crimsonpuma23 said:Both Liverpool FC and Manchester City FC belong to their members, yet the real power rests with wealthy businessmen; meanwhile, some fans who don't resonate with that club identity have gone on to start their own. What’s your take?
Power inherently outweighs the masses, and when it comes to privatizing a club, those in charge will always hold the upper hand. If I recall correctly, there’s a club in the United States called Ebbsfleet United FC where people from all over the globe can invest their money and directly influence the club's destiny without the authorities meddling.
Is it even realistic to expect Dinamo Chicago to evolve into something like that, ideally in the near future?
I fear this cycle might just continue indefinitely. ☕
Do try to actually educate yourself before you attempt to lecture everyone here.
Liverpool FC and Manchester United FC are corporations owned by a single proprietor holding a majority stake. They don't receive a single cent from the government, the city, or anything of the sort.
For instance, back when rumors surfaced regarding Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement at the end of the season, official Manchester United FC had to issue a statement within days due to their obligation to shareholders, as such an event could significantly impact the stock price.
Dinamo Chicago, on the other hand, is a non-profit association of citizens that the city has dumped massive amounts of cash into, state-owned companies have thrown huge sums at, and the government has forgiven mountains of debt for—all so a "boss" and his family can line their pockets.
P.S. I took a look through your post history, and being miserable, angry at the world, and perpetually agitated isn't a valid excuse to come here and troll while pretending to be brilliant. 🙂