Something is stirring in Anfield: Elite Premier League football and localism
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Feature
Local Economy
Something is stirring in 2014, Vol. 29(3) 195–212
! The Author(s) 2014
Anfield: Elite Premier Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
League football and localism DOI: 10.1177/0269094214530362
lec.sagepub.com
Alan Southern
University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract
The Localism Act 2011 has provided the right for community organizations to nominate local
buildings to be listed as an Asset of Community Value. In England a number of inner urban
neighbourhoods host elite Premier League football stadia, their physical presence often visible
from afar. Two in particular stand out, both recently listed as an Asset of Community Value, the
globally renown football clubs of Liverpool FC and their Anfield stadium and Manchester United
and Old Trafford. Three aspects of this are noteworthy. First, the capability of a community group
to organize and agitate in such a way as to ensure a local asset is listed. Second, the extent to
which the legislation is providing substantive rights for community activists thereby challenging
those who would suggest localism is more rhetoric than real. Third, by reviewing a single case of
Anfield, we can see how the role of elite professional football club in a low-income neighbour-
hood can be challenged for the benefit of local residents as plans for social and economic
development are shaped.
Keywords
Anfield, Asset of Community Value, Big Society, community activism, Community Right to Bid,
Liverpool, localism, Localism Act 2011, neighbourhood regeneration, Premier League football,
sport
Introduction provides the basis for this to happen. In
May 2013, the Liverpool FC Supporters
That a community in England might bid to Union (LSU) and the Manchester United
own a football ground that hosts a profes- Supporters Trust (MUST) separately
sional football club appears ambitious. applied under the Act to designate the
That the football team involved is an inter-
nationally renown elite club with a global
Corresponding author:
brand and multi million pound annual rev- Alan Southern, Management School, University of
enue base may imply that this ambition is Liverpool, 126 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, L69 3ZH, UK.
far fetched. Yet the Localism Act 2011 Email: Alan.Southern@liverpool.ac.uk
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015
196 Local Economy 29(3)
Anfield stadium in North Liverpool, and traditional notion of community is far from
the Old Trafford stadium in Trafford as clear.
Assets of Community Value. And they This article provides a case study of the
were both successful in their application.1 LSU and their application to designate the
A football stadium may look like a local Anfield stadium as an Asset of Community
asset but why this is occurring now is Value (ACV). The Coalition Government
worthy of consideration. has argued that the Localism Act allows
A community owning assets intuitively local communities to step forward and to
appears to be a progressive development be empowered and the Department for
although acquisition is difficult and laden Communities and Local Government
with complexity. Community assets can be (DLGC) has reported wide-ranging interest
tangible or may be more subjective. Physical in the ACV process. It appears that an
assets such as schools and public spaces and opportunity has been spotted for a wider
buildings such as public houses or a com- base of football club supporters to engage
munity centre may fall under some type of in the politics surrounding community
community ownership and can provide a development and Anfield is an area ripe
focal point as a local service with an identi- for community politics. However, the legis-
fiable social and cultural amenity (Wilks- lation throws up questions about the cap-
Heeg, 2002). Other types of asset may ability of communities to organize beyond
include the work of volunteers in third- what is often seen as localism rhetoric, par-
sector organizations, perhaps credit unions ticularly in a city like Liverpool, where resi-
or more sophisticated local exchange trad- dents face local authority financial cuts of
ing schemes and intangible assets may be up to 56%.2
the skills and knowledge of individual com-
munity members (Kretzmann and Localism and the ‘ACV’
McKnight, 1996). Community organiza-
tions even with limited resources often Under the Coalition ideas about how com-
have a broad view of their asset base munities should be involved in local deci-
(Aiken et al., 2011) and are frequently sion making have manifest in a number of
involved in organizing them for develop- ways, with the Localism Act 2011 being the
ment (Green and Haines, 2012). most significant.3 There has been concern
A community might mobilize to secure that the debate around localism has fallen
ownership of an asset that can link with a into a rhetorical mix not only espoused by
wider agenda, for instance in addressing Conservatives and Liberal Democrats but
poor housing or poverty. In this way, the also echoed by some in the Labour Party.
community can overcome the difficulties Bunyan (2012) suggests that a common
associated with a lack of involvement in thread exists from New Labour communi-
decision making and seek to leverage in tarianism to the Big Society, an argument
other types of resource. When community picked up by Hancock et al. (2012) who
activism is able to provide a more concerted recognize how David Cameron adopted
force other stakeholders, the local authority the language of community to shape the
for example, are often required to take into Conservative approach to a new localized
account the views of the organizers political project. According to the critique
(Newman and Dale, 2005) and this can pro- offered by Levitas (2012) the Big Society
vide a platform for capacity building within provides a schematic from which austerity
the community. How the application shown is imposed, no less than a debt collection
here made by football supporters fits into a service for mobile capital. Academics have
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015
Southern 197
tended to be scathing about the rhetoric legislation such as the General Disposal
associated with the Coalition’s attempt to Consent (England) 2003 for which
colonize the localism agenda, particularly Community Asset Transfer was feasible.
that of the Conservative group. Yet the proposition contained within the
While there may be, as Bunyan (2012) Review focused on assets transferred from
claims, a common theme maintained under the public sector and emphasized the work
the Coalition, there is a difference from the of professionals to enable local community
previous administration in the way commu- organizations to aspire to locally owned and
nity has been problematized. For Hancock managed assets. Change would be required
et al. (2012) the language of the welfare in the culture of the public sector to provide
ghetto binds together place, people and organizational support and enable financial
poverty to define spatial and social prob- transition of assets to communities, and this
lems, while Bentley and Pugalis (2013) would have to be associated with a change
argue that localism is about decentraliza- in culture of communities who should seek
tion, action against bureaucracy, increased to be more business like.
