Johansen.se

When the Premier League broke away from the rest of English football in 1992, its 22 clubs generated £205 million in its debut season, and the average player earned £2,050 a week. Thirty years later, despite having two fewer clubs, the league’s revenue had increased by 2,850% to £6.1 billion and the average player earned £93,000 a week.

At the heart of this extraordinary growth is an American revolution. In the Premier League’s inaugural season, football was still in recovery from the horrors of the stadium disasters at Hillsborough and Heysel. Owners tended to be from the local area and with a business background. The only foreign owner was Sam Hamman at Wimbledon, a Lebanese millionaire who bought the club on a whim having reportedly been much more interested in tennis. The season ended with Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) winning the English game’s top league for the first time in 26 years.

Dan Friedkin’s US investment group already owns Italian Serie A club Roma.
Maurizio Borsari/AFLO/Alamy

Now, if the Texas-based Friedkin Group’s recent deal to buy Everton goes through, 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs will be controlled or part-owned by American investors. The US – long seen as football’s final frontier when it comes to the men’s game – suddenly can’t get enough of English “soccer”.

Four of the Premier League’s “big six” are American-owned – Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea – while a fifth, Manchester City, has a significant US minority shareholding. Aston Villa, Fulham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, West Ham and Ipswich Town also have varying degrees of American ownership.

And it’s not even just the glamour clubs at the top of the tree. American investment has also been significant lower down the football pyramid, led by the high-profile acquisition of then non-league Wrexham by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenny, and Birmingham City’s purchase by US investors including seven-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. American investment in football has reached places as geographically diverse as Carlisle and Crawley in England, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland.

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

So why the American obsession with English football? And how real are concerns that these US owners could collude to “Americanise” the traditions of the Premier League – whether by reducing the risk of relegation, introducing some form of “draft pick” system, or moving matches and even clubs to other cities?

The Premier League’s first US owner

Manchester United was the first Premier League club to come under American ownership – after a row about a horse.

In 2005, United was owned by a variety of investors including Irish businessmen and racehorse owners John Magnier and J.P. McManus. Their erstwhile friend Ferguson, the United manager, thought he co-owned the champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar with them – a stallion worth millions in stud rights. They disagreed – and their bitter dispute was such that Magnier and McManus decided to sell their shares in the football club.

The Miami-based Glazer family – already involved in sport as owners of NFL franchise the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – had already been buying up small tranches of shares in United, but the sudden availability of the Irish shares allowed Malcolm Glazer to acquire a controlling stake for £790 million (around £1.5 billion at today’s prices).

Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson, right, with ‘his’ horse Rock of Gibraltar in 2002.
PA / Alamy

The fact Glazer did not actually have sufficient funds to pay for these shares was a solvable problem. In the some-might-say commercially naive world of top-flight English football before the Premier League, Manchester United was a club without debt, paying its way without leveraging its position as one of the world’s most famous football clubs. Glazer saw the opportunity this presented and arranged a leveraged buy-out (LBO), whereby the football club borrowed more than £600 million secured on its own assets to, in effect, “buy itself” in 2005.

Despite the need to meet the high interest costs to fund the LBO, United continued winning trophies under Ferguson – including three Premier League titles in a row in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as a Champions League victory in 2008. Amid this success, the club felt that ticket prices were too low and set about increasing them, with matchday revenue increasing from £66 million in 2004/05 to over £101 million by 2007/08.

Commercial income was another area the Glazers were keen to increase. United set up offices in London and adopted a global approach to finding new official branding deals ranging from snacks to tractor and tyre suppliers – doubling revenues from this income source too.

But in this new, more aggressive world of “sweating the asset”, the debts lingered – and most United fans remained deeply suspicious of their American owners. (Following their father’s death in 2014, the club was co-owned by his six children, with brothers Avram and Joel Glazer becoming co-chairmen.)

Arsenal fans taunt their US-owned rivals Manchester United at the 2005 FA Cup final. Arsenal is now 100% owned by US businessman Stan Kroenke.
Allstar Picture Library / Alamy

Today, despite its partial listing on the New York Stock Exchange and the February 2024 sale of 27.7% of the club to British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe for a reputed £1.25 billion, United still has borrowings of more than £546 million, having paid cumulative interest costs of £969 million since the takeover in 2005. But with the club now valued at US$6.55 billion (around £5bn), it represents a very smart investment for the Glazer family.

Indeed, while the prices being paid for football clubs across Europe have reached record levels, they are still seen as cheap investments compared with US sports’ leading franchises. Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most valuable sports teams has American football (NFL), baseball (MLB) and basketball (NBA) teams occupying the top ten positions, with only three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City – in the top 50.

With NFL teams having an average franchise value of US$5.1 billion and NBA $3.9 billion, many English football clubs still look like a bargain from the other side of the pond.

The risk of relegation

The latest to join this US bandwagon, the Friedkin Group – a Texas-based portfolio of companies run by American businessman and film producer Dan Friedkin – is reported to have offered £400m to buy Everton, despite the club’s poor financial state.

“The Toffees” have been hit by loss of sponsorships as well as two sets of points deductions for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, leading to revenue losses from lower league positions. While the new stadium being built at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore dock has been yet another financial constraint, it will at least increase matchday income from the start of next season.

Everton’s new stadium at Bramley-Moore dock will open in time for the start of the 2025-26 season.
Phil Silverman / Shutterstock

A wider reason for the relative bargain in valuations of European football clubs is the risk of relegation – something that is not part of the closed leagues of most US sports. While the threat of relegation (and promise of promotion) has always been an integral part of English and European football, the jeopardy this brings for supporters – and a club’s finances – does not exist in the NFL, NBA, Major League Soccer and similar competitions.

The Premier League, with its three relegation spots at the end of each season, has featured 51 different clubs since it launched in 1992. Only six clubs – Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton – have been ever present, with Arsenal now approaching 100 years of consecutive top-flight football.

Other Premier League clubs have experienced the dramatic cost-benefit of relegation and promotion. Oldham Athletic, who were in the Premier League for its first two seasons, now languish in the fifth tier of the game, outside the English Football League (EFL). In contrast, Luton Town, who were in the fifth tier as recently as 2014, were promoted to the Premier League in 2023 – only to be relegated at the end of last season.

While it is difficult to compare football clubs with basketball and American football teams, the financial difference between having an open league, with relegation, and a closed league becomes apparent when you look at women’s football on both sides of the Atlantic.

Angel City, a women’s soccer team based in Los Angeles, only entered the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) in 2022 and is yet to win an NWSL trophy. But last month, the club was sold for US$250 million (£188m) to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger and TV journalist Willow Bay – the most expensive takeover in the history of women’s professional sport.

In comparison, Chelsea – seven-time winners of the English Women’s Super League and one of the most successful sides in Europe – valued its women’s team at £150 million ($US196m) earlier this summer. While there are a number of factors to this price differential, the confidence that Angel City will always be a member of the big league of US soccer clubs – and share very equally in its revenue – will have made its new owners very confident in the long-term soundness of their deal.

The story of Angel City FC, the most expensive team in women’s sport.

A further attraction for American investors is the potential to enter two markets – one mature (men’s football) and one effectively a start-up (the women’s game) – in a single purchase. In the US, the top men’s and women’s clubs are completely separate. But in Europe, most top-flight women’s teams are affiliated to men’s clubs – with the exception of eight-time Women’s Champions League winners Olympique Lyonnais Feminin, which split from the French men’s club when Korean-American businesswoman Michele Kang bought a majority stake in the women’s team in February 2024).

While interest in, and hence value of, the WSL is now growing fast, the women’s game in England is dwarfed by viewer ratings for the Premier League – the most watched sporting league in the world, viewed by an estimated 1.87 billion people every week across 189 countries.

These figures dwarf even the NFL which, while currently still the most valuable of all sporting leagues in terms of its broadcasting deals, must be looking at the growth of the Premier League with some jealousy. This may explain why some US franchise owners, such as Stan Kroenke, the Glazer family, Fenway Sports Group and Billy Foley, have subsequently purchased Premier League football clubs.

Ironically, for many spectators around the world, it is the intensity and competitiveness of most Premier League matches – brought on in part by the threat of relegation and prize of European qualification – that makes it so captivating. However, billionaire investors like guaranteed numbers and dislike risk – especially the degree of financial risk that exists in the Premier League and English Football League.

European not-so-Super League

In April 2021, 12 leading European clubs (six from England plus three each from Spain and Italy) announced the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This new mid-week competition was to be a high-revenue generating, closed competition with (eventually) 15 permanent teams and five annual additions qualifying from Europe. According to one of the driving forces behind the plan, Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer:

By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.

