What failed takeover means for football and for Newcastle United

Fans understandably want rid of Mike Ashley, but that still must be put into a greater context. Ownership by the Saudi Arabian state would have been much worse

When it came right down to it, in the words of one source connected to the now aborted Newcastle United takeover, “Saudi Arabia behaved in exactly the way the Premier League wouldn’t have wanted”.

That was a reference to the state’s decision to bar Qatar’s beIn Sport from operating in the kingdom earlier this month, as part of the ongoing piracy dispute. It was seen as a needless escalation, the opposite of a solution to the complications arising from the dispute and – ultimately – “the final nail in the coffin”.

The consortium’s decision to walk away has saved the Premier League a huge decision, and one they probably preferred not to make.

The outcome is certainly not what many Newcastle supporters wanted. That is certainly understandable given the unpopularity of Mike Ashley, but that still must be put into a greater context. Ownership by the Saudi Arabian state would have been much worse.

This deal not going through is a good thing for football.

For one, states should not be allowed own or run clubs, full-stop. Football clubs are social institutions, with a wider community value, and should be protected.

It is imperative the Premier League now improves their owners and directors test – and The Independent has been told that both Amnesty International and human rights groups like Fair Square have offered to help that process. The Premier League must listen, and pressure should come on them to do so.

The problem assumes a greater level when it comes to states. It creates huge complications about the political reasons clubs are being bought and used, and what the goal of the ownership it is. That goes to the ultimate level when it comes to a state like Saudi Arabia.

No one should ever have been under any illusion about this. Saudi Arabia – through the Public Investment Fund’s planned 80% control in the consortium – would have used Newcastle for “sportswashing”, to try and improve the state’s international standing and mitigate the damage done by a litany of human rights abuses, the war in Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

No matter the short-term consequences on the football pitch, it is better for the soul and the identity of the club that Newcastle are not connected with this in any way. Such a takeover would have rendered the club a mere shell, eroding its true identity, as a vehicle for a state.

That could be seen in how flags of the Saudi Arabia started to proliferate among the profiles of fans on social media as the takeover dragged on.

This was a very direct objective of manoeuvres like this. This is also the power of money in this regard. The mere prospect of it attracted intense loyalty in some quarters.

That should pose greater questions for the game, rather than Newcastle fans. It is a tragedy that a club of Newcastle’s size need a state takeover to compete. That’s how bad financial disparity in football has got.

Mike Ashley will remain in charge (Getty)

These clubs very directly represent people, and their fortunes greatly impact lives. That makes it all the more shameful the game has so surrendered to the kind of ultra-capitalism that can only erode the prospects of most clubs, and in a very fundamental way invites interest from bidders like the Saudi Arabian state, or Qatar.

Very directly connected to that, it is lamentable that the main sticking point in this takeover was an intellectual property issue, rather than human rights. That reality should be a signal for football to start asking greater questions of itself – if that didn’t seem such a fanciful prospect in itself.

If this takeover had gone through, we would have been fairly asking what type of owners it would have taken for a takeover to be blocked. It is actually shameful we still don’t know the answer to that. The Premier League must now act on this.

Newcastle fans may now rightfully fear that the idea of anyone else taking them over is a fanciful prospect.

It is a deflated market amid the coronavirus crisis, and many equally believe that the fall in the price of oil has impacted this decision too. Sources say that might well have meant this takeover wouldn’t have been anything like the kind of lucrative project Newcastle fans idealised either.

The genuine hope is that the club is eventually released from Ashley. He has at least – at last – shown a willingness to sell.

The utopia would be some kind of fan movement owning the club. This, however, has been a fanbase racked by division. An ideal would be this decision serving as a line in the sand that brings people together.

On the other side, there is still the prospect of Saudi Arabia looking elsewhere. They have previously been interested in Manchester United.

They want a club, for political purposes. That is just one reason the game should not want such owners. No state should be allowed own a club, and particularly not a state like Saudi Arabia.

It is why this is a good thing for football and, in the long term, a good thing for Newcastle United.