rules for football
clubs, legislators can be shown to be applying similar constraints
as have been applied to other monopolistic suppliers which have
the objective or customer protection, however willing those customers
may be.
6.3 Treating football clubs in a similar way
to other monopolistic suppliers is a justifiable stance for government
to take and draws upon precedence.
6.4 The Football League may internally believe
that many additional controls are needed (and there is some evidence
of progress being made) but its own mechanisms for formally adopting
self-imposed additional controls requires a majority vote (by
football club chairmen) in favour of their imposition.
6.5 This may be likened to a self interest group
of monopolists being asked to vote on imposing anti-monopoly controls
upon themselves and can be seen to be desirable nor likely to
be effective.
6.6 Where a body such as the Football League
is shown to not have the mechanisms within its own structure to
bring about progress and improvement, then assistance is required
by outside authority which can enable and empower football to
better help itself.
6.7 Such assistance is of positive benefit to
football and to football clubs, but most importantly it is of
positive benefit to football fans.
January 2011
| 
