- Farhad Moshiri (including share purchases) has committed more than £800 million to his ownership of Everton. The club’s issues have not been one of lack of resources. They are down to poor leadership, poor decision making and poor execution. Aggregate losses to June 2021 (the date of the last accounts) are £356 million. We estimate further losses of £72 million for 2021/22 - accounts yet to be published.
This raises an interesting philosophical (and practical) question that applies across various sports: "Where does an owner's obligation begin and end?"
If they're willing to pony up the cash, do they have the right to drive the whole thing into the ground? Functionally, we as a society say 'yes'. Moshiri can drive the club into a financial abyss, just as Musk can send Twitter's share price to zero, without legal repercussions. Stupidity is not a crime. It often correlates with an inability to perceive where the lines are, when it comes to criminal conduct, but in and of itself stupidity is not illegal. If Moshiri or Musk are willing to bear the financial consequences of mismanagement, we don't throw them into the clink or compel them to divest.
In practice, we seem to feel differently about the issue. We implicitly think that the owner of a sports team, or other business of cultural significance, has some responsibilities to those who came before that built the business into what it is today. We perceive them as stewards - individuals or small groups whose ownership is a temporary state of somewhat arbitrary financial circumstance - and believe that they have an obligation to manage the business well for the benefit of current players, former players and fans whose physical, monetary and emotional investment put the club into its present position.
If this is the case, obviously the present statutory situation will not do. We have people like Donald Sterling and Dan Snyder who banked billions of dollars worth of franchise appreciation during lengthy spells of incompetent ownership in which they engaged extensively in socially unacceptable behavior. We don't want to be associated with these people, we don't want them tarnishing our franchise/club and we don't want them functionally bilking us.
These people obviously won't self-regulate. Calling them out doesn't work. They don't listen to us, because they don't care about us. They care about dollar signs, or the local currency equivalent. The only possible remedies for the situation are therefore legal and rules-based.
So: what should we be doing collectively about the situation? Are we the ones in the wrong here? If not, what laws or league rules should we be passing to put the onus where it belongs? What should the standards for something like a recall election be? Who should have the right to participate in such a plebiscite?