Liverpool and Everton: A Reluctant Case for Sharing

Liverpool City Council leader Warren Brady is worried about the M62. Specifically, he fears everything migrating down it to Manchester, where two “fabulous stadiums” already stand. His solution to secure Liverpool’s place in England’s 2018 World Cup bid is a radical one for English football: a shared stadium for Liverpool and Everton.

“We’ve got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup,” Brady has stated, reviving a debate that goes back to the very origins of the two clubs. The city’s two great football institutions were, after all, born from a dispute over rent at Anfield. One hundred and twenty years on, the idea of them cohabiting remains anathema to many.

Brady’s argument, however, appears built on a shaky premise. FIFA rules permit a host country to have one city with two stadia, a privilege almost certain to be granted to London with Wembley and The Emirates Stadium. It is difficult to imagine the FA snubbing Liverpool entirely while selecting both Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium. This raises questions about the council’s true motives, especially given its previous indications of favouring a ground-share. The World Cup bid feels less like a reason and more like a convenient political lever.

The Weight of Identity

For Everton, the primary argument against sharing is one of perception and identity. As equal partners in a new venture, they would still risk being viewed as the junior tenants in a ground built to satisfy the needs of two clubs. This could have a tangible effect on their ability to attract a new generation of supporters, for whom a distinct home ground is a core part of their club’s identity. Should that be lost, it is not clear what new identity could replace it.

While arguments rooted in tradition can be flimsy, a precedent set at the Premier League level could have ramifications down the football pyramid. The motives of the clubs and council may be pure, but others in football, driven solely by profit, would be delighted to see a path cleared for merging facilities and, by extension, clubs. The identity of more than just Everton is at stake.

A Marriage of Convenience

The case for a shared stadium is grounded in a much harsher reality: finance. Liverpool are £350m in debt under the ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, struggling with interest payments. Funding a new stadium seems a distant fantasy, and staying at Anfield for the foreseeable future is the most likely outcome. The American owners have already demonstrated a capacity for spending vast sums with little tangible benefit; doubling the club’s debt for a new ground they can ill afford seems an unlikely prospect.

Everton, meanwhile, have pinned their future on a controversial move to Kirkby, a plan that faces significant opposition from a section of their own fanbase. For them, a ground-share inside the city limits might be preferable to a partnership with Tesco on the metropolitan fringe. Planning permission for the Kirkby project has been kicked from pillar to post and is far from guaranteed. If it fails, Everton are left stranded at an ageing Goodison Park.

The concept works perfectly well on the continent. Few would argue that AC Milan and Internazionale, or the great clubs of Rome, have lost their identities by sharing a home. It is a proven model. The problem is that both Liverpool and Everton have procrastinated on their stadium issues for decades, allowing costs to spiral. Even with the current recession, the price of building two separate, modern grounds within the city of Liverpool seems astronomical.

For Everton supporters, the choice may become one between two unappealing options. The time to protest the Kirkby move is now, because if permission is granted, the battle is not over; the stadium itself still needs to be built. But if it is denied, the only viable alternative to a decaying Goodison could be the one thing that was once unthinkable: making a new home with the neighbours from across the park.