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.

....

Beards, cats and clever octopusses - thoughts on the World Cup Finals

****

The World Cup finals have proven to be everything we might expect – England performing in the manner of a damp squib, the TV pundits frothing about special kinds of football not played by Englishmen (samba, total, passing etc.) and everyone being consistently wrong in their predictions. Apparently, with the exception of an especially clever octopus.

There have been some oddities – an Italian player with a full beard (as opposed to one of those trimmed affairs more usually associated with footballers). Presumably de Rossi is studying at the Martin Castrogiovanni school of beards. This trend of bearded Italians is – while odd – faintly encouraging for those of us who have struggled in the sartorial stakes besides assorted Latin types (although inexplicably, as observed here, Vicente Del Bosque, the Spanish boss wouldn’t look out of place in Last of the Summer Wine).

A further oddity of this World Cup has been the failure of any pundit or commentator to attach the term ‘cat’ to any player (not of course that it ever did Peter Bonetti any good). I was under the impression that some sleek, probably South American player has to be likened to a cat at some point – surely it’s in the rules? Such fickleness really isn’t acceptable (as is the fact that the Argentine team is not referred to as The Pumas – this is also wrong).

All in all, not a bad World Cup – and one in which the teams playing good football in an organized way (or in Spain’s case passing the ball in endless triangles until David Villa wakes up and scores) appear to have risen to the top. For my part I’d like the Dutch to win – they deserve it for playing OK football but mostly for failing to win it when they were the best team on the planet by a mile.

Hup Holland Hup!

....

Why shouldn't footballers get paid all that money - they're the ones earning it!

This morning I was listening idly to the radio when a discussion came on about Deloitte’s latest report on the finances on football. Now I don’t propose to go into a detailed discussion of the report but instead to take a glance at the reportage. And it will be no surprise that, a few seconds into any discussion, the matter of football payers’ wages comes up – usually accompanied by words like ‘excessive’ and ‘obscene’. The reports go like this one from the BBC:

“Soaring wages are threatening the stability of Premier League clubs, according to a report into football finances. The Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance found that clubs spent 67% of their revenues on player wages during the 2008/09.”

Now it seems to me that a business sector, where despite a deep recession worldwide, UK revenues have grown isn’t a business that we need to worry about qua business. What we should be concerned about is whether that big wage bill (not that dissimilar from many high value-added service businesses) compromises the viability in that the remaining 33% of revenues do not cover the other costs and especially the debt repayments. In reality, our problem is that we somehow feel it wrong for some chav to earn such a load of cash kicking a ball round a pitch for 90-odd minutes every Saturday. I mean it’s not fair is it!

We make up all this rubbish about players wages threatening the game’s viability when it’s nonsense. We just don’t like folk earning so much money especially when they squander it all on chunky jewellery, big (rather ugly) cars and other such indulgence. No class these football players, no class!

"Aha!” I hear you say. “The big wages just mean that competition is squeezed out of the Premiership – there’s only a few clubs that can win now because of the cash.”

Like that’s new – 31 out of the 50 league champions since 1960 have been one of Manchester United, Liverpool or Arsenal (and a further 11 come from Leeds, Everton and Chelsea). The English League has always been dominated by a few big clubs – there’s nothing changed from all the extra cash.

Overall English football is pretty healthy – some of the clubs have a problem and (like most of our economy) there’s rather too much debt. But paying the players loads of money is the right thing to do – you get the best players in England helping build club and premiership brands and somehow it seems right to me that the people who provide the entertainment, who make it possible for the game to earn billions get most of the money. Where else should it go? To the owners, to the directors?

....

We won't stop bullying until we stop promoting bullies

***

Bullying is the deliberate and persistent targeting of an individual or individuals to achieve a given end – most commonly their collapse into tears, resort to violence or departure.

There has been a great deal said, much speculation and a great deal of unpleasantness surrounding Gordon Brown’s behaviour. Now I don’t know whether Mr Brown is a bully, whether he condones or encourages such behaviour in others or whether his alleged bursts of violence should be seen as a major problem or not. But I do think we have a problem with bullying in our political culture – indeed, in our wider society. Put simply, we are very tolerant – even praising – of behaviours that are typical of the bully.

John Terry is celebrated for his forthrightness and “strong-leadership” as he praised Didier Drogba’s attempt to bully a referee over a particular decision. And it’s not just the former England captain at fault – such behaviour is common-place as this BBC report from 2003 about Manchester United players “refusing to bully” referee, Andy D’Urso. Bullying tactics are rife in football, have crept into cricket and I’m sure will begin to arise in other sports.

