Why are we asking this now?
Because Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, lodged a formal £81.6m bid yesterday to buy Manchester City. The club's board has announced it will endorse his bid. Barring the unlikely scenario that he fails a "fit and proper person test", he will get the chance to use some of his fortune (estimated at up to £2bn) to revive a perennially underachieving club and challenge "the big boys" of English football.
How many big clubs are foreign-owned?
Most of them. The reigning Premier League champions, Manchester United, who are City's arch-rivals, have been owned by the American Glazer family since 2005. Chelsea, champions in 2005 and 2006, are owned by a Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Liverpool were bought this year by two American multimillionaires, Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Another US tycoon, Randy Lerner, bought Aston Villa last year, while Stan Kroenke, a Colorado-based billionaire, has snapped up 12 per cent of Arsenal this year, with a long-term view to a buyout. Portsmouth have a French-Russian owner, Alexandre Gaydamak, while West Ham were purchased last year by an Icelandic consortium. Mohamed Al Fayed has owned Fulham since 1997.
Any other deals on the horizon?
Blackburn Rovers are in talks with a US-based, British-born businessman, Daniel Williams, who is fronting an American consortium which wants to buy the club. Birmingham City are subject to interest from a Hong Kong consortium fronted by businessman Carson Yeung. Reading's owner, John Madejski, has said he would sell to the right bidder, with Far Eastern interest rumoured, while Tottenham are increasingly being linked to foreign buyers. A majority of Premiership clubs will be foreign-owned within a year or so.
Why is Thaksin's bid so controversial?
Primarily because of his controversial record as Thailand's leader. He was ousted in a largely peaceful coup last year by a military junta, which has, in recent weeks, frozen more than £1bn of his assets. Thai prosecutors have filed corruption charges against Thaksin and his wife over allegations of wrongdoing in a land deal. Human rights groups have questioned some of his policies when in power.
Thaksin's defenders argue that he was a successful, populist - and popular - politician, pointing to the fact that he was the first elected Thai prime minister to complete a full term in office (2001-2005). He then won a landslide second victory in 2005. Unarguably, many Thais dislike Thaksin, not least the junta, but his Thai Rak Thai party (dissolved by the junta in May), had millions of members and wide support.
Have other owners faced questions?
Abramovich has been accused of asset-stripping Russia. Al Fayed was embroiled in the parliamentary "cash-for-questions" scandal. Hicks helped to bankroll George W Bush to power in controversial circumstances. Gillett has a $1bn bankruptcy on his CV. Gaydamak's father - also his backer - has been implicated in arms dealing and tax evasion scandals. Malcolm Glazer has been accused of share-price ramping and being, among other things, a "trailer-park tyrant" for policies affecting tenants in housing projects.
Why is the English game so attractive?
Money is one reason, but not the only one. The Premier League is the world's richest, with £2.7bn of TV revenues to be shared between its 20 clubs over the next three seasons, thanks to record-breaking contracts with BSkyB, Setanta, and a raft of lucrative overseas rights' deal. That equates to an average income from TV alone of £45m per club, per year, before a ticket, replica shirt, match programme or pie is sold. The Premiership is screened in more countries (200-plus) than any league in the world. And that makes it attractive, increasingly so in the lucrative, but largely untapped, markets of Asia. As a global brand, the Premiership is becoming sport's equivalent of Coca-Cola and McDonald's. Owning a piece of that is, naturally, attractive to billionaire speculators.
Does owning a club guarantee big profits?
No, far from it. To rework an old gag: How do you make a million in football? Start out with a billion. There are no guarantees. Clubs can be European high-flyers one year, and on the verge of bankruptcy in a lower division not long afterwards - Leeds United being a prime example.
What other reasons are there for buying?
They are probably as numerous as the buyers. Al Fayed's main reason for buying Fulham in 1997 was, arguably, to get himself a slice of establishment respectability, but he has yet to be granted a coveted British passport. Abramovich wanted the ultimate trophy asset, not to mention a haven in London from potential political turmoil, when he bought Chelsea.
The Glazers, Hicks and Gillett, all sports franchise owners in the US, saw potential in England's biggest, best-known clubs, for a healthy bottom line. Lerner is a sports nut with money to spare, who genuinely admires the history and tradition of Villa, and will be content to break even. Thaksin is a populist from a nation with a thirst for English football: per capita viewing figures are higher in Thailand than anywhere. He tried to buy Liverpool in 2004 as an election was looming in Thailand. He failed then, but glory by association was, and remains, an aim.
So what's wrong with foreign ownership?
Nothing, if you accept that football is just another branch of the global economy. If foreign companies can buy British utility firms, car manufacturers, pub chains, and banks, and if foreign talent can populate Britain's football and rugby pitches, and can coach British Olympians to medals (as they do in rowing, swimming and other sports), why shouldn't foreigners own football clubs? Because, say critics, some foreigners fail to respect tradition, pile debt on their clubs in "leveraged" buyouts, and risk tearing asunder the fabric of age-old community institutions.
Are the critics right?
Time will tell. United are doing well now, on the pitch, under the Glazers, while labouring under £660m of debt they never had before, serviced by ever higher ticket prices that increasingly force the traditional "dad and lad" audience out. But that's business. And in the 21st century, football is big business.
Are foreign owners of English football clubs a good thing?
Yes...
* They bring large amounts of money, which equates to new players, better chances of success and, therefore, happy fans
* They validate the stellar success of an English product in a global marketplace flush with even greater potential
* There have been plenty of greedy, self-interested and egotistical British owners. Some foreign owners try extra hard to please fans
No...
* The cash they bring is often borrowed, 'leveraged' against club assets, which carries a theoretical risk of financial meltdown
* Their main motivation is the bottom line, via aggressive marketing, not getting local people through the turnstiles at affordable prices
* English football risks becoming fuelled by money amassed, possibly unethically, by people who face no meaningful screening
