This would be socialism. You did not say this before. Correct?

I said social ownership was a definition of socialism and proved it, you denied it (erroneously).

Because fans owning part of the shareholding of a football club does not equal "socialism". There are still owners and workers. There are many shareholding rules, look the LSE, classes of shares etc. These rules are not "socialism"

Social ownership is a defining element of socialism and cooperative ownership and worker ownership are types thereof.

You seem to be confusing fan ownership (cooperative ownership in this regard) as the OP suggested, with worker ownership. Firstly, if fans owned the club, there would be no share exchange because there would no desire or necessity to do so. Secondly if the workers (players included) owned the club then there would be no distinction between owner and worker because they would be one and the same.