Examine some of the persistent targeted attacks on particular individuals – be it the Daily Telegraph’s assault on Nadine Dorries, the #kerryout campaign on Twitter or Labour’s constant smearing of Lord Ashcroft. These are attempts to use bullying as a deliberate campaigning tool. None of these targeted individuals are without fault – but that cannot justify these sorts of bullying tactics, surely?

In a world where malicious gossip, the unattributed briefing, the marshalling of attack messages through such hideous ideas as “mob Monday” and the joyous celebration of the aggressive, unheeding, shouting leader - look at Sir Alex Ferguson, at Sir Alan Sugar, at Alistair Campbell. These are our roles models of leadership – vulgar, ignorant, aggressive, selfish and often just downright unpleasant. Step back and ask how anyone could condone - let alone employ - a man as unpleasant and bullying as Tucker from In the Thick Of It. Is it any surprise that those at the bottom of that slippery pole think the way up is to climb over the crushed careers of others?

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of an unjustified, malicious and unpleasant campaign of political bullying – a straightforward attempt to destroy someone’s career – will know that there is no defence. Nothing you can do to stem the tide of snide, the avalanche of maliciousness. The bullied person ends up isolated – who would risk all that nastiness rubbing off on them. As was said of me by a senior Liberal Democrat (not to my face, of course, he’s too chicken to do that): “Simon finally ran out of friends”.

All the anti-bullying websites, all the well-meant “resources” for schools are useless besides a political and social culture that thinks targeting and destroying an individual – because we can – is acceptable. Instead of discussing the stuff about Gordon Brown, should we not be talking about the bigger issue of bullying? Should our leaders not be setting an example rather than taking advantage?

...

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?

...

Wednesday Whimsy: a glimpse back as the sun sets on the first decade of the third millennium

The picture above was taken on the island of Bryher – close to the most westerly point of England – and coming across it again set me to thinking about the end of a decade. What follows are a few whimsical thoughts on the past ten years – not a list of good or bad. Not a set of achievements nor a load of political gripes and grumbles – others will do that so much better than I ever will. In a way they are first few things that come to mind about the ten years since the millennium. So – as they say – in no particular order!

1. That Kick! England winning the Rugby World Cup – against Australia with the last kick of the game. Absolutely priceless!

2. Watching from the Bradford Alhambra’s “Gods Bar” as Provincial House was blown up – paving the way for what will be one of the best public spaces anywhere in England

3. Moving into The Nook and having the central heating break down – six days later - on Christmas Eve (Ralph, now retired plumbing genius, came out and fixed it)

4. Rocky, next door’s bantam cock who would fight anyone or anything – but sadly lost his last bout to the fox

5. My wife’s cousin Maurice winning the Mott Medal for Physics – read the citation and understood one word in ten! (And he’s now an FRS too!)

6. Getting my Masters degree – never thought I’d have a degree with the word “science” anywhere near it!

7. Jethro being the first Bradford Grammar School pupil to get a Gold Medal in the Royal Society of Chemistry “Olympiad”

8. Going to my first ever game at Old Trafford – Tevez scores! Manchester United 0 West Ham United 1. Magnificant!

9. Presenting Bradford’s case to UECA – and getting the International Markets Festival for the City (worth the hardship of a trip to Rome)

10. Seeing Nabucco at the Arena di Verona – with Va, pensiero, sull'ali dorate coming just after the sun had set. I cried my eyes out.

There were bad things during the decade – I didn’t get to be an MP (although I halved Anne Cryer’s majority), my wife lost her job of thirty years and we have had Gordon Brown as prime minister. But I prefer to focus on the positive and on the fact that as was once said: things can only get better!

...

Why we need to understand cheese (not to mention beer, bread and football)

***


How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese? Charles de Gaulle

…or for that matter twenty different names for a teacake, hundreds of different beers and around 200 professional football teams. De Gaulle’s point was about governing but it seems to me that much of this relates to identity – my cheese is different from your cheese and (probably) better. Even if – as is the case often with football – your team is better than my team that makes no difference as I still like my team more.

Much self-important guff and piffle is talked about sovereignty, national identity and allegiance. Someone from Carlisle probably has more in common with his near neighbours in Dumfries than with his fellow Englishmen in Basingstoke. But that Carlisle resident will fly the English flag; proclaim allegiance to England while in the same breath castigating soft southern nancies for being inadequate wimps. A view doubtless shared by the lowland Scots.

It seems to me that these allegiances to food, to sport, to drinks and to clothing are more significant to us than adherence to some political identity, supposed national personality or supra-national polity. In truth political leaders and governments simply make use of identity – local or “national” – in securing and sustaining power. Such leaders and governments do not create that identity and will belittle it or cast it aside if it stands in the way of “progress” (also known as extending the power of government).

