WITH no action on the pitch to fill the time, the news cycle and the social-media feeds, football clubs’ actions off the pitch are being increasingly scrutinised. The different facets of clubs, away from the sporting areas, are being examined.

Several billionaire-owned sides have received criticism for placing their staff on furlough and taking advantage of the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. Due to their profile as European and world champions, Liverpool’s decision to use the scheme was met with the biggest wave of criticism and outrage.

Amid the furore was a considered open letter to Liverpool CEO Peter Moore from Liverpool supporters’ union Spirit of Shankly (SOS) which, while stating that they, and those they represent, believed the decision to be wrong, simply asked a number of questions to seek clarity on the decision.

The union had already contacted the club once it became clear there would be no football for some time, with the immediate aim of making sure non-playing staff continued to be paid.

Liverpool’s announcement last weekend raised another issue — how these staff would be paid — which was quickly addressed thanks to the organised and focused response a union can provide in such moments.

“We approached the club at the very outset of the suspension of competitions to gain their commitment to paying all non-playing staff, which to be fair, they did,” says Spirit of Shankly chair Joe Blott. 

“We also discussed the furlough issues among our committee members before any announcement was made by Liverpool. 

“When they did announce it, we were taken by surprise as there had been no inkling from them that they were going to do it. However, because of our preparation, we were mindful that we needed to get facts before responding in full. 

“Indeed, our initial response to the club, seeking answers to a series of important questions, were those we would have asked had they contacted us in the first place. 

“So consultation and engagement prior to making such decisions would simply have made more sense.”

Clubs’ decisions to furlough staff have been widely discussed from a moral standpoint, and even from political and economic angles, but it also raises the issue of how football clubs come to these decisions, the processes involved and how much say, if any, supporters have.

SOS took their name from the socialist foundations laid at Liverpool FC during the Bill Shankly era. 

The union formed in 2008, initially in response to the toxic ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but also with a set of longer-term aims which continue to be fought for to this day, with the ultimate aim being supporter ownership of Liverpool FC.

In mobilising supporters against Hicks and Gillett, ultimately leading to the sale of the club to current owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG) in 2010, SOS showed the role a supporters’ union can play in achieving certain aims, striving to ensure fans are represented in decision-making processes.

FSG, though they are far from the socialist ideals of Shankly, have been relatively receptive in comparison to other owners, but none of this would happen without pressure being applied. It is important that this pressure can turn collective aims into a clear, concentrated response.

“The voice of supporters is so critical but we are understandably a hugely diverse group and clearly not all able to contribute views to the club, so to do so in a unified and collective way is vitally important,” says Blott.

“Without the collective unity, there would be no challenge to the large-scale financial issues in football which have taken clubs like Liverpool, Blackpool and Bolton to the very brink of existence, and sadly seen the end of Bury Football Club.”

Pressure on the club from SOS has led to things like the introduction of sensory rooms for disabled fans and their carers inside stadiums, free sanitary products for supporters, price caps on away tickets to prevent the exploitation of fans and challenges to rising ticket prices for home games.

One such challenge to ticket prices, in 2016, resulted in an apology from FSG and a return to the previous pricing structure, after a plan to raise ticket prices in the Main Stand to £77 saw around 10,000 fans walk out of Anfield on the 77th minute during a game against Sunderland.

Supporters’ groups have also come together to challenge football authorities at an international level on issues such as ticket prices for European finals.

Ahead of last season’s Champions League final between Liverpool and Tottenham, Spirit of Shankly and the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust came together to push for a cap on ticket pricing, more transparency regarding ticket allocation and consumer protection around ticket repricing.

The two organisations then joined with the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust and the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust to pressure Uefa on issues including ticketing, accessibility, equality and human rights.

The result of the most recent supporter pressure at Liverpool saw Moore reply with an open letter to fans, reversing the decision to use the government’s furlough scheme and generally providing more detail on the issue.

Moore thanked SOS and a number of the city’s politicians, including Labour MP Dan Carden, for their engagement on the issue.

“While the level of contact from the club was appropriate and proportionate after our intervention, it should really have been at that level before the initial decision,” adds Blott.

“At least the club were in listening mode and it was encouraging to see our contribution acknowledged in their press release, hopefully a sign of increased levels of engagement and consultation for the future.”

Having a supporters’ union which holds the owners of a football club to account will always be vital in cases where the supporters themselves do not own the club.

This will be especially important at a time when football’s hyper-capitalist bubble is threatening to burst. In these moments it is often the fans who are eventually left in the lurch, rather than the owners.

It might be reaching a stage where clubs and football authorities would be much better off actively seeking out supporters’ views as part of the decision-making process, rather than waiting for pressure to be applied.