Today the Consultation Institute renewed its call for the elite football clubs to consult their fans before making changes to the ‘beautiful game’.

Three years ago, the Institute highlighted cases where supporters and local communities’ views were not being heard. The ESL proposal illustrates how little clubs have done to engage with these key stakeholders, and urges Club owners and Managers to invest in these relationships.

Rhion Jones, Founder Director of the Institute says “The danger now is that what follows will be a PR-led surfeit of superficial love-bombing rather than the genuine and meaningful dialogue that is really necessary.”

Reflections on the European Super League fiasco

The past week has demonstrated two ways of how not to win friends and influence people. Lobbying is back in the news.

One was David Cameron’s ham-fisted attempt to persuade Government Ministers and civil servants. The other was the attempt to bounce the football world into accepting a new closed shop football tournament for twelve elite clubs and funded by JP Morgan. We presume that they had secretly consulted broadcasters whose coverage of the proposed matches would be essential for the viability of the business case. For both financiers and broadcasters, the project is basically a business opportunity. If not football, then there are other ways of making money. For others, it meant rather more.

It seems to me that the failure was to undertake even the most rudimentary stakeholder mapping exercise. Even a ten-minute back-of-an-envelope scribble would produce something akin to the illustration shown here.

It helps explain why opposition to the scheme roused James Corden, the Duke of Cambridge, Boris Johnson, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Alan Shearer – all on the same side.

As Institute members probably know well, one of the main purposes of the exercise is to identify those in the bottom-right segment – possessed of a high degree of interest/stake in the decision, but lacking in influence.For years we have taught that organisations contemplating major changes should strain every sinew to engage with those in this category. Only after the collapse of the project did the big clubs acknowledge that they had taken football fans for granted. Just read the abject apologies of Liverpool owner, John Henry. He accepted that it “was never going to stand without the support of the fans. Over these 48 hours you were very clear that it would not stand. We heard you. I heard you.” 

Manchester United’s Joel Glazer said something similar: “We also realise that we need to better communicate with you, our fans, because you will always be at the heart of the club.”

Somewhat more to the point, James Corden’s magnificent rant on the US Late Late Show included the magic words – “they should have consulted …”

Of course, they should.

Three years ago, concerned by a spate of stories about football and rugby clubs riding roughshod over supporters’ views and interests, we published a paper entitled: Sporting ‘owners’ – to what extent do you consult the fans?. It included the following paragraph, seeking to explain that unlike other countries,

…The British sporting fan lives in a world where consultation is all around. He or she will be consulted by the local authority on everything from a new housing estate to the frequency of bin collections. Your parish council will even ask you where a new park bench should be placed. The NHS consults. The Police and Crime Commissioner consults. Damn it, everyone consults! In such an environment, when you are constantly asked your opinion about things you care little or nothing about, it seems inconceivable that the one thing you DO care about can change beyond recognition without any degree of engagement and dialogue. In short, fans will expect to be consulted. 

What the events of recent days has shown is that we have moved away from the days when people meekly accept what is done to them. Not for nothing has the term ‘stakeholder society’ emerged, and it is only one of the myriad reasons why the great institutions of the land from Government departments to the NHS, churches and charities all recognise the need to engage with – and frequently consult with those whose lives they impact.

What may have escaped some of those who acquired our football clubs is that they not only bought a business;  they also took responsibility for important (whether they are ‘great’ may depend upon your allegiance) institutions whose roles in the community goes to the heart of local and network identities. The danger now is that what follows will be a PR-led surfeit of superficial love-bombing rather than the genuine and meaningful dialogue that is really necessary.

There is a need to mend fences – and rebuild relationships. This will mean more organised forms of listening and creating new machinery for regular consultation with key interest groups, both internally at club-level, and with the wider football family. It may easily cost them an arm and a leg – which may be an appropriate analogy given the money they spend on a whole footballer!

But it need not. The basics are straightforward, but they need the skills and know-how of those who understand the processes of consultation and engagement. So roll up, roll up. Which club will be the first to approach the Consultation Institute for the kind of advice that can really make a difference? We can start with a proper stakeholder map!