Chelsea are up for sale. Public confirmation came on Wednesday evening that Roman Abramovich is ready to listen to offers for the club he has bankrolled for almost 19 years. The transfer of ownership will not be fast-tracked. It will follow due process. While there is intense regret that it has come to this, the oligarch’s was a decision made, he insisted, “with the club’s best interest at heart”.
Yet, behind the scenes, there is a sense of urgency. The talk away from the public utterances was of concrete offers already received – and presumably deemed unacceptable – and the setting of Friday deadlines for further bids, as well as feelers being put out around the globe to unearth prospective buyers for the current European and world champions.
The assumption was that this apparent sudden need to sell was born of an anticipation that Abramovich is to be placed on the United Kingdom government’s sanctions list. After all, the clamour for action against “Moscow-on-Thames” has grown as the Russian invasion of Ukraine intensifies. The topic has been aired regularly in the House of Commons by MPs invoking parliamentary privilege. The leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, opened Prime Minister’s Questions by referencing Chelsea’s owner on Wednesday. So too had a distraught Ukrainian journalist when confronting Boris Johnson at a press briefing in Warsaw earlier in the week.
Those close to the oligarch insist they do not expect Abramovich to be placed on the sanctions list. They suggest he has done nothing to justify such action and is merely a successful businessman removed from politics. It remains to be seen, too, whether the UK’s Foreign Office and National Crime Agency would be able to prove links to Vladimir Putin’s regime to justify freezing his British-based assets. As yet no one, from the United States to the European Union, has moved to name the 55-year-old as a designated individual on their Consolidated List of financial sanctions targets. They would not want to risk losing a legal challenge once sanctions have been imposed.
But while a sale of Chelsea has not been concluded — and that process would usually be protracted, not least until the Premier League have conducted their owners’ and directors’ tests on the incoming incumbents — then that threat is always there. It has not receded just because the club’s owner since 2003 has indicated he is willing to part with the club.
So, while acknowledging there are issues far more significant ongoing in Ukraine at present, what would happen to Chelsea if the UK government did place him on the sanctions list before Abramovich could smooth their sale?
Attempting to answer that question comes with plenty of caveats. This is uncharted territory. Sanctions tend to be brought against entities connected to big industrial companies or banks. In this case, they would be brought against the owner of an elite-level football club. There are so many hypotheticals involved. There are political and practical considerations that would have to be taken into account. The situation in Ukraine is fast-moving and volatile. It is simply impossible to say definitively how the scenario would play out if the government, with pressure mounting on all sides, feels compelled to act.
But, when it comes to sanctions, there are some common repercussions. There would clearly be significant uncertainty surrounding any designated individual whose name is thrust on to the Consolidated List. Banks and other businesses would think carefully before attempting to conduct transactions that may have any connection with one of these individuals. A significant degree of disruption would be inevitable even if, as has been suggested in some quarters, the government drew up a contingency plan aimed at protecting the future of the club as a community asset in that corner of London. Regardless, the damage inflicted could still be far-reaching.
As one expert in this field suggested, “Sanctions are designed to make life really, really uncomfortable for a long period of time. That’s why they are effective.”