local control over public finance with In 2011, the Minister of State for
greater levels of local accountability and Decentralization Greg Clark explained
public scrutiny. And there is a greater how the Localism Act would achieve a
emphasis on enterprise, economic deregula- shift in power away from government and
tion and political devolution (Dawson, towards local people meaning less red tape
2012). Southern (2013) who also sees a and bureaucracy, new freedoms for local
link between New Labour and current authorities and empowered communities
Coalition ideas goes further to suggest that (DCLG, 2011b). The belief that commu-
the localism debate is now an ideological nities were losing local amenities (the idyllic
contest between Blue Labour and Red village post office or local pub often cited)
Tory with profound affects upon commu- led to Part 5 Chapter 3 of the Localism Act
nity regeneration. It is here in the discourse 2011 giving the Community Right to Bid.
of localism that we find communities who Accompanying this was the Community
suffer from failures of the market. As Right to Build and the Community Right
Levitas (2012: 322) strongly argues, under- to Challenge providing an indication of
way is a ‘destruction of our collective pro- how the term community right came to be
vision against risk’ and an overwhelming appropriated. Levitas (2012) sees in this a
reality of work being displaced by the means by which organized state services
unpaid in the provision of services previ- will become the responsibility of under-
ously provided by the state. resourced volunteers during a time of
The work of the 2007 Quirk Review unprecedented public sector cutbacks.
(2007) may be seen as part of a continuum The Community Right to Bid follows
about community and communitarianism after a community group has applied to
that has influenced contemporary policy register a local ACV. In some cases through
on localism. The Review called for more an intermediary, the state will provide fund-
detailed guidance to support asset transfer, ing for a community to organize to apply
for greater access to expert advice such as for listing. If a successful ACV listing is
that provided by specialist financial inter- obtained then the local authority is respon-
mediaries and the promotion of bottom up sible for maintaining a list of community
processes to facilitate transfer to commu- assets. The technicalities of this are such
nities. The Review was keen to encourage that a community group or parish council
more asset transfer through existing has a right to bid and to make a nomination
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015198 Local Economy 29(3)
for a community asset to be listed. An indi- (September 2013). As if to illustrate the
vidual cannot make an application, nor can momentum from this legislation, that some-
the local authority and some types of land thing was stirring, a further five were classed
and residential properties are excluded from as ACV in November 2013, non-league
being listed. The local authority is charged grounds Prescot Cables, Stockport County
with making a decision within eight weeks and Halifax Town and Championship club
of the application. When listed, the asset stadia Leicester City and Birmingham City.
remains on the register for up to five years Furthermore, by March 2014, less than 12
whereon the asset can then be renominated. months from the first listing, supporters at
The owners of the property that is registered Blackpool, Bury, Charlton, Derby County,
as an ACV are able to appeal and could Hereford, Swindon and Tranmere Rovers
even make a case to claim compensation had also been successful in nominating
should they be able to show that the value their respective stadia as ACV. From the
of the asset has been reduced because of communitarianism of Amitai Etzioni and
listing. the resulting pragmatism of the Blair-led
To meet the criteria of being listed, the New Labour project to the ideological
asset must be land or a building that previ- shift under Big Society localism, recent
ously or in situ, does further the ‘social well- legislation has enabled organized football
being or social interests of the local supporters to draw on the language of com-
community’ (Sandford, 2012: 3). When the munity and legitimately engage in local
ACV is designated, the owner has a Right politics.
to Review normally within 56 days of the
notice to list. Should the asset be put up for Community assets (and football)
sale by the owner the Community Right to in the community
Bid comes into play and a six-week interim
period is enacted in which the community The question of why and how this has
organization can set out and express its occurred extends beyond the literature
interest by putting in a non-binding pro- relating sport and locality to take into
posal to purchase the asset. A six-month account community, assets and activism.
moratorium follows to allow the commu- Ideas about sport in regeneration are often
nity group to put together a bid to attempt raised as a response to social exclusion (see
to purchase the asset. As Sandford (2012) Kelly, 2010; Reid, 2013; Tacon, 2007) and
notes, no right for the community group the notion of local economic opportunity
to buy the asset exists, only to bid. ‘This from sports stadia or events remains power-
means that in some instances the local com- ful (cf. Baade and Dye, 1990; Crompton,
munity bid may not be the successful one as Lee and Shuster, 2001; Lee and Taylor,
the owner can, at the end of the morator- 2005; Madden, 2006). The wide range of
ium, sell to whomever they choose and at sociological and cultural analysis concerned
whatever price’ (Sandford, 2012: 4). with football governance (Breitbarth and
In early October 2013, the football sta- Harris, 2008; Kennedy, 2012) has also
dium of Blackburn Rovers became the sev- included work on neoliberalism and the
enth football ground to be designated an commodification of the game (Kennedy
ACV. The previous six were Oxford and Kennedy, 2007; Sondaal, 2013) and
United (listed in May 2013), non-League supporter behaviour (Warner, 2011).
Nuneaton Town (June 2013), Manchester Equally, the emergence of supporter
United (July 2013), Liverpool (August organizing as a social movement is worthy
2013), Ipswich Town and Dulwich Hamlet of attention although greater space is
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 199
afforded elsewhere for this purpose adds to the pathology of communities who
(Millward, 2012; Williams, 2012; Williams are regarded as both cause and outcome of
and Hopkins, 2011) with a similar analysis the problems they experience. Such lan-
made of the movement called Keeping guage may serve a purpose for local institu-
Everton In Our City (KEIOC, see tions and professionals who can make a
Fitzpatrick, 2013).4 To specifically under- greater claim for intervention and call for
stand the historic working class embedded deployment of scarce resources precisely
character of professional football within the because of the image of negativity sur-
city of Liverpool, of Everton FC and rounding the community. An alternative
Liverpool FC, see Kennedy and Collins discourse would emphasize resources that
(2006) who make reference to the sectarian- are available in a community rather than
ism and politics that seemed to couple focus solely on local problems (Kretzmann
together the two sets of supporters and and McKnight, 1996; Page-Adams and
clubs. Sherraden, 1997).
