Over 16 years ago when the 3 main English football bodies the Football Association (FA), the Premier League (PL) and the English Football League (EFL) decided to implement the football’s “fit and proper person” test protocols, it was because the games was attracting a number of new owners some from outside of the game and also form outside the country. This they argued will believed represented an objective and standard process through which each club takeover will be subjected. 

It had become necessary to ensure that the game has a process through which it could vet who can and cannot be involved in ownership and control of the clubs for the sustainability and integrity of the game. 

The reason for this was not just about complying with the Companies’ Act stipulations of the UK  but also to ensure that the integrity of the game is not adversely impacted and blindsided by owners who not only falls foul of the country laws but brings the league and game into disrepute.  The test areas were broken into four  broad buckets.

Firstly, the new needed to meet the Premier League to provide evidence of funds required and equally importantly adequacy of funding needed to sustain the investment once the takeover is complete. 

Secondly, the new owners needed to provide a full year business plan covering all aspects of business plan including proof that all liabilities can be met and detailed information on the financial viability of the proposed investment and enterprise. Thirdly, the new owner needed to go through the owners’ and directors test – which one would not pass if they have certain criminal convictions, pending serious criminal matters or professional disqualifications, adverse finding against them etc. 

Finally, there was a raft other rules to be followed – including having to confirm to the Premier League every three months that they are up to date with contracts and legal employment and  tax liabilities. Additionally these effectively  provided the basis for conditions precedent for any full and final approval .

This related provision full, accurate and complete information and material disclosures, honest and truthfulness, conflict of interest declarations, voluntary material disclosures etc. The long and short of this is that the football leadership in England understood the risk of “unfit and improper” investors not just to the league but the game as a whole. Football is a big multi-billion dollar business any risk to the game is much bigger than just the individual clubs. 

Which brings me to the state of club ownership changes in South Africa. I was recently asked by a leading radio show what my views on this were. I explained it’s a legal, legitimate and pretty much a global phenomenon that sport has become an interesting area of investment for those looking to build, grow and or diversity their investments portfolios.

 In many case it introduces new owners and new money which can be great for the sport. However, as these investment continue to happen with increasing regularity some will be detrimental to the game’s integrity which is why strengthening takeover protocols must now be far more stringent than they have been. The recent example of Tshakuma Tsha Madzivhandila (TTM) is just one of such case that perhaps is sign that the Premier Soccer League is not properly applying itself when approving these transactions.

For South African Football Association (SAFA) as the mother-body it also serves as a wake up call to take its role as a regulator and overall custodian often game a lot more seriously. 

If the league had any basic take over approval process and a “fit and proper person” protocols,  it’s quite clear that some ownership changes would not have gone through.   

Is it time for South African football to implement stricter club takeover rules? Absolutely! While South Africa football has largely dodged the bullet with these,  there is no guarantee it will continue to be lucky. Both SAFA and its special member, PSL,  must prioritize putting these in place if the game it’s to save and strengthen its reputation and integrity.

 No club owner must be allowed to take over control of the club unless they prove that they have the funds for the takeover, they have the resources to run the club going forward by amongst other providing bankable financial guarantees, that legal employment processes have been complied with, produce a comprehensive business plan of how they will run the club. Additionally, the vetting must include the declaring of conflict interest, full, accurate, truthful and honest material disclosures of etc. 

While at this it may also be time the league improve te overall financial prudence of its member clubs and implement financial fair play rules. 
There is something deeply worrying and quite frankly highly risky about clubs not living within their means and having the league potentially collapsed by a member club’s financial collapse mid-season. In other parts of the world these are implemented by the mother body because leagues often cannot self-police and regulate. In this country it is made even more difficult because club officials also run the league. 

It is quite clear that the PSL having grown to be a multi-billion rand ecosystem needs to strengthen its financial oversight, governance and risk management processes. The recent events surrounding the ownership changes demonstrate that SAFA as the control body must urge, encourage and enforce the implementation of this process. If that does not happen we all know what is likely to happen and we also know that the game can ill afford that.