A storm of allegations shook Fulham when former club executive Craig Kline publicly claimed that Shahid Khan was involved in “systematic corruption”, relating to business dealing around the proposed acquisition of Wembley Stadium.
Kline asserted that Khan viewed Craven Cottage as a “negative asset” and was preparing a strategy to convert it into luxury flats, while moving Fulham (or using Wembley) as a key component of his wider sports empire. The club promptly dismissed these claims as “bogus” and “nonsense” from a former employee. Meanwhile, the Football Association (FA) reportedly opened a preliminary investigation into the claims, though no public findings emerged at the time.
The situation posed a reputational risk for Fulham: even unproven allegations of corruption in football ownership and governance can erode trust among fans, sponsors and regulators. Moreover, it triggered broader scrutiny of Khan’s dual interests — football and American sports — and whether his football club operations were being influenced by extraneous business objectives.
For a club that prides itself on its heritage and community connection, the allegations — however unfounded — struck at the core of identity and transparency. The incident underscores how modern football ownership often sits at the intersection of sport, real-estate, global business and regulatory oversight — and how that intersection can become a source of tension for traditional clubs and their supporters.
Be the first to comment