OPINION
Daniel Levy did not get where he is by always making popular decisions.
There is one thing making it to the top of an elite Premier League club, and other staying there, as the Tottenham chairman of the last 18 years has done.
Nevertheless, Levy’s reputation has taken a major dent from the contents of the latest cache of Football Leaks documents, published in the German news magazine Der Spiegel, and cited in Saturday’s Times.
It is revealed how Levy was in direct and vocal opposition to Premier League plans in 2016 to introduce a £30 cap on away tickets for fans, which was reinstated for three more years this month.
In the build-up to the March 2016 meeting in which the 20 top-flight teams first reached an agreement on the cap, ex-Premier League chief executive Scudamore emailed the clubs, saying: “No amount of charity giving or the deployment of slick PR can make up for the reputation we have garnered, fairly or unfairly, in the court of public opinion, of being greedy b******* and not giving two hoots for the fans.”
In response, Levy emailed the executives of the other members of the “big six” – Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and the two Manchester clubs as well as Spurs, saying: “Happy to do a call with us 6 . . . I personally hate the idea.”
Quite why the Tottenham chairman was so strongly opposed to what was a sensible and logical move to secure attendances at Premier League matches, as well as rewarding those fans who play such a vital role in creating the atmospheres for which the English top division is so renowned, is unclear.
At best, Levy comes across as a flint-hearted capitalist with an eye only on the bottom dollar.
No surprise there, then, many Spurs fans may chime.
But, there is a bigger picture here, even though Tottenham’s PR team claim, “as a club we absolutely supported assisting away fans — however we had proposed our preferred method for supporting away fans which related to assisting with travel costs.”
The Premier League elite, of which Levy is a key member, are seen as forever chasing more money at a cost to the game’s soul and at odds with the needs of those who pay to watch the game.
This is yet another example of greed and the never-ending quest to make the rich richer.