Sullivan expected to ignore safety advice and attend West Ham game
West Ham expect major shareholder David Sullivan to attend Saturday’s Carabao Cup tie against Portsmouth despite London Stadium recommending he stay away because of concerns over possible fan unrest. The match is the club’s first since allegations of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour against Sullivan were reported; he denies them, and the situation adds to uncertainty around the club’s ownership and governance.
Sullivan, 77, resigned as co-chair in June but retains a 38.8% stake, while the stadium has asked for advance warning of any visits so additional safety measures can be arranged. He has also been barred from contact with West Ham’s women’s and youth teams for three years over safeguarding concerns, which he disputes; meanwhile, ownership manoeuvres involving Vanessa Gold, Amanda Staveley and Daniel Kretinsky could alter control of the club. Around 55,000 season tickets have been sold, with the 15:00 BST match expected to set an EFL Cup first-round attendance record.
- Sullivan may attend despite safety advice.
- Allegations have intensified pressure on West Ham.
- Ownership changes could reshape club control.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Sullivan retains substantial shareholder rights and a legitimate interest in attending his club's matches. The allegations against him remain disputed and unproven; restricting his attendance based on potential rather than demonstrated fan unrest would undermine presumption of innocence and his property rights as a 38.8% stakeholder. He has accepted safeguarding restrictions on youth and women's team contact, demonstrating willingness to comply with protective measures, and proper security coordination should enable his attendance without unreasonable safety risks.
The case against
The stadium bears genuine responsibility for the safety of 55,000 attendees and staff. Serious allegations of sexually exploitative behaviour, regardless of their current legal status, create reasonable grounds for concern about fan conduct and potential disorder. The stadium's measured approach—requesting advance notice and arranging additional security—acknowledges Sullivan's interests whilst honouring institutional duty of care. When a major shareholder's presence creates documented risks of disruption that could endanger others, the organisation's obligation to protect its wider community justifies such precautions.