Labour is pressing London Mayor Sadiq Khan to examine selling the London Stadium to West Ham United amid mounting concern over the cost to taxpayers.
Labour assembly member Bassam Mahfouz has written formally to Lord Khan urging him to relieve Londoners of what he describes as a £1.75bn financial burden tied to the existing stadium deal.
The long-term tenancy arrangement was originally agreed between former mayor Boris Johnson and ex-West Ham vice-chair Karren Brady, locking in terms that now look increasingly unfavourable.
The deal is already costing the public purse £19m per year, a figure that sits in stark contrast to the football club’s rent contribution of less than £3m per season.
West Ham’s relegation from the Premier League this summer has further reduced their rental payments, tightening the financial squeeze on London’s taxpayers under the current agreement.
Mahfouz, the assembly member for Ealing and Hillingdon, wrote: “I am writing to urge you to carry out a full assessment of the stadium’s long-term ownership options, including the potential sale of the venue.”
His letter also called for that assessment to weigh the financial benefits for taxpayers alongside protections ensuring the stadium can continue hosting major athletics and sporting events.
“The London Stadium is one of the most important legacies of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games,” Mahfouz wrote, adding: “We should continue to protect that legacy. But we must also commit to securing a better deal for Londoners.”
The mayor’s office has signalled openness to discussions over a possible sale, with the stadium currently sitting at the centre of a bid to host the World Athletics Championships in 2029.
West Ham’s ownership picture is also shifting, with former Newcastle United shareholder Amanda Staveley leading a bid to acquire part of the club, adding another dimension to any future sale discussions.
Mahfouz noted that a key deadline for existing shareholders to purchase Vanessa Gold’s shares was expiring, potentially reshaping the club’s ownership structure at a critical moment.
The assembly member said the “likelihood of any significant changes to the financials of this deal through, for example, a naming rights deal, seem further away than ever before.”
He added that “the reduction in the public subsidy over the decade or so of the contract has been minimal so far,” and argued that potential new ownership could “provide a new opportunity” to revisit the arrangement.
The pressure from within Labour’s own ranks underlines growing frustration with a deal that critics say has consistently failed to deliver value for London’s public finances.