E is for Elite Not Education

The beginning of next season sees the introduction of the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) which changes radically the way leading clubs scout, sign, coach and develop young players. The relative under performance of the current England team, the spiralling transfer fees and the scrutiny of coaching in the game in general means that the subject of young player development is right at the forefront of issues affecting the modern game in England. There is little doubt that the current system does not develop young players of sufficient quantity or quality to turn the England team into potential world beaters so the very fact that efforts are being made to change it is perhaps a step in the right direction. However, RTG has some severe reservations about the plan given that it seems to favour the ‘elite’ Premier League clubs and appears to ignore what RTG considers is a fundamental factor missing from current player development – education.

EPPP itself has been cooked up by the Premier League and the FA which suggests that most of the upside is going to benefit the Premier League rather than football in general. The Football League clubs did vote in favour of EPPP by 46 to 22 but that in itself does not necessarily prove they are behind it. In truth, there was a certain degree of Hobson’s choice about it as the Premier League, pending the vote, had suspended £5.4M of its annual solidarity payment to the Football League that is set aside for youth development. RTG tends to treat with cynicism, therefore, any change to the game initiated by the Premier League as it invariably tends to involve money or influence passing from the lower levels of English football into their already bloated pockets and egos respectively. And EPPP is likely no different. However, leaving cynicism aside for a moment let’s look at the positives. Firstly, it removes the rule banning clubs from recruiting from beyond a 60-minute journey radius for players under the age of 16 (or 90 minutes for over 16s). While it is easy to see the reasons behind this rule, it was never a level playing field. Physical geography and proximity to other clubs made this rule a nonsense. Secondly, EPPP presents coaches with much more face time with young players than before. Naturally this is a good thing.

Another key change is the end of the tribunal system under which disputed academy transfers are currently resolved. The Independent describes the detail extremely well here but the basic essence is that there will be in place set rules for compensating clubs when one of their academy players switches clubs where initial fees are far lower than at present but downstream earnings are potentially more depending on the success of the player.

But in RTG’s opinion education is just as important to the development of players but glaringly omitted from any plans the Premier League have made under EPPP. La Masia at Barcelona and Ajax’s academy could both be cited as shining examples of how to develop young players to a consistently high standard. Both of these place huge importance on educational development as an integral part of the make-up of a good footballer.

The brain is like any other muscle in the body. If used and exercised it works better. If ever you wanted a clear example of the educational failure of English players, look at England’s performance against a relatively inexperienced German team in the World Cup in 2010. Yes, England was unlucky not to be awarded a goal that would have evened the game up at 2-2. But even at 1-2, we were not out of it. If the England players had had the intelligence to adapt to the situation the game was in, they might have been able to weather the storm and respond. Instead we were treated to the embarrassment of watching English players mindlessly charging forward while the Germans calmly picked them off at the back. Sorry everybody if it sounds a bit harsh but the 'Golden Generation' was simply too thick to ever win anything.

RTG has long been a fan of a co-ordinated approach to coaching and development covering all aspects of the game from grass roots upward. We applauded the fact that the National Football Centre at Burton was finally being developed only to find that it is aimed at developing coaches and referees not players. Why we need a multi-million pound centre just for this is beyond our current understanding. Just like EPPP this is yet another stand-alone initiative in a totally disjointed and mismanaged process with absolutely no intelligent planning involved.

If the culture in English football continues to mistrust education – to the point where if you read a broadsheet newspaper you are considered to be gay! – then, EPPP or no EPPP, folks get used to a disappointing summer in 2012…2014...2016…

So don't be a dummy! Sign up and Reclaim the Game

Racist or Not, Media Appoints the Captain

What a strange world that English football inhabits. On the one hand, almost uniquely amongst competitive footballing nations, the English elevate the position of captain to almost mystical levels – much to the bemusement of virtually every foreign manager who plies his trade in this country. On the other, we collectively proceed to ignore totally all the reasons we have for exalting that position to such high esteem in the first place.

Get caught racially abusing other players – more than once – no problem. Shag a team-mate’s girl – par for the course. Actually: you can also drunkenly abuse Americans the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; end up in court after a night club brawl where your only argument is “do you know how much money I make?”; defraud the taxman by conducting training ground tours for brown envelopes stuffed with cash; abuse the England captaincy perk of a Wembley hospitality box; publicly urinate in a night spot…RTG could go on...

