The debate about the governance of football clubs has garnered a lot of prominence among many in Ugandan football circles. Issues regarding club ownership and club structures have now become of profound interest to the different stakeholders.
At the center of this debate is the local football governing body (FUFA) on one side and the clubs on the other. Both sides have become accustomed to altercations emanating from the enforcement of the FUFA Club Licensing Guidelines, the main tool being used by the federation to streamline governance among the local football clubs.
However, a debate about club governance should not be exclusive to only the federation and the football clubs. Football has a wide ecosystem and any intervention that seeks to wholesomely impact the entire sector must aim to bring together all the interested parties. Football governance derives its efficacy from the principles relating to the form of legal club ownership which must then be complemented by robust club structures.
Sports club structures evolve over time and they are mainly influenced by the interplay of economic, social, and political factors. In Uganda, ownership of sports clubs can be categorized into three. First private ownership, state ownership, and finally community ownership.
According to FUFA records, a majority of clubs in the Uganda Premier League (UPL) are either individually owned or by other private parent companies. The second category of state ownership is a typical reflection of the economic reality imposed by the state since it provides a ready source of funds, this category includes clubs like UPDF FC and URA FC, although these clubs are not vulnerable to financial shocks, they remain vulnerable in case of change of policies by these agencies. Finally, the concept of community clubs is a new one and it hasn’t been fully embraced by those in local football circles.
At the start of the 2021-22 season, FUFA president Moses Magogo forwarded the Villa Members Trust (VMT) as a proposed intervention to the SC Villa leadership crisis. This VMT model is the closest reference to the community ownership model in Uganda. Community ownership has its origins in Germany, according to which a minimum of 50%+1 of the voting rights of the club are controlled by a democratic entity that has open and inclusive membership. It also follows that all profits are to be re-invested back into the club as opposed to being distributed to its shareholders. Under this model, the club is committed to running as a sustainable business.
Currently, Uganda is in the process of enacting a new sports law. It is hoped that the new law will guide the mode of legal ownership and ownership of sports entities, sports clubs inclusive.
Football clubs exist to facilitate participation in and the spectating of organized football. Irrespective of their corporate format, football clubs are much more than businesses. Whereas at the elite end of the game it has become economic in basis, it still remains social in nature. Supporters invest their financial capital in clubs in terms of gate fees, club yearly subscriptions, and indirectly through television subscriptions to watch these games. Some football clubs have a deep-rooted identification with particular cities or regions, they have become fused together with these communities. Clubs like Al Ahly and Zamalek in Egypt form a formidable community entity beyond just being football clubs.
In England, whereas the majority of the clubs are privately owned by individuals and other private entities, the opinion trends in that country are shifting towards supporter share ownership. Many clubs especially mid-sized clubs are adopting a combination of private and community-based ownership. Clubs like Brentford FC have been able to develop innovative legal structures to accommodate their supporters’ interests by applying the “golden share” principle whereby fans are awarded this special category of shares empowering them to have a say over certain aspects of their club. These shares can be used to raise capital, oppose unfriendly takeovers of the club, and uphold supporters’ interests at the club.
Under the community-based model, clubs exist as registered associations under established laws of that country for instance in Tunisia, clubs can only register as nonprofit making associations. Additionally, under the community ownership model, members can only exercise their control by electing a president during elections held after a given period of time.
The community-based model has been instrumental in its contribution to the success of a number of clubs. First, longevity. Many of the most successful clubs are community-based or apply it in hybrid form together with private ownership for example Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain, Al Ahly and Zamalek in Egypt. These clubs also enjoy the benefit of having a strong and big supporter base in their countries and the world over.
However, the community ownership model is also not immune to instabilities since the club structures are still suspectable to administrational mischief and financial malpractices. These can always be remedied through routine elections resulting in a change of leadership.
The FUFA administration is already advocating for a more community-based model for ownership of football clubs in the country. However, in trying to achieve this end, it shall have to contend with the reality of its origins in German where society is deeply rooted in the values of cooperation and consensus building. This message must be communicated to the communities as it is done during the current “FUFA DRUM” campaign. This model should also equally be sold to the existing football club owners, recently Wakiso Giants FC announced that Wakiso District Local Government would take over some of its shares in a five-year partnership.
Those in the football ecosystem including legal practitioners should make effort to develop club legal structures that favour communal club ownership. If the community club ownership model is adopted with its principles of transparency, democracy, and accountability, it will attract the full participation of fans and the corporate world. This shall in the process suppress the biggest challenge of local football which is attracting sponsorship and sustainability. With access to capital still being a pitfall for many businesses in Uganda, football clubs are no exception to this harsh reality and many club owners have succumbed to this financial pitch of running football clubs on personal funds.
There are too many examples of club closures in Uganda. The community ownership model may not be the bullet solution to sustainable club management but its avails a very realistic prospect for a bright future if the federation and other football stakeholders embrace it well with the good intention of using football as a conduit of change in communities.