Plus ça change?

Forgive the use of French, and I say that as someone who is appalling at foreign languages. However this french expression literally means “the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing” .

I was talking to some close Evertonian friends, people like many who will read this article – people who live, breathe, eat, drink and sleep Everton and have done so from their childhood. Equally,from time to time I have regular conversations with fans of other clubs in England and football fans more generally elsewhere.

Firstly, the conversation with members of the Blue family. For the first time in years, many years in the majority of cases, there’s a calmness to our conversation despite the multitude of issues which the club faces in order to be competitive once more. When I say competitive, personally, I mean trophy winning.

The threat of relegation has faded into the distance, now no more than the memories of a particularly horrific and frightening nightmare. Yet, unlike a bad dream, it was real, and there are still so many people impacted by the experience, whilst those responsible have escaped true accountability for their decisions, actions and performance which brought relegation and potential administration so close.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, matters off the pitch were even worse than those on it. It should never be forgotten that we experienced financial situations more dire than the equivalent of  the Crystal Palace and Bournemouth games. We have our footballing heroes (DCL- for his Palace goal, Pickford throughout but particularly versus Leicester and Chelsea, and the most unlikely of saviors, Doucoure versus Bournemouth) to thank, but equally we have other heroes who contributed financially, who fought the battle to keep us in business, to offer alternative financing, keep us out of the hands of Wander and others, to essentially provide the custodianship and leadership lacking from those in their formal positions as owners, directors and executives.

The 3am Zoom meetings, often spread across two or three Continents, are no longer happening. The fight to present the truth about the club’s predicament, the absurdity of the choice of potential purchasers, the continual discovery of matters pertaining to 777 Partners, John Textor et al are no longer relevant to most Evertonians. (Incidentally the pursuit of the truth regarding 777, A-Cap and others, the desire to protect innocent policyholders from further damage continues by those investigative journalists and enforcement agencies who revealed the true position, the incredible and hugely damaging consequences, the loss of livelihoods and businesses and future potential savings and retirement funds). Paul Brown and Phillipe Auclair continue their outstanding work in this area.

If one considers Everton a medical case, we are out of intensive care and indeed, no longer hospitalised. We can live a relatively normal life with no immediate threats to our well-being.

Survival though, is not enough

However, for the majority of Evertonians, survival, whilst welcomed, is not enough. For some, a return to the brief periods of success we have enjoyed periodically (if one ignores the last thirty plus years) throughout our history would suffice. Not a single Evertonian, for example, would turn down the experience of Newcastle fans in winning their first trophy in decades – despite the enormous difference in both fan bases and the source of Newcastle’s success.

On the theme of Plus ça change?

Others, and particularly myself, would prefer a new Everton, an Everton that evolves into the dominant force in football on the pitch, and a leader, a true custodian of the game off it. If we have to be the sole purveyor of sense in the world’s richest madhouse then so be it.

The Friedkins have done what all sensible business owners do in a turnaround/recovery play. They went to first principles, i.e. secured the club and its capital project (the stadium) with sound financing, removed the executives and board members responsible for creating the mess they inherited, and set about improving the company’s product – the football team, its management and structure.

So, on the face of it, a busy few months, with stability and a new platform established from which to move forward.

Several issues, fundamental issues remain unresolved. For example there is as yet, no evidence of any enhanced and substantial solution to the transportation and infrastructure issues around the Hill Dickinson Stadium.

Furthermore, the issue of the regeneration of North Liverpool and the immediate hinterland of the new stadium. Yes, there’s been Government announcements of £1.6bn of transport infrastructure spending for the Combined Authority, but the reality is that fans and visitors to the new stadium will see only a small fraction of that funding spent on solving the very real transportation issues around match and event days. There is no evidence of the club’s or the Combined Authority’s plans to change this situation anytime soon.

The incumbents will argue progress in a difficult environment is being made – my response is plus ça change?

From a purely footballing perspective there are so many questions to be asked and from an Evertonian’s perspective, where does this new Everton fit into the rapidly evolving new footballing world?

Is our rate of change or progress faster than our competitors for example? Is our strategic thinking based on an outdated view of football or does it ask questions of the game itself?

Someone, at some point has to state the blindingly obvious – the game of football as we have known it with the domestic league as the dominant  and principal stage for success, is being eroded rapidly from within.

Not that fans, or indeed many clubs outside of a few dominant influential clubs, have any say in such matters.

“All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.” ― Noam Chomsky

The determination to destroy the beautiful game except for a very small number of beneficiaries is evident all around us. Just think of some of the absurdities that we witness on a daily basis.

Firstly FIFA’s role

It’s the middle of June and thirty two clubs are playing in either their close season or interrupting their domestic season to play in a “world club cup” created, managed and promoted by FIFA. Importantly, not financed by FIFA but financed via a ludicrous TV rights deal with a company called DAZN – an OTP sports streaming, entertainment and gambling platform.