No, this is not a moralising call for John Terry to be sacked for the above transgressions. As always, RTG will not make a call on something where we do not have all the information. We’ll leave you to decide whether his current performances warrant an England place and whether his captaincy has been a successful one. Interestingly, this aspect has not entered the media debate. We can only go on the information and experience that we have. Ever since the iconic images of Bobby Moore holding aloft the Jules Rimet trophy on his colleagues’ shoulders were published and documented the only good day England football has ever had, English supporters have been gagging for a similar paragon to emerge and wholly get behind. But let’s face it: most modern English footballers give the impression that they could easily figure in the criminal underworld, if they hadn’t been able to kick about a synthetic leather ball rather well. Either that or digging ditches.

The most disturbing aspect of the captaincy issue is that it highlights the hypocrisy endemic within the game, lead by the media. They plug away with their “me-too” views that promoted John Terry into a position in which he should never have been considered, let alone be - England captain - then twice sacked and re-instated him. The betting money now is that he’ll be removed yet again. A similar situation has surfaced with David Beckham’s attempts to get himself picked for the GB Olympic football team. And he’s getting plenty of support from the media and from those more interested in his wife’s shoes than football. None of which has anything to do with sport and being successful at it.

Take this quote from Terry’s statement: (I am proud to be captain of) …“ one of the most internationally diverse teams in the Premier League”. Note the use of the word ‘internationally’ and not ‘racially’ – which would have been more appropriate, but would have drawn attention to that terrible “R” word, from which he is so desperate to escape. This encapsulates it all. First, there is no way that Terry came up with those words. And second, it goes no way to explaining or apologising for his (on his own admission) disgusting words. There’s the rub. More money, more bullshit, more Public Relations offensives – and mark RTG’s words, that is all Terry and Beckham have in their locker.

Increasingly, the game is being run on the hot breath of highly paid PR people and has less and less to do with truth, actual talent and achievement. England (and GB) will win bugger all the longer this continues.

Reclaim the Game from the bullshit and money men!

Forget Liverpool. TV Deal Not Fair On Supporters

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are, it is a very small number."

Ian Ayre, Managing Director, Liverpool FC

In truth, Ian Ayre was not just making a case for Liverpool negotiating its own foreign broadcasting rights – although RTG admits that we are not clear as to what he is really saying. However, if you read between the lines of his statement he is saying that the entire system for sharing Premier League TV revenue is unfair be it in the UK or abroad. Yes, we understand that the deal for selling rights abroad, where all revenue is split equally, with 5% going to each club, is perhaps particularly weighted against clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United. Their following abroad is far greater than most. But if you’re against the collective approach in one arena then you are surely against it full stop. It is totally illogical to highlight it as a problem in one area and not the other.

Thankfully, for the moment, it seems that the rest of the Premier League clubs are not so keen, yet, on backing Liverpool in its stance. That may well change and become more urgent for those clubs who will fail UEFA’s new Financial Fair Play rules. For the Premier League to be viable as a viewing spectacle, and for clubs at lower levels to compete, there must be a degree of revenue sharing. In England last season, champions Manchester United picked up £60.4m in revenue as against £39.1m for lowest earners, relegated Blackpool – only around 50% more. Compare this situation to La Liga in Spain where Real Madrid and Barcelona negotiate their own TV deals. There, Madrid earned 19 times more TV revenue than teams finishing lower down the league. La Liga has reached the point where only two teams are ever likely to win the championship. The European Union has spent the best part of 50 years attempting to ensure fair and equitable trading conditions for all 27 member states, and yet, for football it totally ignores these inequities.

Just because the proposal has received such a negative response, doesn’t mean we can be complacent about it. As commercialism becomes increasingly more important than the sport of football itself, it is surely only a matter of time before the need to boost revenues in the short-term will outweigh the desire for a revenue-sharing collective that looks after the interests of the sport itself. In 2005, Chelsea first put the issue of self-negotiation of TV deals to the vote, presumably in a bid to meet Peter Kenyon’s 2010 break-even target. They were defeated 19 to one by the other clubs. It takes 14 Premier League clubs to vote in favour of any motion to change the way the Premier League operates. The greater number of rich, foreign owners we allow to take over clubs in a bid to compete financially, or even just to survive, the more the likelihood that commercial interests will eventually supersede any emotional ties that exist in preserving English football.

