Ferry Cross the Yangtze
Posted on 06/08/2010As we wait with bated breath for the outcome of the Liverpool takeover saga, The Daily Mail's Des Kelly hits out at Liverpool fans questioning the morality of the Chinese involved in a potential takeover bid.
It’s too late to moralise over human rights abuses just because China wants to buy a Premier League football club.It’s too late to start whining about the implications of taking cash from the Chinese Government just because some men who kick a ball about might find they have unsavoury new paymasters.
Take a look at your clothes, or at the sports shoes you are wearing. The chances are they will say ‘Made In China’ on them, just like the label on your refrigerator, on the back of your television or on half of your child’s toy collection.
China is the largest exporter in the world - and their largest export is money. We can pick and choose when their cash and trade might be acceptable, but it would be preposterously naive.
When America teetered on the brink of financial collapse, it was Chinese money that dragged the economy back from the precipice.
Our own Chancellor George Osborne said the UK’s recovery is reliant on China’s trade and investment when he went cap in hand to Beijing just eight weeks ago.
So what is he going to do now, express concern that Liverpool might pass into Chinese ownership? Don’t be ridiculous.
China already owns a considerable chunk of Canary Wharf in east London, the heart of the nation’s financial empire. So it’s meaningless to complain Britain is selling its soul. That was traded a while back, with repayment conditions.
Anyone who tries to pretend football is different and exempt from the rules of the international market has not been paying attention over the last decade.
Oddly, some are still embarrassed by their dependence on Chinese cash, if only for public relations purposes.
The Apple iPod sitting next to me, for instance, is labelled ‘Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China’, as if the thought that the gadget had been sketched in Cupertino makes a difference to workers paid less than £1 a day to bring the design to life in Shanghai. Either way, I’ll bet you bought one. Does that make you a hypocrite? Probably.
Our Premier League actively sells itself as a global product. The fact that there remains anything English about it is merely down to a quirk of geography.England might be where the matches are played (for the time being, at least) but conglomerates, governments and businesses from around the world increasingly control the process.
The Premier League has been happy to embrace oligarchs like Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, who has links directly to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
You may think he is a private investor, just as you may think he earned those billions of his without government help.
Remember the Premier League also rolled out the red carpet at Manchester City for Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister of Thailand, despite huge controversy over his involvement in human rights abuses in his homeland.
When he was sentenced on corruption charges, the Abu Dhabi United Group stepped into the void. They are the investment arm of Sheik Mansour and the royal rulers of the United Arab Emirates’ second largest federation.
If you imagine they don’t have human rights controversies in the UAE, visit a building site in Dubai or Abu Dhabi and ask the migrant workers from Pakistan for their views on the matter. Yet few complain this is ‘dirty money’.
And who do you think funded all those wonderful stadiums when Britain was waving the Union flag at the last Olympics? China is a one-party Communist state.
When you deal with China, you deal with the government somewhere along the line, end of story.
That does not excuse ongoing human rights abuses. It does not mean we should forget the horrors of Tiananmen Square.
But ethics are not something to be brought out for special occasions, like your mother’s best porcelain tea set. We either do business with China or we do not.
Twelve months ago the Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore oversaw a new TV deal that ensures live football is moved on to the Communist-run CCTV terrestrial network for maximum exposure to the 1.3bn population.
The Communist state’s TV propaganda arm will boost every club’s profile and profit. How can English football now complain China wants to spend that money on the product they have been asked to endorse?
The Premier League is merely another plaything, like a giant game of Risk, where America, China, Russia and the Arabian oil powers move their pieces around and use sport to promote their image, boost commerce and shift huge sums across international borders.
Hand-wringing about the moral consequences is futile. Yes, the Free Tibet movement might sell more T-shirts to Everton fans, but beyond that, everyone knows the Kop would happily sing Ferry Cross the Yangtze if Chinese cash helps them win the league again.
Shanghai's Liver buildings
Meanwhile, Rory Smith in The Telegraph believes the Chinese interest in buying Liverpool is not a coincidence.
It is not just the red flag with the five stars that make Liverpool and China a natural fit.Such are the funds apparently available to Kenny Huang and his mysterious backers that they might have chosen any football club in the world. They did not just happen upon Anfield, though. This is more than just chance.
True, England’s most decorated football team represent a sound commercial vehicle, an almost unrivalled investment opportunity. They are the grandest name in the country in the doldrums. By returning Liverpool to their perch, there is money to be made.
But it is more than that. Liverpool resonate in China, thanks to their prominence at the time when Chinese state television finally opened up its broadcasts to outside influences. And China resonates in Liverpool.
“Go to the waterfront in Shanghai,” says Jennie Wong, owner of Ma Bo restaurant on Nelson Street, just by the ornamental arch which represents the heart of Europe’s oldest Chinatown. “It looks just like the Liver buildings.” And parts of Liverpool, no doubt, return the favour. The city’s Chinese community is second biggest to San Francisco globally. They are fiercely proud of their identity, both local and ancestral. Little wonder the prospect of Liverpool falling under Chinese ownership is seen as a positive.
“I would feel a great sense of pride if we became a successful club on and off the pitch under Chinese ownership,” says Alex Woo, 20, a property administrator who sacrificed his Anfield season ticket in protest of Tom Hicks and George Gillett. “It would have financial advantages – merchandise sales in Asia and increased market exposure.
“Given the already strong links between China and Liverpool, and the large Chinese population in the city, I think Chinese ownership would definitely be a better fit for us than owners from, for example, the Middle East or North America. Potentially, I think it would be highly beneficial for the city, too, as I’d envisage an increase in tourism and commerce from eastern Asia.”
The concerns over Huang’s potential takeover, of course, centre on the mooted role of the Chinese government, though sources close to the China Investment Corporation, Huang’s apparent backers, dismissed reports of their involvement. Such a prospect, of course, raises the spectre of moral, rather than just economic, concerns.
“Human rights should not come in to it,” says Colin Ling, a Liverpool-supporting business consultant. “The only way to open the country up is to expose them more to the West.”