“EREDIVISIE CAN BECOME A MAGNET FOR INVESTORS” Originally appeared in Voetbal International on 19.08.2020 Four years ago, Isitan Gün took over 85 percent of Fortuna Sittard. The takeover was in line with the trend that more and more clubs are exchanging hands alongside players. We present the results of our research to the Turkish economist. By: Tom Knipping Isitan Gün encountered skepticism four years ago when he landed in Sittard. There were in previous years a lot of potential “rescuers” of all sorts prior to his arrival. For example, Egyptian investors once emerged who preyed on the shares of poor Fortuna. It didn't sound completely unbelievable. Mediator was Jan Gisbers, former leader of the PDM and Festina cycling teams. All sections were mobilized, the commissioners turned the lights green, and fans were already informed when the whole plan turned out to be a mirage. Later, Sittard was for some time under the spell of a Moroccan who, in his own words, was operating on behalf of a Brazilian party, which was going to boost Fortuna in lightspeed. He screened with sponsors in Qatar and the arrival of seven Nigerians. For weeks, the desperate club management chased the Brazilian dream. Only when payment deadlines were missed and the intermediary stopped answering the phone, the Board gave up. It turned out that they had gone into the sea with a notorious fibber who had once reported at Telstar as co-owner of a player who was suddenly dead, but just seemed to be alive. With a fictitious bus line from Hong Kong, an Australian dreamer, a Turk who retired and an American fake investor, the sales attempts in the neighboring municipalities of Kerkrade and Maastricht did not turn out much better. South Limburg seemed like a Bermuda triangle for gold miners, attention seekers and dubious types. So yes, when some Isitan Gün from Istanbul came forward, it was still a matter of “seeing is believing”. Four years after his admission, the conclusion is that it could still work in South Limburg; with a foreign owner. Fortuna Sittard is experiencing a spectacular revival under the Turk. The Limburgers were promoted to the Eredivisie and now survive there two years in a row. For the 1 first time since the Mark van Bommel era, players are again being sold for amounts with six zeros before the decimal point. Perr Schuurs, Mark Diemers and Amadou Ciss brought in millions. With the arrival of a second investor, the Turkish TV tycoon Acun Ilicali (see box), the club aims to take the next step up. " The idea is that he becomes a co-owner", says Isitan Gün , "so that we can further develop the club.” Takeovers such as Fortuna Sittard are in vogue, because more and more Dutch clubs are falling into the hands of shareholders, although the type of investor and the constructions they choose differ widely. "There are many possible models and structures " , says Gün. “If you follow international developments, it is striking that ‘sports washing’ has been added as a popular model. These are the owners from China and the Gulf region who buy clubs for public relations purposes. The motive is to polish their image through football.” During the survey in the Eredivisie and Kitchen Champion Division, it was noticeable that the predominantly positive attitude towards investors is at odds with the negative attitude after the takeover of Vitesse ten years ago. “It is not surprising that more and more clubs are exchanging their traditional structure with a place for shareholders. Football has become a business. The question is: who pays the price if something goes wrong in the end? It's all about accountability and the capacity to ensure continuity. Administrators in associations often only sit there for a short time and mainly for their own honor and glory, without running any economic risk themselves. Their only interest is instant sporting success. So, they keep the credit with sponsors and fans, or so they can win elections. They will not necessarily care about the development of the organization or financial structure. As long as trophies are earned, they are celebrated, no matter what burden they may leave behind. That leads to populist directors in football and dramatic numbers. Until 2012, European clubs lost more than a billion per season. That could no longer be sustained. As a result, many clubs became privately owned. Meanwhile, the red numbers have been turned into black. These two are closely connected.” Gün also teaches at the Football Business Academy based in Genève. Although there are enough success stories, there are also quite a few mistakes to note. Various clubs went bankrupt abroad and in their own country the Chinese and Georgian owners became involved in lawsuits against their own clubs at both ADO Den Haag and Vitesse. At Roda, a film-worthy script unfolded starring a Russian ex-diver and a Mexican charlatan. It often seems like a gamble. “That does not have to be,”, says Gün, formulating some checks that increase the chances of a happy marriage. “Every club should ask itself four questions.” 2 1. Do the interests match? Gün: "The key question is whether the interests of the owner parallel with the interests of the club. This is often the case, but there is currently a worrying trend: the multi-club ownership is on the rise. Several clubs under one owner or interest. Is that desirable? I do not think so.” The City Football Group and Red Bull are well-known examples. But AS Monaco also opened a branch, for example, by buying Cercle Brugge. “If an owner has several clubs, his interests deviate from the interests of the supporters. After all, the goal is not to get the maximum return from all clubs. In fact, it must be prevented that they all reach the top and compete with each other. Take an investment group that owns clubs in the Premier League and at the highest level of Belgium, but also one in the second division of Spain. As a fan of that Belgian or Spanish club, I wouldn't be happy about that. Their clubs serve the flagship. This development does not seem to me to be good for football.” Until last year, it was prohibited in the Netherlands to sell control to investors who already had clubs elsewhere. In the meantime, the KNVB has adjusted the rules and super groups are also allowed to buy here. "All the more reason to understand their intentions. I've met some owners of such groups and they are very open about their intentions. The fans don't interest them at all. It is purely business, where the head office will always be central.” 2. Does the owner study the culture? Every fan's nightmare is that the owner changes the club colors and adds a dragon to the logo, as happened at Cardiff City after a Malaysian takeover. “It still happens regularly that an owner thinks he can start with an empty page and rewrite the history. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Especially in the lower divisions of England that went wrong a number of times.” Thus, Portsmouth became a hub for eccentric owners. First landed in the port city a controversial Israeli Russian who in no time after the acquisition left. Afterwards, the club fell into the hands of successively a sheik from Dubai, a Nepalese from Hong Kong and a Russian banker who was arrested. The club now plays on the third level. In addition to the extreme examples, considerable cultural differences also came to the surface at Manchester United. The American owners see the club mainly as an investment object and run it ultra-business. They are concerned with the prices of the shares and that has been causing 3 friction with the supporters for fifteen years. This American culture is increasingly gaining a foothold in European football. They already own twelve clubs in the five top leagues. Gün: “The United States is a saturated market. There are four major sports. All shares are taken already, so they end up in Europe, where you can become the owner of a sports team with a smaller investment. In the United States, the minimum check you need to write to own a club is more than 250 million. In Belgium, you can find a football club for ten million. I suspect that the Netherlands will also come into the picture in the coming years.” In Germany there are regulations to safeguard the culture. An investor may buy up to 49.9 percent. Although some clubs are privately owned, foreign parties and vague fortune seekers are kept out. Red Bull is the only international player in the Bundesliga. “There is no right or wrong. That 50+1 rule is easy to defend. But I don't think it's wrong in the Netherlands, either. It's liberal, but with controls. As a result, a number of owners have already been rejected. The checks also force the owner to immerse himself in the culture. This seems healthier than for example in Belgium, where it is extremely relaxed. It leads to dubious competition, because there are scandals every year.” 3. Does the owner have knowledge and experience? Club bosses regularly appear who have earned their money in a completely different industry. Think of the Indian chicken producers who bought Blackburn Rovers, but also of a regional investor such as crane operator Frans van Seumeren who lost a lot of money in his first years because he had no experience in the football jungle.