Should a criminal record bar someone from owning a football club?
It seems that Manchester City changed into Manchester Dhabi in the nick of time – today’s news from Thailand tells us that the ex-Thailand Prime Minister and former owner of Manchester City FC Thaksin Shinawatra has been found guilty of corruption by the Thai Supreme Court and sentenced to two years in jail.
On the surface, it’s not much. He misused his connections as a government official so that his wife could buy government land at a knockdown price. Compare this to, say, the accusations against the Russian oligarchs and Shinawatra comes out looking clean.
And this raises an interesting question – where are you going to draw the line on football club ownership? If the owner (or prospective owner) has a criminal record, is that grounds for being barred? What if his country doesn’t consider him a criminal? Would, for argument’s sake, Pakistan’s new President Asif Zardari be an eligible candidate for owning a Premier League club? He’s spent years in jail on corruption charges and his now running the country (lucky us, eh?).
When criminal records have no bearing on a more responsible office (I hope you’ll allow for the assumption that running a country, however small and impoverished it might be, is a bigger responsibility than running a football club), why should they have any bearing on football?
Topics: English Premier League, Manchester City
Football News 24/7
It depends. Take (and sorry to use this repeatedly as an example) John Russell, Exeter’s old chairman. He had a conviction for fraud when he took over the club. Had the fit and proper person’s test been around then, he wouldn’t have been allowed to take it over, defraud the club and run it to the brink of insolvency.
For me, the bottom line is football still seems to have trouble with transparency of ownership – and transparency in general.
If you want to clean up football and increase trust and accountability then the answer to your question is, broadly, yes (although there are probably some offences that would have no relevance on football ownership – but, as I said, I’m talking in broad terms here).
It’s a complex question – and next to the oligarchs, Shinawatra doesn’t look too bad at all. But you’ve got to have a threshhold, and a conviction for corruption or fraud should, in my eyes, be a bar to football club ownership.
October 21st, 2008 @ 18:01It should be a bar to leading the country as well, but what can you do?
October 21st, 2008 @ 18:20Well, quite!
October 21st, 2008 @ 18:36Oh, come on lads! Most wealthy businessmen are criminals who haven’t been caught, that’s all
October 21st, 2008 @ 18:43I think if there’s palpable evidence that you’ve made your money through criminal enterprises in your native land (assuming you’re not from the UK) and a competent court of jurisdiction has convicted you, then there’s all the reason to bar someone with that pedigree from owning a football club. Years back when Abramovich was taking over Chelsea there were charges that he would be laundering his Sibneft millions through the club. Those allegations were never founded. Having a conviction on your record can’t be the bright line test. Abramovich’s compatriot and one time oligarch rival, Kodhorovsky (I’m sure I’ve spelt it wrong), was convicted of fraud and tax evasion but many of us could see the politics behind that investigation and conviction (because if it were solely on the merits of the case Abramovich would be in the same shoes). Case by case is the standard that should be applied. But there should be a ruling body that can make a ruling as to disqualification. That might be for the good of the game in England overall.
October 21st, 2008 @ 22:55