In April, we published an article entitled “Sporting ‘owners’ – to what extent do you consult the fans?”.  It reported on a succession of disputes between famous football clubs and their big-time owners. We pointed out that as much as club owners think they can do what they like, it is far more important to ensure that their stakeholders are fully consulted.

This week, the boot seems firmly on the other foot.

Look at the story “EFL TV deal: Several Championship clubs ‘gravely concerned’ after announcement.” The gist is that nineteen clubs are said to complain that they were not adequately consulted about the £595m deal with Sky. They want to halt the deal so that they can engage in ‘meaningful discussions’. They feel that the English Football League failed to consult them, and have their interests at heart when negotiating the latest big money deal for television rights.

Let’s ignore for the moment that these may be different clubs – and that their cause may be financially self-serving. Have some big clubs had a change of heart and realised that consultation is a rather good principle?

The truth is that business organisations are simultaneously both consultors and consultees.

In their dealings with local communities, with young people or long-term supporters, the best clubs engage regularly and meaningfully; when there are decisions to be taken, they consult these stakeholders. But they are few and far between. The late lamented Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha was unusual in being respected and popular. Many of the other Tycoon Owners are blamed for ignoring the views of those same stakeholders.

Now it seems, some clubs rather dislike being ignored themselves. Read between the lines of the EFL story and you hear the voices of big business greedy for even more lucrative deals. Apparently the dissident clubs feel it ‘under-values’ their product; they don’t like a five-year deal, as that value could increase dramatically in that time. And they don’t want a monopoly buyer. Why, they ask, could they not have been consulted as the negotiations proceeded?

The answer, of course, is that the preference is to do their deals behind closed doors. They are paranoid about the release of commercially confidential information. They hate the idea of anyone looking at who are the winners and who are the losers. Presumably it’s the losers that are complaining, but the case for more transparency flows with the tide of history. Public services have, to an extent had to learn to be open – even in commercial matters. Other organisations working in the public space … are learning to cope with greater scrutiny. Last in the queue are big corporations but they are most certainly in it.

A few days ago, shareholders of the housebuilder Persimmon forced out its own Chief Executive because his obscene £75m pay award damaged the Company reputationally. Disgruntled passengers cost the boss of ThamesLink Govia his job in the summer. And even Elon Musk has had to step aside because he has become an embarrassment to his own Company. All would have survived in the boardrooms of yester-year.

Transparency is difficult for those who are unaccustomed to it. No wonder some big names get confused. As with our football clubs, they are not sure if they are resisting it (as in dealings with their supporters) or demanding it (as in dealings with negotiators of TV rights)

So next time you hear of experts closing ranks and demanding that they be better consulted – whether clinicians in health, engineers in major construction projects, or even politicians in Parliament, spare them a thought or two. They are still trying to figure out how transparent a world they really wish to see. And whether they wish a more consultative culture on themselves or just on the others. Ultimately, however, those arguing for a level playing field will win this particular contest and greater transparency there will be. The moment that happens, those with views to express have to do so in the open and subject themselves to scrutiny.

The ball’s now in their court.