The relevance of this literature useful as it These different views present a dilemma
is in a contextual sense is of secondary for community organizers. According to
importance to the main argument developed Saegert (2006) there is a divide between
in this article. The pursuit of ACV listing by those who believe in social capital bonding,
LSU is explained here as an emergence of a who would prioritize intangible community
particular type of community activism. This assets, and those who would see that orga-
is not mediated through a type of ‘football in nizing and agitation is needed to enable ‘dis-
the community’ principle but is essentially enfranchised communities to make demands
about the leverage garnered from a piece of on the existing power structure though con-
legislation introduced by the Coalition frontational actions’ (Saegert, 2006: 276).
Government. LSU became active locally For Newman and Lake (2006) this divide
and attempted to claim legitimacy over a categorizes those who once called for greater
particular community asset as part of their levels of democratic participation from those
constitutional standing while in the back- who now work to replace social service pro-
ground there remained the larger matter of vision. The deficiency in the arguments of
football governance. Designation of Anfield those who give prominence to community
as an ACV has been a practical output from resource building would be seen in the failure
a piece of Coalition legislation achieved of their effort to translate organizing into
through a particular type of organizing. political agitation and wider societal trans-
It is too early to assess to what extent this formation (DeFilippis, Fisher and Shragge,
legislation might form part of a planned 2006). Yet this critical approach, while able
response to the problems that are faced in to identify the restrictions of community
low-income communities. Adjacent to the asset building, limits the imagination
Anfield stadium, other separate initiatives required to understand the possibilities for
include an attempt to create an Anfield community politics, particularly the notion
Neighbourhood Forum and the establish- of not giving up on community development
ment of a cooperative and community and securing control of local economic
land trust. These are relevant because they resources in the way articulated by those
too suggest the emergence of alternative such as Gibson-Graham, Cameron and
organizing to that previously established in Healy (2013).
the Anfield and Breckfield wards and in part In the complex theory of community
are a response to the constant negative dis- development, the emergence of football sup-
course about Anfield. The term deprivation porters organized as community groups has
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015200 Local Economy 29(3)
broader connotations. Supporters Direct, a supporters because of the perceived threat
Community Benefit Society that works to to the clubs financial position. Should
help football supporter involvement in the the owners of the Kassam Stadium wish to
sport, believe the Localism Act 2011 offers sell the stadium then only because of ACV
huge opportunities for supporters trusts. listing would OxVox have an opportunity to
They argue that ‘there is considerable bid to purchase it. As welcome a decision as
scope for football stadia to be considered this may be there is still some way to go
as assets of community value’ (Rolph, before the value of a football club is realized
undated: 5) and that supporters trusts for the local Oxford community.
should organize to position themselves to Of the football club stadia to be listed two
nominate stadia for ACV listed status and stand out from the rest. Manchester United
be legally constituted to enable a bid to pur- and Liverpool FC are hosted in two of the
chase should the opportunity arise. Yet this most iconic global football grounds accord-
approach may be lined with problems for ing to Martin Cloake (2013). With a revenue
both supporters and local community. and average home attendance, respectively,
Football supporters have begun to agi- of some E400 m and 75,000 and E230 m and
tate and get involved in community politics 45,000, these two operate on a different scale
enabled by the Act. For Supporters Direct, to others and both clubs have a global brand
this is primarily about football governance (see Deloitte Sports Business Group, 2013).
rather than community development, In the nomination made by MUST, they
although the two issues have overlapped. argue that the stadium is a focus for com-
Outside interests, that is owners of football munity pride, contributes to a sense of com-
clubs or their stadia (the two can be separ- munity identity and provides local people
ate) may function in a way that threatens with an inclusive social environment and
the stability of the football club, whose local businesses with increased opportu-
demise can impact on the local community. nities to trade. They set out their case by
Supporters Direct argue that the Localism stating
Act 2011 is the first piece of legislation to The Old Trafford Stadium is crucial in
recognize that a football club has social and enabling Manchester United Football
economic impact although it is not strong Club to deliver this social value and com-
enough to prevent poor (football club) own- munity benefit through sporting and com-
ership (Supporters Direct representative munity activities, in that the Club needs a
interview with author, May 2013). suitable home to host its football matches.
The Kassam Stadium hosts of Oxford Listing the Old Trafford football stadium
United was the first to be listed after a nom- as a Community Asset would mean that in
ination from the supporters trust OxVox. A any circumstance where The Stadium’s
representative of Supporters Direct claimed current owner were to look to dispose of
it, the community would have the oppor-
there were two aspects of this listing that
tunity to secure the Football Club’s future.
were significant. First it ‘smoked out the
(MUST, 2013: 2)
views of the owners on the role of the sta-
dium’ and second it supported the notion of MUST adopting the role of community
the club’s presence (manifest in the physical guardian make the same assumption as
building) having a social value for the local Supporters Direct in equating the presence
community and a broader civic pride for the of the football club and stadium with bene-
area (interview with the author, May 2013). fit for the community.
In this instance, the owners of the stadium This is as yet, an unchallenged assump-
have proven to be unpopular with club tion that the organizing supporters act on
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 201
behalf of the wider community. According 2006 and has included meetings with com-
to Supporters Direct while MUST and LSU munity organisations in Anfield. A joint trip
operate more as stakeholders rather than involving the representatives from the RSL,
representatives of the community, they pro- local community and University to the US
vide a model of inclusivity in the way they in 2007 considered housing-led regeneration
are run and in the way they set out their and the placement of a University employee
nomination. This is an interesting perspec- was funded through a Knowledge Transfer
tive on the capability of football supporters Partnership in the Anfield offices of the RSL
acting collectively in a community to influ- (Engelsman and Southern, 2010). An add-
ence political and economic decisions about itional feature for this article is that two
the neighbourhood and is explored further telephone interviews took place with a rep-
in the next section by examining the LSU resentative from Supporters Direct, and
nomination and listing of the Anfield sta- email exchange was undertaken to clarify
dium as an ACV. the work of MUST in successfully designat-
ing Old Trafford as an ACV with a leading
The supporters union and the representative of that organisation.
