Essay: ..zeventien jaar oud), verreweg het meest interesseert: voetbal. In 2003 nam de steenrijke Rus Roman Abramovich de Engelse voetbalclub Chelsea over. Ongeveer tien jaar later is Olivier hartstochtelijk fan van de vereniging, die onder het bewind van Abramovich is uitgegroeid tot een mondiale topclub. Wie is deze oliemagnaat, waarom wilde hij Chelsea kopen en in hoeverre heeft hij Chelsea geholpen? Dat zijn vragen waar wij ons eigenlijk al hele lange tijd in interesseren. Mede daardoor hebben wij besloten ons profielwerkstuk te houden over de invloed van Abramovich op Chelsea. Verandert de bedrijfsvoering, zorgt hij voor meer prijzen, daalt of stijgt de merkwaarde van een club door de inmenging van dit soort figuren en wat vinden fans en buitenstaanders ervan?
Wij zitten allebei in klas 6 VWO van het Comenius College te Hilversum. Wij zijn erg ge??nteresseerd in voetbal en wilden hierom al vanaf het begin ons profielwerkstuk maken over iets dat gerelateerd is aan het voetbal. Wij hadden enkele idee??n opgedaan, nadat wij hebben gesproken met ouders, vrienden en kennissen uit de voetbalwereld. Wij hadden in het begin het idee om ons verslag te gaan maken over technologische hulpmiddelen in de voetbalwereld, maar vervolgens kwamen we met een idee dat wij beiden verkozen boven de technische hulpmiddelen in deze geweldige sport: de kapitaalkrachtige investeerders, die de westerse voetbalmarkt over beginnen te nemen.
Al redelijk snel kwamen wij, samen met onze enthousiaste begeleidster Marjon Kapp??, erachter dat dit onderwerp voor een profielwerkstuk te breed geori??nteerd is. Nadat wij dit hadden geconstateerd, kwamen wij op het idee om ons profielwerkstuk te wijden aan Chelsea. Deze club is het beste voorbeeld van een club die is overgenomen door een (buitenlandse) miljardair, aangezien de Londense voetbalclub al in 2003 werd gekocht door Abramovich. Andere investeerders volgden pas jaren later. Zodoende zijn de invloeden van een rijke investeerder bij Chelsea veel duidelijker dan bij andere clubs, zoals Manchester City, waar Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan in 2008 aan de macht kwam en Paris Saint-Germain (Nasser Ghanim Al-Khela??fi (Qatar Sports Investments), 2011).
Wij verwachten veel te leren bij het maken van dit profielwerkstuk. Niet alleen van de club Chelsea en de man Abramovich, maar ook van het maken en het opstellen van een dusdanig groot en leerzaam project. Wij zijn erg enthousiast over ons onderwerp en kijken uit naar de interviews die wij gaan afnemen met voetbalcoryfee??n als David Endt (schrijver over voetbal en tevens decennia lang gewerkt in verscheidene functies bij Ajax), Wilfred Gen??e (presentator van de befaamde voetbaltalkshow Voetbal International) en Arno Vermeulen (chef voetbal bij de NOS).
Achtergrond: Chelsea
Volledige clubnaam: Chelsea Football Club
Opgericht in: 1905
Plaats: Londen
Stadion: Stamford Bridge
Capaciteit: 42.000
Wijk: Fulham
Bijnaam: The Blues
Aantal landstitels: 4
Aantal FA Cup-titels: 7
Aantal Champions League-titels: 1
Aantal UEFA Cup/UEFA Winners' Cup-titels: 3
Thuisshirt: blauwe sokken, blauwe broek en blauw shirt
Clubeigenaar: Roman Abramovich
Voorzitter: Bruce Buck
Manager: Jos?? Mourinho
Competitie: Barclays Premier League
Laatste competitieresultaat: plek 3 (Barclays Premier League 2013-'14)
Jaar van overname door Abramovich: 2003
Huidige captain A-selectie: John Terry
Meeste duels gespeeld: John Harris, 795
Topscorer aller tijden: Frank Lampard, 211
Duurste speler aller tijden: Fernando Torres, zestig miljoen euro
Achtergrond: Roman Abramovich
Naam: Roman Arkadjevich Abramovich
Geboortedatum: 24-10-'66
Leeftijd: 48 jaar
Geschat vermogen: 12 miljard euro
Burgerlijke staat: samenwonend
Partner: Dasha Zukhova
Nationaliteit: Russisch
Afkomst: Saratov, Rusland
Opleiding: Arts and Science, Moscow
Kinderen: 7
Reden van welvaart: olie-industrie
Overname Chelsea FC: 01-07-'03
Reden bekendheid: zijn enorme vermogen, eigenaar van Chelsea FC, mede-eigenaar CSKA Moskou.