My cultural identity is shaped by the things I like (or dislike), by those I live with and around. That identity cannot be changed by fiat, through the passing of laws or the imposition of controls. And that identity extends beyond the political to a much broader set of values, views and interests. I hope these next few things will help illustrate:

1. In Denmark, voting patterns show a surprising correlation with the distribution of a glottal stop used differently in different Danish dialects. Strange Maps who report this finding have shown similar distributions with Socialist votes in France, political allegiance in the Ukraine and election results in Poland.

2. Bradford Council uses self-identification to place individuals in communities with remarkable effectiveness – ask a set of people where they live and map like responses and you’ll get a good definition of the local boundaries (and you’ll hear just how resentful Keighley people are at being ‘lumped in' with Bradford)

3. Most associations with “home” fade pretty fast in immigrant communities – but check out support for football clubs and you’ll see it passed down the generations especially where clubs have a wider cultural association (Celtic, Rangers, Barcelona, Lazio)

The idea of sovereignty makes little sense at this local level – these cultural associations and personal identities are not manifestations of sovereign power. Yet we talk of sovereignty as if it is simply shaped by a “national identity” rather than imposed by those in power upon the people they govern.

Finally – and before people get too excited about this description – none of this justifies supra-national government. Indeed, I see supra-national government as a backward step, as the reinvention of the bonarpartist myth not as progress towards better government. After all, in a peaceful world we should need no national government just local governance in whatever form local people choose to order that government.

And that’s why cheese, the names we call bread, batter pudding and the way we drink our beer are far more important than the pomposities of administration or the ordering of political power.

...

More people watch a football match than march on Westminster - says it all really

***

Arsenal vs Stoke: 60,048
West Ham vs Stoke: 34,980

So that's a shade below 100,000 people going to a premier league football game in London. So what you ask? Well...

Rather fewer folk (police estimates 20,000-25,000) decided to waste their Saturday by going on a march. Now that’s fine but frankly I don’t see the point – unless you fancy a trip to London with some mates, a brisk walk and some shouting. Followed I assume by a pint or two and earnest discussion about the ways in which the concerns of the marchers can be made to “count” (a popular concept with marchers that means precisely nothing at all).

On this occasion the issue of the day was “climate change” – and specifically stopping “climate chaos”. The organisers – something called the Stop Climate Change Coalition – told the papers that everyone was there:

“We’ve got so many people coming together. We’ve got faith-based groups, anti-poverty campaigners, green groups, students, community groups, women’s groups and unions”

…there you have it. The usual bunch of marchers, self-appointed guardians of the national ethic and assorted loony lefties.

Total waste of time, annoying and pointless. How does walking, shouting and waving banners inform a debate dependent on science, detailed appraisal of policy options and tough choices for political leaders? Not in the slightest.

Next time go watch a football match...

...

I blame it on Paxman....

.

This morning I heard:

Angela Rippon interviewed on dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease

And...

A Dutch sports reporter being asked about a bizarre medical procedure on Van Persie’s ankle


When did journalists get to be experts on anything? Let alone medicine!



.

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?

Hooligans - it's not football they follow it's violence

A couple of weeks back this bar - the Foundry Hill in Bingley - had its windows smashed in, stock destroyed or stolen and customers threatened and intimidated. By men who claimed to be supporters of Bradford City - a "firm" known as Ointment. I am sure that up and down the country people can tell of similar tales - whether it is of the Brighton Headhunters, Palace's Dirty 30 or the Service Crew from Leeds. For all the adoption of a particular badge, these men are more lovers of violence than lovers of football.

Yesterday evening saw the seemingly inevitable violence break out at the game between West Ham and Millwall - long-standing rivals in London. Others like The West Ham Process and Darren Lewis in the Daily Mirror described the experience first hand and it did not sound pleasant or enjoyable - emotions we should be able to associate with a sporting occasion.

Some - like our sports minister - have responded with the obvious knee-jerk condemnation accompanied by calls for books to be thrown and stones not to be left unturned. I find this unhelpful since it heaps too much of the blame on the police, the stewards, the club and the ordinary fan. These reactions, however much they might be understandable, do not get to the heart of the matters, do not ask why such violence takes place and simply fuel the calls for more draconian restrictions on football - and by extension other sports as well.

Other observers - before and after the game - seem more wise, more thoughtful and should be paid more attention. Peter Preston in the Guardian reacts as a long-standing Millwall fan by saying it's not the game but the people. And before the game West Ham fan and regeneration writer, Julian Dobson asked what it is that creates divisions and prejudice - in society generally as much as in football.

And these writers appreciate that this hooliganism, this violence, reflects our wider society and culture - football is victim not a perpetrator. The solution - if there is one - lies within the minds of those who join these "firms" of hooligans. And with a society that is at best equivocal towards violence and at worst rewards it with license.