In RTG’s opinion, the whole issue of football on TV needs to be re-thought and given a total makeover in order to protect the interests of supporters and the game of football that we love, rather than a few wealthy owners, the Premier League and Sky TV. We don’t profess to have all the answers but we do know that our interests are not currently being looked after.

Take the present situation with Sky Sports. The current model is based on a previous time when we had precious little live football on TV. We pay a monthly fee to watch the games that Sky chooses for us to watch rather than the game we choose to watch. Those supporters who choose to attend live matches have to fit around the needs of TV scheduling – like it or lump it. We live in a time now where there is so much more live football on TV that this current model is outdated. Surely supporters should be given what they need – not what Sky wishes to push out. To add insult to injury, football supporters end up having to subsidise other minority sports such as Premier League darts, fishing and masturbation for the unemployed aka Aerobics Oz Style.

Consider this idea from RTG. At a fixed time over the weekend, every game in the Premier League is shown live and we pay to watch the game we want to watch. A recent report in the Guardian stated that there is a worldwide annual audience of 304 billion people for Premier League football. If only one pound was charged to watch these matches (ie £304,000,000,000!) this would totally dwarf the current £1.4 billion per annum deal that Richard Scudamore so proudly boasts about. The Premier League could commission its own broadcaster to show these matches on a pay per view or offer a variety of tailored packages, with occasional free to air matches, at different kick-off times to stimulate interest. The revenue would still be shared out among the clubs with home gates being a factor in how much goes to each club. Yes, it would favour clubs with bigger grounds and with more support but the onus would then be on clubs to improve their grounds, get more supporters through the turnstiles and improve the match day experience all round. With more money coming into the game rather than going into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, Sky and the Premier League executives, clubs could afford to lower prices in order to fill up and improve their grounds. The more supporters they get into the ground, the more money they get from the TV revenue. The end result of this would be:

1. Supporters would be able to watch the match of their choice;

2. Clubs would be encouraged to fill their grounds and would have the money to improve stadia comfort and access;

3. We would not be contributing to the coffers of Murdoch and Sky but our money would go back into the game;

4. Tickets for fans to go to games would be cheaper as well as the match day experience being a lot better.

At some point in the future, it is inevitable that all games will be shown live. We should anticipate and embrace this significant change and not wait for a handful of self interested owners and administrators to dictate its terms. Let us state again, we don’t have all the answers here and this model would have to be debated thoroughly. But it gives the game back to its customers – the supporters. If we carry on down the road we are currently going, the money will increasingly be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people to the detriment of supporters and football itself. Sign up and help us to Reclaim the Game.

Tevez Won’t Play – Then Don’t Pay!

We don’t know exactly the details surrounding Carlos Tevez’s refusal to come on as a substitute for Manchester City last night, nor can we predict what the fall out will be. The affair though seems to give Manchester City the opportunity to redress the iniquities that their untrammelled spending have heaped upon football. City could strike a meaningful and enduring blow against the player-club contract anarchy that has resulted from the Bosman ruling.

RTG has been among the strongest of critics of both Chelsea and Manchester City. This is not because of any inbuilt antipathy towards those clubs or their supporters. The criticism is based purely on the impact of the huge amounts of unearned income that have added unacceptable levels of inflation to both transfer fees and player wages – thus exacerbating the gulf between football’s haves and have-nots and which presents the greatest danger to fair competition in football.


“He (Tevez) is one bad apple.

He can undo all the good work that has been done (at City). He's a disgrace to football. He epitomises what most people think is wrong with modern football.

It is totally unacceptable. He's a football player and he is paid to play. He is refusing to help his team-mates. It's all about him, him, him.”

Graeme Souness, speaking on Sky Sports, 27th September 2011

Most fair minded supporters would wholly endorse and agree with Souness’ comments yesterday evening. If City decide to get shot of Tevez in the next transfer window, then he gets exactly what he wants and City will undoubtedly lose many millions in his ‘fire sale’. They could also justifiably sack him for breach of his contract but, again, this would leave him a free agent and able to prostitute his wares to the highest bidder – and with no transfer fee or transfer window restrictions, he would would presumably benefit enormously in any negotiations. Who’s to say that he hasn’t manufactured this situation deliberately anyway given his many tiresome pronouncements on the subject?