The problem facing the Premier League’s “big six” clubs – and their ambitious owners – is there are currently only four slots available to play in the Champions League. So, their thinking went, why not take away the risk of not qualifying? However, the proposal was swiftly condemned by fans around Europe, together with football’s governing bodies and leagues – all of whom saw the ESL proposal as a threat to the quality and integrity of their domestic leagues. Following some large fan protests, including at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge, Manchester City was the first club to withdraw – followed, within a couple of days, by the rest of the English clubs.

Under the terms of the ESL proposals, founding member clubs would have been guaranteed participation in the competition forever. Guaranteed participation means guaranteed revenues. The current financial gap between the “big six” and the other members of the Premier League, which in 2022/23 averaged £396 million, would have widened rapidly.

For example, these clubs would have been able to sell the broadcast rights for some of their ESL home fixtures direct to fans, instead of via a broadcaster. All of a sudden, that database of fans who have downloaded the official club app, or are on a mailing list, becomes far more valuable. These are the people most willing to watch their favourite team on a pay-per-view basis, further increasing revenues.

At the same time, a planned ESL wage cap would have stopped players taking all these increased revenues in the form of higher wages, allowing these clubs to become more profitable and their ownership even more lucrative.

Fans protest against plans for a European Super League outside Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground, April 2021.
PA / Alamy

American-owned Manchester United and Liverpool had previously tried to enhance the value of their investments during the COVID lockdowns era via ProjectBig Picture – proposals to reduce the size of the Premier League and scrap one of the two domestic cup competitions, thus freeing up time for the bigger clubs to arrange more lucrative tours and European matches against high-profile opposition.

Most importantly, Project Big Picture would have resulted in changing the governance of the domestic game. Under its proposals, the “big six” clubs would have enjoyed enhanced voting rights, and therefore been able to significantly influence how the domestic game was governed.

Any attempt to increase the concentration of power raises concerns of lower competitive balance, whereby fewer teams are in the running to win the title and fewer games are meaningful. This is a problem facing some other major European football leagues including France’s Ligue 1, where interest among broadcasters has dwindled amid the perceived dominance of Paris St-Germain.

So while to date, American-led attempts to change the structure of the Premier League have been foiled, it’s unlikely such ideas have gone away for good. The near-universal fear of fans – even those who welcome an injection of extra cash from a new billionaire owner – is that the spectacle of the league will only be diminished if such plans ever succeed.

And there is evidence from the women’s game that the US closed league format is coming under more pressure from football’s global forces. The NWSL recently announced it is removing the draft system that is designed (as with the NFL and NBA) to build in jeopardy and competitive balance when there is no risk of relegation.

Top US women’s football clubs are losing some of their leading players to other leagues, in part because European clubs are not bound by the same artificial rules of employment. In a truly global professional sport such as football, international competition will always tend to destabilise closed leagues.

Why do they keep buying these clubs?

Does this mean that American and other wealthy owners of Premier League clubs seeking to reduce their risks are ultimately fighting a losing battle? And if so, given the potential risks involved in owning a football club – both financial and even personal – why do they keep buying them?

The motivations are part-financial, part technological and, as has always been the case with sports ownership, part-vanity.

The American economy has grown far faster than that of the EU or UK in recent years. Consequently, there are many beneficiaries of this growth who have surplus cash, and here football becomes an attractive proposition. In fact, football clubs are more resilient to recessions than other industries, holding their value better as they are effectively monopoly suppliers for their fans who have brand loyalty that exists in few other industries.

From 1993 to 2018, a period during which the UK economy more than doubled, the total value of Premier League clubs grew 30 times larger. And many fans are tied to supporting one club, helping to make the biggest clubs more resilient to economic changes than other industries. While football, like many parts of the entertainment industry, was hit by lockdown during Covid, no clubs went out of business, despite the challenges of matches being played in empty stadiums.

Added to this, the exchange rates for US dollars have been very favourable until recently, making US investments in the UK and Europe cheaper for American investors.

So, while Manchester United fans would argue that the Glazer family have not been good for the club, United has been good for the Glazers. And Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who bought Liverpool for £300 million in 2010, have recouped almost all of that money in smaller share sales while remaining majority owners of Liverpool.

Despite this, the £2.5 billion price paid for Chelsea by the US Clearlake-Todd Boehly consortium in May 2022 took markets by surprise.

The sale – which came after the UK government froze the assets of the club’s Russian oligarch owner, Roman Abramovich, following the invasion of Ukraine – went through less than a year after Newcastle United had been sold by Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund for £305 million – approximately twice that club’s annual revenues. Yet Clearlake-Boehly were willing to pay over five times Chelsea’s annual revenues to acquire the club, even though it was in a precarious financial position.

Clearlake is a private equity group whose main aim is to make profits for their investors. But unlike most such investors, who tend to focus on cost-cutting, the Chelsea ownership came in with a high-spending strategy using new financial structuring ideas, such as offering longer player contracts to avoid falling foul of football’s profitability and sustainability rules (although this loophole has since been closed with Uefa, European football’s governing body, limiting contract lengths for financial regulation purposes to five years).

Chelsea’s location in the one of the most expensive areas of London, combined with its on-field success under Abramovich, all added to the attraction, of course. But there are other reasons why Clearlake, along with billionaire businessman Boehly, were willing to stump up so much for the club.

From Hollywood to the metaverse

While some British football fans may have viewed the Ted Lasso TV show as an enjoyable if slightly twee fictional account of American involvement in English soccer, it has enhanced the attraction of the sport in the US. So too Welcome To Wrexham – the fly-on-the-wall series covering the (to date) two promotions of Wales’s oldest football club under the unlikely Hollywood stewardship of Reynolds and McElhenney.

Welcome To Wrexham, season one trailer.

The growth in US interest in English football is reflected in the record-breaking Premier League media rights deal in 2022, with NBC Sports reportedly paying $2.7 billion (£2.06bn) for its latest six-year deal.

But as well as football offering one of increasingly few “live shared TV experiences” that carry lucrative advertising slots, there may also be more opportunity for more behind-the-scenes coverage of the Premier League – as has long been seen in US coverage of NBA games, for example, where players are interviewed in the locker room straight after games.

According to Manchester United’s latest annual report, the club now has a “global community of 1.1 billion fans and followers”. Such numbers mean its owners, and many others, are bullish about the potential of the metaverse in terms of offering a matchday experience that could be similar to attending a match, without physically travelling to Manchester.

Their neighbours Manchester City, part-owned by American private equity company Silverlake, broke new (virtual) ground by signing a metaverse deal with Sony in 2022. Virtual reality could give fans around the world the feeling of attending a live match, sitting next to their friends and singing along with the rest of the crowd (for a pay-per-view fee).

Some investors are even confident that advancements in Abba-style avatar technology could one day allow fans to watch live 3D simulations of Premier League matches in stadiums all over the world. Having first-mover advantage by being in the elite club of owners who can make use of such technology could prove ever more rewarding.

More immediately, there are some indications that competitive matches involving England’s top men’s football teams could soon take place in US or other venues. Boehly, Chelsea’s co-owner, has already suggested adopting some US sports staples such as an All-Star match to further boost revenues. Indeed, back in 2008, the Premier League tentatively discussed a “39th game” taking place overseas, but that idea was quickly shelved.

The American owners of Birmingham City were keen to play this season’s EFL League One match against Wrexham in the US, but again this proposal did not get far. Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner says he is determined to see matches take place overseas, and recent changes to world governing body Fifa’s rulebook could make it easier for this proposal to succeed.

The potential benefits of hosting games overseas include higher matchday revenues, increased brand awareness, and enhanced broadcast rights. While there is likely to be significant opposition from local fans, at least American owners know they would not face the same hostility about rising matchday prices in the US as they have encountered in England.

When the Argentinian legend Lionel Messi signed for new MLS franchise Inter Miami in 2023, season ticket prices nearly doubled on his account. And while there is vocal opposition to higher ticket prices in England, this is not borne out in terms of lower attendances for matches against high-calibre opposition – as evidenced by Aston Villa charging up to £97 for last week’s Champions League meeting with Bayern Munich.

Villa’s director of operations, Chris Heck, defended the prices by saying that difficult decisions had to be made if the club was to be competitive.

Manchester United’s matchday revenue per EPL season (£m)

Kieran Maguire/Christina Philippou, CC BY

For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).

However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs’ ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.

However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.

Today’s breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs’ loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football’s American-led revolution is not done yet.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter. Läs mer…

When the Premier League broke away from the rest of English football in 1992, its 22 clubs generated £205 million in its debut season, and the average player earned £2,050 a week. Thirty years later, despite having two fewer clubs, the league’s revenue had increased by 2,850% to £6.1 billion and the average player earned £93,000 a week.

