Kaizero

I'm not defending anyone, I'm saying it's counter-productive for what is a valid worry and argument to shrink and refer to the "problem" by one nationality rather than the problem as a whole. Whilst I've not intended to "defend" any nationality, even making it clear that I believe the worst owners in PL history were from my own country, that is what will eventually happen if the conjecture surrounding the very real and worrisome possibilities ahead of us doesn't change from demonizing a nationality into demonizing the actual issues. I fully agree that given their history with sport and league structure, American citizens would be more likely to want to implement rules they are more familiar with than other ownership groups of other nationalities. But when the main duo behind the ESL are Spanish and Italian, not American, and the three American owners appear to be given the blame for it ever existing? That's not helpful, and one could easily argue that them being the scapegoat is what has allowed the Spanish and Italian cunts to make their new ESL proposal come into existence. People need to not simplify complex problems as scapegoating only gives actual perpetrators more room to ruin the game as the complaints can just be written off as "Englishmen just don't like Americans" rather than "This is what's wrong with what you are doing to football and we won't stand for it".

Also, as mentioned, a majority of the 20 teams in the PL has has US owners for over a decade now. The season with the most US owned teams had 14 out of 20 owned by Americans (when counting both majority & minority owners). If you worry about a majority of PL teams being owned by Americans, you’re a bit late

Revisionist history, it was spearheaded by Perez and the Juventus bloke with the three English PL clubs as co-signers. Not saying it wasn’t a shit move, but when you try to use the ESL as a means to slam all US based owners - the fact the main duo behind the ESL were Spanish and Italian doesn’t help the argument. The fact the US owners aren’t backing the new attempt at a Super League, but that the very same Spanish and Italian owners are also says a lot. Again, I do not disagree with what you are opposed to, what you fear can happen and what you worry about when it comes to the future of the sport. Rather the contrary, I also oppose, worry and fear the same things. Which is why I want people to address the actual fears and issues, just as I want people to direct their anger about VAR away from VAR and onto IFAB - as making a scene about something that’s not actually relevant to the root cause of problems will just allow the problems to get worse. Just imagine I went on about “Jewish owners” ruining football. Reality could very well be that some of them were actively working to ruin football as we know it, but how much do you think my point of attack would help my cause or worsen it?

Now, see, that point in itself is a fair point. But it falls under the same definition as me saying Hollywood is run by Jews and I don't want the Jews to ruin film production through the greed inherent in their shared cultural history. I just demonized an entire group of people because there's two powerful families of Jewish origin running two major studios. The problem in this example is corporate greed ruining creativity, not an entire group of people. Call things what they are, don't blame an entire group of people. A shit owner is a shit owner, regardless of nationality, and the worst owners in PL history haven't been Americans - but English, Norwegian and Indian. Just say you are fearful of the commercialisation of the sport and a more drastic focus on the capitalistic aspects of club ownership than saying you are fearful of "American owners", because as said, all it does is lessen your point and opinion on the matter - just as me railing on "Jews" would make nobody take my opinion on Hollywood seriously. Yes, the example used is quite extreme, but given how nobody even realizes what they're doing it felt like it had to be that extreme to have a chance of opening some eyes. I don't disagree with the fear and worry that's been raised regarding ownership, I have an issue with how it's being framed.

You did As did the two posters bringing up the same thing before you did. Says it all about how set views are when posts aren't even read properly.

Idea proposed - never going through, those owners being part of the 10% owners with weird ideas. And the Wrexham owners publicly denouncing the idea and saying it'd never happen on their watch... oh, wait, the Wrexham owners are also American! What a doozy that different businesses have different opinions even if they have the same nationality!?! Supply and demand, they sell out so they can charge that. They're a business, not a charity. Name me one English owner that wouldn't raise their ticket prices if they could? Again, how? What have they done? What do they do that makes this genuine? I see 0% evidence of this bar "americans, yucky!" No, it's exactly the point. I've listed multiple owners that have made their clubs vanish, one set even made their club no longer exist. All of these were not Americans, yet "american owners" are for some reason the "biggest threat" against english football?! It's lunacy.

I'd have lost my temper eventually given that I actually give examples, sources and reasoning for my standpoint and everyone else just reply "nah mate, fuck americans"

But, as Disco said, I doubt any of us will change anyone's stance or thoughts on the matter - so I'll tap out here.

