By John Considine
Six days ago, Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford scored a goal in a stadium built with public money. The Etihad Stadium was originally built as a potential host of the Olympics and actual host of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. It was a time when Manchester United were perched at the top of English football. It was only four years since Manchester City had graced the third-tier of English football. Soon after the 2002 Commonwealth Games, City moved to the stadium. Few now consider that they might have been in receipt of aid from the State. Nowadays the concern is about the aid they might be receiving from State funds coming from outside the United Kingdom.
The clouds on Manchester City’s horizon are off the field. They concern finance. Manchester United fans might suggest that their own on-field troubles stem from off-field finance. And, they seem to be thinking that Jim Radcliffe's recent purchased a minority share in the club will solve their on-field problems. The new minority owner has expressed a view that public money might be used to fund the redevelopment of Old Trafford. Should Manchester United get public money to fund the redevelopment of Old Trafford?
Brexit does not mean that the British government can now fund another stadium in Manchester without reference to EU State Aid rules. Despite yesterday’s result, there is a good chance Manchester United will again play in UEFA competitions! Will competition be distorted by the granting of State Aid? Having looked at a few of these State Aid decisions, I'm convinced that any political decision will be wrapped in enough motherhood, apple pie, and waffle(s) to justify it.
Manchester United can point to their rivals in the Premier League and ask a few questions about how they are owned and funded. The Etihad Stadium is one example. What about the stadium that was constructed to hold the London 2012 summer Olympics and is now home to West Ham? Could Sovereign Wealth Fund ownership of a Premier League club like Newcastle be viewed as State Aid?
Games in UEFA’s 2028 European Championships will be hosted by the Etihad and Newcastle’s St James’s Park. Everton’s uncompleted new home venue is also pencilled in as a venue. Everton have recently encountered their own financial issues that have resulted in a 10-point deduction (later reduced to 6 points). Will the UK government stump up some money to aid the completion of Everton's new home?
Will the UK government provide the support to complete Casement Park – another venue scheduled to hold Euro2028 games and located in another city associated with Marcus Rashford. At least in that situation the EU has cleared State Aid (see SA.37342) - although the decision says that the aid was time limited. Plenty of waffle in that decision. An important consideration is known as the Belfast Agreement – an agreement that has reduced political violence on the island of Ireland. The agreement was facilitated by George Mitchell who was to produce the Mitchell Report on the use of drugs in baseball. The State Aid was to facilitate "shared spaces" but the EU Commission cleared the funding of three stadia which arguably embedded the segregation they waffled on about helping to end. Maybe a revamped Old Trafford could be said to being noisy neighbours closer together!
It is worth comparing the reasoning in that State Aid decision with the reasoning provided for the redevelopment of a stadium south of the Irish border around the same time (see SA.44439). Here the EU Commission cleared funding on the basis of more inclusive usage! The Commission cleared funding and agreed with the views that the stadium would not be built in the absence of State Aid because of a market failure. Most economists might see "red" on the issue of claimed market failure. But there are more basic questions the Commission might ask in these situations. Was the original stadium, that is now being redeveloped, built without State Aid? Are there other stadia in Ireland being built without State Aid? One must ask about the attention given by the EU Commission to their analysis. This should have been obvious when they first mentioned the GAA in their decision. At least the Commission got the G(aelic) and last A(ssociation) correct. Sloppy? Or where they just looking to write up a decision that had already been made?
Why not public funding for Manchester United.
The clouds on Manchester City’s horizon are off the field. They concern finance. Manchester United fans might suggest that their own on-field troubles stem from off-field finance. And, they seem to be thinking that Jim Radcliffe's recent purchased a minority share in the club will solve their on-field problems. The new minority owner has expressed a view that public money might be used to fund the redevelopment of Old Trafford. Should Manchester United get public money to fund the redevelopment of Old Trafford?
Brexit does not mean that the British government can now fund another stadium in Manchester without reference to EU State Aid rules. Despite yesterday’s result, there is a good chance Manchester United will again play in UEFA competitions! Will competition be distorted by the granting of State Aid? Having looked at a few of these State Aid decisions, I'm convinced that any political decision will be wrapped in enough motherhood, apple pie, and waffle(s) to justify it.
Manchester United can point to their rivals in the Premier League and ask a few questions about how they are owned and funded. The Etihad Stadium is one example. What about the stadium that was constructed to hold the London 2012 summer Olympics and is now home to West Ham? Could Sovereign Wealth Fund ownership of a Premier League club like Newcastle be viewed as State Aid?
Games in UEFA’s 2028 European Championships will be hosted by the Etihad and Newcastle’s St James’s Park. Everton’s uncompleted new home venue is also pencilled in as a venue. Everton have recently encountered their own financial issues that have resulted in a 10-point deduction (later reduced to 6 points). Will the UK government stump up some money to aid the completion of Everton's new home?
Will the UK government provide the support to complete Casement Park – another venue scheduled to hold Euro2028 games and located in another city associated with Marcus Rashford. At least in that situation the EU has cleared State Aid (see SA.37342) - although the decision says that the aid was time limited. Plenty of waffle in that decision. An important consideration is known as the Belfast Agreement – an agreement that has reduced political violence on the island of Ireland. The agreement was facilitated by George Mitchell who was to produce the Mitchell Report on the use of drugs in baseball. The State Aid was to facilitate "shared spaces" but the EU Commission cleared the funding of three stadia which arguably embedded the segregation they waffled on about helping to end. Maybe a revamped Old Trafford could be said to being noisy neighbours closer together!
It is worth comparing the reasoning in that State Aid decision with the reasoning provided for the redevelopment of a stadium south of the Irish border around the same time (see SA.44439). Here the EU Commission cleared funding on the basis of more inclusive usage! The Commission cleared funding and agreed with the views that the stadium would not be built in the absence of State Aid because of a market failure. Most economists might see "red" on the issue of claimed market failure. But there are more basic questions the Commission might ask in these situations. Was the original stadium, that is now being redeveloped, built without State Aid? Are there other stadia in Ireland being built without State Aid? One must ask about the attention given by the EU Commission to their analysis. This should have been obvious when they first mentioned the GAA in their decision. At least the Commission got the G(aelic) and last A(ssociation) correct. Sloppy? Or where they just looking to write up a decision that had already been made?
Why not public funding for Manchester United.
RSS Feed