Reden controverse: Belangrijk persoon bij de aluminium wars, geruchten over het onderdrukken van Boris Berezovsky om extreem goedkoop aandelen op te kunnen kopen, gearresteerd op verdenking van diefstal van 55 tankers met diesel (nooit veroordeeld),
English summary
Background: Chelsea
Club name: Chelsea Football Club
Founded in: 1905
Place: London
Stadium: Stamford Bridge
Capacity: 42,000
District: Fulham
Nickname: The Blues
Premier League titles: 4
FA Cup titles: 7
Champions League titles: 1
UEFA (Winners') Cup titles: 3
Tenue: blue socks, blue shorts and blue shirts
Club owner: Roman Abramovich
Chairman: Bruce Buck
Manager: Jos?? Mourinho
Competition: Barclays Premier League
Last domestic competition result: 3rd (2013-'14 Barclays Premier League)
Year of acquisition by Abramovich: 2003
Current captain Chelsea squad: John Terry
Most games played: John Harris, 795
Top scorer of all times: Frank Lampard, 211
Most expensive player ever: Fernando Torres, ??50 million
Background: Roman Abramovich
Name: Roman Arkadjevich Abramovich
Date of birth: 24-10-'66
Age: 48 jaar
Net worth: 12 miljard euro
Marital status: cohabiting
Partner: Dasha Zukhova
Nationality: Russisch
Descent: Saratov, Rusland
Education: Arts and Science, Moscow
Children: 7
Reason of welfare: oil industry
Acquisation of Chelsea FC: 01-07-'03
Reason of fame: his enormous net worth, ownership of Chelsea FC, co-ownership CSKA Moscow.
Reason of controverse: played a big role at the aluminium wars, rumours about suppressing Boris Berezovsky to buy shares extremely cheap on the stock market, arrested after accusation of the theft of 55 tankers (never condemned).
Main- and sub questions
After discussing with our supervisor Mrs. Kapp?? about our research plans at the very beginning of our project, we came to the conclusion that we wanted to do our research about the influence of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich on the image of the club.
Logically, we came up with the following main question: What is de influence of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich on the image of the club? We also thought about which sub questions we wanted to do research after and we came to the conclusion that the questions following below are the most important and most interesting sub questions. We came up with three major questions and thought it was interesting as well to make a comparison between Chelsea and a club which maintains a totally different strategy: Bayern Munich.
1. What is the influence of Roman Abramovich on Chelsea's transfer policy?
2. What is the influence of Roman Abramovich on Chelsea's successes in sporting terms?
3. What is the influence of Roman Abramovich on the international recognition of Chelsea?
4. Comparison between Chelsea FC and Bayern Munich.
Summary of the hypothesis
Before we started to do research for our project we had to make up our minds and think of an answer that would possibly be the outcome of our main question. We believe that Abramovich, although he is a very controversial type of owner and given the fact that a lot of people despise rich and foreign club owners, is one of the best things that ever happened to Chelsea in their 110-year club history.
Lots of football lovers hate football clubs for spending so much money of a Russian or Middle Eastern man, who became a multi billionaire by selling oil or gas. They believe that it is a controversial thing to do, spending hundreds of millions of pounds that had just been given to the club. They think it is unfair in relation to other clubs that have to do everything on their own, without the help of a lurid sheikh. On the other hand, all this cash enabled Chelsea to buy world-class players, a world-class coach and develop all the facilities of their youth academy. After a while, this also enables the club to win national and international prizes and after all, that's what being a top club is about: about winning prizes. If you win, you're loved by your fans and after years, the amazing players and the high quality football the club is showing attracts more and more Chelsea fans. All things considered, we believe that Abramovich has its downsides for Chelsea, but in the end he makes the club a lot better.
The transfer policy of Chelsea
Most importantly, let there be no mistake about the fact that the transfer fees being paid for players and the wages of employees went sky high after Abramovich took over Chelsea in 2003. But were these investments smart or did Abramovich just bought player after player because he was able to, without any these expenses leading to anything good? Yes, he bought player after player because he was able to at the beginning. Lots of players came to Chelsea while they were highly overpriced. And no, he didn't always buy the most expensive players without thinking about their usefulness. Especially the last years, he takes his hands off the transfer policy more and more and leaves the making of the main decisions to craftsmen.