listing of Anfield stadium The football club with an international
reputation is located in the heart of the com-
This case is part of a protracted narrative munity, while the emergence of the LSU is a
about a distressed community consistently recent phenomenon (Williams, 2012). The
reminded how it is in need of regeneration. context of club and community has received
Anfield is an inner urban area in part of a attention from the national press (see the
city that has suffered from deindustrializa- work of David Conn in The Guardian for
tion and the restructuring of maritime example) not least because for some time
employment and port trade (see Figure 1). the club has held plans to construct a new
The work for this article has been derived stadium. When in the late 1990s the club
from a broader piece of research that has announced plans to redevelop the stadium,
looked at regeneration in North Liverpool it led to a response from the local community
and Anfield (Engelsman and Southern, and a local plan that argued for greater
2010; Johnstone, Southern and Taylor, social and economic opportunity and stabil-
2000; Southern, 2009, 2011, forthcoming). ity (Anfield/Breckfield Community Steering
Interviews with representatives from Group, 2002). Other local stakeholders, such
Liverpool City Council regeneration offi- as local RSLs and city council, have been
cers, with officers from a local and promin- successful in gaining funding to reinvigorate
ent Resident Social Landlord (RSL), with the physical neighbourhood and provide ini-
the economic development unit of the tiatives related to education, training, health
Mayor’s Office, Liverpool Vision, with the and crime. Liverpool had a dedicated
Liverpool Supporters’ Union and KEIOC Housing Market Renewal Initiative
took place during the period 2010 to 2013 (HMRI) from 2003 and parts of Anfield
and are used in this work. benefited from this scheme. In fact many
Interviews with a local Anfield school projects seen in the Anfield area were typical
and social enterprise, along with organisa- of those in inner urban wards particularly
tions adjacent to the Anfield and Breckfield during the last Labour administration
wards and with those who have a wider (Beatty et al., 2010) but in reality lessons
remit on economic development have have been drawn from urban policy in the
taken place. Work with the RSL referred city of Liverpool for a longer time
to in this article has been ongoing since (Meegan, 2003).
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015202 Local Economy 29(3)
Figure 1. The Anfield and Breckfield wards in North Liverpool.
In the first part of the 20th century, wards and the nearby Everton ward as
Anfield was regarded as a more appealing being among the most deprived neighbour-
suburb of Liverpool, while in the immediate hoods in England. How areas like Anfield
post-war period employment opportunities shift over time from a narrative of respect-
were readily available on the waterfront, on ability to something of a discourse of patho-
local industrial estates and in the city centre, logical intent has been well documented
all in close proximity. At this time, if not (cf. Harvey, 1973; Jacobs, 2002).
quite an affluent neighbourhood, Anfield In their more recent analysis, Ellis and
was a sought-after residential area hosting Henderson (2013) note that 60% of
the well-kept Victorian Stanley Park. Close Anfield remains in the most deprived
to the stadium was a stock of reasonably 10% of areas in England, with concomitant
maintained council homes that provided indices relating to lower life expectancy,
housing for the post-war family.5 Yet from more incapacity benefit claimants, poor
the late 1970s, Anfield and Breckfield wards health, poor educational attainment and
began to suffer from ‘falling populations, child poverty. And in spite of more than
areas of dilapidated pre-1919 housing 40 million invested into the area through
stock . . . a weak local economy . . . and dis- the Anfield/Breckfield HMRI, the local
connection from the city’s areas of prosper- housing market has remained dysfunctional
ity’ (Anfield/Breckfield Community particularly with a number of vacant prop-
Steering Group, 2002: 3). So much so that erties held by Liverpool FC and by absentee
by the end of the 20th century, the Indices landlords near to the football stadium (see
of Deprivation were recording the two Figure 2).
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 203
Figure 2. Housing adjacent to the Anfield stadium (refer to Figure 1 for exact location).
In this context of decline Liverpool FC By 2003, and coinciding with the start of
reversed their previous position and the HMRI, the club had managed to pacify
announced in 2000 that they intended to local residents and a formal planning appli-
build a new football stadium in Stanley cation was submitted for a new stadium. At
Park, within 100 m of their existing the same time, the then majority owner of
ground. Despite the club claiming that the the club pursued new investment amid con-
investment of some 150 million would be cerns that the costs of a new stadium,
pivotal to the regeneration of Anfield, it led believed to be necessary in terms of sporting
to a reaction from the local community who competitiveness, would be prohibitive
raised a number of fundamental objections, (Williams and Hopkins, 2011). This was
not least their lack of involvement in shap- confirmed by the North West
ing the plans of the club and city council Development Agency who were apprehen-
(Anfield/Breckfield Community Steering sive about construction delays after previ-
Group, 2002). ously committing a grant of 9 million to
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015204 Local Economy 29(3)
match European Objective I funds. Against counterpart KEIOC, the two groups
this background, early in 2007, new invest- launched a campaign for a football quarter
ment was confirmed, and Liverpool FC that made a case for housing improvement,
changed ownership as US-based Tom physical enhancement, better transport
Hicks and George Gillett, Jr were infrastructure and a greater focus on sus-
introduced. tainability. KEIOC and LSU outlined how
In less than 12 months from the change the football clubs who ‘are deeply rooted in
in ownership in January 2008, Liverpool a sense of place’ had created the city’s
Supporters’ Union had been formed, ini- global sporting profile which in turn contin-
tially in response to the financial threat ued to benefit the local economy (KEIOC
posed to the club by owners Hicks and and SOS, 2011: 6). This campaign to estab-
Gillett. From their inception, LSU outlined lish a football designation was relevant for
in their constitution a commitment to ‘work two reasons. First via the Mayor’s office,
with relevant agencies to improve social and the Liverpool City Region Local
economic conditions in the area of Anfield’ Enterprise Partnership commissioned a
(Liverpool Supporters’ Union, undated: 1). report titled Stanley Park Destination
Roughly around the same time, the city Strategy that sought to demonstrate how
council had approved the third set of more economic activity could be stimulated
plans for a new stadium in Stanley Park through greater levels of tourism around the
and LSU recognized that the delays in start- two football clubs and the revitalized
ing the construction had a deleterious effect Victorian assets in Stanley Park (Colliers
on local residents (interview with LSU rep- International, 2013). Second, it demon-
resentative, June 2010). By October 2010 strated how the organization of the sup-
and against a background of global finan- porters could provoke some form of
cial crisis, the Royal Bank of Scotland as action by local governance agencies. It
main creditor to Kop Holdings – the proved that LSU had a capacity to agitate
entity that owned Liverpool FC – was for action in the streets surrounding the
ready to seize control of the club from Liverpool FC stadium.
