Sports Business Journal

Tottenham Hotspur’s public attention recently has “turned to the question of the majority-shareholding Lewis family, and what exactly they want to do” with the team since Daniel Levy’s dismissal as chair last month, according to Pitt-Brooke & Weatherspoon of THE ATHLETIC. The Lewis family have been “very consistent in saying that Tottenham is not for sale, amid high-profile expressions of interest from PCP International Finance Limited,” a consortium known as “Firehawk Holdings” and most recently American former DJ Brooklyn Earick. But there have been other questions from fans through this period. Namely, “what exactly do the Lewis family intend to do with the club now that they have removed the man who ran it for them for 24 years?” On Thursday morning, the club announced a $133.8M equity injection. That funding is in the form of capital (or shares), meaning Tottenham “will not be adding to their existing debts.” Bahamas-based investment group ENIC would “only be able to recoup it via dividends, which Spurs don’t pay, or via an eventual sale of the club.” This injection “still strengthens their position.” Cash from share issues comprises “secure funding,” which clubs need in order to exploit the maximum loss limit available to them ($140M in the Premier League). Many fans will be “wondering whether this is just a one-off occurrence or whether Tottenham will be truly entering a new era in terms of their ambitions and how they are funded.” A source confirmed that this was “just the start” (THE ATHLETIC, 10/11).

Tottenham Hotspur announced today that its majority owner ENIC, which is run by the Lewis family, has “injected” £100M (US$133.8M) of capital into the club, according to George Sessions of the London INDEPENDENT. This announcement is the “latest statement of intent” by the Lewis family, which “invited” former Tottenham Chair Daniel Levy to step down in September in an “effort to achieve more on-field success.” Three “expressions of interest” in buying a stake in Tottenham have been “unequivocally rejected” during the last month by the Lewis family Trust. Further funds are “available to help” coach Thomas Frank. A source said, “This is initial additional funding. As the club’s management decides what’s needed to deliver success, more money will be available” (London INDEPENDENT, 10/9).

THE BIGGER PICTURE: In London, Tom Allnutt notes the injection of new capital is “understood to have been long-planned by the Lewis family and is not a response to speculation around a possible takeover.” The injection will “raise hopes among Spurs fans that the Lewis children are ambitious and committed to helping Spurs win more major trophies” after the Europa League triumph last season “secured their first piece of silverware” in 17 years (London TIMES, 10/9).

Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur made “clear how the club wants to be referenced” in an email that was circulated to league broadcasters on February 10, according to Jack Pitt-Brooke of THE ATHLETIC. The email, titled “Tottenham Hotspur Naming Update,” states the club has requested that they are “primarily known as Tottenham Hotspur, with Spurs being the preferred short version.” The club also requested that they are “not referred to as Tottenham.” Pitt-Brooke noted this guidance has “gone out to Premier League broadcasters all around the world.” On the league website, it is “always ‘Tottenham Hotspur’ or ‘Spurs’ there, never ‘Tottenham.’” Tottenham is the “name of the area, but not the name of the club.” It is “long-standing club policy not to refer to themselves as ‘Tottenham.’” So there is “nothing new about this, as it has been the club’s position going back to 2011.” What specifically changed is that in November last year, the club “unveiled a ‘remastered brand identity,’” which was “rolled out across all the Club’s physical and digital touchpoints.” This came with a “Brand Playbook,” which “explains in comprehensive detail what the new brand identity means.” This month’s fresh guidance to broadcasters is an “apparent attempt to underline this,” and to “make sure that ‘Spurs’ rather than ‘Tottenham’ becomes the common shorthand when ‘Tottenham Hotspur’ does not fit” (THE ATHLETIC, 2/21).

ALLOW ME TO REINTRODUCE MYSELF: THE ATHLETIC’s Mark Critchley noted it has been suggested the naming update is “simply related to copyright, as the term ‘Spurs’ would be easier to trademark than the name of the surrounding area.” Six years ago, fellow Premier League club Liverpool “failed to trademark the city’s name for merchandising purposes.” Another club, Chelsea, “had more success of a sort earlier this season.” In 2016, West Ham United added the word “London” to their revamped crest, although they “at least put that to a vote among supporters first.” Ligue 1 club Paris Saint-Germain’s rebranding “accentuated the word ‘Paris’ on their logo, not so much the ‘Saint-Germain,’” and UEFA “uniformly refers to the club as ‘Paris’ rather than ‘PSG.’” On the surface level, Tottenham’s “Spurs” preference is “different from some of those examples.” Rather than more “closely associating themselves with a larger metropolitan surrounding, they have gone the other way.” All are “fundamental attempts to make a club’s identity something that can be more easily swallowed and digested.” In other words, something that “can be consumed, especially on the global market” (THE ATHLETIC, 2/23).