As we've told already, Chelsea bought lots of extremely expensive players throughout the years after Abramovich took over the club. Many of these players, like Fernando Torres, Andriy Shevchenko, Juan Sebati??n Ver??n and Yuri Valentinovich Zhirkov have failed miserably. Many of these players were a great success though. There were the youngster Eden Hazard, 'the king' Didier Drogba and Petr Cech for example.
After all, the only thing that decides whether players are a catch or an overpriced failure, or 'just another one of those average players', is the public opinion. Of course, almost everyone will agree that the average level of the Chelsea players rose, but not everyone agrees whether the players are worth their price. The only thing we can say with a 100% certainty is that Chelsea has bought players for an exceptional amount of money and that the amount of Chelsea fans has increased each year since his coming. Right now the London giants are much more of a top club than it used to be before the arrival of Abramovich.
Abramovich's influence on the sportive results of Chelsea
While we were looking on the internet to find relevant information about this sub question, Olivier came with the idea to examine if it is possible to buy success? Think about it: many people say things as 'money can't buy happiness' and 'you can't just buy success'. But is that true?
When we researched this sub question, we first thought about which way we had to examine this. Do you look at all of the rankings Chelsea had in the English Premier League? Do you compare all the amount of prizes after the arrival of Abramovich with the amount of prizes Chelsea earned before the arrival of Abramovich? Do you compare the amount of prizes Chelsea earned in the Abramovich era to the amount of prizes other, similar English clubs earned during the same period? We decided it would be best to compare the prizes that Chelsea earned during the Abramovich era with the amount of prizes before this period, and also compare the prizes Chelsea earned with the amount of prizes won by similar English top clubs.
At first we came to the conclusion that Chelsea had earned eight times (!) the amount of prizes after the arrival of Abramovich in comparison to the amount of prizes Chelsea had earned before the arrival of Abramovich. Everyone can see that this is an extraordinary accomplishment but assuming that, over the years there came more and more prizes to earn and that maybe the level of all English clubs started to unlevel, maybe all the other top clubs did the same.
To rule out this possibility, we had to compare the fact that Chelsea eightfold the amount of prizes, to the difference between the amount of prizes won by other English top clubs before and after the arrival of Abramovich at Chelsea. When we did this, it became clear that Manchester United earned 2.9 times the amount of prizes, Liverpool earned 1.3 times less the amount of prizes and Arsenal won the same amount of prizes per year, than as they did before 2003, when Abramovich took over Chelsea. As you can imagine, there is always the factor of coincidence, which can manipulate the outcomes of our research, but the differences between Chelsea and the clubs we compared it with, are too big for being 'just a coincidence'. In fact, Chelsea earned eight times as many prizes, on average per year, in the last ten seasons, than as they did in the entire existence of Chelsea before the arrival of Abramovich. This was a period that stretched from 1905 till 2003.
In the last ten seasons, the other three English top clubs we used to compare to Chelsea, earned, on average per year, only 1,75 times as many prizes as they did during the period of 1905 until 2003. The growth of the amount of prizes at Chelsea was 4,6 times as big as the growth of the amount of prizes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal all together. (Chelsea earned, on average per year, eight times the amount of prizes during the Abramovich era, than as Chelsea earned between 1905 till 2003, while the three other clubs, on average per year, earned only 1.75 times the amount of prizes during the Abramovich era, than as they earned in the period between 1905 and 2003. (8/1.75=4.6 times the growth during the same period of time).
The growth of Chelsea being, on average, 4.6 times bigger than the other three clubs all together, we had to pull the conclusion that this can definitely not be attributed to the factor of coincidence. So yes, money can buy success!
Abramovich's influence on Chelsea's international recognition
According to statistics of Statista, there are only six football clubs in the world with higher brand equities than Chelsea: Bayern M??nchen (1), Real Madrid (2), Manchester United (3), FC Barcelona (4), Manchester City (5) and Arsenal (6).
For our investigation, we used three representative methods to calculate the brand equity. The first one is the historical costs method. This method states the following: the brand equity of a company is determined by counting all the money the company has spent from the beginning. In Chelsea's case that would mean that the brand equity of the club is into the billions, considering the fact that only in the past decade Abramovich spent almost a billion euro's on new players.
