The Turbulent Co-Ownership of Liverpool and Its Lessons for Chelsea
The night before Liverpool’s former owners faced the media for the first time at Anfield in February 2007, a pivotal meeting was convened to outline the running order for their impending press conference. George Gillett, a wealthy junk bond financier, had initially been turned away from acquiring the club due to concerns regarding his financial capabilities. However, he sought the assistance of Inner Circle Sports, an investment bank based in New York City, to bolster his position. This ultimately led him to partner with Tom Hicks, a businessman with whom he had previously collaborated in a meat-packing venture.
Hicks’ interest in Liverpool came about relatively late in the process. According to an anonymous club official who spoke to The Athletic, it was suggested that Gillett should answer the earliest questions during the press conference. Hicks, however, was adamant: “I’ll go first,” he insisted, ultimately getting his way. This marked an early indication that their partnership was fraught with tension and unlikely to endure.
Within a few months, the club was embroiled in a civil war, with the co-owners no longer on speaking terms. Their tumultuous reign lasted three painful years, culminating in a High Court ruling that facilitated a sale to Fenway Sports Group (FSG). This saga underscored the challenges of co-ownership in the high-pressure environment of Premier League football.
Fast forward to the present, and Chelsea finds itself in a situation reminiscent of Liverpool’s past struggles, with co-owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali of Clearlake Capital experiencing their own internal conflicts. Chelsea fans may not recognize the parallels, but they could gain valuable insights by examining Liverpool’s tumultuous ownership history.
In this analogy, Boehly resembles Gillett. Both are American businessmen with prior investments in sports (Gillett owned the Montreal Canadiens, while Boehly is a part-owner of the LA Dodgers). They possess the wealth to control major English football clubs but may lack the financial firepower required to meet their ambitious goals.
The similarities extend further. Gillett’s takeover was only possible after other bidders fell short, and with Liverpool in urgent need of funds for a new stadium, he returned with Hicks at his side. Likewise, Boehly’s claim to Chelsea was facilitated by financing from Clearlake and Eghbali. The urgency was palpable; the UK government had set a deadline of May 31, 2022, for the sale of Chelsea amid ongoing sanctions against former owner Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch.
Since the completion of the takeover, Boehly has attracted significant media attention, but Eghbali has also played a crucial role in many internal processes and decision-making. This dynamic mirrors Liverpool’s earlier ownership, where Hicks often overshadowed Gillett despite being introduced to the club by him.
Interestingly, Liverpool’s ownership partners fell into discord even faster than Chelsea’s. In Brian Reade’s book, An Epic Swindle, an unnamed senior football executive and a devoted Liverpool supporter recounted their separate encounters with both owners. “It was only two months into their joint ownership of the club, but George was already discussing his viewpoint versus his partner’s view. When I later had lunch with Tom and some of his American associates, I asked about their relationship dynamics. Tom merely shrugged and indicated, ‘You’d better ask him,’ pointing at a senior figure from Inner Circle Sports who facilitated their deal.”
From the outset, there was confusion over who was genuinely in charge at Liverpool. This was exacerbated by the fact that both partners held an equal number of shares, a stark contrast to Boehly and Clearlake’s arrangement, where the latter holds a 61.5% stake while Boehly controls less than 13%.
By December 2007, as further differences began to emerge over whether to renovate Anfield or relocate altogether—an issue that may resonate with Chelsea’s current discussions—Gillett had already begun to explore an exit strategy, realizing he had made a catastrophic mistake in choosing Hicks as a partner. The complexities of managing a meat industry business differ significantly from the emotional, high-stakes world of football, an arena that invites intense scrutiny and criticism, challenging even the most formidable egos.
Personality clashes frequently lie at the heart of co-ownership breakdowns, often compounded by strategic disagreements. A case in point is Crystal Palace, a club currently grappling with ownership issues that bear striking similarities to Chelsea’s situation. In 2010, Palace emerged from administration thanks to a coalition of wealthy local supporters led by Steve Parish. After an unexpected promotion to the Premier League in 2013, the ownership model shifted, with Parish seeking outside investment from American private equity moguls Josh Harris and David Blitzer, who acquired stakes in 2015, and John Textor, who purchased around 40% of the club six years later.
- Despite their varying stakes, Parish, Textor, Harris, and Blitzer all hold equal voting rights, leading to conflicts due to differing strategic visions.
- Parish aims for a sustainable economic model focusing on infrastructure improvements, while Textor seeks aggressive transfer market activity through his multi-club model.
- The result is a strategic impasse, prompting Textor to explore selling his Palace stake to acquire Everton, a club that has been on the market for some time.
In a similar vein, Everton’s ownership has faced turmoil. Officially, Farhad Moshiri has been the sole owner since 2016 after displacing the late Bill Kenwright, who continued to be a high-profile presence at the club, creating friction. Their differing perspectives often clashed, particularly regarding managerial decisions and transfers, resulting in a state of barely controlled chaos.
A parallel can also be drawn with Newcastle United, where recent departures of Amanda Staveley and Mehrdad Ghodoussi—key figures in securing the club’s Saudi Arabian-backed takeover in 2021—have highlighted the challenges of co-ownership. Initially, without a sporting director or CEO, Staveley and Ghodoussi took on significant responsibilities. However, as the executive team was established, the presence of multiple competing voices diluted their influence, leading to inevitable conflicts.
Will Manchester United face similar challenges? INEOS and the Glazer family are untested partners, and while Sir Jim Ratcliffe has made his presence felt since his investment, the pressure on him may increase internally if the club’s on-field performances falter.
Co-ownership structures can indeed be successful, but they often thrive only when partnerships are formed through mutual understanding rather than mere circumstance. Consider the case of Wrexham, where Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney seem to collaborate effectively. However, should their project escalate to the Premier League, with its accompanying scrutiny and financial pressures, their partnership could face renewed challenges.
Only time will tell where Chelsea will be by then. Regardless, the odds of Boehly and Eghbali maintaining their partnership seem slim.
(Top photos: Getty Images)