At the heart of this extraordinary growth is an American revolution. In the Premier League’s inaugural season, football was still in recovery from the horrors of the stadium disasters at Hillsborough and Heysel. Owners tended to be from the local area and with a business background. The only foreign owner was Sam Hamman at Wimbledon, a Lebanese millionaire who bought the club on a whim having reportedly been much more interested in tennis. The season ended with Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) winning the English game’s top league for the first time in 26 years.

Dan Friedkin’s Texas-based investment group owns the Italian Serie A club Roma and is now poised to buy Everton.
Maurizio Borsari/AFLO/Alamy

Now, if the bid for Everton by the Friedkin Group (TFG) is ratified, 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs will be controlled or part-owned by American investors. The US – long seen as football’s final frontier when it comes to the men’s game – suddenly can’t get enough of English “soccer”.

Four of the Premier League’s “big six” are American-owned – Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea – while a fifth, Manchester City, has a significant US minority shareholding. Aston Villa, Fulham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, West Ham and Ipswich Town also have varying degrees of American ownership.

And it’s not even just the glamour clubs at the top of the tree. American investment has also been significant lower down the football pyramid, led by the high-profile acquisition of then non-league Wrexham by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenny, and Birmingham City’s purchase by US investors including seven-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. American investment in football has reached places as geographically diverse as Carlisle and Crawley in England, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland.

So why the American obsession with English football? And how real are concerns that these US owners could collude to “Americanise” the traditions of the Premier League – whether by reducing the risk of relegation, introducing some form of “draft pick” system, or moving matches and even clubs to other cities?

The Premier League’s first US owner

Manchester United was the first Premier League club to come under American ownership – after a row about a horse.

In 2005, United was owned by a variety of investors including Irish businessmen and racehorse owners John Magnier and J.P. McManus. Their erstwhile friend Ferguson, the United manager, thought he co-owned the champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar with them – a stallion worth millions in stud rights. They disagreed – and their bitter dispute was such that Magnier and McManus decided to sell their shares in the football club.

Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson, right, with ‘his’ horse Rock of Gibraltar in 2002.
PA / Alamy

The Miami-based Glazer family – already involved in sport as owners of NFL franchise the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – had already been buying up small tranches of shares in United, but the sudden availability of the Irish shares allowed Malcolm Glazer to acquire a controlling stake for £790 million (around £1.5 billion at today’s prices).

The fact Glazer did not actually have sufficient funds to pay for these shares was a solvable problem. In the some-might-say commercially naive world of top-flight English football before the Premier League, Manchester United was a club without debt, paying its way without leveraging its position as one of the world’s most famous football clubs. Glazer saw the opportunity this presented and arranged a leveraged buy-out (LBO), whereby the football club borrowed more than £600 million secured on its own assets to, in effect, “buy itself” in 2005.

Despite the need to meet the high interest costs to fund the LBO, United continued winning trophies under Ferguson – including three Premier League titles in a row in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as a Champions League victory in 2008. Amid this success, the club felt that ticket prices were too low and set about increasing them, with matchday revenue increasing from £66 million in 2004/05 to over £101 million by 2007/08.

Commercial income was another area the Glazers were keen to increase. United set up offices in London and adopted a global approach to finding new official branding deals ranging from snacks to tractor and tyre suppliers – doubling revenues from this income source too.

But in this new, more aggressive world of “sweating the asset”, the debts lingered – and most United fans remained deeply suspicious of their American owners. (Following their father’s death in 2014, the club was co-owned by his six children, with brothers Avram and Joel Glazer becoming co-chairmen.)

Arsenal fans taunt their US-owned rivals Manchester United at the 2005 FA Cup final. Arsenal is now 100% owned by US businessman Stan Kroenke.
Allstar Picture Library / Alamy

Today, despite its partial listing on the New York Stock Exchange and the February 2024 sale of 27.7% of the club to British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe for a reputed £1.25 billion, United still has borrowings of more than £546 million, having paid cumulative interest costs of £969 million since the takeover in 2005. But with the club now valued at US$6.55 billion (around £5bn), it represents a very smart investment for the Glazer family.

Indeed, while the prices being paid for football clubs across Europe have reached record levels, they are still seen as cheap investments compared with US sports’ leading franchises. Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most valuable sports teams has American football (NFL), baseball (MLB) and basketball (NBA) teams occupying the top ten positions, with only three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City – in the top 50.

With NFL teams having an average franchise value of US$5.1 billion and NBA $3.9 billion, many English football clubs still look like a bargain from the other side of the pond.

The risk of relegation

The latest to join this US bandwagon, TFG – a Texas-based portfolio of companies run by American businessman and film producer Dan Friedkin – is reported to have offered £400m to buy Everton, despite the club’s poor financial state.

“The Toffees” have been hit by loss of sponsorships as well as two sets of points deductions for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, leading to revenue losses from lower league positions. While the new stadium being built at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore dock has been yet another financial constraint, it will at least increase matchday income from the start of next season.

Everton’s new stadium at Bramley-Moore dock will open in time for the start of the 2025-26 season.
Phil Silverman / Shutterstock

A wider reason for the relative bargain in valuations of European football clubs is the risk of relegation – something that is not part of the closed leagues of most US sports. While the threat of relegation (and promise of promotion) has always been an integral part of English and European football, the jeopardy this brings for supporters – and a club’s finances – does not exist in the NFL, NBA, Major League Soccer and similar competitions.

The Premier League, with its three relegation spots at the end of each season, has featured 51 different clubs since it launched in 1992. Only six clubs – Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton – have been ever present, with Arsenal now approaching 100 years of consecutive top-flight football.

Other Premier League clubs have experienced the dramatic cost-benefit of relegation and promotion. Oldham Athletic, who were in the Premier League for its first two seasons, now languish in the fifth tier of the game, outside the English Football League (EFL). In contrast, Luton Town, who were in the fifth tier as recently as 2014, were promoted to the Premier League in 2023 – only to be relegated at the end of last season.

While it is difficult to compare football clubs with basketball and American football teams, the financial difference between having an open league, with relegation, and a closed league becomes apparent when you look at women’s football on both sides of the Atlantic.

Angel City, a women’s soccer team based in Los Angeles, only entered the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) in 2022 and is yet to win an NWSL trophy. But last month, the club was sold for US$250 million (£188m) to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger and TV journalist Willow Bay – the most expensive takeover in the history of women’s professional sport.

In comparison, Chelsea – seven-time winners of the English Women’s Super League and one of the most successful sides in Europe – valued its women’s team at £150 million ($US196m) earlier this summer. While there are a number of factors to this price differential, the confidence that Angel City will always be a member of the big league of US soccer clubs – and share very equally in its revenue – will have made its new owners very confident in the long-term soundness of their deal.

The story of Angel City FC, the most expensive team in women’s sport.

A further attraction for American investors is the potential to enter two markets – one mature (men’s football) and one effectively a start-up (the women’s game) – in a single purchase. In the US, the top men’s and women’s clubs are completely separate. But in Europe, most top-flight women’s teams are affiliated to men’s clubs – with the exception of eight-time Women’s Champions League winners Olympique Lyonnais Feminin, which split from the French men’s club when Korean-American businesswoman Michele Kang bought a majority stake in the women’s team in February 2024).

While interest in, and hence value of, the WSL is now growing fast, the women’s game in England is dwarfed by viewer ratings for the Premier League – the most watched sporting league in the world, viewed by an estimated 1.87 billion people every week across 189 countries.

These figures dwarf even the NFL which, while currently still the most valuable of all sporting leagues in terms of its broadcasting deals, must be looking at the growth of the Premier League with some jealousy. This may explain why some US franchise owners, such as Stan Kroenke, the Glazer family, Fenway Sports Group and Billy Foley, have subsequently purchased Premier League football clubs.

Ironically, for many spectators around the world, it is the intensity and competitiveness of most Premier League matches – brought on in part by the threat of relegation and prize of European qualification – that makes it so captivating. However, billionaire investors like guaranteed numbers and dislike risk – especially the degree of financial risk that exists in the Premier League and English Football League.

European not-so-Super League

In April 2021, 12 leading European clubs (six from England plus three each from Spain and Italy) announced the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This new mid-week competition was to be a high-revenue generating, closed competition with (eventually) 15 permanent teams and five annual additions qualifying from Europe. According to one of the driving forces behind the plan, Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer:

By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.

