How to make change

Fans are facing the challenge not only of how to organise effectively, but of how to maintain wider faith in the benefits of organisation.

“Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it” is the quote that’s guided me most in life – along with “I am playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order” in case I get too full of myself while being guided by the former.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about change – how to achieve it, what we mean by change, and whether the desire for change has taken too much emphasis off the need to interpret. Looking around the world at bigger issues than football I’d certainly argue that the enthusiasm for change is winning out over the need to weigh up the consequences of that change. But that could also be a case of any change being considered better than none.

That question of how volunteer fans reps can exert influence over businesses with multimillion pound turnovers and 100s of full-time staff operating on a global scale has been a challenge ever since clubs at the top end of the game became this big. And it’s influence we are confined to talking about, rather than ownership.

I’ve written before about ‘Sack the board’, the cry that traditionally went up when things were going wrong at clubs, and argued that the complexities of the current football business required more than simply oppositionism. These days the lines between owners and boards are increasingly blurred, and in any case such wholescale change in organisations of this size can be extremely disruptive. Incremental change or more subtle changes in direction can be what’s called for, but such nuanced calls are harder to popularise and organise around.

There’s also a need to bust some myths, or at least get things in perspective. Fan opposition to boards at Spurs, Liverpool and Newcastle has – over the last couple of decades – undoubtedly played its part in regime changes. But in the end it has been the willingness of the previous owner to accept the money offered by the new one that has counted.

But recognising all of this doesn’t mean that fan reps in this environment should forget what they are there for, which is to push the fan perspective, defend and extend fan interests, and show fans the possibilities an organised approach can create. In short, not simply just being in the room, but remembering why they are in the room.

The early days of the new Fan Advisory Board regime are not encouraging. At too many clubs the process is swathed in secrecy, with commercial confidentiality being used as a catch-all to enable club boards to get their own way and to prevent the transparency necessary for the process to have the confidence of fans.

Communication is largely poor, with some reps interpreting the fact that FABs are internal club bodies as meaning that they should be closed off, with detail of what is discussed or even proposed never disclosed. A classic example of being in the room but forgetting what you went in it to do. The result is FABs being used as PR cover for unpopular decisions.

On top of secrecy has come a clampdown on dissent. I know of cases where fan organisations have been threatened with expulsion from any formal process simply for expressing the mildest criticism. This is simply unacceptable, and not in the spirit of the White Paper that followed the Fan-Led Review.

I spent the best part of 10 years dealing with a club board that defined fan engagement as “getting the fans to agree with us” and that view is still too prevalent across the game. It has led to division between fan organisations – not an unintended consequence of club policy – and to ridiculous situations where opposition can only be aired by grass roots splinter organisations rather than the formal process set up to consult fans.

Supporter organisation has always operated as something of an ecosystem, with different groups able to play different parts in achieving the same objectives. But recognised fan reps waiting like First World War generals for the masses to go over the top isn’t an ecosystem – it’s a recipe for disaster.

I’ve seen too many examples of fan activists attacking each other rather than working together. But there are also encouraging signs. At Manchester City for example, where the formal club consultation body City Matters has long been seen as a club construct, activity by grassroots groups such as MCFC Foodbanks and the 1894 flags group around the FSA’s highly successful #stopexploitingloyalty campaign on ticket pricing has built links with Fan Advisory Board reps and given them renewed confidence to speak out and to act more transparently. I’ve heard that dismissed as grandstanding. I prefer to call it effective representation. The formation of an independent supporters trust at the last of the so-called Big Six clubs not to have one could be the proof of the pudding.

Fan Advisory Boards as proposed in the Fan-Led Review were always a two-sided coin. We needed proper, formal access to the structure of the clubs we support, not just permission to be heard, but the danger was always that the clubs would pursue a strategy of corporate capture.

The temptation to relax once you think you’re on the inside is great – greater still when it seems there is little enthusiasm to do the level of work required. So there is a lot to be done across the supporter movement to give people the confidence and knowledge to push where necessary, and to stand up against opponents that are far better resourced.

The main objective of the new regulator will be to tackle football’s financial and sustainability problems, but ensuring genuine fan engagement in governance that has the confidence of the wider fan base must also be high on the list. The alternative is a descent into outright opposition and rage as confidence in representation and organisation is extinguished. And we only have to take a look at the wider world to see where thinking any change is good enough gets us.

Photo © MCFC Foodbanks