Hicks and Gillett unless debts of some The concerns expressed by LSU about
280 million could be repaid. It was at the delay in constructing a new stadium
this time that a High Court in London and its impact on the immediate neighbour-
endorsed the forced and acrimonious sale hoods remained. In spite of a change in
of the club including the stadium to new ownership, by the time of the ACV applica-
owners, New England Sports Ventures (see tion Liverpool FC had still not confirmed
Reade, 2011 and Williams, 2012 for a full whether they would build a new stadium
account of this). even though planning permission had been
While playing an active role in bringing gained, a 999-year lease on land in Stanley
to an end the reign of Hicks and Gillett, Park renewed and a small amount of
LSU also continued to agitate around European funding released to support con-
aspects of regeneration in the Anfield area. struction. Now known as Fenway Sports
At this time, cuts to public sector funding Group (FSG),6 the new ownership structure
were being announced, while the city coun- had failed to provide clarity on whether a
cil and RSL were faced with the end of the new stadium was to be built. Indications
HMRI and constraints on funding from the from the owners suggested that the pre-
Homes and Communities Agency. This was ferred choice was now to redevelop the ori-
being felt in Anfield although LSU pressed ginal stadium with veiled threats about
ahead and by working with their bureaucratic obstacles preventing
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 205
development leaked by club officials. The to the symbolic rhetoric of the stadium
Housing Minister Grant Shapps sparked a and its leverage as a key monument in the
brief confrontation with the club stating local community:
that the indecision of the club was leading Much more than a building, far bigger
to uncertainty among residents, while the than any asset value it is assigned on a
club retorted by pointing to the cuts made global hedge fund’s balance sheet.
to the HMRI in the surrounding neighbour- Anfield stadium is the heart of a commu-
hood (reported in the local newspaper Daily nity; a neighbouring community of resi-
Post, 20 August 2011 and in the magazine dents and businesses and a global
Planning, 26 August 2011). community that has spread far and wide
By the summer of 2013, Ellis and since Liverpool FC was formed and took
Henderson (2013) had reiterated how the over residency of the stadium from
lack of an affirmative decision by the club Everton in 1892. Anfield Stadium is a com-
munity asset that looms large in the lives of
to redevelop or build anew had created a
its neighbours and of people across the
planning blight in the vicinity of the sta-
world, it is the key to neighbourhood
dium. At the same time, the latest plans for renewal and local prosperity and, through
regeneration were announced amounting to inertia or mismanagement, it can also be a
a 260 million intervention involving the driver of decline, deprivation and derelic-
city council, the RSL Your Housing and tion. Anfield Stadium is an asset of commu-
Liverpool FC. Plans include housing refur- nity value. (Liverpool Supporters’ Union,
bishment and clearance, new housing, a 2013: 11; emphasis added)
reinvigorated high street (Walton Breck
Road) and a new Avenue memorial to the LSU used their application to call upon the
victims of the Hillsborough disaster, both city council to take a lead role in shaping
orthogonal to the stadium; a new public the purpose of the football stadium. They
space and village square, the completion of invoked the public sector to hold to account
Stanley Park refurbishment (the part of the the privately owned football club, who
Park that was earmarked for a new stadium) meanwhile continued to make rhetorical
and the preferred option of the club made noises about operating as a global business.
formal for the first time, to redevelop the In their bid, they pointed to the emblematic
existing stadium (Liverpool City Council, and historic culturalism of the stadium, its
Liverpool FC and Your Housing, 2013). situatedness in a working class community
Planning permission had been secured for and the provision of arts, a wide range of
a new stadium in Stanley Park, but planning sporting activities, education and music fes-
permission for redevelopment had still to be tivals held in the stadium under the import
sought. For some, this was a move by the of the football club.
city council and the RSL to commit to LSU used quotes from club officials to
regeneration regardless of the club’s indeci- highlight how they too recognized the sig-
sion (interview with anonymous community nificance of the presence of Liverpool FC to
representative, January 2014). the community:
This was the backdrop in which LSU had
. . . clearly a major player of the commu-
become active in Anfield regeneration. They nity therefore the club has, I think, a
submitted their nomination for the listing of responsibility to work with its community,
the Anfield football ground in April 2013, to invest back in its community and if it
just weeks before the announcement on new does that, I think it will reap the
investment by club, council and RSL. In rewards . . . [adding later from another offi-
summing up its submission, LSU pointed cial] I think we’ve demonstrated over
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015206 Local Economy 29(3)
many years we are a key anchor tenant in regeneration itself. Now and despite activism
that community. We already create a lot of from other parts of the community and with
jobs, we feed a lot of businesses and con- the latest round of consultation spurred on
tribute to that economy . . . (Liverpool by council, club and RSL, it was LSU that
Supporters’ Union, 2013: 9–10)
had seized the initiative. A successful listing
The application was submitted by LSU to of the stadium would legitimize LSU as com-
the city council late April 2013. munity-based organizers.
According to a representative of LSU, Third, it would allow LSU to organize to
three aspects of the submission were note- buy the club – not simply the stadium – if
worthy (interview with author, April 2013). the owners of Liverpool FC chose to sell.