The problem facing the Premier League’s “big six” clubs – and their ambitious owners – is there are currently only four slots available to play in the Champions League. So, their thinking went, why not take away the risk of not qualifying? However, the proposal was swiftly condemned by fans around Europe, together with football’s governing bodies and leagues – all of whom saw the ESL proposal as a threat to the quality and integrity of their domestic leagues. Following some large fan protests, including at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge, Manchester City was the first club to withdraw – followed, within a couple of days, by the rest of the English clubs.

Under the terms of the ESL proposals, founding member clubs would have been guaranteed participation in the competition forever. Guaranteed participation means guaranteed revenues. The current financial gap between the “big six” and the other members of the Premier League, which in 2022/23 averaged £396 million, would have widened rapidly.

For example, these clubs would have been able to sell the broadcast rights for some of their ESL home fixtures direct to fans, instead of via a broadcaster. All of a sudden, that database of fans who have downloaded the official club app, or are on a mailing list, becomes far more valuable. These are the people most willing to watch their favourite team on a pay-per-view basis, further increasing revenues.

At the same time, a planned ESL wage cap would have stopped players taking all these increased revenues in the form of higher wages, allowing these clubs to become more profitable and their ownership even more lucrative.

Fans protest against plans for a European Super League outside Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground, April 2021.
PA / Alamy

American-owned Manchester United and Liverpool had previously tried to enhance the value of their investments during the COVID lockdowns era via ProjectBig Picture – proposals to reduce the size of the Premier League and scrap one of the two domestic cup competitions, thus freeing up time for the bigger clubs to arrange more lucrative tours and European matches against high-profile opposition.

Most importantly, Project Big Picture would have resulted in changing the governance of the domestic game. Under its proposals, the “big six” clubs would have enjoyed enhanced voting rights, and therefore been able to significantly influence how the domestic game was governed.

Any attempt to increase the concentration of power raises concerns of lower competitive balance, whereby fewer teams are in the running to win the title and fewer games are meaningful. This is a problem facing some other major European football leagues including France’s Ligue 1, where interest among broadcasters has dwindled amid the perceived dominance of Paris St-Germain.

So while to date, American-led attempts to change the structure of the Premier League have been foiled, it’s unlikely such ideas have gone away for good. The near-universal fear of fans – even those who welcome an injection of extra cash from a new billionaire owner – is that the spectacle of the league will only be diminished if such plans ever succeed.

And there is evidence from the women’s game that the US closed league format is coming under more pressure from football’s global forces. The NWSL recently announced it is removing the draft system that is designed (as with the NFL and NBA) to build in jeopardy and competitive balance when there is no risk of relegation.

Top US women’s football clubs are losing some of their leading players to other leagues, in part because European clubs are not bound by the same artificial rules of employment. In a truly global professional sport such as football, international competition will always tend to destabilise closed leagues.

Why do they keep buying these clubs?

Does this mean that American and other wealthy owners of Premier League clubs seeking to reduce their risks are ultimately fighting a losing battle? And if so, given the potential risks involved in owning a football club – both financial and even personal – why do they keep buying them?

The motivations are part-financial, part technological and, as has always been the case with sports ownership, part-vanity.

The American economy has grown far faster than that of the EU or UK in recent years. Consequently, there are many beneficiaries of this growth who have surplus cash, and here football becomes an attractive proposition. In fact, football clubs are more resilient to recessions than other industries, holding their value better as they are effectively monopoly suppliers for their fans who have brand loyalty that exists in few other industries.

From 1993 to 2018, a period during which the UK economy more than doubled, the total value of Premier League clubs grew 30 times larger. And many fans are tied to supporting one club, helping to make the biggest clubs more resilient to economic changes than other industries. While football, like many parts of the entertainment industry, was hit by lockdown during Covid, no clubs went out of business, despite the challenges of matches being played in empty stadiums.

Added to this, the exchange rates for US dollars have been very favourable until recently, making US investments in the UK and Europe cheaper for American investors.

This article is part of Conversation Insights.
Our co-editors commission long-form journalism, working with academics from many different backgrounds who are engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.

So, while Manchester United fans would argue that the Glazer family have not been good for the club, United has been good for the Glazers. And Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who bought Liverpool for £300 million in 2010, have recouped almost all of that money in smaller share sales while remaining majority owners of Liverpool.

Despite this, the £2.5 billion price paid for Chelsea by the US Clearlake-Todd Boehly consortium in May 2022 took markets by surprise.

The sale – which came after the UK government froze the assets of the club’s Russian oligarch owner, Roman Abramovich, following the invasion of Ukraine – went through less than a year after Newcastle United had been sold by Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund for £305 million – approximately twice that club’s annual revenues. Yet Clearlake-Boehly were willing to pay over five times Chelsea’s annual revenues to acquire the club, even though it was in a precarious financial position.

Clearlake is a private equity group whose main aim is to make profits for their investors. But unlike most such investors, who tend to focus on cost-cutting, the Chelsea ownership came in with a high-spending strategy using new financial structuring ideas, such as offering longer player contracts to avoid falling foul of football’s profitability and sustainability rules (although this loophole has since been closed with Uefa, European football’s governing body, limiting contract lengths for financial regulation purposes to five years).

Chelsea’s location in the one of the most expensive areas of London, combined with its on-field success under Abramovich, all added to the attraction, of course. But there are other reasons why Clearlake, along with billionaire businessman Boehly, were willing to stump up so much for the club.

From Hollywood to the metaverse

While some British football fans may have viewed the Ted Lasso TV show as an enjoyable if slightly twee fictional account of American involvement in English soccer, it has enhanced the attraction of the sport in the US. So too Welcome To Wrexham – the fly-on-the-wall series covering the (to date) two promotions of Wales’s oldest football club under the unlikely Hollywood stewardship of Reynolds and McElhenney.

Welcome To Wrexham, season one trailer.

The growth in US interest in English football is reflected in the record-breaking Premier League media rights deal in 2022, with NBC Sports reportedly paying $2.7 billion (£2.06bn) for its latest six-year deal.

But as well as football offering one of increasingly few “live shared TV experiences” that carry lucrative advertising slots, there may also be more opportunity for more behind-the-scenes coverage of the Premier League – as has long been seen in US coverage of NBA games, for example, where players are interviewed in the locker room straight after games.

According to Manchester United’s latest annual report, the club now has a “global community of 1.1 billion fans and followers”. Such numbers mean its owners, and many others, are bullish about the potential of the metaverse in terms of offering a matchday experience that could be similar to attending a match, without physically travelling to Manchester.

Their neighbours Manchester City, part-owned by American private equity company Silverlake, broke new (virtual) ground by signing a metaverse deal with Sony in 2022. Virtual reality could give fans around the world the feeling of attending a live match, sitting next to their friends and singing along with the rest of the crowd (for a pay-per-view fee).

Some investors are even confident that advancements in Abba-style avatar technology could one day allow fans to watch live 3D simulations of Premier League matches in stadiums all over the world. Having first-mover advantage by being in the elite club of owners who can make use of such technology could prove ever more rewarding.

More immediately, there are some indications that competitive matches involving England’s top men’s football teams could soon take place in US or other venues. Boehly, Chelsea’s co-owner, has already suggested adopting some US sports staples such as an All-Star match to further boost revenues. Indeed, back in 2008, the Premier League tentatively discussed a “39th game” taking place overseas, but that idea was quickly shelved.

The American owners of Birmingham City were keen to play this season’s EFL League One match against Wrexham in the US, but again this proposal did not get far. Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner says he is determined to see matches take place overseas, and recent changes to world governing body Fifa’s rulebook could make it easier for this proposal to succeed.

The potential benefits of hosting games overseas include higher matchday revenues, increased brand awareness, and enhanced broadcast rights. While there is likely to be significant opposition from local fans, at least American owners know they would not face the same hostility about rising matchday prices in the US as they have encountered in England.

When the Argentinian legend Lionel Messi signed for new MLS franchise Inter Miami in 2023, season ticket prices nearly doubled on his account. And while there is vocal opposition to higher ticket prices in England, this is not borne out in terms of lower attendances for matches against high-calibre opposition – as evidenced by Aston Villa charging up to £97 for last week’s Champions League meeting with Bayern Munich.

Villa’s director of operations, Chris Heck, defended the prices by saying that difficult decisions had to be made if the club was to be competitive.

Manchester United’s matchday revenue per EPL season (£m)

Kieran Maguire/Christina Philippou, CC BY

For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).

However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs’ ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.

However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.

Today’s breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs’ loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football’s American-led revolution is not done yet.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter. Läs mer…

You’d be forgiven for thinking that young people are behind most knife crime in the UK. Media coverage often focuses on youth involvement, and the government’s plan to halve knife crime focuses specifically on young people and vulnerable teenagers.

