Against my better judgment, I yesterday waded into the lively Twitter debate over Celtic and the Champions League being prosecuted (the bits that I have seen) by those better informed and/or more emotionally engaged than me.
The debate concerns the Scottish club’s dramatic reprieve from Champions League elimination at the hands of Legia Warsaw thanks to an ineligible player the team from the Polish capital brought on in the 86th minute of the second leg of a tie which they won 6-1. As a result, UEFA awarded Celtic this second leg 3-0, enough to cancel out the 1-4 deficit they had brought back from Poland and carry the Scots into the final qualifying round of Europe’s top club competition on away goals.
I am surely not alone in thinking both a) that it was the correct decision for UEFA to make, but b) that, in this particular case, the punishment seems disproportionate given the circumstances of the tie. I had therefore come around to the view that Celtic ought to contact UEFA to politely decline the second chance they had been handed, while harbouring few illusions about the prospects of this actually happening.
What prompted my intervention was a Tweet from Robert Błaszczak, a self-styled “West London flȃneur”, who I noticed had been following the affair in some detail. “I’m told that Celtic’s ownership structure doesn’t allow directors to make a decision against their economic interest,” Błaszczak Tweeted.
“That’s handy,” I replied, a little glibly. “But it’s in their long-term economic interest to demonstrate they are fair-minded and sporting.”
This prompted a number of messages to wing my way from third parties about “fiduciary duties”, “directors responsibilities” and such like – messages that were, I’m sure, for the most part well-founded.
There are two reasons why this strikes me as a particularly interesting area.
First, as I wrote last week in a different context, top football clubs are different to other businesses: “whereas most companies exist to generate wealth for their shareholders, football clubs must balance this against the pursuit of trophies”.
If you accept this, is it right for football club directors to be subject to the same fiduciary duties as those of other businesses?
Second, in order to make a judgment as to where a director’s fiduciary duties lie, you need, I would have thought, to be able to value the alternatives.
In Celtic’s case, these are a) the unexpected reprieve and b) the kudos that would come from having the club acclaimed, at least for a time, as a global paragon of fair play and sportsmanship.
One thing that is immediately apparent is that a) is easier to measure than b).
In last season’s Champions League, Celtic made €17.57 million in participation- and performance-related revenue.
Of course, Celtic haven’t made it into this year’s competition just yet: Slovenia’s NK Maribor stand in their way. If they end up in the Europa League, their earnings would probably be more akin to the €3.8 million received last season by Wigan Athletic, or the €3.95 million paid to Swansea City.
On the other hand, it is (just) conceivable, as things stand, that the Glasgow club might end the season as European champions. So, far-fetched as that might seem, their European earnings could reach a level similar to the €57.4 million paid to Real Madrid.
It could be too that the payments from this year’s European competitions will outstrip the €1.1 billion shared by clubs last year. So, some judgment calls would have to be made in order to put a value on Celtic’s current play-off round slot. But you would think that it could be done without too much difficulty. Somewhere between €5 million and €7 million would be my stab, given how emphatically they were brushed aside by Legia.
Could a mere act of magnanimity have such an effect on the club’s reputation that it would stand any chance of adding that sort of sum to its brand value?
I have to say that it does not strike me as out of the question, although we are dealing with a more nebulous concept than the hard cash which a Champions League run would bring dropping through the door.
The club, after all, would be revered in Poland; there might be Fairplay Awards to look forward to; there must even be some value to the improved standing it would enjoy with old-fashioned bleeding hearts like me.
There would be considerable benefits, economic and otherwise, in other words, to doing what I, and no doubt others, would regard as the right thing. And while the immediate financial penalties are obvious, particularly if you believe them capable of beating Maribor, it is at least arguable that ceding their play-off berth to Legia would be in the long-term interests of the club.
David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen’s Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938.