Chelsea’s talk of ‘sporting integrity’ is tone deaf after 19 years of Roman Abramovich-funded success

There is a paragraph of Chelsea’s statement, which asked for their FA Cup quarter-final against Middlesbrough to be held behind closed doors, which really does bear repeating.

“It is with extreme reluctance that we are asking the FA board to direct that the game be played behind closed doors for matters of sporting integrity. Chelsea FC recognises that such an outcome would have a huge impact on Middlesbrough and its supporters, as well as our own fans who have already bought the limited number of tickets that were sold before the licence was imposed, but we believe this is the fairest way of proceeding in the current circumstances.”

So, you want to talk about “sporting integrity” now, do you? This club spent hundreds of millions of pounds on players by relying upon the wealth of its multi-billionaire owner to shortcut a route to competing at the very top end of domestic and European football.

In Abramovich’s first season at the club, they accounted for roughly 40 per cent of the transfer fee spend of the 20 Premier League clubs. Were they worried about distorting sporting integrity then?

More from Football

FA to hold urgent meeting as Chelsea ask for Middlesbrough tie to be held behind closed doors15 March, 2022After 72 years as a league club, Scunthorpe United have become a club where dreams are dead15 March, 2022Relying on Ronaldo is nothing to celebrate - Man Utd's Champions League hopes look doomed15 March, 2022

Were they worried about sporting integrity when Chelsea posted cumulative losses of £447m during Abramovich’s first five years in charge, bailed out by an uber-wealthy oligarch? Did their 86-game unbeaten home record between February 2004 and October 2008 feel a little uncomfortable in that context, because they had created a vast financial gap between themselves and many other Premier League clubs? Of course not.

That’s all broadly fine – it happens in a game that welcomes rampant capitalism and rampant consumerism. But now that period of spending is over because that owner has been sanctioned for its links to the war in Ukraine. Chelsea are not being directly punished; that misses the point. They are collateral damage in the actions of their owner that have been addressed by the UK’s Government.

In April last year we learned that six Premier League clubs were involved in a European Super League breakaway attempt that effectively sought to ring fence their wealth while aiming to remain in the English domestic league system.

They extricated themselves from that plan, but only after supporters protested. Those supporters were not consulted; nor were the other 14 Premier League clubs or the rest of England’s football pyramid. Were they worried about the sporting integrity of the Premier League had they been successful?

More on Sports Comment

Relying on Ronaldo is nothing to celebrate - Man Utd's Champions League hopes look doomed15 March, 2022The days of sportswashing are over at Chelsea - but not in English football10 March, 2022Opinion | Women’s boxing is still in the shadows, but the Commonwealth Games could help change that08 March, 2022

And if having Middlesbrough supporters at the FA Cup tie but not a full away end ruins the sporting integrity of the match, just wait until they see the gap between the two clubs’ wage bills. Just a shame that they and Chesterfield weren’t on a level playing field in the third round, given the vast gap between the broadcasting revenues they make.

These are hyperbolic arguments, but it is a hyperbolic statement. The use of “sporting integrity” appears deeply loaded, unwittingly or otherwise. It will emotionally charge a section of their supporters who believe this is some unjust plot to erode the club’s good name. Unfortunately for them, that name has already been besmirched by association with Abramovich.

I have some sympathy with Chelsea supporters, the ones who attend home and away matches and who were never cheerleaders for Abramovich’s ownership and followed the club before he was there and will after he leaves. They are being caught in the middle of a messy PR fight.

But then, sadly, that is the reality. Their club is paying the price – how high we do not yet know – for their success because of who bankrolled it. Supporters and members of staff may suffer consequently; it is OK to feel some sympathy for them. But to maintain that sympathy, the club must pick their battles and read the room. Now is a foolish, tone-deaf time to make pleas of “sporting integrity” given the last 20 years, let alone the last two weeks.

from Football | News and analysis from the Premier League and beyond | iNews https://ift.tt/tdPIyKx