The next method is the method of replacement. How much money will it take to create a company that can compete with the first one? In our case you have to look at the value of the current Chelsea squad (according to transfermarkt.de around 450 million euro's) and organisation with their salaries. The most reliable method is the method that is based on the market; what would somebody pay for the company? If a billionaire knocks on the door of a club in the English League 2 and he wants to buy it for two billion euro's, it would make the club worth that amount of money.
David Aaker
David Aaker, a British economist who is specialised in brand equities, stated that the following matters determine the brand equity of a company:
' Customer loyalty to the brand
' Notoriety of the brand
' Perceived quality
' Brand associations
' Other characteristics of the brand
South East Asia
Chelsea is always looking at opportunities to increase their brand equity abroad. Chelsea held a training camp in South East Asia, but not only for sportive reasons. Because the whole selection of Chelsea was in this region of Asia, the notoriety of the club raised. Ron Gourlay, former Chief Executive of Chelsea, on the 2013 South East Asia trip: 'South East Asia remains home to an ever-growing and passionate Chelsea FC support and it gives me great pleasure that we will again be able to experience that wonderful hospitality. In particular I look forward to visiting Indonesia for the first time, a country where we have an extensive fan base that is eager to see Chelsea play.'
Comparison: Chelsea versus Bayern Munich
Since a very controversial type of owner rules Chelsea, we thought it would be interesting to compare Chelsea to a similar club with a totally different kind of club policy and a totally different kind of incomes. For this comparison, of course, we chose Bayern Munich. The German top club is one of the very few top clubs left without any form of income from some rich man giving money to the club. All of Bayern's expenses are financed by money they earned themselves by sponsoring, charity gifts, merchandising and ticket sales. Although you'd expect that Bayern would miss out on a lot of money, that hasn't happened yet. In fact, during the 2013-2014 season, the total revenues of Bayern were 528 million euro's. Chelsea's revenues were 'only' 402 million euro's. During this season Bayern repaid the rest of their mortgage of the Allianz Arena, the stadium of the club. Bayern was obligated to fully repay their mortgage at 2030 but they managed to pay it off sixteen years early! Still Bayern had a record profit.
So obviously, Bayern is doing perfectly well on financial level, but that's not just it. Also sports wise, Bayern has known worse times. Bayern were champions of the German Bundesliga six times in the last ten years. Two years ago, they even managed to win the treble, which means they won the German Bundesliga, the national cup and the Champions league. Winning the Champions means that Bayern isn't just a German top club, but a European top club as well, being able to combat with clubs as Real Madrid.
The main reason for Bayern being able to have such huge turnovers and be so successful is the way they behave on the transfer market. For example, last year Bayern sold a very decent striker, Mario Mandzukic, for 22 million euro's to Atl??tico Madrid and they managed to bring in an even better, world class, striker in the form of Robert Lewandowski; for absolutely nothing. Chelsea on the other hand bought a world-class striker, having about the same level as Lewandowski, for forty millions euro's. Later this year they let go off Fernando Torres for free, since his contract expired. Chelsea bought Fernando in 2011 for sixty million euro's. So, Chelsea and Bayern both brought in a world-class striker, and they both let go off a little less good striker. The big difference is that Bayern Munich made a profit of 22 million euro's and Chelsea made a loss of forty millions euro's. This is a difference of around sixty million euro's!
Conclusion
To answer our main question, we composed a hypothesis.
We now came to the conclusion that our hypothesis was quiet accurate.
Considering the fact that a lot of people (46% according to the 200+ people we have interviewed) have an aversion towards a club with a controversial owner as Roman Abramovich, there are still more benefits to the fact that Abramovich took over Chelsea. We believe that the benefits weigh up to the disadvantages, because after all, the world of football and top sport in general, is about winning prizes. If you win prizes, you'll gain huge amount of fans, if you win, you'll gain incomes from sponsors and if you win, you'll achieve the goal you've been working for so hard over the years.
A huge amount of clubs, Anzhi Makhachkala and M??laga CF for example, have had too many problems because of such a controversial owner leaving the club after driving up the wages of players who still have contracts for years. If the owner than decides to leave a club, and decides to stop the cash flow, the club can't pay the player's salaries and is then forced to sell all of their expensive players. Since usually all of the players of clubs like Anzhi were worth a lot, these clubs have to get rid of almost all of their players, which is, of course, a catastrophe for a club. Abramovich however, has become an owner with a real Chelsea heart. This means that Abramovich is much less likely to leave the club and to stop the cash flow, than most other club owners who invest a lot in any other club. While Abramovich paid almost everything for Chelsea to enable the club to grow bigger and bigger, the influence of Abramovich's money in the organisation started to decrease over the last few years.