Evidence shows that most knife-involved crime is committed in the home, between adults, in the form of intimate partner violence. Only around 18% of knife offences are carried out by 10- to 17-year-olds. These usually involve other young people.

Although young people’s share of knife crime is low, their involvement is a significant concern and has risen starkly in the last decade.

Choosing to carry a knife out of the home, into the streets, or into school is a rare choice that most children never make. Estimates show that between one and four in 100 young people carry knives.

For those few who do, it is important to understand the complex factors behind why. This is what we, and many other academics, have been studying in our research.

Both researchers and young people themselves cite protection as a factor in knife carrying. Many young people are fearful of being victims of knife crime, and knife carrying may offer a sense of security and defence from potential threats.

This fear is not necessarily correlated to reality. Young people tend to overestimate the prevalence of weapon carrying among their peers. What’s more, those carrying knives for defence often end up having their own knife used against them.

Seeing images of knives

One reason that young people may have a fear of knife crime is because of how the threat is presented to them through images.

Media reports and anti-knife campaign material often features images of shocking weapons, such as zombie knives. Depictions of piles of seized weapons and vicious blades all paint a picture of a risky landscape.

You probably noticed that the photos illustrating this article do not include a picture of a knife. This is a deliberate choice. Our research has found that such knife imagery can evoke fear or excitement for some young people.

Their heightened emotional responses suggest that these young people are the most likely to be vulnerable to future knife carrying. Those who feel most unsafe in their communities are the most likely to respond negatively to graphic imagery.

Interestingly, the young people who participated in our research self-reported knife imagery as having little impact on them. But our study investigated their unconscious emotional response through an implicit association test. This approach is key in a research area vulnerable to self-presentation bias, where young people might attempt to hide their true feelings.

The test we used assessed response speeds to determine associations between images of knives and words relating to fear and excitement. Overall, response times were faster (showed more association) for fear-related words.

Other evidence suggests that anti-knife crime imagery and messaging can create exaggerated belief about the prevalence of knife carrying. This may increase, rather than reduce, the fear of victimisation, and further encourage people to carry knives.

Some young people say they carry knives because they feel a need to protect themselves.
No Knives, Better Lives, © Open Aye, CC BY-NC

Floods of knife images in a young person’s social and educational environment may normalise knife carrying. Nearly two-thirds of young people report experiencing secondary traumatic stress when viewing knife crime news on social media.

When knife imagery is used in intervention materials presented by someone in a position of authority (a teacher or police officer, for example), it can validate the fears even more.

In other words, the more we talk about knife crime, the scarier it can seem, and the more young people feel the need to protect themselves by carrying a weapon.

Labour’s plan to cut knife crime – including a ban on zombie knives that has just come into effect – should go a long way to reducing the availability of “status” weapons. It may also mean that images of these knives are less prevalent in the media, which, given our research findings, would likely have a positive effect.

But, as noted earlier, most young people are not at risk, and have had no exposure to knife crime. Knife carrying is not normal behaviour for most young people. Anti-knife messaging would serve young people better by avoiding the use of knife imagery, and instead focus on discussing how to keep safe by avoiding risky behaviour, and how to get help if a dangerous situation arises. Läs mer…

US president Joe Biden chose to visit Africa in the final weeks of his presidency. It would be his first trip to the continent since taking office in January 2021.

The trip was postponed at the last minute because of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Milton in the US. It has been rescheduled for the first week in December.

Angola is located in the western region of southern Africa. With 37.2 million people, it is the 11th most populous country in Africa. Its economy relies heavily on oil and gas, accounting for over 90% of exports and 43% of GDP. Its largest trading partners are China and India.

The proposed visit reflects Africa’s growing importance to the US, amid the “new cold war” sparked by rivalry with China. The US is responding to the expanding influence of China, Russia and other emerging powers in Africa. It’s intensifying economic, diplomatic and military cooperation.

Read more:
When two elephants fight: how the global south uses non-alignment to avoid great power rivalries

The proposed visit to Angola marks a turning point in US-Angola relations.

Angolan history

Angolans fought a liberation war against the Portuguese for 15 years – 1961 to 1974. On attaining independence in 1975, a new socialist and pro-communist government, led by the Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), took control.

The country was plunged into a civil war between 1975 and 1988. The US supported the anti-government rebel forces National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (Unita). Cuba and the Soviet Union supported the MPLA.

Angola abandoned communism and one-party rule from 1990. It held its first multiparty election in 1992. Unita contested the outcome. This led to another round of armed conflict.

A government of national unity was established in 1994. However, stability was achieved only in the early 2000s, following the death of Unita leader Jonas Savimbi.

The US established diplomatic relations with Angola in 1993 and celebrated 30 years of relations on 19 May 2023. Six US secretaries of state had visited up to 2020. US-Angola relations flourished even more under Biden.

In September 2023, Lloyd Austin became the first US defence secretary to visit Angola. The visit strengthened US-Angola cooperation by creating high-level dialogue between the two countries. It also boosted cooperation in cyber security, space and maritime security.

In November 2023, Biden received Angolan president João Lourenço at the White House. They discussed several areas of cooperation. These included the economy, security, energy, transport, telecommunications, agriculture and outer space.

Agenda for Biden’s visit to Angola

The White House identified five objectives for Biden’s visit to Angola.

The first is to bolster economic partnerships that keep US companies globally competitive and protect American workers.

The second objective is to celebrate a signature project of the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. It sponsored the construction of the new 800km rail line connecting Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia.

The two objectives reflect the renewed desire of the US to expand trade and investment, especially in infrastructure development in Angola and elsewhere in Africa. They also underscore the geopolitical competition with China and Russia in Africa. The US intends to match the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in the region.

Read more:
Africa is being courted by China, Russia and the US. Why the continent shouldn’t pick sides

China is Angola’s top trading partner, as it is for many African countries. It accounted for 42.72% (US$21.9 billion) of Angola’s exports, and 16.04% (US$2.856 billion) of imports in 2022. China-Angola trade relations reached US$23 billion in 2023. In contrast, American exports to Angola amounted to US$595 million, and imports US$1.2 billion in 2023.

Massive investment in transportation and other infrastructure is key to boosting US-Africa trade relations and countering China. This explains the recent US$250 million support from the US to rehabilitate the 1,300km Lobito Atlantic Railway.

In addition, the US Export Import Bank is funding the supply of 186 prefabricated bridges worth US$363 million to Angola. The US also supported the Angolan flag carrier TAAG’s deal to buy ten new American-made Boeing 787s for US$3.6 billion.

The third objective is to strengthen democracy and civic engagement in Angola. The US embassy in Angola has initiated programmes to support press freedom and independence of the judiciary. The US Agency for International Development and the US treasury are supporting capacity building in Angola’s fight against corruption and money laundering.

However, Amnesty International and other human rights bodies fear that geoeconomic interests will overshadow promotion of democracy and human rights during the Biden visit.

The fourth objective is to intensify action on climate security and the clean energy transition. The US is supporting Angola with US$900 million over five years to develop more than 500MW of solar power. Other US investments will be in wildlife conservation, drought mitigation, crop irrigation and water resource management.

Like Nigeria and Rwanda, Angola has signed the Artemis Accords, a NASA initiative for US-led cooperation in the civil exploration and use of the Moon, Mars, comets and asteroids for peaceful purposes. In contrast, Ethiopia, Egypt, Senegal and South Africa have joined China’s International Lunar Research Station.

The fifth objective is to enhance peace and security in Angola and the rest of Africa. The US and Angola have expanded collaboration in maritime security, space and cyber defence. Angola received US$18 million in US military aid between 2020 and 2023. Angola is also a member of the US-led Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, designed to enhance maritime security and boost the blue economy.

Balance of forces

Biden’s proposed visit, and his record of engagement with Africa, put him one up on his predecessor, Donald Trump, who didn’t visit the continent. It is nevertheless disappointing that he ends his term with one last-minute visit to only one African country.

However, the visit could open Angola up to more US investment, and more cooperation in trade, security, cyberspace and international politics.

Read more:
China reaps most of the benefits of its relationship with Africa: what’s behind the imbalance

While this development broadly represents a positive trend in US-Africa relations, it holds geo-political, economic and strategic consequences for Angola-China, Africa-China, and US-China relations.

Apart from reflecting the US strategic response to the global rise of China, and reminding China of US interests in Africa, the proposed visit shows how far the US will go to court Africa in its quest to contain or match China on the continent. African countries should therefore position themselves to exploit the opportunities this “new cold war” between the US and China presents. Läs mer…

The 2024 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine goes to Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun for their discovery of microRNA, tiny biological molecules that tell the cells in your body what kind of cell to be by turning on and off certain genes.

