Fan Advisory Boards

Fan Advisory Boards (FABs) are a regular topic of conversation and have been since their creation at Premier League level a couple of years ago. As they become more common amongst the 72 EFL clubs, their purpose and effects will come increasingly under the microscope.

The first thing to acknowledge is that football has been known for its faddish approach to fan engagement. We’ve moved from fans forums (sometimes referred to as the US phrase ‘town halls’), adopted one-to-one relationships with supporters’ trusts, and more recently adopted the ‘fans parliament’ model (sometimes known as ‘supporters boards’). The Fan Engagement Index [link] defines these as ‘Groups of fans, ideally elected by fans, representing various groups within the fanbase’.

In that sense, though often smaller than parliaments, these smaller, more targeted groups of representative fans are not new. In some cases clubs such as Manchester United have even kept their fans parliaments (though they confusingly call theirs a ‘fans forum’). 

However, clubs adopting listening and dialogue that gives greater insight to what fans think is invariably a good thing if it’s done well. Except the spirit of the idea matters, and we should ask whether clubs are missing a genuine opportunity to transform the cycle of peaks and troughs that they operate in with this new model.

Originally, these bodies were touted as ‘Shadow Boards’, including in the Fan Led Review of Football Governance. The place to go on this is the Corporate Governance Institute. In their piece, ‘What is a Shadow Board’ there are actually several examples of the role Shadow Boards can play:

• ‘…as a developmental tool – cultivat(ing) and promote younger or less-experienced staff for future leadership positions.’ 
• ‘Checking and balancing the official board – act(ing) as a separate, unofficial group that reviews and critiques the decisions of the official board of directors. They can offer alternative perspectives or point out potential flaws in the board’s decisions. This structure is less common and can sometimes arise in activist or oversight situations.
• ‘Alternative perspective – (to) offer a viewpoint from different parts of the company or from different stakeholder groups. For instance, a non-profit might have a shadow board made up of the people they serve.’

In football it’s pretty clear that at least in the first instance, it is about checks and balances to ensure that the ownership/leadership runs the club in a way that is sympathetic to its fanbase, wider communities, traditions, culture etc. It could also mean number three sometimes as well, which is a more consultative form and might involve other stakeholders, such as community groups.

However, if it is number two then we first have to accept that football clubs have not historically been entities that encourage dissent. In fact, it’s only really in the last ten or so years that organised protest and dissent hasn’t been the principal way that fans get their voices heard. It is also a truth that the culture in most clubs still isn’t geared towards this way of doing things.

One of the reasons the Fan Engagement Index exists, and the reason we’re having these conversations is precisely because, even despite years of challenge and change in football, clubs and leagues still struggle with the idea that football clubs are one part private business, one part sporting monopoly, one part library or community asset, and need to operate in a way that reflects in particular the two last elements.

So along comes an idea that could be genuinely transformative in English football, and instead of the big change hoped for by many, we see something a little bit more like a panel of fans who give their views in a bit more of a consumer kind of way. But the key element is undoubtedly that their importance varies depending on the culture of the club concerned.

When you introduce something like FABs are might directly affect the way a club operates, the individual culture at each club will shape the thing in question accordingly, and to some extent, the thing itself will react to that depending on the individuals and groups involved. It happens with all forms of fan-related change, whether fan ownership, supporter directors or fans parliaments. The people who are appointed or elected on one side, and those representing the club on the other, stretch and pull the relationship – sometimes to breaking point.

Football clubs tend to operate on a week-by-week cycle of matches, signings, injuries, victory or loss, with a general sense of panic or calm depending on what the result or position in the table is.

If your club is one that encourages and relishes debate and discussion and new ideas, and a leadership that is open to question and not thin skinned, an FAB has the potential to flourish as an independent minded organ that can operate within the club, enriching and improving the decision making and leadership. If it operates within a club where the leadership is absolutely dead set on a particular course and doesn’t like being pushed too hard against it, chances are it probably won’t. 

The factor often forgotten in all of this, as plenty of those reading this will know, is that football clubs tend to operate on a week-by-week cycle of matches, signings, injuries, victory or loss, with a general sense of panic or calm depending on what the result or position in the table is. That’s not surprising given it’s a results driven business. Although I would argue this isn’t necessarily written in the DNA of clubs, this is the starting point. No, you can’t control much at all when the team steps out on the pitch, but part of the job of the administrators of a club – and this includes fan engagement – is to reduce the number of other issues – the drag caused by poor decisions or lack of investment elsewhere – and ensure that when results don’t go well, fans don’t start conflating failure on the pitch with failure and faults off it. Where these two dovetail is often where the crisis emerges from.

