Liverpool fans' protest admirable, but not enough: only a full boycott will change things

It seems as if Liverpool’s Ian Ayre is all too happy to treat Liverpool fans as if they’re just a bunch of customers.

Yes, there were some mealy-mouthed justifications given for the new price rises in the last couple of days - there are cheap prices for those in the local area; there are cheap prices for a few youngsters - but none of it convinced anyone. And as promised, Liverpool fans walked out in protest in the 77th minute in their miserable 2-2 draw against Sunderland, a statement at the ridiculous cost of £77 for next season’s most expensive ticket at Anfield.

They were right to do so, but there is more that needs to be done.

First of all, let’s get Ayre’s attempts to mitigate the fury out of the way. To offer up an extremely limited number of cheap tickets to those around the local area hints at the wider problem. Like most of the biggest clubs in the Premier League now, they are more than happy to price out those who are closest, safe in the knowledge that enough people from around the world will be happy for an expensive jaunt once or twice a season. After all, what is an expensive ticket when compared to the cost of a flight, long train journey, and a hotel for a day or two? It’s also worth remembering how Liverpool treat the rest of their surroundings.

Similarly, the very idea that some tickets need to be reserved for youngsters demonstrates that for the most part, younger fans are being priced out of the game. Older people who have built up careers, or who are more likely to have regular income, might still be able to go. Younger people and those with children might not be able to attend their matches alone, or with their parents, as would have previously happened. As has been noted elsewhere, the pricing out of younger fans is detrimental to atmosphere at stadiums. At Manchester United, for example, some fans have reported feeling as if they are looked at as weird or unwelcome should they try to start chants outside of the singing section. That a singing section is considered necessary tells its own story of the changing demographics of English football.

This week, it was Liverpool’s turn (and this isn’t a dig just at them, most of the clubs who think they can get away with it, do it), to boast of their worldwide relevance. They even have a preferred sandwich partner for goodness sakes: Subway Sandwiches now benefit from a commercial tie-in with the team. That says it all about the club now being more an exercise in brand exploitation than entertaining fans.

Not that they call them "fans" any more. They are now customers, and the change in terminology fits with the destruction of the bond between fan and club.

It was never entirely virtuous, and previous owners of Liverpool - and indeed other clubs - haven’t been averse to taking money out of the club for personal profit, but it was rarely as one-sided as it is now.

Look at the Glazers at Old Trafford. Their leveraged buyout of the club meant they had to invest not a single penny of their own money, instead loading it with hundreds of millions in debt, and hundreds of millions of debt repayment - and it was all legal. They choked transfer spending at an average of £25 million a season under Alex Ferguson, and then had to spend 10 times that in two years after their avarice left David Moyes and Louis van Gaal a carcass to revive.

Edward Woodward is due to host the latest quarterly financial results next week, and he will come under pressure - not for making United the most boring club in the world, but because $500 million has been wiped off the market value of the club under his stewardship. United are a less attractive side, and they offer a less attractive consumer spectacle. One day someone at Liverpool or United might notice that if they engage with their fans to produce a club worth going to watch, and treated them with respect, it would be a far more productive way to make money, without exploitation.

Further south, in the heart of inequality, London, and in its heart of inequality, Islington, Arsene Wenger was candid about the new television deal being used to fund the purchase of more players. Wenger is often held up as some kind of moral man in football, but he is at the heart of the financial strategy of the club. It should be remembered that he and Arsenal turned Highbury into luxury flats, introduced £1,000+ season tickets, brought teenage prodigies from around the world for its academy, and tried to buy Luis Suarez despite him being found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra. There is a willingness to chase cash and compromise principles everywhere.

In some ways, it’s impossible to blame them. Fans demand signings, agents operate with the intent to make as much money as possible, and clubs have to be run as businesses to keep up with that.

What is becoming apparent now is that there has been a separation in ambitions.

Clubs are no longer run to be the best and most profitable clubs, they are approached more like assets to be squeezed as efficiently as possible. In turn, that has isolated fans who actually care about their club as they realise the relationship is now almost entirely one-sided.

Which brings us back to Liverpool's fan protest. Walking out is worthwhile, in that it draws attention to the cause. Given that the “Twenty’s Plenty” away ticket campaign has now largely failed, fans groups should consider whether protests are enough.

It is now plain that profits are the sole motivator for any club. The only action that might have an effect - if the customers don’t already outnumber the fans - is to cut the clubs off entirely with a sustained boycott.

It is far easier said than done, but there is no other option. Waiting for clubs to grow a conscience, or the government or football associations to suddenly legislate for the benefit of the public, is never going to happen.