City can easily sustain any losses that arise from either of these eventualities, but they also have it within their means to tackle the player ‘tail’ wagging the club ‘dog’ issue (and therefore one of football’s current major maladies). They should sue Tevez not only for breach of contract, but also for the costs associated with acquiring a replacement and/or losses resulting from his drop in value. This surely would have a longer lasting legacy for all of football and City possess the financial clout to see it through the inevitably long winded legal process.

So come on City, do the decent thing and put something back into football. Sue his ass!

Sign Up Here To Support Reclaim the Game

Audacity of Hope Dashed by Commercial Reality

The opening Saturday of the football season was once the most eagerly awaited day of any football supporter’s calendar. At three o’clock precisely on the given Saturday, at 46 different locations around the country, all 92 clubs embarked on their own history-making venture. The paucity of any football news during the summer months, with some broadsheets literally reporting no football news for weeks, only accentuated the drama of a new season. At many clubs, the first sight supporters had of a new summer signing was when he took to the field for the first match. Compare that buzz of anticipation with the modern game where 24 hour, 365 day football coverage has led to such over-exposure that we even know now what the club cat had for its dinner that morning. The mystery and suspense has all but disappeared. Staggered season starts for each league and first games spread over two to three days, to aid TV scheduling, has not lent itself well either to the crescendo of anticipation.

Back then, most home team match programmes would fuel the mindless optimism of both home and away fans. “Every team will be equal at least until 20 to five this afternoon”, they would intone. If the last season had been successful and a trophy (any trophy) had been won, you would bask in its reflected glory for a season or two as a ‘successful’ club. If last season had been woeful, then this one would surely be better, wouldn’t it? For nearly all supporters, there was hope that your team would challenge for honours or promotion, or, at the very least not to be embroiled in another relegation battle.

That was a time when the audacity of hope was reflected in the achievements, and failings, of individual clubs. In the 1960’s and 70’s, eleven different clubs won the English title, two of which were newly promoted, and only one club managed to defend successfully its title. This also included a run of seven different clubs winning the title in seven successive years in the early 1960’s. Contrast this to the four clubs who have won the past 19 top flight titles in England. Northampton Town took five years to gain promotion from the Football League basement to the top level, a similar feat performed, but executed with more success and longevity, by the Wimbledon team of the early 1980’s; culminating in Wimbledon becoming the only team to have won both FA Open and Amateur cup competitions. ‘Smaller clubs’, in particular, were able to foster these hopes, as Derby, Ipswich, QPR and Nottingham Forest’s, among others, proved beyond doubt. Supporters’ dreams therefore were more than just fashioned from pipes.

Nowadays, most supporters are forced to be more realistic about their expectations. After all, they’ve had their team’s prospects raked over and rated for virtually the entire summer by an armada of pundits and writers, not to mention the millions ranting and rambling on the internet (ourselves included). Supporters can see a couple of billionaires spend unlimited amounts of money in attempting to buy honours. A handful of other clubs attempt a futile effort at parity but all are having to deal with the trickle down inflationary effect of these billionaires. More and more clubs are getting into debt in an attempt to maintain their competitiveness. Since the inception of the Premier League, 53 Football League clubs have gone into receivership: 13 of them following relegation from the top level.

Apart from supporters of the two clubs who benefit from their owners’ largesse and maybe a handful of others (for now), most should be worrying about whether their club will still be in existence in a few years time. Gone are the days when supporters could experience that first day of hope beyond hope unless you’re one of those fans that relies on your club finding a billionaire benefactor. No true supporter could surely harbour that dream which is as much a form of cheating as any doped up athlete pounding around a track. The inequities of first the Premier League compared to the Football League, and second, the Champions League compared to the ‘others’ in the Premier League, have created financial chasms that not even the most optimistic of supporters can ever dream of crossing.

