Cash-rich Arsenal reveal the vulgar truth

“Vulgarity is a sign of vigour,” Sir James Goldsmith said, justifying the economics and philosophy that we would come to know, erroneously, as Thatcherism. Vulgarism would have been a better name for a world view that put profit at the top of the agenda, said society is dead and claimed that history was finished.

There was something very vulgar about Arsenal’s unveiling of their financial success this week – and it wasn’t Peter Hill-Wood’s gibe that Chelsea’s plans for world domination are based on “bullshit” and “fantasy”.

Of course, Arsenal will always look genteel when compared with the nouveau riche neighbours to the west. Chelsea, under Ken Bates, for so long looked like a footballing Del Boy. Then the dream came true – next year, they were millionaires. But the money never bought style and grace.

But the club, at least under Arsene Wenger, have had heaps of style (grace is just too much to ask for; we’ll settle for style).

Now Arsenal have more cash than they know what to do with (it’s official - this is the exchange reported to us by eyewitness Hill-Wood: Danny Fiszman, director: “What would you do if we gave you £100m to spend now?” Wenger: “I’d give it back to you”). This is a cause for celebration. In the boardroom, in the stands of the Emirates and in the media the reaction has been positive. Yet there are myriad reasons to feel uneasy.

More than 15 per cent of the capacity at the Emirates Stadium are corporate seats. This points to an unnerving trend for the future. At Highbury, there was room for about 1,000 corporate daytrippers. The new 60,000-seat stadium is little more than one-third bigger than the venerable old ground but the 9,300 corporate visitors are the key to doubling the matchday income. Is this the right policy? In the short term, if profit is the motive, certainly. When the economy is buoyant and big business is cash rich, then companies are willing to spend on corporate entertainment. But what if this changes? If the boom goes bust – and Northern Rock has caused a shiver across the business world - who will buy those mountains of prawn sandwiches?

The positive reaction to the figures is surprising. When a player signs a record deal, there is uproar from the fans. John Terry earning £135,000 per week is seen as morally wrong and the knee-jerk reaction from supporters is to blame the players for high ticket prices. There have been few calls for Arsenal to reduce admission cost, even though the club are sitting on £73.9m in the bank. Still, when we are told there is a waiting list of 41,000 for season tickets, anyone who suggested using some of the mountains of cash to give the fans a discount on tickets would be laughed out of the boardroom.

Instead, the money is seen as proof that this is a well run club. It is, but why should players take the blame for inflated prices? Clearly, in this case, wage cheques nearing £100,000 per week are easily affordable to a club that is managed in the right way. And how do Arsenal’s profits help the domestic game? It is likely to be the opposite. The profits send out the message that the most prudent way to run a club is dispense with a home-grown youth system and buy in talent from abroad. At every level of the playing staff at the Emirates there is a shortage of British players.

But perhaps the worst thing about the figures is that they arrived after a season when the club won nothing. The vast rewards come for being successful but not for winning. So when the spin on the news says that Arsenal are second in turnover – the implication being size – to Real Madrid, it jars in the ears. It suggests that money is the most important quantifier in football, and that’s vulgar. Wenger knows that is not true.

To be fair to Arsenal and the club’s directors, they are a long way from being the worst offenders in the game. And if the financial strength allows the board to fight off the spectre of a hostile takeover, then it is a positive development.

But the accepted wisdom of this modern age moves further away from the ethos of the sport every time a set of figures like this is announced. Other clubs will seek to copy this sort of success. It would be preferable if they aimed to emulate Arsenal’s trophy haul rather than their bulging bank vaults.

Back in 1992, when the Premier League was formed, the great Brian Glanville understood what was happening immediately. He called it the ‘greed is good league’. He grasped the essence of the new age. A vulgar age. Where fans and trophies come way down the pecking order and vigour is measured in millions of pounds.

Comments

[Arsenal Credit Card]

The problem with too many non-english players is not with just arsenal. English players are too expensive and it works out very cheap to bring in imorts. With salaries, non-english players are less demanding as well. I think Arsenal and many other clubs who have non-english managers tend to bring in players from abroad and usually from their own country. Arsene wenger usually goes shopping for french players and benetiz usually goes shopping for spanish players. I do think FIFA should be held responsible and do something about it. I think FIFA should make up a rule of 5 English players playing at any one time (minimum) and give all the clubs a few years notice so they dont go out and buy any more foriegn players.

[Ali]

The 9,000 figure of "corporate seats" includes Club Level which rather than being purely aimed at corporate guests is more directed towards wealthier fans. I sit in Club Level and most of those arpound me are not corporate "schmoozers" but honest Arsenal fans who want and can afford a slightly more refined experience whilst watching their team. Ultimately as long as people are willing to pay these sums, the club will continue to charge them and make facilities like Club Level available.

