Glenn says Khan’s Wembley withdrawal won’t stifle grassroots funding debate
Football Association boss Martin Glenn has expressed his doubts that a tax on agents’ fees, transfers or Premier League revenues is the answer to English football’s grassroots funding problem.
Glenn had hoped to transform community facilities in England over the next 20 years by selling Wembley to Fulham owner Shahid Khan, pictured, but the American billionaire withdrew his £900million offer for the stadium on Wednesday when it became clear there was not enough support for the idea within the game.
The FA’S chief executive had championed the deal but yesterday said he has no intention of quitting, adding that he is proud of what he has achieved during his four years in charge, which includes cutting costs, signing record broadcast deals and hiring dozens of coaches and support staff to work with England’s national sides.
Glenn also denied the suggestion there was a “plot” within the FA Council to block the stadium’s sale to Khan. For him it was simply a case of a “conservative group of people wary of change” and there was “nothing concerted about it”.
Debate has now reopened about how best to fund grassroots facilities, with the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) and ex-england and Manchester United defender Gary Neville suggesting a levy on agents’ fees, while others want the Premier League to share more of its broadcast income.
“Good luck with that,” said Glenn. “But the value of where we are is that the whole thing is now a wider debate among politicians and others who can make a difference.”
Shadow sports minister Dr Rosena Allin-khan, among those opposed to the sale, said: “With the Wembley sale being called off, the government must step up with a pro- gramme that commits to providing the funding necessary.”
News of Khan’s decision to pull out was greeted with disappointment by the Football Foundation, the charity that would have channelled the money to community projects, Sport England and the sports minister Tracey Crouch, all of whom described it as a missed opportunity to address football’s most important issue.