And thus we have ended up with a competition where the inevitability of a Chelsea/Manchester City duopoly in the Premier League – not withstanding the sheer bloody mindedness of a certain knighted Scot – will prevail. Add in the possible levels of debt that newly promoted clubs must take on in any vague hope of competing and it’s easy to see why that opening day excitement has vanished, as success and glory have been replaced by more money requirements and more financial insecurities. One season you’re cheering on a cup win, the next you’re battling relegation with points deducted. One season you’re celebrating promotion, two seasons later you’ve had to sell half your team because you can’t afford the inflated wages on lower league revenues. Not much to dream about…..Help us to allow every supporter to dream again. Reclaim the Game.

It’s Official: Bryan Robson Agrees with Us!

“I disagree with people when they say football is a sport. Football lost its sporting thing when money started coming in and Sky TV and all that. Football’s a business”.

So said Bryan Robson as he was filmed secretly by Channel 4’s Dispatches program broadcast last month. But we don’t just need to take Robson’s word for it. This summer, without a major tournament for England to torture us supporters with, has provided further evidence of football’s interminable slide into commercialisation and, above all, the continuing shift of football’s focus from on field sporting prowess to off field business issues.

It’s been a summer that has seen legal challenges, a parliamentary investigation into football’s running, FIFA accusations and resignations, the initial phase of UEFA’s “fair play rules” implementation, and already its initial abuses, as well as further proof of the player tail wagging the club dog. Hardly surprising that you might have missed the fact that England put out teams for the European under-23 and World under-20 tournaments. Or, for that matter, that the two major tournaments for the Americas had taken place.

The season had not even ended when Swansea City were threatening a legal challenge to QPR’s promotion over their fielding of an ineligible player. The threat of action was only averted by Swansea bagging the Championship’s play-off promotion spot. Farcically, QPR’s fans were made to wait until just before kick off in their final match of the season to find out if their promotion was to go ahead. This is not the first time that legal actions between clubs have happened, as those who can recall Sheffield United’s successful compensation suit against West Ham over the Carlos Tevez affair, nor will it be the last – supporters had better get used to it as the financial stakes get higher.

Then, RTG’s favourite bête noire, FIFA, was mired in yet more corruption allegations. First Lord Triesman, giving evidence with legal immunity to a MP commons select committee, stated that England’s 2018 world cup bid was spoiled not only by desires from the usual FIFA suspects for cash bribes, but also by requests for knighthoods and UK state visits! Following that, in an astonishing mix of claims, denials and counter claims that brought to mind the phrase linking rats and sinking ships, Jack Warner resigned from FIFA, Mohammed Bin Hammam was forced to pull out of his presidential bid, Qatar’s 2022 world cup hosting was put in jeopardy and further FIFA Exco members were suspended. Out of the original 24 Exco members who were to vote on World cup bids, unbelievably, eight have now been suspended, resigned or been kicked out!

Sadly, Lord Triesman’s evidence appears to have come to nought and, worse, has illustrated the chasm that exists between the FA and the Premier League; the latter run by our other bête noire Richard Scudamore, who was quick to refuse to back up Triesman’s claims – despite being present when FIFA’s verbal “requests” were made. It also emerged that Scudamore effectively attempted to blackmail England’s World Cup bid in return for support for the Premier League’s infamous “39th game”. Proof, once more, that RTG’s assertion that the three separate governing bodies of football are all pulling in different directions. It is a subject that RTG will return to in the near future.

The reign of Blatter, therefore, continues without abatement and with the now customary smoke and mirrors of yet more lip service to “transparency”. Bizarrely, Placido Domingo, yes, that Placido Domingo, has been added as a resource to FIFA’s ethics committee, along with the octogenarian and eager recipient of FIFA freebies , Henry Kissinger. Yet again, it will be a subject to which RTG will return.

But don’t worry! UEFA’s initial phase of “football fair play rules” has kicked in this season. RTG has wholly endorsed the principles behind the rules – albeit with huge reservations given that it continues to allow highly leveraged club buy outs (à la Glazers at Manchester United) AND as RTG predicted, clubs would be bending the rules to fit.

