Why English football drama smacks eerily like land resettlement in Zimbabwe

Football is a weird sport.

That is because it creates some weird tribal system with irrational commitment. A man can change his religion, sexual orientation and political ideology but rarely if never their football club.

Recently, in England, there has been call for ownership structures to be revised over ownership of football clubs. They want that 50% +1 ownership as found in places like Germany. As it stands, private ownership runs football in the UK.

We, at 3-mob.com, are not going to go through the merits or otherwise of the alternative ownership structures.

But what we will mention is how the UK is now running down the path that has resulted in sanctioning Zimbabwe (yeah they call it targeted, but trying to business with a company in the UK and see what happens).

They call it rule of law and that respect for private property.

The teams are owned by individuals and organisations who have come in with real money, investing in real property in the country. They have improved real estate, improved the status of Premier League by bringing in some of the best talent from all over the world.

Now, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and some across the political line have talked about changes to the ownership of football clubs in the UK. Because of the radar-less political structure of the opposition, what he says will go. Add to that political, limited interests of the design of government and you end up with self-serving ideology.

It is not self-serving because it is a reflection of the myopic political bile and the interests of distorted commitments such a those of places like Fleet Street.

It is that the global north defines participation of what the old world defined as ‘third world’, on the basis of respect for property rights. Any suggestion departing from such has been placed under grossly punitive actions.

On Sunday 2 May, 2021, a football match was stopped because British fans of a privately owned football club would not allow it to go ahead.

In June 1996, Lynda Chalker, British secretary of state for international development, said her country could not support a land resettlement system that did not recognise property rights on the basis of willing buyer, willing seller. A year later, her successor, on a more nationalist tone, said the UK had no obligation to Zimbabwe, throwing the Lancashire House agreement out the window, saying the opposite.

That you said was not something bonded to is where we are now. Whether the UK football fans like it or not, copious amounts of money have been invested in the game resulting in some of the best paid talents imported into the country.

Clare Short argued that if Zimbabwe went down a path of reclaiming its identity as a black nation whose land was owned by its dispensation, it would no longer attract investment and output would be affected.

For the UK, if it continues down the path of individuals and adverse groupings driving out investment, where will it end?

And will someone sanction them like they did Zimbabwe?