The 2013-2014-football season was the first during the Abramovich-era in which the Chelsea actually made a profit. Chelsea now starts to sell players for the same amount of money as where they buy the players for. This means that if Abramovich now stops the cash flow, Chelsea will have much less problems than that it would've caused during the first years after his arrival in London. Chelsea will probably still be able to continue as a top club.
Discussion
There is, unfortunately, the possibility that our research has a couple of loopholes.
Since, we haven't been able to interview an employee inside the Chelsea organisation itself, we also haven't been able to verify all the facts with an interview of an insider. Mostly, we used Internet sites as our sources but we also had a couple of interviews with people out of the world of football. It is a little less reliable now, than it would have been if our interviewees had been from inside the Chelsea organisation.
Abramovich has been the Chelsea owner for 11,5 years now, which makes him a fairly reliable owner. But still controversial club-owners like Abramovich always bring a risk with them, as they always have the possibility to stop the big cash flow.
Proloog
In ons profielwerkstuk gaan wij de invloed van Roman Abramovich op Chelsea onderzoeken. Dit doen wij aan de hand van onze deelvragen, die wij onderzoeken door het afnemen van interviews met mensen die hun sporen in het voetbal hebben verdiend, door het vergaren van relevante informatie op het internet (hierbij onderzoeken wij reeds gepubliceerde bronnen) en in boeken en door onze vragen te onderzoeken door middel van enqu??tes. Op het moment van schrijven weten al welke mensen wij gaan interviewen, aangezien we al beschikken over een aardig netwerk in de voetbalwereld: David Endt (schrijver over voetbal en tevens decennia lang gewerkt in verscheidene functies bij Ajax), Wilfred Gen??e (presentator van de befaamde voetbaltalkshow Voetbal International) en Arno Vermeulen (chef voetbal bij de NOS). Tevens hebben wij ervoor gekozen om ons te beperken tot vier onderzoekswaardige aspecten, te weten: 1 de invloed op het transferbeleid, 2 de sportieve resultaten, 3 de internationale bekendheid en als laatste 4een vergelijking van deze resultaten met de 'self made' club Bayern M??nchen. Dit alles omvat onze hoofdvraag: wat is de invloed van Roman Abramovich het imago van Chelsea?
Hypothese
De hoofdvraag van ons profielwerkstuk, is: wat is de invloed van Chelsea-eigenaar Roman Abramovich op het imago van de club? Deze vraag omvat alle deelvragen. Nadat wij alle deelvragen hebben voltooid, zullen wij een conclusie vormen over deze hoofdvraag. Nu geven wij een voorlopig antwoord op de hoofdvraag.
Wij zijn van mening dat Abramovich het imago van de club Chelsea ten goede komt, omdat hij met zijn investeringen de club naar een (veel) hoger plan heeft getild. Wij denken dat dit belangrijker voor het imago is dan de controversi??le geruchten over Abramovich. Voor een club is het immers niet goed voor het imago om een eigenaar te hebben, over wie slechte dingen worden vermeld in de media. Wij denken echter, nogmaals, dat het voor het imago van de club belangrijker is om prijzen te winnen, omdat voetballiefhebbers meer kijken naar prestaties van clubs dan naar beleid(bepalers), alhoewel beide factoren afhankelijk zijn van elkaar.
Waarom de invloed van Abramovich dan zo belangrijk is? Door het geld dat hij in de club pompt, kan Chelsea haar budget omhoog schroeven. Niet alleen voor transfersommen en salarissen (voor de korte termijn), ook voor andere operationele kosten, denk maar eens aan het bijhouden van het imposante stadion van Chelsea: Stamford Bridge. Het zijn van een topclub vergt veel geld voor dit soort zaken. De aanwezigheid van Abramovich in Zuid-Londen zorgt voor een hoge mate van stabiliteit binnen de organisatie van the Blues. Deze stabiliteit zorgt voor een goed imago van de vereniging Chelsea.
Wij denken dat deze voordelen zwaarder wegen dan de nadelen, die een figuur als Abramovich, die in het verleden gelinkt werd aan de Russische maffia, omdat de bedrijfsvoering van Abramovich niet wordt aangetast door de geruchten en hij dikwijls laat blijken te beschikken over een ??cht Chelsea-hart. Dit staat zwaar in tegenstelling tot veel andere clubeigenaren.