In nominating the Anfield stadium, LSU Given the uncertainty surrounding FSG
were arguing that the club was a factor in investment and the way in which their pur-
the depletion that afflicted domestic and chase was made, this was not an altogether
retail properties around the football unbelievable possibility, even if the detail
ground. By stating this in their nomination, given in recent accounts by Liverpool FC
LSU would test the local authority relation- estimated the stadium to be worth around
ship with the football club, which they con- 100 million (Liverpool FC, 2012). For
sidered had been too obliging for too long. LSU, the application was all about recog-
For instance, as part of earlier plans to nizing the asset as a means of understanding
build a new stadium, the club and the coun- and possibly changing the ownership of the
cil had formed a joint venture, each holding football club and in pursuing their stated
50% of shares, called Stanley Park Limited; aims of improving social and economic con-
this was an enterprise that did little and ditions around the Anfield stadium (inter-
appeared to be set up for the benefit of the view with LSU representative, April 2013).
club. If the council were to confirm the The consideration period of eight weeks
nomination as an ACV, then it would chal- set out in the legislation, passed without
lenge how the club and council continued to confirmation or rejection. Then LSU were
work with each other and LSU were delib- contacted to provide further information.
erately conscious of this. At the end of July 2013, the submission
Second, the nomination positioned LSU made by MUST to list Old Trafford as an
as a key stakeholder with views about the ACV was confirmed. Three weeks later on
purpose of the stadium and the role of the 23 August 2013, Liverpool City Council
stadium in the wider development in confirmed the decision to list Anfield as an
Anfield. This was different from the situation ACV. Their decision had a number of
Engelsman and Southern (2010) had encoun- important aspects to it. First that LSU
tered in their work on Anfield. They had was an eligible nominating body, thereby
argued that while community participation providing legal credence to the role and
played a useful role in constructing the know- function of the supporters group, an
ledge needed about how regeneration could Industrial Society modeled along lines of a
refashion the neighbourhood, there was more traditional working class organiza-
often a limited opportunity to drive forward tion, now recognized as a community
an agenda for change. While community group. Second, that the land itself was not
engagement raised expectations from those exempt from listing. The city council con-
who lived in the area, it appeared easier to firmed that the land was used to further the
achieve managerial and organizational effi- ‘cultural, recreational and sporting interests
ciency in local agencies as part of regener- of the local community’ specifically in the
ation, rather than change the practice of Anfield, North Liverpool and city region.
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 207
Finally, the council argued that it was real- complements or counters the established
istic to consider that the main use of the community voice and how it will sit along-
land would continue to be used as a football side recognized views, such as the RSL and
stadium and would carry on providing with other opinions emerging in the com-
social benefit for the local community, munity as the consequences of austerity
whether by Liverpool FC or ‘some other and localism play out. LSU relationship
football club or organization’ (Liverpool with others remains to be tested.
City Council, 2013). As consultation on Although there is valid and sometimes
new plans for Anfield continued, the listing scathing critique of the rhetoric that accom-
of Anfield was an additional variable in the panies much of the localism and Big Society
development of the Anfield Spatial debate, the 2011 Act has provided an
Regeneration Framework and ultimately, opportunity for communities. Initiatives
the Liverpool Local Plan. This is one around neighbourhood planning, ideas
reason why the listing by the local authority about community shares and the commu-
of the land on which the stadium sits rather nity infrastructure levy are accompanied
than the stadium itself is relevant. The sep- by the Community Right to Bid and similar
aration of land and building has for some rights have become part and parcel of the
community groups become an important Coalition’s localism ideology, indicating
distinction with the former being seen as that things are happening in spite of the
the greater asset.7 austerity-led attack on social regeneration.
We may well see other forms of empower-
The story so far: Elite Premier ment through for example, the work of
League football and ACV mutual societies and community finance
although we are now witnessing a pattern
Both Liverpool City Council and Trafford of response to the ideology of localism
Borough Council have listed the land as an against a backdrop of ruthless public
ACV. In their decision they each defined the sector cuts to local authority services.
land to include the pitch, the stands, sur- In this case, the LSU while not immedi-
rounding forecourts and parking areas. ately hosted in the neighbourhood have
The similarity in their decisions may suggest clear convictions about the stadium, the
some form of shared advice; however, this depletion to the physical infrastructure
does not limit the potential consequences of around the stadium and what impact an
the listings. Some early stages of effect from elite football club might have on their
the Localism Act 2011 seem to relate to the immediate surroundings and people.
capability of the community, reflection on Regeneration has been taking place in
the reality that surrounds localism rhetoric Anfield particularly from the HMRI and
and pertinently for a community like through the work of RSLs (see Figure 3).
Anfield, the role elite professional football However, the focus on needs and renewal
may play in a low-income community. has intensified since austerity measures
LSU are focused on the issue of football have been introduced and the demise of
governance although by their presence, by HMRI has taken affect. LSU did organize
the fact that the football stadium is situated and agitate to ensure that the Anfield sta-
in a traditional working class community, dium was nominated as an asset with desig-
the interests of the supporters organization nated value for its community. LSU had
overlap in a compelling manner with resi- previously exercised its organisational
dents and wider community stakeholders. strengths without reference to the
What is not clear yet is whether this Localism Act 2011 and any achievement
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015208 Local Economy 29(3)
Figure 3. Efforts are being made to redevelop in the vicinity of the Anfield stadium (refer to Figure 1
for exact location).
around ACV will be constrained because At the time of writing, the latest round of
they do not have the right to buy – only consultation in Anfield over plans for sta-
to bid. Yet the lesson from the LSU nom- dium development and regeneration is
ination is about how the legislation can coming to a conclusion. The most recent
stimulate new activism by community plans seem to be heading towards the final
organizers and if it does, whether this stage of a long drawn out affair that began
encourages local groups to prioritize com- in the 1990s as the community reacted to
munity assets and confront existing power the then owners of the football club taking
structures. The Act will mean that the a decision without reference to local needs.
Coalition’s localism ideology is contested That proved a catalyst to participation and
although it is far from clear that the out- consultation over a prolonged period
comes taking shape will be transformative although the extent of influence over
on behalf of communities. Liverpool FC seems to ebb and flow and
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 209
the indecision of the football club on Local Government, England The Assets of
redevelopment or new build has been part Community Value (England) Regulations
of the reason for such a slow response to 2012, September 20th’; DCLG (2011a);
instigating change. Local community Sandford (2012).