The Conversation Weekly podcast caught up with Victor Ambros from his lab at the UMass Chan Medical School to learn more about the Nobel-winning research and what comes next. Below are edited excerpts from the podcast.

How did you start thinking about this fundamental question at the heart of the discovery of microRNA, about how cells get the instructions to do what they do?

The paper that described this discovery was published in 1993. In the late 1980s, we were working in the field of developmental biology, studying C. elegans as a model organism for animal development. We were using genetic approaches, where mutations that caused developmental abnormalities were then followed up to try to understand what the gene was that was mutated and what the gene product was.

It was well understood that proteins could mediate changes in gene expression as cells differentiate, divide.

We were not looking for the involvement of any sort of unexpected kind of molecular mechanisms. The fact that the microRNA was the product of this gene that was regulating this other gene in this context was a complete surprise.

There was no reason to postulate that there should be such regulators of gene expression. This is one of those examples where the expectations are that you’re going to find out about more complexity and nuance about mechanisms that we already know about.

But sometimes surprises emerge, and in fact, surprises emerge perhaps surprisingly often.

Colorized scanning electron microscope image of a C. elegans nematode worm – one of the most studied animals in biological research.
Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

These C. elegans worms, nematodes, is there something about them that allows you to work with their genetic material more easily? Why are they so key to this type of science?

C. elegans was developed as an experimental organism that people could use easily to, first, identify mutants and then study the development.

It only has about a thousand cells, and all those cells can be seen easily through a microscope in the living animal. But still it has all the various parts that are important to all animals: intestine, skin, muscles, a brain, sensory systems and complex behavior. So it’s quite an amazing system to study developmental processes and mechanisms really on the level of individual cells and what those cells do as they divide and differentiate during development.

Listen to Victor Ambros on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

You were looking at this lin-4 gene. What was your surprising discovery that led to this Nobel Prize?

In our lab, Rosalind Lee and Rhonda Feinbaum were working on this project for several years. This is a very labor intensive process, trying to track down a gene.

And all we had to go by was a mutation to guide us as we gradually homed in on the DNA sequence that contained the gene. The surprises started to emerge when we found that the pieces of DNA that were sufficient to confer the function of this gene and rescue a mutant were really small, only 800 base pairs.

And so that suggested, well, the gene is small, so the product of this gene is going to be pretty small. And then Rosalind worked to pare down the sequence more and to mutate potential protein coding sequences in that little piece of DNA. By a process of elimination, she finally showed that there was no protein that could be expressed from this gene.

And at the same time, we identified this very, very small transcript of only 22 nucleotides. So I would say there was probably a period of a week or two there where these realizations came to the fore and we knew we had something new.

You mentioned Rosalind, she’s your wife.

Yeah, we’ve been together since 1976. And we started to work together in the mid-’80s. And so we’re still working together today.

And she was the first author on that paper.

That’s right. It’s hard to express how wonderful it is to receive such validation of this work that we did together. That is just priceless.

Victor Ambros and Rosalind Lee toast the Nobel news on the day of the announcement.
UMass Chan Medical School

Like it’s a Nobel Prize for her too?

Yes, every Nobel Prize has this obvious limitation of the number of people that they give it to. But, of course, behind that are the folks who worked in the lab – the teams that are actually behind the discoveries are surprisingly large sometimes. In this case, two people in my lab and several people in Gary Ruvkun’s lab.

In a way they’re really the heroes behind this. Our job – mine and Gary’s – is to stand in as representatives of this whole enterprise of science, which is so, so dependent upon teams, collaborations, brainstorming amongst multiple people, communications of ideas and crucial data, you know, all this is part of the process that underlies successful science.

That first week of the discoveries, did you anticipate at that point that this could be such a huge step for our understanding of genes?

Until other examples are found of something new, it’s very hard to know how peculiar that particular phenomenon might be.

We’re always mindful that evolution is amazingly innovative. And so it could have been that this particular small RNA base-pairing to this mRNA of lin-14 gene and turning off production of the protein from lin-14 messenger RNA, that could be a peculiar evolutionary innovation.

The second microRNA was identified in Gary Ruvkun’s lab in 1999, so it was a good six years before the second one was found, also in C. elegans. Really, the watershed discovery was when Ruvkun showed that let-7, the other microRNA, was actually conserved perfectly in sequence amongst all the bilaterian animals. So that meant that let-7 microRNA had been around for, what, 500 million years?

And so it was immediately obvious to the field that there had to be other microRNAs – this was not just a C. elegans thing. There must be others, and that quickly emerged to be the case.

Ambros discovered that the lin-4 gene encoded a microRNA that did not code for a protein. Ruvkun cloned the lin-14 gene, and the two scientists realized that the lin-4 microRNA sequence matched a complementary sequence in the lin-14 mRNA.
© The Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine. Ill. Mattias Karlén

You and Gary Ruvkun had been postdoctoral fellows at the same time at MIT, but by the time you made your respective discoveries, you’d both set up your own labs. Would you call them rival labs, in the same town?

No, I would certainly not call it rival labs. We were working together as postdocs basically on this problem of developmental timing in Bob Horvitz’s lab.

We just basically informally divided up the work. The understanding was, OK, Ambros lab will focus on lin-4 gene, and Ruvkun lab will focus on lin-14, and we anticipated that there would be a point that we would get together and share information about what we’ve learned and see if we could come to a synthesis.

That was the informal plan. It was not really a collaboration. It was certainly not a rivalry. The expectation was that we would divide up the work and then communicate when the time came. There was an expectation in this community of C. elegans researchers that you should share data freely.

Your lab still works on microRNA. What are you investigating? What questions do you still have?

One I find very interesting is a project where we collaborated with a clinician, a geneticist who studies intellectual disability. She had discovered that her patients, children with intellectual disabilities, in certain families carried a mutation that neither of their parents had – a spontaneous mutation – in the protein that is associated with microRNAs in humans called the Argonaute protein.

Each of our genomes contains four genes for Argonautes that are the partners of microRNAs. In fact, this is the effector protein that is guided by the microRNA to its target messenger RNAs. This Argonaute is what carries out the regulatory processes that happen once it finds its target.

These so-called Argonaute syndromes were discovered, where there are mutations in Argonautes, point mutations where only one amino acid changes to another amino acid. They have this very profound and extensive effect on the development of the individual.

And so working with these geneticists, our lab and other labs took those mutations, that were essentially gifted to us by the patient. And then we put those mutations into our system, in our case into C. elegans‘ Argonaute.

I’m excited by the very organized, active partnership between the Argonaute Alliance of families with Argonaute syndromes and the basic scientists studying Argonaute.

How does this collaboration potentially help those patients?

What we’ve learned is that the mutant protein is sort of a rogue Argonaute. It’s basically screwing up the normal process that these four Argonautes usually do in the body. And so this rogue Argonaute, in principle, could be removed from the system by trying to employ some of the technology that folks are developing for gene knockout or RNA interference of genes.

This is promising, and I’m hopeful that the payoff for the patients will come in the years ahead. Läs mer…

Peter Dutton has been receiving a good many political breaks recently – Anthony Albanese’s new house is the latest icing on the cake. Although the Coalition is not expected to win next year’s election, presently it looks placed to do well.

So, as they prepare their campaign, what issue would Liberal strategists be most afraid of? My bet would be the looming battle over industrial relations. This could be more dangerous for Dutton than his risky gamble to promote nuclear energy.

With the election set to be fought largely around the cost of living, the government will reach for workplace issues as a potential lifeline. Industrial relations is made for a ferocious Labor scare campaign that the Coalition will find extremely difficult to counter.

As the opposition keeps saying, the Albanese government has delivered extensively to the union movement’s demands, especially on behalf of low-paid workers.

It has supported wage rises and will itself pay for some (notably for child care staff).

It has legislated to protect the rights of casuals, provide minimum standards for gig workers, and stop employers using labour hire arrangements to undercut wages.

Wage theft has been outlawed; domestic violence leave granted; the “right to disconnect” introduced.

Most importantly, multi-employer bargaining – hated by parts of business – has been facilitated, and this is sure to spread in coming years.

You don’t need much of a head for political tactics to devise Labor’s campaign.

It would go something like this: “The Albanese government has advocated for higher wages and given you all these benefits and protections, that the Liberals will strip back. Remember the Howard government’s WorkChoices.”

This could be potent among the lower-to-middle income workers in the outer suburbs, to whom Dutton is pitching.

