CHELSEA FC are in turmoil after the British government announced sanctions on their owner Roman Abramovich.

As reported by the Morning Star, these measures seriously affect the way the club can do business, as they are among Abramovich’s British assets to have been frozen.

The reasons given for the sanctions and support for Ukrainian people in their moment of great need are far more important than the implications on football or on a football club.

But in some ways — now more evident than ever — the game has played a part in this and is part of the discussion, as shown by its recent appearances on the front pages.

Football at the top level has for too long been conveniently ignorant of where its money is coming from — sold to the highest bidder with no questions asked.

But such direct links to a high-profile war, and one potentially dangerous on a global scale, has forced this awareness, previously limited to private meetings, to become uncomfortably public.

Just as Uefa suddenly realised Gazprom might not be the ethical private energy company they thought it was … on the other side of the coin, sponsors are withdrawing their support for Chelsea, having realised overnight the club’s owner might have been involved in something unpleasant at some point.

At the same time, Britain, having housed oligarchs for years in London and naturally, as a capital of capital, facilitated the flow of money, has now decided it wants nothing to do with them.

When listing the oligarchs sanctioned, including Abramovich, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss went as far as to say: “The blood of the Ukrainian people is on their hands. They should hang their heads in shame.”

Oligarch is a handy name for English speakers to use to denounce Russians who are doing the same thing Western capitalists have been doing for decades, even centuries.

“Oligarch” originates from a Greek word meaning “the rule of the few.”

It has become synonymous with a relatively small number of Russian capitalists who took advantage of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, buying up elements of national production on the cheap.

It could be said that “oligarch” has come to mean the few who bought Russia.

In some ways the word itself is a type of Russophobia, allowing the portrayal of new Russian capital as evil while avoiding showing Western oligarchs in the same light.

“None of our allies have yet sanctioned Abramovich,” the British government boasted, almost smugly, in its statement.

The sanctions on the Chelsea owner will have a knock-on effect on the many staff who work for the club but are not on the payroll.

They have already affected those doing freelance and casual, zero-hours type work.

In January 2015, Chelsea were the first Premier League club to guarantee workers a living wage, but the occasional nature of much of the work, on matchdays only, for example, means there is less job security.

Just as ordinary Russians are those most affected by sanctions on the country, sanctions on Chelsea will affect the lowest-paid and casual staff who could no longer have jobs.

“I can tell you now, some of the people have been partially laid off already, so they will not be working,” former Chelsea player Pat Nevin told BBC 5 Live last week.

“It sounds like a simple, easy thing to do to say ‘carry on until the end of the season,’ but when you look at the intricacies of it, it’s much, much more complicated.

“And, yes, it is worrying for Chelsea fans and whoever cares about that club, but that’s secondary.

“It’s happening for a reason to send a message to Russia, and we understand that.”

Those who do care for the club would do well to look back on a July 2021 update by MP Tracey Crouch on the Independent Fan Led Review of Football Governance, which came with the words: “We have seen strong evidence that existing protections of key club heritage items of great cultural and emotional importance to fans is not sufficient.

“The most pressing of these has been the many clubs who appear to have lost the rights to their home grounds, but much evidence was also received of concerns relating to items such as club badges, location, colours and competitions.

“I therefore intend to develop proposals with the panel to offer greater protection for these important assets through a ‘golden share’ for fans, giving veto powers over reserved items, to be held by a democratic legally constituted fan group.”

Chelsea already have a head start on this as the freehold of Stamford Bridge and club naming rights are owned by the non-profit organisation, Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC.

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) has recently put forward that the fans should be given a golden share, as mentioned in the Fan Review, as part of the club’s ownership structure post-Abramovich.

“Supporters must be involved in any conversation regarding ongoing impacts on the club and its global fan base,” the CST said in a statement on Thursday.

“The CST implores the government to conduct a swift process to minimise the uncertainty over Chelsea’s future, for supporters and for supporters to be given a golden share as part of a sale of the club.”

Though the future may appear bleak, this is an ideal opportunity for a supporters’ group to take some form of control at the club.

This all depends, however, on whether it is something the majority of Chelsea fans genuinely want and are motivated by, and if so, whether they are organised enough to push for it.

Chelsea’s away fans singing Abramovich’s name at Burnley during a moment of solidarity with Ukraine, and throughout the game at Norwich after the sanctions on their owner were revealed, suggests many are happy with the current ownership model.

It remains to be seen whether Chelsea can muster support for a golden share, from both the government and their own fan base.

It remains to be seen whether sanctions on Abramovich will benefit those in Ukraine most desperately and most immediately in need of help