4. KEIOC was formed to resist the possible
organisations have constantly complained
move of Everton to a new stadium outside
about this, while LSU have instigated their the Liverpool city boundary.
response and others may follow. We should 5. Popular local books often illustrate these points
be explicit (as shown in Figure 3) about the in a matter of fact manner (see Howell Williams,
progress made in terms of physical develop- 1971; O’Mara, 1994; Rogers, 2010) while vari-
ment and how the work of LSU has helped ous academics record the decline in industry and
to problematize the decay of recent decades. maritime and subsequent effect on trade,
This is a narrative that is being played out, employment and income levels (see Lane,
not on the expensive turf in elite profes- 1987; Southern, forthcoming; Towers, 2011).
sional football stadia but in the organising 6. Liverpool FC including the stadium are cur-
capacity of local groups and the institu- rently owned by Fenway Sports Group (pre-
viously named New England Sports
tional stakeholders that surround the listed
Ventures), a Boston-based company who
assets. The rhetoric of the localism agenda appear to operate as a subsidiary to the little
may be a means to hide the brutality of aus- known and strangely named Georgia (USA)-
terity at a local level but it may well blur a based Sinn Fein Limited Partnership who in
possibility to organize and agitate in the turn are owned by Uncajon Management.
way a group of football supporters have 7. See the literature on community land trusts
shown is still possible. for instance.
Funding References
This research received no specific grant from any Aiken M, Cairns B, Taylor M, et al. (2011)
funding agency in the public, commercial, or Community Organizations Controlling Assets:
A Better Understanding. York: Joseph
not-for-profit sectors.
Rowntree Foundation.
Anfield/Breckfield Community Steering Group
Notes (2002) The Community’s Report on the
1. Liverpool Supporters’ Union (also known as Regeneration of Anfield and Breckfield.
the Spirit of Shankly but the formal nomencla- Liverpool: Anfield/Breckfield Community
ture is used here) and MUST are each regis- Steering Group.
tered as an Industrial and Provident Society. Baade RA and Dye R (1990) The impact of sta-
2. The Mayor’s Office and city council have put diums and professional sports on metropol-
forward this figure based on the reduction in itan area development. Growth and Change
expenditure from 2010/11 to 2016/17 (see 21(2): 1–14.
http://liverpool.gov.uk/mayor/budget/) Beatty C, Brennan A, Foden M, et al. (2010) The
Parkinson (1985) reviewed the fiscal crisis of New Deal for Communities Programme:
the city in the 1970s and 1980s perhaps show- Assessing Impact and Value for Money, The
ing the dangers that lie ahead for Liverpool New Deal for Communities National
and other urban areas from central Evaluation: Final Report, Vol. 6. London:
Government financial cuts. Department for Communities and Local
3. An overview of the technicalities of the Government.
Localism Act 2011, applicable only in Bentley G and Pugalis L (2013) New directions
England, can be found on the government in economic development: Localist policy dis-
website: http://www.legislation.gov.uk. See courses and the Localism Act. Local Economy
also ‘Statutory Instruments 2012 No. 2421 28(3): 257–274.
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015210 Local Economy 29(3)
Breitbarth T and Harris P (2008) The role of Experiences of a supporter-activist. Soccer &
corporate social responsibility in the football Society 14(2): 201–214.
business: Towards the development of a con- Gibson-Graham JK, Cameron J and Healy S
ceptual model. European Sport Management (2013) Take Back the Economy: An Ethical
Quarterly 8(2): 179–206. Guide for Transforming Our Communities.
Bunyan P (2012) Partnership, the Big Society Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
and community organizing: Between roman- Press.
ticizing, problematizing and politicizing com- Green GP and Haines A (2012) Asset Building &
munity. Community Development Journal Community Development, 3rd ed. London:
48(1): 119–133. SAGE.
Cloake M (2013) Just how much ‘community Hancock L, Mooney G and Neal S (2012) Crisis
value’ is in a football stadium? Oxford social policy and the resilience of the concept
United turns abstract into reality. New of community. Critical Social Policy 32(3):
Statesman, May. Available at: www.newsta- 343–364.
tesman.com (accessed 11 June 2013). Harvey D (1973) Social Justice and the City.
Colliers International (2013) Stanley Park Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Destination Strategy, Prepared for Liverpool Howell Williams P (1971) Liverpoolitana.
City Region Local Enterprise Partnership. Liverpool: Merseyside Civic Society.
London: Colliers International Property Jacobs J (2002) The Death and Life of Great
Consultants Limited. American Cities. New York: Random House.
Crompton JL, Lee S and Shuster TJ (2001) A Johnstone S, Southern A and Taylor R (2000)
guide for undertaking economic impact stu- The midweek match: Premiership football
dies: The Springfest example. Journal of and the urban economy. Local Economy
Travel Research 40(1): 79–87. 15(3): 198–213.
Dawson M (2012) Against the Big Society: A KEOIC and SOS (2011) The Football Quarter
Durkheimian socialist critique. Critical Concept: A Joint Perspective. Launched at
Social Policy 33(1): 78–96. the Museum of Liverpool, December.
DCLG (2011a) A Plain English Guide to the Available at: www.thefootballquarter.com.
Localism Act. London: Department for Kelly L (2010) ‘Social inclusion’ through sports-
Communities and Local Government. based interventions? Critical Social Policy
DCLG (2011b) Assets of Community Value – 31(1): 126–150.
Policy Statement. London: Department for Kennedy P (2012) Supporters direct and sup-
Communities and Local Government. porters’ governance of football: A model for
DeFilippis J, Fisher R and Shragge E (2006) Europe? Soccer & Society 13(3): 409–425.
Neither romance nor regulation: Re- Kennedy D and Collins M (2006) Community
evaluating community. International Journal politics in Liverpool and the governance of
of Urban and Regional Research 30(3): professional football in the late nineteenth
673–689. century. The Historical Journal 49(3):
Deloitte Sports Business Group (2013) Captains 761–788.
of Industry Football Money League. Kennedy D and Kennedy P (2007) Preserving
Manchester: Deloitte Sports Business Group. and extending the commodification of foot-
Ellis H and Henderson K (2013) Planning Out ball supporter relations: A cultural economy
Poverty: The Reinvention of Social Town of Supporters Direct. Sociological Research
Planning. London: Town and Country Online 12(1). Available at: www.socresonline.