However, in terms of morals, I am much happier to pay a bit more for my ticket as a means of ensurin our ability to compete at the top table than have the club in the hands of shady characters from Russia or the US.

Arsenal is a fantastically run football club which should be seen as a model for others to emulate. I suggest the author direct some of hisire towards our west London neighbours.

[Carys Mathews]

More diatribe projected at Arsenal. When Wenger first arrived at Arsenal, he had a look at the youth system and declared that it would take him at least 10 years to effect changes which would bring English players to a par with their foreign counterparts. It is not unknown that English clubs and the FA would rather spend their money on established big names or on new, unnecessary Wembleys rather than invest in the youth system. That is why there are no Englishmen capable of rivalling Arsenal's foreign players to date.

If the author of this article cared to do some research, he'd find that Wenger has indeed blooded through much of the talent at England's U21 and U18 levels. Bentley and Pennant, whilst not having the attitude or skill necessary to play at Arsenal, have gone on to have successful careers elsewhere. The current crop of English youngsters at Arsenal - Kerrea Gilbert, Henri Lansbury, the Hoytes, Kieran Gibbs, Fabrice Muamba (Birmingham) to name but a few, have defeated numerous Premiership sides in the Carling Cup games they have played. They look fantastic, far better than the Man Utd juniors coming through under Ferguson and have the potential to progress beyond the usual English style of play.

I doubt the author has seen many of these new generation Englishmen at Arsenal and instead of making informed comments, he continues to spew forth the incorrect notion that Arsenal is a club for foreign players and Wenger does not wish to educate English youths in the art of the beautiful game.

10 years after Wenger promised some skilful, talented, technical players (sorely lacking in most English players - Frank Lampard is hailed as a world class player! Any wonder the standard is so low?) we have the aforementioned Englishmen, not to mention Ashley Cole and Theo Walcott.

Perhaps if West Ham didn't stick to their homogenous players, they'd get somewhere. It took a new, less xenophobic manager to bring out a repressed Argentine in order for the Hammers to stay up. Don't fall into the same trap.

[Adley Zayan]

This article is nonsense. For one, there are nine active (British) players in the Premiership who made it through Arsenal's youth system. Should the club be compelled to keep them if they do not make the cut quality-wise?

The theory that corporate seating/prawn sandwich consumption will decrease with an economic slowdown is even more tenuous (and unproven).

That Chelsea can squander in excess two years of Premiership prize money on Schevchenko has nothing to do with Arsenal - it is only common sense to expect clubs to be profitable. Does Arsenal F.C. owe it to anyone to saddle itself with debt?

Anyone who has seen Arsenal play this season knows that fans at the Emirates are getting their money's worth.

[Fab4]

"At every level of the playing staff at the Emirates there is a shortage of British players."

A very poorly researched article. The Arsenal team that made it to the semi finals of the FA Youth Cup last season contained 11 Englishmen out of the squad of 16. Wenger has himself declared that the youngsters coming through will mean England will have a team capable of winning the World Cup by 2018.

[Stewart Davis]

Very good article, but I can't help but feel that Arsenal get the blame for everything wrong in the English league when all they have done is try and keep themselves afloat and build a stable base for the future.

They do play the best football I have ever seen and lets hope this is the start of something good and more trophies on their way to North London. As to the lack of English players Arsenal has had plent in there ranks but have all been let go by the club for poor attitude lack of effort and raw talent. Why would a club pay over the odds for a player cause they happen to be English. there have been many English lads that let us down at Arsenal being loaned out to smaller clubs and letting Arsenal down by their attitude. Seems rather then have a go at Arsenal we should be saying well done and lets hope this club can go all the way and fly the flag for England abroad.

[Matt Fowler]

I feel AFC are hard-done by this post. Indeed, a corruption of the motives in the game are a legitimate and rightous concern, but is this the best or most fair example of this? AFC are the only big four team not run by a foreign fat cat; two of whom are probably in it for the profit end exclusively. Also, in my opinion this post seems to oversimplify and misrepresent the situation. As the author surely agrees, money is not all bad for the sport or the english leagues in particular. The quality of play and facilities has markedly improved since the inception of premiership (just look back at the near insult-to-the-game pathetic fields that were being played on then). It would be a very unfortunate mistake to characterize the ideals of the game and club financial gains as diametrically opposed to each other.

One other thing: I don't understand the regular complaints (about AFC or the premiership in general) of too few english players. The BPL is the most international league; why is that not an intense source of pride? The world wants to come and send its best players to perform at your doorstep, and you're complaining? The increased quality of play will increase the quality of the english players who can make it through and make it mean so much more than if they had some quota system that would delegitimize their participation anyways. All this on top of the fact that, as I'm pretty sure Wenger already noted, english players are overpriced. That's the market forces hurting english-born players.

Hope to hear some debate on these ideas.

Matt, Iowa