Money has improved football not made it worse

****

I don’t lay claim to knowing what is or isn’t good football but I do know stupidity when I see it. And the phrase, “money has ruined football” is in the premier league of stupidity because it simply isn’t true. In fact, English football – not to mention the British economy – has benefitted enormously from the cash that has flowed into the game from commercial interests in the form of sponsorship, broadcasting rights and merchandising. If we saw it as a normal business we would be lauding the success of the Premier League – a massive business success.

Yet people like Andy Burnham, the former Labour culture secretary, persist in promoting the view that somehow football is worse for all the cash.

"I think money has poisoned our national game. Our game has rampant commercialism. We have put money before the sport and we are reaping the dividends of that”

I’m sorry but can somebody show me some substantive evidence of the negative impact of money in football. And can we put the argument that the national team suffers to one side – England failed to qualify for the World Cup finals twice in the 1970s when the game was broke, there were no foreigners playing in the first division and players earned peanuts.

Today professional players are employed by teams not even in the top four divisions, attendances are good and the numbers playing and watching are at an all time high. Indeed, the criticism might come from other sports – cricket, athletics, tennis – that has been squeezed out by the ubiquity of football. Football in England is played at a higher standard, gets more support and contributes substantially to our exports. It is a success story.

....

Dear Football - be careful what you wish for it, might come to pass

I must be getting old and grey – forgetful even – but isn’t the Conservative Party supposed to be against “government intervention” in private businesses? If so perhaps someone should explain the concept to Hugh Robertson MP, who is (I’m told) the Party’s Sports Spokesman:

“I encourage in the strongest possible terms footballing bodies to come together and work out a proper solution as a matter of urgency. My final point is that if they do so, we will back them, but if they do not, Government intervention remains an option.”

It seems to me that there is a growing pressure for government intervention in the affairs of football clubs. Indeed, Manchester United fans protesting about their clubs owners (presumably for the terrible crime of making money from said ownership while the club wins cups, leagues and championships) are reported to be:

“Calling on their considerable contacts in Westminster and Whitehall, Manchester United supporters are to make the future of their club, and particularly the controversial, debt-driven regime of the Glazers, one of the issues of the forthcoming General Election.”

Reading Henry Winter’s uncritical piece (from which the quote above is taken) it strikes me that the Manchester United Supporters Trust is seeking to use political pressure merely to promote a takeover bid for the club. It really is as simple as that – the Trust wants to own the club and if it can't do it the honorable way through raising money and writing a cheque out for the current owners’ interest, it will enlist political campaigns to force the change through.

Football supporters are making a big mistake by letting government regulation in through the door. As I have said before – be careful what you wish for as it may come to pass. I have absolutely no doubt at all that government regulation would be bad for football, bad for supporters and bad for the clubs.

...

Football needs to show show leadership on gay players & homophobia

****

It was with a certain degree of gobsmacked incredulity that I listened to Gordon Taylor, Chief Executive of the footballers trade union, speaking about gay footballers – or rather trying to brush away the fact that there aren’t any openly gay footballers at the top level. Indeed were Taylor’s response to questions on the subject given in response to, let’s say, racism in top level sport we would face a huge outcry. Frankly, I’m amazed that we still tolerate the FA, Premier League and the PFA behaving like the three wise monkeys on this subject.

Here’s a bit of what Taylor said:

"It's not a straightforward issue and it would be unfair to ask an individual player to back a campaign like this in case they got targeted by football crowds,"

In his interview Taylor also cited the problems in the Church – as if they are in any way either relevant or comparable!

Sorry, Gordon, it is a straightforward issue – in any other business such discrimination would not be tolerated. I do not believe that there are no gay players in the premier league. I’m sure that the football authorities know there are gay players. I’m sure the players know. The media know for sure.

Anti-gay sentiment and abuse should be dealt with in exactly the same way and racist abuse. Through sanctions on clubs, exclusion of fans and the application of the law. There was a time when many clubs were reluctant to hire black players – that has changed. Should we not be looking to drive the same change for gay players too?

...

Last weeks important Scottish news

There were two political events affecting Scotland this week. The first was the collossal yawn of Labour holding on to one of their safest seats - Glasgow North East (although 'did not vote' won by a country mile in truth).

The far more important political decision - and one I suspect more Glaswegians know about, care about and have a strong opinion about is this:

"The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable."

I am absolutely sure that the SNP led Government of Scotland really wanted this response - had the Old Firm joined with Liverpool, Manchester United and the 1966 World Cup Winners it would have been a massive set back to their long term project of independence! How can you be independent when two of your biggest institutions defect to a foreign field?