One of the main talking points so far this football season has been the potent “SAS” partnership of Luis Suarez and Daniel Sturridge at Liverpool.

It has sparked much discussion about striking partnerships, which have become rarer in recent years since the 4-4-2 formation went out of fashion. However off the pitch, there has been hardly a murmur about a relationship that has endured for over a decade — Barclays and the Premier League.

By the time the current deal expires — at the end of the 2015-16 season — Barclays will have sponsored the Premier League for 15 years, including the period when Barclaycard was the sponsor of the Premiership in 2001.

To borrow an over-used phrase in football reportage, “it’s business as usual,” i.e. use of the beautiful game to acquire the kudos that drives sponsorship.

While Barclays has been sponsoring the Premier League the bank has been reported in the media as being involved in a number of less favourable activities, such as tax avoidance schemes, manipulating LIBOR and involvement in money-laundering arrangements.

Furthermore, last year the Treasury ordered Barclays to pay back a staggering half a billion pounds of unpaid tax. This is after British banks were saved by the biggest taxpayer-funded bailout ever.
Such a long and enduring relationship raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the Premier League.

For example, by agreeing to parade ostentatiously the Barclays’ logo at all Premier League matches, is chief executive Richard Scudamore (pictured) ignoring their sponsor’s less attractive activities?

For football fans it is the most unholy of alliances — the combination of the bankers’ recklessness and the relentless rise in ticket prices has consequently made it more difficult for supporters to attend live matches.

The Premier League’s firm loyalty to the bank represents a complete disregard to those who have suffered financially. Barclays recently launched an advertising campaign containing a simple message for the fans: “Thank you.”

Supporters who have witnessed average ticket prices rise by 716 per cent since 1989 are unlikely to return the sentiments. Indeed Barclays have not been forthcoming in subsidising the rise in ticket prices.

This is clearly a murky relationship that symbolises the corporatisation of modern football. Banks, like football clubs, were founded to serve the needs of the people.

We now see many banks having acted solely to increase profits and rewarding large bonuses to staff, whose focus has been anything but serving the general public.

Therefore it is shameful that modern football is seemingly bolstering banks’ modus operandi.

The Premier League is glorifying a bank that is a hostile force to the public.

Ultimately, the world’s most profitable football league shares values with an institution whose dictum is profit as an end in itself — they are both consumed by greed.

Perhaps this makes them an ideal partnership in a rampant capitalist society.