Exclusive: Brits don’t trust football and rugby team owners to run clubs properly. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Misleading headlines

Using a headline that slightly overstates or simplifies what the data show, potentially shaping reader perception before they see the details.

Headline: "Exclusive: Brits don’t trust football and rugby team owners to run clubs properly" In the text: "Exclusive Ipsos polling for City AM shows that just 32 per cent of adults trust the owner of their football or rugby club. ... Thirty per cent of those asked say they do trust their club’s owner, with the rest unsure." The headline implies a broad, categorical lack of trust ("don’t trust"), while the data show roughly a third do trust, a similar share do not, and a substantial portion are unsure. The nuance of uncertainty is lost in the headline.

3 suggestions

Revise the headline to reflect the presence of significant uncertainty, e.g. "Exclusive: Fewer than a third of Brits say they trust football and rugby team owners".

Alternatively: "Exclusive: Many Brits unsure or doubtful that football and rugby owners run clubs sustainably".

Avoid categorical phrasing like "don’t trust" when the data show a mix of trust, distrust, and uncertainty.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex situation to a simple narrative that may not fully capture nuance or alternative explanations.

"Football has been dogged with a number of financial problems in recent seasons, most notably Sheffield Wednesday’s slide into administration. Rugby, on the other hand, has seen three top-flight clubs enter administration in the last five years, with only one seeing a resurrection since." This passage links recent financial problems to the broader narrative of untrustworthy or ineffective ownership and regulation, but does not distinguish between structural issues (e.g. league revenue models, Covid impacts, broadcasting deals) and individual ownership decisions. It also uses a single football example and three rugby examples to stand in for the entire landscape.

3 suggestions

Clarify that these are illustrative examples rather than exhaustive evidence, e.g. "For example, Sheffield Wednesday..." and "Rugby has also seen...".

Add brief context on other contributing factors (e.g. revenue distribution, pandemic impacts, league structures) to avoid implying that ownership alone explains all financial problems.

Explicitly state that the article is reporting public perceptions and selected cases, not providing a full causal analysis of club finances.

Appeal to authority

Relying on an expert quote to support a particular interpretation without presenting alternative expert views or acknowledging uncertainty.

"There is strong recognition that existing ownership rules have failed to prevent repeated financial crises across football and rugby," Professor Rob Wilson told City AM. "The public is signalling that sustainability should be built into the system rather than addressed after collapse. This is a call for stronger governance that protects clubs as community institutions rather than speculative assets." and "Fans and the wider public are clear that owners cannot be insulated from the consequences of failure," Professor Wilson added. "There is growing frustration with a model where rewards are privatised while losses fall elsewhere. People expect owners to take responsibility for their decisions and to bear the risk when clubs fall into financial trouble." These quotes interpret the polling in a particular way and embed a normative stance (clubs as community institutions vs speculative assets). Only one expert is cited, and no alternative interpretations or counterpoints are offered.

3 suggestions

Explicitly separate data from interpretation, e.g. "Professor Rob Wilson interprets the findings as..." rather than presenting his view as an uncontested conclusion.

Include at least one additional expert or industry voice offering a different or more cautious interpretation of the same polling data.

Clarify that the framing of clubs as "community institutions rather than speculative assets" is a normative perspective, not a direct finding of the poll.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that nudges readers toward a particular interpretation or emotional response.

Phrases such as: - "Football has been dogged with a number of financial problems in recent seasons..." - "This is a call for stronger governance that protects clubs as community institutions rather than speculative assets." - "There is growing frustration with a model where rewards are privatised while losses fall elsewhere." These choices frame owners and the current model in a negative light and frame stronger regulation and community protection as the natural or obvious solution, without exploring potential downsides or alternative views (e.g. investment incentives, competitive balance, unintended consequences of regulation).

3 suggestions

Use more neutral wording, e.g. "Football has experienced several high-profile financial difficulties" instead of "has been dogged".

Present the expert’s framing as one perspective: "Wilson argues that..." rather than as an implicit consensus.

Add a brief acknowledgment that some stakeholders may worry about overregulation or reduced investment, even if those views are not the focus of the piece.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Presenting mainly one side’s perspective or relying on a narrow set of sources, which can skew perceived consensus.

The article presents: - Polling data showing public skepticism toward owners and support for more regulation. - Interpretive commentary from a single expert (Professor Rob Wilson) who supports stronger governance and greater owner accountability. Absent are: - Any quotes or data from club owners, leagues, or investors who might defend current practices or caution against certain regulatory approaches. - Any mention of owners who have invested heavily and improved club finances, which could provide balance to the narrative of failure and crisis.

3 suggestions

Include a response or perspective from a club owner, league representative, or investors’ association on the polling findings and proposed regulatory direction.

Mention examples of clubs where ownership has improved financial stability or community engagement, to show that outcomes vary.

Explicitly note the article’s scope, e.g. "This article focuses on public concerns and one expert’s interpretation; it does not cover the full range of views among owners and regulators."