Is foreign ownership really about bettering the game?

American billionaire Stan Kroenke has been slowly increasing his stake in Arsenal since April; he currently owns 12.2 percent. Garrett W. Ellwood/MLS/WireImage.com

MAILBAG Submit a question or comment for Gavin. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

It began with Roman Abramovich and his purchase of Chelsea in 2003. It continued with the controversial acquisition of Manchester United by the Glazer family in '05.

Then there was Portsmouth's sale to the Russian Alexandre Gaydamak. In the past year, Aston Villa has been sold to Randy Lerner, Liverpool has been bought by George Gillett and Tom Hicks, and West Ham has been taken over by an Icelandic consortium headed by Eggert Magnusson.

Now, most controversially, Manchester City has been sold to Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, a man whose regime was condemned by Amnesty International for human right abuses, a man who is now wanted in his homeland on corruption charges.

Arsenal could be next, should major shareholder Danny Fiszman decide to sell his stake to "Silent" Stan Kroenke.

English soccer is for sale -- and no questions are being asked. Billionaire speculators are hovering above Premier League clubs, lured by the prospect of cashing in on bumper TV rights deals and the growing global popularity of the English Premier League.

The silent reaction of the English Football Association would be laughable -- were it not so shameful. The so-called "guardians" of the English game have sat back and said nothing as club after club has fallen into the hands of foreign speculators.

Rich men have always been drawn to football. Nothing boosts the ego more than watching down from the directors box at a team adored by its supporters. Nothing brings instant respect and credibility more than owning a football team. Just ask former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who turned his ownership of Milan into a successful political movement, even naming his party, Forza Italia, after a fans' slogan.

The takeovers of Chelsea and Man City by Abramovich and Thaksin, respectively, have been motivated, in part, by a desire to appease negative political opinions back home.

However, the overriding motivation of this new wave of foreign takeovers has been simple: to make money. The global nature of soccer's new economy means there are rich pickings for those businessmen who can gain access to this lucrative market.

Abramovich reportedly looked at buying Real Madrid or Barcelona before settling on Chelsea four years ago. But because both clubs are owned by their members, he was forced to turn his attentions to England, where no such restrictions apply. Similarly, in Germany, Bundesliga clubs must be 51 percent owned by their members.

Not so in England, where anybody can buy a Premier League club. The Thai court proceedings against Thaksin may be politically motivated, but nobody in England has stopped to question where his money came from, or what his motivation for buying Man City is. Thaksin has money, lots of it, and therefore must be "a good thing." Anybody who does stop to question these takeovers is labeled a xenophobe.

Yet, it is imperative that we question these deals. Soccer holds a special place in the English psyche. The bond between a supporter and his team is what makes soccer a unique sport. A takeover by a foreign speculator with no previous connection with a club weakens that bond. Once that bond breaks, soccer becomes like any other sport. Now there is no difference between soccer and, for example, Formula One motor racing, an exciting spectacle, but nothing more than a rich man's toy.

The foreign takeovers of Premier League clubs are being hailed by some as proof of the global appeal of English soccer. Yet they are being conducted at the expense of the relationships between the clubs and their local fans.

Premier League clubs are being turned into investment vehicles which will make very rich men even richer. The shameful silence of the English soccer authorities on the matter is deafening.