I mean come on: Manchester City announce a $640 million, 10 year naming rights deal for the City of Manchester Stadium from City’s sister company Etihad, a ground not even owned by City. Compare that to the $300 million, 10 year deal announced at roughly the same time for the naming rights of one of the world’s most iconic venues, Madison Square Gardens. Clearly, this is a blatant case of, as Arsene Wenger put it, “financial doping”. Worryingly, the media, and Sky Sports in particular, seem to be ignoring the issue, apart from reporting the two objections raised by Arsenal and Liverpool. They’ve also ignored reports/rumours of Chelsea paying compensation to Porto over the “transfer” of Andre Boas Villas with funds drawn from outside Chelsea PLC – that is, it may not appear in Chelsea’s financial accounts. At the current moment, neither Chelsea nor Manchester City comes close to meeting the criteria for financial fair play. Yet, the majority of the media do not seem to feel this is an issue worth any significant comment. It will be interesting to see how UEFA responds to these issues.

Excuse us then, for not jumping for joy at the prospect of Sky’s claims that we are embarking (yet again!) on the most “exciting Premier League season ever” as the so-called sporting contest settles ever further into the grasping arms of financiers, lawyers and the world of cash stuffed envelopes being pocketed by fat cat administrators. It is after all your cash that is paying for all of this.

Show your support by signing up to “Reclaim the Game”.

FSF Parliament – Small Steps or Large Leap Required?

RTG has always been wary of the different fan groups who campaign on various noble, but hardly radical, issues affecting modern day football. It was, therefore, with some trepidation that RTG entered Imperial College London for the Football Supporters’ Federation Parliament on 9th July. Thanks go to the FSF for good organisation of the event and for their continuing efforts on behalf of football supporters. To our surprise, there were important debates about the ownership and governance of football in addition to the long-standing pet projects such as the ‘safe standing’ campaign.

Our hopes for the day, and what might realistically be achieved from such a gathering, were dampened somewhat as we climbed the steps up into the building and overheard one of the delegates say to her colleague, ”I suppose many of this lot are all part of the prawn sandwich brigade”. RTG has always maintained that the important factor is your love of football. It doesn’t matter who you support, how often you go to games or where you come from. If you appreciate the values of sport and fair competition that the game should represent, then you should have a voice in the debate over the soul of football.

It was pleasure to hear key note speaker Andrew Jennings open the event with his talk on the history of FIFA since the 1970s. Andrew gave us a fascinating, yet disturbing, overview of how an organisation that was conceived to work for the good of, and to govern, world football, was deliberately infiltrated and manipulated by corporate interests and a few disreputable people who turned it into their own secret world of dodgy dealings, backhanders and malpractice. The sheer horror of what some of these people have done to football over the years, and what they continue to get away with, illustrates the size of the task that supporters are facing to get back control of our sport. Millions of dollars of our money are being systematically robbed from the game and portioned off to the fat cats to top up their own personal fortunes.

As stated at the beginning of this piece, RTG has been critical from our early days of the well-meaning but committee-driven organisations which tend to focus on their own pet issues without seeming to achieve much in the way of change. It was encouraging to see Andrew Jennings given a platform to spread what is an important word as well as seeing a number of other key issues raised and debated for inclusion in next years campaign. It was worrying, though, that in the session on club ownership, there were 11 points of action that were carried over from last year to be revised and amended, the majority of which had seen virtually zero positive progress in the last 12 months.

RTG has no desire to criticise the FSF - far from it. They are trying to improve the game for supporters and that should be applauded. However, the power of football supporters to change the way the game is run relies on a unified approach rather than small groups trying to fight on a number of issues that reflect purely their own agenda. There may well be a groundswell of support for safe standing but, when you consider the magnitude of the problems Andrew Jennings highlighted about FIFA, there are clearly more major issues facing the game today. When a QPR supporter raised the issue of ticket pricing, the FSF agreed to fight for a cap of £20 maximum, an issue few supporters would disagree with in principle, but that is realistically not possible. After all, who wouldn’t be for a maximum price of £1 per pint?

At one point, a frustrated Liverpool fan called Steve stood up and said the time had come for more direct action because nobody is listening to us. RTG echoes this view. Football supporters have to appreciate the power that could be wielded should we choose to use it by working together. Imagine the loss of revenue if, for one weekend, we were to boycott TV, club shops, drinks and food in the ground or even the matches themselves.

