It isn’t the first time that figures in the Premier League and other areas of football have been aggravated at Andy Burnham’s comments. Previously, however, those comments haven’t had the political dimensions of him being prime minister and the entire subject potentially forming a diplomatic incident with geopolitical concerns.
On Wednesday, Burnham offered his first comments on Manchester City, whose owners have previously been partners to the former mayor of Manchester in building a property empire there.
Aside from a bizarre comparison to the Everton points deduction - and his protestation that “I am not getting directly involved” being undercut by the simple reality he was getting involved by speaking in his new position as prime minister - there was one line that stood out.
“Well, I would be really concerned to lose them,” Burnham continued.
Those are certainly not the concerns of many in football right now.
In fact, the last 48 hours have crystallised not just why these owners need to be forced out, but why English football finally needs to act on state ownership. You couldn’t have a clearer illustration of the existential risks and problems that were always there. This chaos is what people were long warning about.
As everyone tried to make sense of Burnham’s comments, with many senior figures across multiple connected industries baffled, one interpretation was that he had to show his allies in the United Arab Emirates warm words since he can’t actually do anything about this.
There have been suggestions from political circles that the Abu Dhabi political leadership fails to understand the government can’t just influence football institutions in the way that can be in centralised Gulf autocracies. Some political experts even put a lot of this down to the tension between a liberal democracy’s cultural institutions and a country that is an absolute monarchy without an independent judiciary.
The very context of Burnham’s relationship only illustrates the manifold different ways that Abu Dhabi can apply pressure in this situation. Of course, the entire nature of this scandal - what Uefa’s 2020 adjudicatory report described as “a sophisticated, thoughtful and fundamental attempt to circumvent or violate” the rules, linked to state companies - is also almost impossible for any other type of ownership.
One of those companies, Etihad, later issued a statement about the Premier League process threatening legal action.
It’s difficult to see how that would go since one of the leaked emails at the core of this - this one published by Der Spiegel in February 2022 - was correspondence between City director Simon Pearce and Peter Baumgartner, then Chief Commercial Officer of Etihad, agreeing arrangements to fund the majority of Etihad’s sponsorship contract.
Etihad complained that “at no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the Commission’s opinion”.
The use of “opinion” is striking, since it was the same description as City’s, and the ownership of both ultimately come from the same royal family with access to the same wealth.
It would also be highly irregular for a Commission to summon a witness not called by either party, and not involved in the charged action. It would typically fall to the defendant, City, to call such a witness.
Any legal claim may also run into difficulties, since it would fall under the same standard of proof as used in arbitration, which already found Etihad’s sponsorship a “sham”.
Either way, you can see the waves of pressure on the Premier League, as well as some of the rearguards on the other side.
On Thursday morning, the Financial Times reported that City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak was six years ago granted diplomatic immunity in the UK. That is perhaps natural given his position in the UAE, which only speaks to the importance of City to the emirate.
Aside from being the de facto prime minister, he has chaired Abu Dhabi’s Executive Affairs Authority, the equivalent of the Cabinet Office, since 2006.
While there is no suggestion of personal wrongdoing by Mubarak, it is relevant to the case amid the expectation that this will bring scrutiny on individuals central to the running of City. There remains the possibility, pending appeal, some executives will be removed.
It’s as you get to levels like this, and how a figure like Mubarak is UAE’s main liaison with the US administration, that it’s important to remember what this is actually about.
This is just a football competition trying to fairly put on its main business of matches.
And here it is attempting to deal with an unprecedented industrialised cheating scandal spilling into the highest areas of politics.
As one football insider said, “all three of these stories alone are perfect examples of why states should not own football clubs.
“Also, they might change the mood of anyone who had been sitting on the fence. They look like bullies. Burnham has not read the room.”
All of this goes right up to a potential Premier League vote on whether City should be expelled. Other ownership groups have business relationships with the UAE, with Abu Dhabi funds especially active in private equity.
One source laughed at the idea that some Premier League executives are concerned about the “commercial damage” of expulsion, describing this as “completely the wrong way of thinking”.
“It’s about getting out powers you can’t regulate, who will eventually bring other problems.”
Amidst all of that, there was another pointed statement from Independent Football Regulator chair David Kogan.
“The independent commission’s decision raises serious issues,” he said, before confirming the body has “powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate, in the interests of protecting the sustainability, honesty and integrity of English football where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals.”
As one prominent source says, “that could almost be construed as a contradiction of what the prime minister said”.
Another added: “the independence of that regulator has never been more crucial.”
The very question of state ownership in football has never been more crucial.
One source within UK politics believes there is now no escape from that line of thinking: “I don't see that this won't result in further restrictions on who can own football clubs in this country - no matter how squeamish it makes Burnham.
“They will have to make sure this never happens again.”
That’s whenever this ends. Because, as one insider protested: “the longer it goes on the more complex it becomes”.