DAZN (pronounced “da zone”) is owned by Access Industries, founded by Sir Len Blavatnik, a Ukrainian-born, but now British American citizen. Like many of that time, he made his initial fortune acquiring former Soviet State assets. That story in itself and how he, Mikhail Fridman, German Khan and Viktor Vekselberg made their fortunes  is fascinating and worthy of a good read, but is not for these pages.

Access Industries subsequently acquired Warner Music Group in 2011 for $3.3bn, thereby entering the entertainment Industry.

DAZN, owned by Access Industries, is huge, available in over 200 territories and again would take a chapter to write about its sports rights interests. It is however loss making – accumulated losses since 2019 are well in excess of $5 billion. Yet it, without seemingly any competition, stumps up $1 billion for the rights to the FIFA created world club cup.

Where did that money come from? Well, not from Sir Len Blavatnik – reportedly ranked around 75th in the list of the world’s wealthiest with an approximate net worth in excess of $27 billion. It came from an arm of Saudi Arabia’s PIF – Surj Sports Investment who invested $1bn for a less than 5% stake in DAZN. (Prior to this, DAZN had signed a rights agreement with the Saudi owned LIV Golf – further evidence of the shift away from the old establishment)

The winner of this tournament crowned in New York on the 13th July will have played seven games, often in the most sweltering of mid-summer conditions and will win up to $87 million dollars plus a participation fee, with total earnings of approximately (in the case of a Premier League club) $96 million.

Seven more games for worn out players, seven more games for fans to travel to if they have the means and a guaranteed additional financial advantage going into the new season. So much for more opportunities across football…. (one of FIFA’s current stated objectives)

The FIFA World Cup in the summer of 2026 will see 48 international teams play 104 matches, played across three countries (USA,Canada and Mexico). The 2030 World Cup will be played in Morocco, Spain and Portugal. The 2034 tournament will be hosted by Infantino’s friends Saudi Arabia, most likely (as with Qatar) in the months of November and December.

UEFA’s role

UEFA continue their own power and influence grab firstly at club level, with their latest version of the Champions League and two other major tournaments in the Europa League and the Europa Conference League.

More games, more space carved out of the footballing schedule, greater demands on players and increasing demands on the wallets of supporters, either match going or subscription payers for broadcast games.

Not content with pursuing their own club agenda, on the international front, UEFA have two international competitions, the Euros and the increasingly influential UEFA Nations League. Again, all of which fit into the description in the paragraph highlighted above.

The Premier League’s role

Where does one even start in a discussion around the Premier League’s role in the modern game? A full analysis might take several books, but regardless of what direction one looks at the Premier League (and realistically for Evertonians, the only relevant league in the short term at least), the optics as a fan of a club that might have ambitions to become a challenger, are not great.

The barriers to breaking down the established hierarchy are greater than ever. The Premier League may argue that last year’s table and domestic cup results suggest otherwise, but I am not convinced by that argument at all.

Participation in European football skews financial performance in favour of the participants. Participation in the FIFA World Club competition further adds to the competitive imbalance.

The existing profit and sustainability rules have proven to be a huge barrier to breaking the glass ceiling. The new rules (starting in 2026) will bake in the competitive advantage of having higher turnover. They might even stop the player trading route as a means of competing whilst still being financially compliant (the Brighton and Brentford model for example)

From a fan’s perspective, the new broadcast deals with the domestic broadcasters Sky and TNT will add greater scheduling complexity and a further shift away from the traditional 3pm Saturday kick off. With a minimum of 270 of the 380 games being shown live on Sky and TNT, less than 30% of games (and likely far less) could be played at that time. The apparent solution to the outdated 3pm Saturday blackout is not to remove the blackout but to reduce the number of games that can be played at that time through the broadcasting agreements. Meanwhile more fans will have to attend more games at entirely inappropriate and impractical times over the extended weekend.

Plus ça change?

Apologies for the lengthy trip around football – the reality is that there could be much more added to the above. None of the above even scratches the surface on the relationship between the Premier League and the rest of domestic football. Goodness knows what the fans of the 72 other Football League teams think, plus of course the millions of fans of clubs in leagues at the base of the pyramid. There’s an increasing inversion in the game (perhaps reflecting society domestically and internationally) that shows the traditional structure in terms of participants, yet the exact opposite in terms of resource.

For Everton and Evertonians – we are seeing plenty of change, and in relative terms we are more comfortable than we have been for years. But that (in my opinion) is in itself not enough. How do we respond to the rapidly changing football landscape? How do our new owners make us firstly competitive, then secondly, grow our influence in the game, not to become a beneficiary of the imbalances listed above, but to be part of a movement to address those imbalances.

Failure (in my opinion) to do so will only be further evidence of “the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing”

Would be fascinating to hear the Friedkin’s view (or even that of Angus Kinnear) ?