Where FABs work and where they struggle

There are examples where the idea works more as it should. One Premier League director of communications recently told me that they have been comfortable and even encouraged their FAB to speak out on matters that are relevant to it and important to the fanbase, whilst ensuring that it respects its proximity to the club (i.e. that it isn’t actually ‘independent’). It is able to be outspoken if needed, which sometimes benefits the club itself, sometimes not. 

However, some clubs find it difficult to deal with an FAB when some members are both outside (a supporters’ trust or group) and inside at the same time. Groups being both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, if we’re following what an FAB should be, is part of the point. They bring insight that you wouldn’t get if they just sat outside getting frustrated.

There are also other clubs, some more high profile than others, that use the FAB as a way of ensuring that it positions itself correctly on an issue in the communications sense, rather than to actively alter decision making. Sometimes this results in a way that ends up ‘dividing and conquering’ the fanbase, intentionally or not, which is manifestly not the purpose of an FAB, not in anyone’s book.

In the very public case of Leeds United, their Supporters Advisory Board spoke out against what they viewed as their club’s dismal record of recent appointments of head coach and player transfer strategy, something which I’m certain would have caused some panic at the club. Is that part of an FABs role?

The leadership of football at league level (EFL, Premier League) matters too. I’m aware that the development of the original idea of shadow boards at Premier League level (which remember is on behalf of all clubs) was watered down somewhat by a desire to prevent FABs from becoming too influential or powerful. As a result this is a huge factor in how FABs operate now, and how EFL clubs will respond. 

Whilst I would argue that there’s often an unhealthy preoccupation on the part of clubs and leagues with controlling the environment, it is also a fact of life, and means that if you’re a proponent of change you have to deal with that as a reality. Yes, regulation matters, and why, despite the need to respect the individual culture at each club, we do need to have a standardised way of FABs operating in the rules.

However, this behaviour is habitual to a lot of people in football clubs (see the point about the cycle they operate in), and the reason that the leagues, as representatives of those clubs, act in the way they do, and I don’t think this is habit is going to change solely by regulatory intervention. Those who want to push more progressive ways of listening and dialogue should also recognise that we need to persuade clubs to adopt the best forms of at clubs, with the hope and expectation that this changes the culture of the club, and the game more widely.

My overall take is threefold:

1. Active, independent-minded FABs mean better decisions get made

Better decisions are made by organisations at all levels when you have insight, knowledge and experience from across the business (see expert in public communication, Professor Jim Macnamara). Shadow Boards can be a big part of these. See the Corporate Governance Institute’s example of Gucci.

2. Accept the cycle, whilst adapting it

Football’s breakneck week-by-week cycle whilst being a fact of life in one sense, can also be tempered by a better organisational culture that can be reshaped by things like FABs. I don’t think that enough people appreciate just how much this cycle influences almost every decision, and how we might work within that cycle to change it.

3. Leadership really, really matters

Leadership matters. A club has to want to be questioned, held to account and want to hear different ideas, and see the benefit in it. This is the key to real and lasting change.

4. Leagues and clubs as collectives need to allow change to happen. And leadership really, really, really matters

Part of the leadership issue also applies to the leagues themselves, acting on behalf of clubs, who need to be less fearful of change. Yes, it’s a loss of control, but I would argue that in trying to control things quite so much (and this applies to clubs themselves as well), all you’re doing is creating tension that adds to the general sense of disgruntlement and irritation on the part of fans, fuelling the cycle.

All clubs – EFL clubs in particular – should now be thinking about what they want: do they want a group of people who challenge, looking to improve and make decision making better at all levels, or do they just want a slightly enhanced panel of fans asking questions about the price of beer and pasties? Do they accept that change is coming anyway because of the Independent Regulator, see it as an opportunity, and ride the wave, or are they ordering the tide back like King Canute?

No-one can yet be sure of the answer, but I’m going to keep providing my insight, and if you want to respond in any way, drop me a line at kevin@fanengagement.net

Be part of the Fan Engagement Network & receive our regular newsletter via https://fanengagement.net/join/