New on our blog
Football's big guns caught offside
 | Neill Ghosh Lead Researcher, Intelligent Giving | |||
CHELSEA AND MANCHESTER United are the unrivalled 'Big Two' in the Barclays Premiership, but when it comes to giving money to charity, neither has their shooting boots on.
Based on the most recent available accounts, their rankings in our Premiership Giving League see both Manchester United (£62,843 donated) and Chelsea (£70,000) struggling to make the UEFA Cup places. But it is not just the Big Two who are under-performing. Across the board, Premiership football clubs give very little to charity each year in terms of cash donations. In fact, the total given by all those who disclose such information - £510,000* - would not cover four weeks' wages for Chelsea striker Andrei Shevchenko. With Premier League clubs reporting combined turnover of more than £1 billion a year, the figures smack of an industry more interested in pandering to the bling-laden lifestyles of its workforce than in philanthropy. Lacking perspective Many top-flight clubs operate in the red, and the lack of cash will be seen by some as justification for such a surprising shortfall in generosity. But such an argument is disingenuous given the huge sums currently flowing through the Premier League. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, of the £900 million windfall due from international television rights next season makes its way into the hands of the charity sector rather than the players' bank accounts. > Download the Intelligent Giving Premiership Giving League (PDF, 30K) Clubs do, of course, contribute to charity and to their local communities in a variety of ways beyond straight cash donations. Sponsorship, personal appearances and gifts in kind all result in significant amounts of charitable support. The trouble is, it is almost impossible to accurately measure how much. A lack of disclosure on the part of clubs is part of the problem. 
Ironically, Chelsea are so far the only major Premier League club to have produced a comprehensive corporate social responsibility report.
Football in the Community schemes also represent an important means by which Premiership clubs 'give something back'. Such programmes have been popular since the early 1990s and include themes such as soccer schools for children and educational projects for disabled and minority groups. While these efforts are generally admirable, there is a view that some clubs participate for other than purely altruistic reasons. Community work is an excellent way of improving the image of a club and schemes are often heavily subsidised by government. Indeed, many such programmes are increasingly becoming commercial ventures. They've got an image problem On the face of it, charity giving among Premiership football clubs is way out of kilter with spend in other areas. When so much ill-feeling surrounds the scale of players' wages – not to mention the ever-increasing admission prices to games – one would have thought that football clubs would be keen to alter this scenario, if only for the sake of good PR. Perhaps they simply don't care how they come across? After all, on and off the pitch, the sport is hardly the greatest bastion of fair play. That said, there will be many clubs who insist that behind the disappointing figures lie myriad good deeds - but in this age of accountability, stakeholders (fans, as well as shareholders) surely deserve the full story. It's time for football to join the club. * Excludes the £4,500,000 donated by Tottenham Hotspur to the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, a new charity, registered in the year with donations to be disbursed to good causes in the future. > Our follow-up blog: Premiership truths > More features > Watchdog articles |
Email this page
Print this pageReader's comments
It would be wrong to deny that clubs help their communities in other ways than by just giving cash to charity. Players sign shirts and auction them off. They visit hospitals and turn up at charity fundraising events. And the clubs themselves often run 'football in the community' schemes.
But we don't think that's enough.
Charities need cash above all else to function. Any individual or organization that truly wants to help a good cause should give money to it. If you're prepared to help out by doing everything but giving money, then you should be doing more.
It's as simple as that.
Many of the schemes run by clubs are of great value, but they all stop short of showing a full commitment to supporting the community. Such rich companies - because that's what clubs are - should give something back. And the odd signed shirt isn't enough.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
The amount of money that this article claim Premiership clubs give to charity is unbelievable. It appears to me that one must take into account a range of other factors to truly assess clubs charitable generosity.
Does it make sense to ignore the charitable trusts? What about football in the community? I know next to nothing about this subject but I refuse to believe that my beloved Arsenal gave only £26,795 to good causes last year.
Sal
In response to your article on fat cat clubs, I would like to respond in support of Liverpool football club who have supported our local church and consequently the local kids and community on several occasions in financial and other ways, by return post, no questions asked.
Additionally the self-proclaimed People's Club, Everton FC have as yet not even found time or had the courtesy to respond to any approaches for support. By the way, Everton FC are a mere stones throw from the church, Liverpool are much further away.
A friend and I did a 750mile charity walk two years ago via all twenty premiership clubs to raise money for a national charity that helps people with learning difficulties.
Having spent a huge amount of time and effort organising the walk, not to mention the 27 days of torture (30miles a day) the attitude of some clubs was extremely disappointing.
I must say that over half were very accommodating - showed us around the stadium and donated a signed shirt or ball to be auctioned. However, a couple of clubs were unwilling to help at all and barely acknowledged any attempts to make contact, while a few others did their best to palm us off with excuses and empty promises.
Particular mentions must go to Chelsea (the richest club) and Charlton (the self-pro-claimed caring community club) whose football in the community departments were insistant at their inability to help despite our charity finding contacts within the club.
As lifelong football fans, it was certainly an interesting insight to the level of care and support offered by clubs.