Transparency in 2019/2020

Transparency is the extent to which information is ‘complete and ‘findable’’, and ‘the degree to which it is disaggregated, verified and simplified’ (G. Michenera and K. Bersch, Brazilian School of Public & Business Administration, Brazil)

• Transparency is about how much of what a club does is exposed to the fans/stakeholders
• It’s a difficult challenge for clubs, being community assets, though almost always privately owned
• Our research shows that more clubs need to publish information about meetings involving fans. This applies to all clubs in all circumstances and ownership models
• Much of the failure to publish is we believe, down to oversight, and can be easily rectified
• We also believe that some form of regular reporting from club board meetings would greatly enhance the understanding of process and decision making at clubs

Transparency remains one of the most neglected parts of Fan Engagement, yet it is one of the most important. Dialogue means nothing if fans aren’t actually aware of the dialogue taking place, or can’t take part or feed into it directly (e.g. a fans forum), or via their representatives (e.g. a fans parliament or supporters’ trust).

Transparency doesn’t mean publishing everything, as it there are perfectly legitimate business or sporting reasons to redact or not publish certain information. For example, if the supporters’ trust has formally elected or appointed director to represent the fans at board level, there may be important discussions about internal staffing or player disciplinary issues that can’t be published for justifiable legal reasons, and so the relevant passage would be redacted (blacked out). There is certainly no reason not to disclose certain, pre-agreed information, and this can be governed by a Memorandum of Understanding, or a formal legal agreement, or where relevant, a shareholders agreement such as that between the supporters’ trusts and clubs at Carlisle United or Swansea City.

We also include a score for reporting on club board meetings as well, because we believe that all clubs should be open and honest about the big, strategic decisions made that directly affect fans, even if there aren’t fan representatives present. This is also a slightly more flexible measurement than the others. We score anything from direct addresses from the owners/directors to the fans about annual financial performance, off-pitch decisions or other issues, as well as formal minutes or direct reports from actual board meetings, or a supporters’ trust or board representative discussing or reporting board meetings via their own board meeting minutes.

The expectation is that fan-owned clubs all do well here, and they do, given the transparency requirements of the model that might be referred to as ‘50%+1’. However we believe that all clubs should be reporting proceedings to some extent.

AFC Wimbledon top the list for transparency, with Exeter City second. Reading once again prove that being privately owned doesn’t prevent transparency, and they are joined by a number of other clubs including Millwall and Bradford City.

If you’re interested in chatting about the Fan Engagement Index, or what Think Fan Engagement can do for you, your club, your brand or your client, drop us a line.

Transparency Table 2019/2020