It is said that people naturally become more conservative as they get older. The closer we are to death, the more we focus on preserving our own lot. Pensioners aren’t interested in revolution.
It might be utter bollocks, of course, but I can’t think of any other ways to explain Alex Ferguson’s latest outburst in favour of the Glazer family. Before we go any further, it’s worth stating that I’m not a Manchester United fan and I don’t think everything about modern football is shit. If there was a period when football clubs were all owned by benign grandfather figures, it was well before my time. But, I care about the future of football, and I can’t find anything about that Glazer’s ownership of United that doesn’t stink. Ferguson begs to differ.
Not only has he suggested the Glazer’s have been ‘great’ for the club, he has turned his fire on those fans who dare to criticise their record, saying, “I think there are a whole lot of factions at United that think they own the club. They will always be contentious about whoever owns the club, and that’s the way it’s always been.”
This man is apparently a socialist. These ‘factions’ clearly irritate Ferguson, but are they not the same fans that have supported United and made them the most valuable club in the world (according to Forbes). United were a success story long before the Glazers arrived, and Ferguson should know that better than anyone. So, why does he leap to the defence of the opportunists who are sucking money out of the club that he has spent twenty years building.
And Ferguson wasn’t finished there: “When the Glazers took over here there was dissatisfaction, so there have always been pockets of supporters who have their views. But I think the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it’s not affecting the team. We’ve won four championships since they’ve been there, one European Cup.”
I’ll leave the barbed reference to ‘real fans’ for debate among United fans. But, statements like this obscure the reality of what the Glazers stand for, which is exploitation. We could give Ferguson the benefit of doubt; he might have missed the point quite innocently. But, how can he refuse to acknowledge the irrefutable evidence of half a billion pounds flowing out of the club to service the Glazers’ debt.
The only reason the club is wealthy enough to service that debt is because of its extraordinary fan base or ‘factions’ as Ferguson calls them. Without the fans, there wouldn’t be the lucrative sponsorship deals and share options that light up the Glazers’ eyes with dollar signs. To swat the fans’ concerns aside and dismiss them as some instinctive reactionary stance suggests Ferguson has gone completely native.
This isn’t about whether or not United should going toe for toe with City in the transfer market. United’s transfer policy is the right one regardless of the Glazers. The football world began to change when Roman Abramovich turned up in West London, and only the most deluded fool would assume United could take on the sovereign wealth of Abu Dhabi. But, that doesn’t mean everyone should shut up and roll over just because the team is still winning.
The only legacy the Glazers will leave is a lesson for other opportunist financiers in how to make money out of football fans. Ferguson cites the club’s recent investment in United’s training complex, as if it’s come from the Glazers’ own savings account. United make a profit and then the Glazers decide how the profit is spent. With half a billion used to pay off their debt, leaving a bit aside to build a new clubhouse is the least they can do.
You could understand Ferguson if he kept a diplomatic silence on this – although that in itself would be a unique event. But, nothing can explain why he is so passionately in favour of their regime. He won’t be around forever, but seems content to spend his final seasons at the club endorsing the Glazers as they hawk United around the world. It’s his choice, and his record ensures legend status when he retires. But, to put it another way; when you’re promoting the same views as Tim Lovejoy, you’re on the wrong side of the argument.