Planning Association. org.uk/12/1/kennedy.html (accessed 23 July
Engelsman U and Southern A (2010) Knowledge 2011).
transfer in regeneration: Is it feasible and can Kretzmann J and McKnight JP (1996) Assets-
the community benefit? Journal of Urban based community development. National
Regeneration and Renewal 4(2): 147–157. Civic Review 85(4): 23–29.
Fitzpatrick C (2013) The struggle for grassroots Lane T (1987) Liverpool Gateway of Empire.
involvement in football club-governance: London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015Southern 211
Lee C-K and Taylor T (2005) Critical reflections development. Local Environment: The
on the economic impact assessment of a International Journal of Justice and
mega-event: The case of the 2002 FIFA Sustainability 10(5): 477–486.
World Cup. Tourism Management 26(4): O’Mara P (1994) An Autobiography of a
595–603. Liverpool Slummy. Liverpool: Bluecoat Press.
Levitas R (2012) The Just’s umbrella: Austerity Page-Adams D and Sherraden M (1997) Asset
and the Big Society in coalition policy and building as a community revitalisation strat-
beyond. Critical Social Policy 32(3): 320–342. egy. Social Work 42(5): 423–434.
Liverpool City Council (2013) Notice of Parkinson M (1985) Liverpool on the Brink: One
Decision – Nomination of Building or Land City’s Struggle against Government Cuts.
as an Asset of Community Value. Liverpool: Hermitage: Policy Journals.
Liverpool City Council. Quirk Review (2007) Making Assets Work: The
Liverpool City Council, Liverpool FC and Your Quirk Review of community management and
Housing (2013) The Anfield Project: A ownership of public assets. Available at:
Consultation Document. Liverpool: Liverpool webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk (accessed
City Council. 11 June 2013).
Liverpool FC (2012) Directors’ Report and Reade B (2011) An Epic Swindle 44 Months with
Financial Statements From the Period 14 a Pair of Cowboys. London: Quercus.
August 2011 to 31 May 2012. Liverpool: The Reid G (2013) When it’s gone it’s gone:
Liverpool Football Club and Athletics The politics of the Save Meadowbank
Ground Limited. Stadium Campaign. Local Economy 28(6):
Liverpool Supporters’ Union (2013) Asset of 627–642.
Community Value Nomination for the listing Rogers K (2010) The Lost Tribe of Everton &
of Anfield Stadium Liverpool 4. Liverpool: Scottie Road. London: Trinity Mirror Media.
Liverpool Supporters’ Union. Rolph S (undated) Community Right to Bid: The
Liverpool Supporters’ Union (undated) Rules Implications for Supporters’ Trusts. London:
and Constitution. Liverpool: Liverpool Supporters Direct.
Supporters’ Union. Saegert S (2006) Building civic capacity in urban
Madden J (2006) Economic and fiscal impacts of neighborhoods: An empirically grounded
mega sporting events: A general equilibrium anatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs 28(3):
assessment. Public Finance and Management 275–294.
6(3): 346–394. Sandford M (2012) Localism Act: Assets of
Meegan R (2003) Urban regeneration, politics Community Value, House of Commons
and social cohesion: The Liverpool case. Library. Standard Note SN/PC/06366.
In: Munck R (ed.) Reinventing Available at: www.parliament.uk/business/
the City? Liverpool in Comparative publications/research/briefing-papers/
Perspective. Liverpool: Liverpool University SN06366/localism-act-assets-of-community-
Press, pp. 53–79. value.
Millward P (2012) Reclaiming the Kop? Sondaal T (2013) Football’s grobalization or
Analysing Liverpool supporters’ 21st century globalization? The lessons of Liverpool
mobilizations. Sociology 46(4): 633–648. Football Club’s evolution in the Premier
MUST (2013) Old Trafford Football Stadium: League era. Soccer & Society 14(4): 485–501.
Nomination as an Asset of Community Value. Southern A (2009) Merseyside and the down-
Manchester: Manchester United Supporters’ turn. Merseyside and North Wales Business
Trust. Prospect 6(2): 24–26.
Newman K and Lake RW (2006) Democracy, Southern A (2011) The Proposed Football
bureaucracy and difference in US community Quarter in North Liverpool: Preparing for an
development politics since 1968. Progress in Impact Study. Liverpool: University of
Human Geography 30(1): 44–61. Liverpool. Report available on request.
Newman L and Dale A (2005) The role of Southern A (2013) ‘Regeneration’ in a time
agency in sustainable local community of austerity will mean the death of this
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015212 Local Economy 29(3)
metaphor, but what will come next? Journal in Manchester and Liverpool. Soccer &
of Urban Regeneration & Renewal 6(4): Society 12(1): 58–73.
399–405. Williams J (2012) Walking alone together the
Southern A (forthcoming) Enterprise, wealth Liverpool Way: Fan culture and ‘clueless’
creation and place: A case study of the Yanks. Soccer & Society 13(3): 426–442.
Liverpool city-region. In: Pugalis L, Liddle J Williams J and Hopkins S (2011) ‘Over here’:
and Shutt J (eds) Enterprising Places: ‘Americanization’ and the new politics of
Leadership and Governance Networks. football club ownership – The case of
London: Emerald Group. Liverpool FC. Sport in Society 14(2):
Tacon R (2007) Football and social inclusion: 160–174.
Evaluating social policy. Managing Leisure Wilks-Heeg S (2002) Mission impossible?
12: 1–23. Capacity building and the case of the
Towers B (2011) Waterfront Blues: The Rise and Crosby Plaza Community Cinema. Local
Fall of Liverpool’s Dockland. Lancaster: Economy 17(2): 153–157.
Carnegie Publishing.
Warner S (2011) ‘You only sing when you’re
winning’: Football factions and rock rivalries
Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on March 4, 2015You can also read
