by Chris Harris
Gimmick definition: something that is not serious or of real value that is used to attract people’s attention or interest temporarily, especially to make them buy something. In other words, something eye catching that helps a product or brand stand out from the competition. Whether Equality FC belongs in that category is no longer an abstract question. It is now a pertinent one.
The general understanding is that Lewes FC is on the brink of bankruptcy. At the same time, it has been made clear that investment in Lewes FC Women will be forthcoming and the threat is shortly to be alleviated. I’m also told that money is already being made available to the men’s side. What remains unclear is the shape that investment will take, and what it will mean for Equality FC.
If investment is focused primarily on the women’s team, as we’ve been told it may be, then the immediate question is whether Equality FC will be maintained in any meaningful sense. The upside of doing so is obvious: the Equality FC brand remains intact, along with the moral and cultural positioning the club has leaned on so heavily. The downside is equally apparent. Maintaining Equality FC, as it was initially sold, requires investors to fund the men’s and women’s teams at the same level, which is a big ask and is currently driving the club out of business. The Lewes FC Women have a value, the men’s team and our financial state precludes any real value.
That tension only really exists if there is an ambition to push hard at the top end of the women’s game. If investors are content for the women to remain in the third tier, then the sums involved are far more manageable and Equality FC becomes much easier to sustain. Personally, I would have no issue with that outcome. Keeping Equality FC alive, stabilising the finances, and maintaining current playing levels would be an entirely acceptable end point for me. But that is speculation, and it is also a personal preference.
What cannot be ignored is the pattern that has emerged over time. On at least two previous occasions, during discussions around potential takeovers, the board appeared perfectly willing to suggest that Equality FC might need to be jettisoned in order to attract investment. That alone raises a legitimate and uncomfortable question. Even if Equality FC survives in some form, was it ever truly non-negotiable? Or was it always something that could be traded away when the numbers stopped adding up?
That question sits at the heart of all this, and it’s one we can no longer avoid.
A Brilliant Idea That Was Easy to Support. Until It Wasn’t
With what looks like fresh blood coming into the club, the rumour mill has begun turning again. Familiar names are resurfacing, figures who have been involved before in one way or another, and once more the focus appears to be shifting decisively toward the women’s team. In many respects that isn’t a bad thing. But it does raise an unavoidable question that has been hanging in the air for years now: is it finally time for a serious reappraisal of Equality FC?
What has gradually crystallised for me is this: what was presented as a defining statement of what Lewes FC stood for, and what was undeniably bold, eye-catching and headline-friendly, may never have been underpinned by the depth of conviction and sincerity that was claimed at the time. I am increasingly persuaded that Equality FC was, as some suspected from the outset, a gimmick that got serious when there was money at the club and is now teetering again back at gimmick status.
When Equality FC was first announced, it arrived amid huge fanfare and a wave of national and international coverage. Women’s football was enjoying one of its periodic moments of sustained attention, and Lewes FC placed itself squarely at the centre of that conversation. The reaction was largely positive, but never universal. Alongside the praise was a significant body of scepticism, much of it coming from people with no stake in Lewes FC at all, people who simply read what was being proposed and felt something didn’t quite ring true. That it was an initiative not based in reality, manageable at Lewes FC as the budget requirements at the time were so low.
From a personal perspective, I was sceptical from the start. Not because I opposed the principle, politically it aligned entirely with my own views, I have a signed framed certificate by Emily Pankhurst on my wall at home, but because I questioned its viability. Equality isn’t a slogan to me. It’s something I’ve believed in and supported long before it became fashionable or marketable, which is precisely why I’m uncomfortable seeing it manipulated. What I struggled to accept was the claim that Equality FC could be sustained within a fan-owned club structure without fundamentally destabilising the finances. My view was simple: it would have to be heavily bankrolled. There was no other way.
That concern was dismissed at the time, often with impatience and, in some cases, hostility. Yet the numbers were never mysterious. The men’s budget sat at roughly £100,000 a year. Equal pay meant lifting the women’s budget to match it. For those underwriting the club at the time, that was manageable. It was relatively painless to appear radical and principled when the actual cost was modest.
The real test came later, when the women’s team reached the Championship and the financial realities changed. Travel costs rose, staffing expanded, infrastructure demands increased, and competitive salaries became unavoidable. At that point Equality FC stopped being a slogan and became a serious financial commitment. Unsurprisingly, those bankrolling it took a hard look at the figures and eventually stepped away.
That was the moment everything shifted.
When Principle Becomes Negotiable
What followed was the search for external investment, and with it a quiet but significant change in language. Equality FC softened. It became more malleable. During the failed Mercury 13 discussions, Equality FC was on the brink of becoming “Equity FC”: equal access rather than equal pay. Same facilities, same respect, importantly different budgets. In isolation, that adjustment was presented as pragmatic, even sensible. Perhaps it was. But it also revealed something deeply uncomfortable. Once equality became expensive, it was negotiable.
When the promise of fresh investment evaporated, Equality FC returned, dusted off and reaffirmed. Was that principle, or hypocrisy?
This is not an argument against supporting the women’s team, nor against finding sustainable ways to fund it. I want the women’s side to thrive. I also understand the brutal realities of football finance. What troubles me is the retrospective moral framing, the suggestion that these shifts are somehow consistent with the original principle, rather than a clear departure from it.
If Equality FC was genuinely non-negotiable, it should have survived contact with difficulty. If it only functioned when it was affordable, then it was never a principle at all. It was a posture: clever, powerful, and undeniably effective at attracting attention, praise and cultural capital. But importantly not with enough kudos to attract investment.
Now we appear to be heading toward another moment of reaffirmation, possibly in a form that bears little resemblance to how Equality FC was originally sold. I’m not opposed to what may be proposed. I understand it. I may well support it. What I will not accept is the rewriting of history, or the presentation of compromise as moral continuity.
You cannot claim moral superiority when it costs you little, then quietly abandon the position when it becomes inconvenient while insisting nothing of substance has changed. That isn’t principle. That’s branding. That’s gimmickry.
I may be wrong. It’s entirely possible that new investors will arrive and fund both men’s and women’s playing budgets equally. If that happens, I will happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong. I hope that is the case. But I don’t believe it is.
What I expect instead is a carefully worded justification for why the women must be funded separately, why the men cannot be, and why this is somehow still consistent with the club’s founding values. If Equality FC ends not with equality, but with selective investment justified after the fact, then we should be honest about what it really was: a compelling idea, brilliantly marketed, but never designed to survive once it became genuinely difficult.
Soon enough, the governance model and investment structure will be revealed. That moment will tell us everything. If Equality FC is alive, properly funded and defended when it’s hard, I will be delighted. If not, then we should finally admit what many of us have suspected for years.
That it was never a principle.
It was a principle that it was always hoped would help bring sponsorship in, but when it didn’t, the Lewes FC leadership have previously suggested they were quite happy to drop it for financial convenience.
That, surely, is the definition of a gimmick.
#Lewes FC #Lewes #Non League Football #Womens Football #Football
The Rights of Fans. 