As in most areas, the opposition says it will release its industrial relations policy closer to the election.

So far, it has promised to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission (the “cop on the beat”) and the Registered Organisations Commission (a regulatory body governing unions and employer organisations).

It has also said it will repeal the right to disconnect, review the labour hire law, change the definition of casual employment and reduce the regulatory burden on small business.

The Coalition is under pressure from business to agree to a wish list to tilt the playing field back towards employers. For instance this week, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry called for the definition of small businesses to be expanded, so that more firms would benefit from having fewer workplace burdens imposed on them.

The opposition must decide how many of the Labor changes it will pledge to roll back or alter. At the same time, it will have to try to reassure workers it doesn’t have a hidden agenda. Both will be difficult.

On the roll back, employers will be pressing for the Coalition to go further than is politically wise. There are senior voices within the Coalition urging caution. But whatever Dutton says he won’t do is likely to be met with scepticism by a distrustful electorate.

Regardless of the policy it announces, there’ll be no way the Coalition can avoid becoming a big target on industrial relations.

Moreover, its argument that the government’s IR changes are bad for the economy will be hard to prosecute because it will be some time before their full impact can be judged. The government itself has an independent review of its initial measures, due to report in January. That will allow it to either claim everything is hunky dory, or offer some fine-tuning.

Much of the nitty-gritty of the IR contest will be carried by Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt and opposition spokeswoman Michaelia Cash.

Watt, from the left, who recently took over the portfolio from Tony Burke, is an articulate straight-talker. Formerly agriculture minister, he has been one of Albanese’s best-performing ministers.

Cash, who like Watt is in the Senate, has plenty of experience: she was industrial relations minister in the Morrison government. But she often comes across as shrill and reliant on slogans. In this election, the easy IR slogans will be on the government’s side. Cash is also media shy – she hates not knowing what’s coming.

On the ABC on Monday, Watt rehearsed the government’s lines. Declaring IR “a key defining topic and contrast between the two major parties of government”, he said: “What this comes down to is, at a time when Australians are already doing it tough, Peter Dutton and the Coalition will make things harder for Australians. It’s the worst possible time to be cutting pay and conditions.”

While the government is holding the upper hand on the politics of IR, the issue is not without  considerable problems for industrial and political Labor.

Installing an administrator into the crime-riddled CFMEU was a correct and inevitable step. But the action has triggered a reaction among some militants in the union movement who are now splitting from the ACTU.

This week a group from the National Building Industry Group of unions met to discuss tactics.

The rebels, who plan to hold a “Trade Unions for Democracy Summit” in December and are threatening to fund independent candidates (which in practice probably means Greens), hit out at both the government and the ACTU.

“The forced administration [of the CFMEU] driven by Albanese, Murray Watt, and Tony Burke, and supported by the ACTU, has opened the door for a sustained attack on construction workers,” they said in a statement.

The boss of the Electrical Trades Union, Michael Wright,  told The Australian: “There is a deep rupture  across the labour movement.”  He said the consequences were likely to be “far reaching”.

While the rebels are only a sliver of the wider union movement, with the ACTU retaining overwhelming support, the split is disruptive and difficult to handle both within the movement and for the Labor party. The latter will be some millions of dollars short for its campaign, and the Greens’ coffers are likely to be boosted.

Cleaning up the CFMEU – and the construction industry more generally – was not on the government’s “to do” list when it came to power. It was a reaction to revelations in the Nine media of the appalling conduct within this rogue union.

But the government will seek to turn it to its advantage in its IR campaigning, using it as an example of being willing to stand up to thuggery. Läs mer…

Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun were awarded the 2024 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for their discovery of microRNA, tiny biological molecules that tell the cells in our body what kind of cell to be by turning on and off certain genes.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Ambros about the discovery that led to his Nobel prize and find out what he’s researching now. And we hear about how a deeper understanding of microRNA is opening up new avenues for potential treatment of cancers and other diseases.

Today, Ambros is a professor of molecular medicine and the Silverman Chair in Natural Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in the US. But the research that won him a Nobel prize was published more than 30 years ago in 1993, when he had just established his own research lab at Harvard University.

Ambros was trying to understand the way cells get the right instructions from DNA during their development. To do this, he was studying mutations in an experimental organism: a small worm called C. elegans.

We were studying some mutations and that affected C. elegans’ development in interesting ways – but we were not looking for the involvement of any sort of unexpected kind of molecular mechanisms.

Ambros’s wife, Rosalind Lee, and another member of the lab team, Rhonda Feinbaum, had spent a couple of years trying to understand the genetic process behind the mutation in a labour-intensive search. What they eventually discovered was a microRNA, a new dimension to gene regulation – the process through which genes are turned on and off in certain cells. As Ambros put it:

You can say they’re really the heroes behind this, and our job – mine and Gary’s – is to stand in as representatives of the whole enterprise of science, which is so dependent upon teams, collaborations, brainstorming among multiple people, communications of ideas and crucial data … All this is part of the process that underlies successful science like this.

Read more:
MicroRNA − a new Nobel laureate describes the scientific process of discovering these tiny molecules that turn genes on and off

MicroRNA’s role in cancer

Thanks to the discoveries of Ambros and Ruvkun back in the 1990s, medical researchers all over the world are looking at how microRNA affects the development of human diseases. One such researcher is Justin Stebbing, a professor of biomedical sciences at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, UK. He explained:

MicroRNAs, like many processes, can go wrong and they’ve been implicated in diseases as diverse as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to cancer and kidney failure.

Stebbing said that in cancer, microRNA has been found to turn off tumour suppressor genes, effectively allowing cancers to spread. But microRNA can also be useful in understanding cancer, and in potential treatments:

We can work out the right treatments for people based on what we call a microRNA signature. We can understand prognosis, which means how severe people’s cancers are, but we can also try and harness them for treatments to make people better.

To find out more about the discovery of microRNA and what research is being done on it today, listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, which includes an introduction from Vivian Lam, associate health and biomedicine editor at The Conversation in the US.

You can read an edited transcript of the interview with Victor Ambros on The Conversation or a full transcript of the episode on Apple Podcasts.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced by Katie Flood, Gemma Ware and Mend Mariwany. Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.

You can find us on Instagram at theconversationdotcom or via email. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s free daily email here.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. Läs mer…

The winners of a competition which challenges academics to explain their research in just three minutes have been announced.

A total of 850 researchers from across the UK entered the tenth annual Vitae Three Minute Thesis (3MT®) competition, which was sponsored by The Conversation through its Universal Impact training and mentoring subsidiary.

These were narrowed down first to 65 competitors and then six finalists, before a judging panel and a public vote determined the winning three.

The overall judges’ award went to Jo Baker from Newcastle University for her presentation on children’s speech difficulties, which was perfectly illustrated through the use of an original cartoon.

Speech and language therapist Jo Baker impressed the judges.

Ulster University’s James McMullan captured the public’s imagination with his presentation on whether eating fish could be the secret to healthy ageing, winning the people’s choice award.

Universal Impact also had the chance to pick an editor’s champion. We chose Muhammad Muddasar at University of Limerick for his research looking at whether the heat we waste on a daily basis could be transformed into a new energy source.

The other finalists were Ferdinando Sereno at UCL, Natalie Weir at University of Derby and Charlie Gerlis from the University of the West of England.

Originally developed by the University of Queensland, the competition challenges doctoral researchers to communicate their research to a non-expert audience – in three minutes or less.

As a judge, I was blown away by the overall standard of the entries – this really was a masterclass in research communications.

All of the academics involved spoke passionately about their research, explaining how it could contribute to making the world a better place.

Each of these researchers deserved their place in the final and it took lengthy discussions before the panel was able to pick a winner.

This year’s final was broadcast live online with the winners announced on Friday, October 4.

The presentations were recorded and uploaded online ahead of a public vote.

‘It opens minds and opens doors’**

At Universal Impact, we have been delighted to support this mission by joining the judging panel and mentoring the champions (who also receive a coveted trophy and small grant) to help them build on their success and take their research to an even wider audience.

Vitae, which organised the competition, is a non-profit organisation that supports the professional development of researchers.

Rachel Cox, head of membership and engagement at Vitae, said: “The Vitae Three Minute Thesis is a fantastic competition which provides a unique opportunity for doctoral researchers to think differently about how they communicate work that is meaningful to them to a wider audience.

”It opens minds and opens doors for the individuals involved, as it can be a pathway to a wide variety of future careers, as previous participants have shown.

”At Vitae, we are proud of the impact this competition has had over the past ten years, and we are excited to see what it can do over the next decade.

”We are also delighted that Universal Impact and The Conversation are supporting this year’s event.”

