Before we get started… Yes, that’s right. I’m jumping on this bandwagon. So sue me! It’s topically relevant, and I have a point.
This week, or today as I write this, the football world is reeling from a long predicted announcement of 12 European football giants (well, 11 and Spurs — sorry, couldn’t resist) announcing plans to break away and form a self-governing European Super League.
Putting aside mine and many others personal feeling that this is merely an extreme hard-nosed negotiating tactic for these clubs to get a bigger share of UEFA broadcasting revenue, it has ignited impassioned opinion from Gary Neville to Boris Johnson.
Football passions aside, the whole furore is as clear a demonstration of brand purpose as you could wish for.
Committing a cardinal sin for a moment… let’s equate football clubs to brands. With football and business overlapping so massively, that’s pretty much the case nowadays anyway — certainly for clubs relying on global fan bases.
The role of a brand is connecting with buyers and contributing growth to a business. It’s the ‘face’ and personality of a business that pulls people in, separating it from competitors that often basically offer the same product.
Manchester City are heralded in marketing circles for being at the forefront of brand marketing for years. They’ve used their vast riches to enhance their presence in lucrative, football mad countries. Growing their fanbase, driving demand and reaping rewards through licencing and broadcast revenue.
They’ve done it very well. A far cry now from the Manchester City I grew up with in the 90’s that were considered the ‘real’ working Manchester club, while Manchester United became the most globally recognised football brand.
The obvious argument against a self-governed league operating seperately from the established European football pyramid is its detachment from football’s core purpose. Club’s are historically cornerstones of communities. Not just in the UK, but all around Europe. Their foundations are local, they’ve just evolved in a market that has become more lucrative and capitalist.
Fans (including the ‘big 12s’ most loyal supporters) are now passionately pointing out that by creating this Super League, they’re turning their backs on that. Instead monopolising the commerciality of their brands for self preservation and greed. And at the sacrifice of fair competition; something which is kind of essential in sport.
Many have likened it to the American sports franchise model. Where entire teams can move cities freely, continuing to trade off their brand to a whole new audience. Where lack of competitive success brings with it little consequence (no relegations). And where every minor opportunity to weave in commercial sponsorship (right down to drinks breaks) is seized upon. We probably aren’t too far away from sponsored substitutions
“Substitution for Chelsea. Olivier Giroud on for Tim Werner: sponsored by Cinch“
But this is different to European football’s purpose. Our established pyramid model is built on fairness. Sure, some ‘brands’ have a huge competitive advantage in attracting more money and better players; but essentially, the ‘smaller’ brands still have the opportunity to compete and, as Leicester showed just a few short years ago, one-off success can be completely transformative.
Regardless of whether this bonkers venture goes ahead (and I believe it won’t), the clubs have committed the cardinal sin of brand purpose. They’ve forgotten fundamentally who they are, how they came to be and who they exist for.
Yes, they undoubtedly have terrific community outreach partnerships and great initiatives to make football more accessible. But true purpose cuts to the essence of why they exist, which appears to have been forgotten.
Mark Ritson says that strong purpose should come at the sacrifice of profits. Well, their revenues are unlikely to be hugely dented by this episode long-term, but for their brand reputations — the damage is already done.
