Match of the Day 2

I blogged earlier this week about the important economic role that football clubs can play in their local areas. The blog highlighted the fact that five of the 10 most disadvantaged local authorities in England are home to a Premier League club. All but two Premier League clubs are situated in the 20 per cent most deprived local authority areas, according to the analysis.

But the methodology we used focused on local authority-wide deprivation. This meant that Manchester United, for example, recorded a low deprivation score, despite undoubtedly being located in a rundown area.

Below is a table ranking deprivation in the super output areas in which the Premier League's 20 clubs are located. There are nearly 35,000 SOAs in England, with an average of 1,500 residents. The table shows that big football clubs are located in some of the most disadvantaged areas in England:

Club	IMD ranking (2007)
Bolton	20,216th most deprived
Newcastle	17,087
Fulham	17,053
Portsmouth	14,573
Blackburn	11,009
Manchester United	8,510
Sunderland	7,275
Chelsea	5,762
Arsenal	3,978
West Ham	1,744
Stoke	1,642
West Brom	1,470
Aston Villa	783
Hull	770
Everton	630
Tottenham	547
Wigan	412
Liverpool	108
Manchester City	74
Middlesbrough	71

The table shows that three clubs – Liverpool, Manchester City and Middlesbrough – are located in the top one per cent most deprived SOAs in England. 

According to accountants Deloitte, English Premier League clubs reported a combined revenue in excess of €2 billion in 2006/07. There should be more debate about how this huge wealth could be used to revitalise the often very disadvantaged areas around their grounds. 

The Baroness with the big job

All jobs are not created equal. The big appointments story of the week was that of Baroness Ford being hired as the boss of the Olympics legacy company, which is responsible for ensuring that east London continues to benefit from the 2012 Olympic Games long after the cheering has quietened. 

That's the biggest and hardest job in the entire Olympics portfolio. The cost overruns at Wembley and the fiasco of Pickett's Lock may suggest otherwise but, relative to creating a lasting legacy, it is easy to build a few facilities, especially when you have a powerful planning vehicle at your side in the shape of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Making good use of them after the games is a different matter. 

I've no doubt that, for example, the velodrome and pool will be enjoyed by Londoners. But the big ticket items pose a much bigger problem for Margaret Ford. The Olympics organisers have already made a strategic blunder by failing to find a viable long-term use for the main stadium. The solution was simple and worked well in Manchester after the Commonwealth Games – tear up the track and use the ground for a popular team sport.

West Ham United would have been an obvious tenant, although I was compelled by an eye-catching idea to turn the stadium into an MCG-style arena that could actually meet demand and keep prices down during major tournaments or tours such as when Australia come to town for the Ashes series.

As it is, Ford finds herself hamstrung by the insistence of an obsessive IOC that the stadium be used for athletics, a minority spectator sport in England, which commands tiny gates in comparison to our true loves of football, cricket and rugby. 

It doesn't end there. I shan't spoil the surprise, but Regeneration & Renewal has a story on Tuesday that another key element of the Olympics legacy is under threat. All in all it adds up to one daunting in-tray for the former English Partnerships chair.

There is one positive though: Ford herself. The Scot is known for her ability to get things done and keep a cool head and genial manner. London could really benefit from the games, but some of the poor early decisions may have to be unpicked for it to do so. Should she deem that necessary, I'd warn anyone against getting in her way. 

Happy Easter.