Again, not when you're literally doing the textbook definition of it without any other counter-argument than "i is not, dey terk er jerbs!" 11 PL clubs have either majority or minority US based ownership at the moment, in past season that number's been 14 at most. The majority of PL clubs have had a majority of US majority/minority owners for over a decade. No Americanisation of the sport has taken place, nor will it, as that's bad business for the businessmen owners to do as it'd alienate a global fanbase. It's illogical and conspiracy-theory adjacent to think otherwise when you can fact-check reality and find that it's nowhere like what people keep saying over and over again about US ownership. However, crazy bajillionaire owners that don't have to think about profits? They are dangerous, no matter where they're from. And yes, some US owners are absolutely insane and dogshit. Shit owners are horrible for any fan base and they deserve sympathy. But horrible owners don't have just one nationality, and continuing my above point, US owners are less likely to fuck with traditions as they for the most part own and run the club as a business intended to make profits for their ownership group – be that through the club itself or through using the club for marketing purposes. What people are arguing is essentially "Americans owning all PL clubs", speaking of the owners as "one group". Now, if one company had owned all 20 PL clubs then yes - that'd be bad and could mean they'd change tradinional aspects because they own all the clubs. The US owners don't have a group chat on WhatsApp where they discuss how to Americanise football in the UK, though. They are separate individual business entities looking to generate the most profit possible through the intellectual property, actual property and sporting team(s) they own.

It's the textbook definition, man. Get a hold of yourselves and look in the mirror. There's no "Americanization" of football, it's people being fearful of owners coming from a different background when those people have done nothing to deserve being talked about in the way they are being talked about. Perez and Agnelli are Spanish and Italian respectively. Also, our current owners would absolutely jump at the chance of being part if a super league – without a doubt, and they are not American. Our owners are using us to engage in sportswashing a despotic dictatorship, I'd say that's a bit worse than a jolly weird American owner of Chelsea saying he likes All-Star games.

And I am saying it's not a debate fueled by facts, but racist thinking. None of the "anti-US" people have yet to bring one convincing argument as to why the fate of English football is more at stake due to many US based ownership groups than it already is due to owners of non-US nationalities. A Norwegian ownership group did what I believe is the most damage any owners have done to a club in the PL era when they ran Wimbledon into the ground and moved the club to Milton Keynes. They weren't American.

The onus is on the prosecution, not the defendant. I've stated that 9 out of 10 US owners in English football aren't bad. So far only Boehly and his all-star wish has been brought up as something bad a US owner has done. I've shown examples of bad things non-US owners has done, and could show more. Meanwhile, your argument is that "they have a different culture than us, therefore they are bad!" Without showing any examples of that having an effect on actual real ownership of an English football club. You are basing your argument on a stereotype and saying all US owners are bad because they are American. Not because they are bad owners, or using any example other than them being Americans as an example for why they would be bad owners.

racism /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/ noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial, national or ethnic group

PL has only had one ownership group of my nationality, and they fucked up Wimbledon FC so much the club no longer exists

I'm not American, the fuck are you even on about?

Nope, it has to do with preconceived stereotypical views of certain people. In other words, good old fashioned racism. Again, the most fucked up weird destructive owners in Premier League history has been British. All it does is make it harder to make actual arguments against poor ownership when non-constructive insults gets thrown around without merit. Imagine if our biggest argument against Ashley was that "he's English, he doesn't understand football"?

Shit owners = Shit owners Nationality has nothing to do with it. There are great US owners, there are ok US owners and there are shit US owners. Just as there are great, ok and shit owners of other nationalities – including English owners.

This actually touches upon another interesting aspect, who seems the craziest out of the Glazers and Ratcliffe?

You've shown one crazy/weird suggestion from a US owner, I've shown three from non-US owners and could continue ad infinitum. My point stands.

Then they have problems with their owners, their nationality has no part in it. They'll have shit owners that are shit, just like any other club that's had shit owners that were shit because they were shit owners - not because of what country they were from. "Sports Direct @ St. James Park" What should Newcastle have done about their UK owner if they had any bother with him? ^ Singlig a shit owner out due to them having X nationality only serve to make it harder to oust them. They're shit owners because they're shit, so the focus should be on what shit they do as owners - not where they're from.

"US owners ruin English football!!"

"Booo all US owners!!"

Kroenke is the only US based owner that's had out there opinions of Yank owners in the PL era as far as I can tell.

It absolutely is when there's no evidence for any of the claims being made, but there's evidence of UK based owners actually wanting to fuck up football.