You can find out more about the competition and the work of Vitae here. Läs mer…

The UK government’s plan to create a new industrial strategy is a welcome attempt to steer Britain’s economy through the challenges of the 21st century. Amid a backdrop of global economic uncertainty, a clear focus on achieving growth is essential.

The plan is at an early stage. The new green paper marks the beginning of a consultation process designed to shape future government policy.

But creating an industrial strategy in the first place – to coordinate a wide range of economic policies – is commendable. For too long, the UK has been lagging behind other countries which have embraced greater government intervention in their economies.

And the idea of having that strategy overseen by an “industrial strategy council”, to offer a degree of independent oversight, is a good one. If set up properly, this council should encapsulate the idea of industrial strategy as a partnership between the state and business – a collaborative effort to discover new opportunities and develop new policies.

It is also pleasing to see the green paper hasn’t shied away from some of the big issues. There is appropriate emphasis on geography, and creating opportunities in “left behind places”. For too long, economic growth in Britain has been disproportionately concentrated in London and the south-east.

Empowering local leaders in other regions to shape industrial policies, tailored to their specific needs, is a step in the right direction.

The emphasis on addressing the UK’s clapped-out infrastructure is also wise. Pledges to invest in broadband, electricity supply, rail and roads should lay the groundwork for a more interconnected economy. There is evidence that improved connectivity could attract new investment and boost regional productivity in areas that have been economically stagnant for decades.

There are also promises to increase public investment in research and development
in emerging industries such as AI and clean energy. The vision for a modern, hi-tech economy driven by innovation is much needed in a county which currently ranks 25th in the global robotics league table, the only G7 nation outside the top 20.

But there are also risks to such a technology-centred approach, which could easily be at odds with the goal of tackling regional inequality. Indeed, given new investment tends to flow to existing hi-tech regions, the divide between successful and left-behind places could widen.

The plan’s green focus is also timely. By prioritising clean energy and investment in sectors such as electric vehicles, the strategy aligns with goals for achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

Mission impossible?

However, other issues also need to be included in the government’s plans. There is no consideration of geopolitics in the green paper. Yet any effective UK industrial strategy has to account for the impact of China and the US, and their ongoing tensions.

Similarly – and strangely – Brexit is hardly mentioned. Despite post-Brexit disruption to trade with the EU continuing to act as a drag on investment and growth, the green paper merely skirts around the issue. Nor is there anything about how industries deeply reliant on EU supply chains and markets (such as car manufacturing) can thrive outside the European single market.

Southampton docks.
Ssisabal/Shutterstock

Workers in traditional manufacturing, and in sectors such as retail, hospitality and care, will also need to hear more about support and retraining. The government needs to be mindful of not increasing a sense of polarisation between those who benefit from a green hi-tech revolution, and those who don’t.

And there will need to be much more detail about funding. The Labour government is keen to attract investors – the green paper was published on the same day as a high-profile investment summit in London, which featured impressive international attendees enjoying fine food and high-calibre entertainment.

But heavy reliance on private sector investment raises questions about accountability. For, while public-private partnerships can be effective, there is always a risk that private sector interests may not align with the needs of everyone else.

Overall, the green paper is the starting point for a critical national conversation about the UK’s economic future. The road to tangible success will depend on translating ideas into concrete actions, dealing with inevitable trade-offs, and being brave enough to address some deep structural issues. If it does, the green paper could turn into a blueprint for a genuinely resilient and competitive country. Läs mer…

Egypt recently deepened its involvement in the war-weary Horn of Africa by arming Somalia and deploying its troops in the embattled country. To Ethiopia’s growing alarm, Egypt is also set to join the multinational force supporting the Somali army against the jihadist threat by al-Shabaab. Egypt’s potentially destabilising presence in the region is seen a direct consequence of Ethiopia’s port agreement with breakaway Somaliland, which Somalia took as a direct affront. Endalcachew Bayeh, a political scholar with a focus on the Horn of Africa, sets out the risks and the path to de-escalation.

What do we know about Egypt’s entry into Somalia and the theatre of conflict in the Horn?

Egypt’s arrival in the Horn of Africa can be traced back to Ethiopia’s quest for a dedicated port under its control. Ethiopia is the world’s largest landlocked country by population and has relied exclusively on the port of Djibouti since the outbreak of the Ethiopia-Eritrea war (1998-2000).

Ethiopia has been exploring alternative access points. This led to the announcement on 1 January 2024 that it had struck a port deal with Somaliland. Ethiopia agreed to recognise the breakaway republic in exchange for a naval base on Somaliland’s coast.

The announcement sparked a diplomatic rift with Somalia, which viewed the deal as a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Somalia still considers self-declared Somaliland part of its territory.

Amid the turmoil, Somalia courted Egypt as a regional patron to counter Ethiopia. This aligned well with Egypt’s increasing interest in finding a military partner along Ethiopia’s border.

Egypt is a longstanding rival of Ethiopia. Recently, it threatened to go to war over Ethiopia’s massive Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which it sees as a threat to its survival.

Egypt deployed military forces in Somalia following its defence deal with Mogadishu in August 2024. It also plans to deploy 5,000 soldiers as part of the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia. The mission is set to replace the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia, in which Ethiopia is a main player.

Ethiopia’s agreement to recognise Somaliland and the friction with Somalia have brought its old enemy, Egypt, to its doorstep.

How have Egypt-Ethiopia hostilities added to regional tensions?

Soon after Egypt’s deployment in Somalia, Ethiopia formalised its recognition of Somaliland. It also sent an ambassador to the capital, Hargeisa. This made it the first nation to officially acknowledge Somaliland’s independence. The two are also rushing to turn their memorandum of understanding into a binding bilateral treaty.

Somaliland ordered the closure of the Egyptian Cultural Library in Hargeisa.

Eritrea, for a time a key ally of Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed in the fight against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, is now at odds with Addis Ababa. And, in response to the recent tensions in the region, Eritrea is strengthening its ties with Egypt and Somalia. A recent meeting of the three has created a united front against Ethiopia.

In Somalia, Ethiopia plays a stabilising role. Somalia now demands that Ethiopia should end its involvement. That could open the way for militant groups and keep Somalia unstable. This is even more likely to happen if Egypt focuses on its competition with Ethiopia rather than Somalia’s stability.

In addition, Somalis have longstanding territorial claims over parts of Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Instability can create fertile ground for groups like Al-Shabaab, which aims to include these territories in an Islamic state.

Finally, tensions have risen between Djibouti and Somaliland over the Ethiopia-Somaliland port deal. This is because the agreement will almost certainly be bad for Djibouti’s economy. Djibouti relies heavily on port revenues that are almost entirely generated from Ethiopia.

What are the risks for the region?

Ethiopia’s recognition of Somaliland and Egypt’s presence in Somalia come at a time of multiple regional crises. These include the strained Ethiopia-Eritrea relations, the Ethiopia-Sudan dispute over Al-Fashaga border region, and instability in Ethiopia.

This volatile environment increases the likelihood of proxy wars.

Key areas to watch are:

Sudan and Egypt: These two countries align on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam issue. Egypt has enhanced its security cooperation with Sudan through military support and joint exercises. Although Sudan is in turmoil, the Al-Fashaga dispute with Ethiopia remains a potential flashpoint. Egypt may take advantage of this dispute and its support for the Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces to further its interests.

Instability in Ethiopia: In several regions, the government is engaged in active conflict with non-state forces. This instability creates fertile ground for Egypt to potentially support proxies against the Ethiopian government. Egypt and Somalia have already expressed the possibility of using proxy forces.

Egypt’s main motivation for intervening in the region is to control the Nile’s source or hinder Ethiopia’s use of the water. As a result, Ethiopia perceives Egypt’s presence at its doorstep as a direct security threat. This increases tensions between Egypt, Somalia and Ethiopia.

Any further destabilisation of Ethiopia would disrupt the entire region, as it shares porous borders with almost all countries in the Horn.

What are the potential avenues for de-escalation?

A promising pathway for reducing tensions in Somalia and the broader region is for the two regional powers to reconsider their strategies and exercise restraint.

Ethiopia can access the sea through Somaliland without formal recognition. This could ease tensions and would not encourage separatist movements.

For Egypt, a more constructive approach would be to limit its direct involvement in the Horn of Africa. Instead, it should address its concerns about the Ethiopian mega-dam through the United Nations, the African Union and other platforms. Historically, its unilateral actions have often been sources of tensions rather than solutions in the region.

The African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development must ensure that the regional states themselves address regional issues. States must make wise decisions now to calm tensions, as no state will be spared from the spillover effects. Läs mer…