Interventionism, dabbling and the laissez faire management of sport

The British authorities have effectively 'intervened' twice in English football today: firstly, the Office of Fair Trading has successfully exerted pressure on Manchester United to adopt a fairer ticket pricing policy (in spite of United facing excess demand for tickets and being £750 million in debt); and secondly, a group of British MPs has called for foreign owners of football clubs not to saddle their English acquisitions with high levels of debt. While it seems meaningless (and rhetorical) to ask whether or not football fans agree with the interventions, an alternative view necessitates asking why football alone attracts so much political interest when there are numerous other sports that have their own problems to address and would benefit from political assistance? Moreover, when the British government tends towards a light-touch in its dealings with sport, how can a more interventionist stance in relation to football be justified and explained? Yet, can what the British government is doing actually help in creating a model that could be applied to other sports at some stage in the future? Might we therefore see a more proactive and interventionist British sports strategy gradually beginning to emerge?