A PERIOD of protest has shaken English football as demonstrations of supporter strength have occurred across the country. 

Momentum has been built on the back of the scuppered Super League proposals which showed what can be achieved through collective fan action.

Demonstrations, dissent and dialogue have come in various different forms, but there have been common themes throughout which could provide at least some encouragement for the future of top-level football in England.

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of events in recent weeks has been that the biggest backlash has come not from fans of the other 14 Premier League clubs, but from the supporters of the six breakaway clubs themselves.

The owners of the six were united in their Super League collusion. Some excuses have been made for Chelsea and Manchester City, with suggestions that they were somehow forced into joining. But Roman Abramovich and the heads of the City Football Group aren’t the type to be pushed around or forced into doing something they disagree with. They are culpable too.

Just as the owners were united, so were fans in their opposition to the plans. Though there is a sense of unity, each set of supporters has a different dynamic to deal with when confronting those in charge at their respective clubs. 

Each will be hoping to achieve slightly different outcomes, but the one thing that brings them together is the determination to have more of a say in how their club is run and, in some cases, who runs it.

This is why, over the past couple of weeks, there have been varying methods of protest and different approaches from supporters when standing up to owners.

Chelsea fans generally have a favourable relationship with Abramovich, but this didn’t stop them from being actively vocal against the plans for a Super League. 

The club withdrew from it just hours after protests prior to the game against Brighton & Hove Albion which saw kick-off delayed.

Man City fans have openly supported their owners in recent years, displaying large banners thanking Sheikh Mansour and singing his name in the terraces. As a result, City fans have been the least vocal of the six, but there were a couple of banners at the League Cup final, one of which read: “Fans, football, owners. In that order.”

The response from Spirit of Shankly (SOS), the Liverpool Supporters’ Union, has been to seek increased dialogue and influence at board level rather than looking to kick out current owners, the Fenway Sports Group.

SOS met with the club’s chief executive Billy Hogan and other unnamed club representatives last Tuesday. 

“This initial consultation was positive,” read a statement from SOS. “Both parties agreed there is a need for a new structure leading to meaningful and lasting supporter engagement.”

The demands of SOS have reflected those made by other supporters’ groups, especially the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust (THST). Spurs fans have gone a step further, though, as discontent has existed for some time, and they have called for the executive board members to be replaced.

Manchester United and Arsenal, meanwhile, are pushing for new ownership altogether. 

Anyone who reads Layth Yousif’s column in the Morning Star will know that Arsenal fans want rid of current owner Stan Kroenke, while United fans have long been unhappy with the way the Glazer family have effectively used the club as a cash machine. 

This discontent remained even throughout United’s periods of success, with some going as far as to form a new fan-owned club, FC United of Manchester, in 2005.

Though they were derided and/or condemned in some quarters, the protests by Man United fans at Old Trafford last week were highly effective. They couldn’t have hoped for a better outcome as one of the biggest games in world football, Man United versus Liverpool, was postponed as a result.

Though the Old Trafford protesters were portrayed as a random rabble, this demonstration appeared to be highly co-ordinated. There were concurrent protests at the team hotels which contributed to the desired outcome, though it’s important to note that it wasn’t a protest against the players and staff.

Supporter ownership and supporter influence is largely unfamiliar territory in top-level English football.

Lower down the leagues there are up-and-coming clubs doing things differently, including the aforementioned FC United and the likes of Dulwich Hamlet and City of Liverpool FC, regularly covered in these pages.

But the dynamic at the top level of English football is different. The now much-discussed 50+1 method of fan influence, as seen in Germany, seems unrealistic and for some, undesirable.

Even the definition of supporter ownership can be blurred between voting power, membership, and actual ownership of shares.

The top clubs feel like they are too far gone for complete supporter ownership in the literal sense, but the Super League debacle showed that some kind of supporter and employee influence in non-footballing matters is now needed.

The THST summed this up well in one of their demands — part of a six-point plan outlining steps towards a new board with fan influence. 

They called on the club to “commit to full prior consultation with supporters on key non-playing/coaching decisions, and to introduce a system that requires the consent of supporters for those key decisions.”

The definition and dynamic of fan ownership and/or influence at the top level of English football will be honed in the coming months and years, but what matters at the moment is that these ideas are now being developed and discussed.

If the Super League was good for one thing, it was that it sparked English football supporters into collective and co-operative action as they look to save clubs that were already becoming increasingly distant from being lost completely.