We need a simple headline issue to which we can rally supporters across the board, and even internationally, to fight for the soul of football. The FSF is doing its best to campaign on many fronts while playing within some very laudable rules but unfortunately, at the current rate of progress, your club might well be playing home games in China by the time you’re allowed to stand safely on terraces again.

While we continue to allow the TV tail to wag the football dog; accept an England team that gets further from winning any major honours; turn a blind eye to archaic officials enriching themselves at our expense; adulate overpaid, disloyal players; incentivise agents to encourage that disloyalty; sanction owners who buy our clubs with debt, while still taking money out for themselves; and tolerate incompetent governing bodies who have not updated their organisations since Victorian times; and we take no action, then we will lose the soul of football. Every day we put this off, makes it that much harder to stop.

RTG has always said we don’t have all the answers but we can join together and start the fightback. Sign up here today.

Sexism Exposes a Lack of Intelligence on Wider Issues

When David Beckham received the BBC Sports Lifetime Achievement award in December 2010, it was hard not to argue that this was more a victory for David Beckham’s PR people and their friends in the media, rather than an objective analysis of his sporting contribution in his still young life. Compared with some of the previous winners: Sir Alex Ferguson, Seve Ballesteros, Martina Navratilova and Pele, amongst others, Beckham’s achievements, so far, have been pretty limited. In a similar vein, prior to the 2010 World Cup, Talksport Radio appeared to make it their raison d’être to get Beckham into the England squad – and they were widely supported by a multitude of TV pundits. It was probably just as well, but unfortunate for the injured Beckham, that the England Manager was spared the wrath of populist media opinion by not having to make that decision.

No question he is popular, a great, but not world class, footballer and, according to RTG’s own sources, a genuinely nice person – if a little lacking in the brain department. However, his has been a remarkable public relations turnaround from the totally unfair bile and condemnation he received following his, and England’s, dismissal from the 1998 World Cup.

RTG has no problem with self satisfying award ceremonies, or popularity contests. Issues arise, however, when lazy TV and radio pundits, through lack of knowledge and thorough analysis, jump onto a popular bandwagon to apply pressure for their views to be acted upon. The aforementioned are just some examples of the media influencing, or attempting to influence, football irrationally. There are numerous other converse situations of players being branded as ‘divers’ or troublemakers that have subsequently influenced referees’ decisions. Referees have been suspended or downgraded because of media pundits, who, with the benefit of multiple camera angles and hours of hindsight, have condemned the poor souls to ridicule and humiliation for the benefit of filling TV airtime. There have also been players who have been punished purely based on the attentions of the media, whilst others more deserving have escaped because …well ... who knows why?

There was no real shock in the news that some presenters of a football show on Sky TV inadvertently made some sexist remarks. There was little surprise, also, in the fact that they were stupid enough to allow themselves to be recorded making those inappropriate comments. The big surprise, to RTG, at least, is that it took an incident of this kind for people to finally sit up and question the real contribution of the likes of Andy Gray and Richard Keys to football in the first place.

With all due respect to political correctness, the real issue was not just the ignorant ramblings of a self-aggrandising ex-footballer and his sycophantic side-kick, but also the question of why such men and notable others are being hugely enriched to deliver their lazy, clichéd, one-dimensional view of the game in the first place (apparently Andy Gray was on a £1.7 million salary).

It is quite possible that ‘dark forces’ were at work in Gray’s dismissal. His action against the News of the World in the phone tapping scandal was never likely to sit well with the owner of News International, Rupert Murdoch, who also happens to be the major shareholder in BSkyB. There is every chance he was the victim of one almighty stitch-up. But Sky’s constant arrogance in talking up its contribution to football in England and their sensationalist self-promotion had rubbed off on Gray to the point where, while he really believed he was something of an aficionado on the modern game, his analysis was predictably repetitive and focused purely on picking on the low hanging fruit rather than talking intelligently about the issues in the game.

It’s too easy, after all, to label a player as a diver or a cheat by highlighting him from several different camera angles, than it is to, say, learn the modern offside rule properly (something he belittled female assistant referee Sian Massey for, when it was he who struggled with its interpretation over the years). Did Gray ever criticise the structure and management of the game in this country? Or the money being pumped into the game by billionaires that totally distorts the competitiveness of football as a sport? Has he ever mentioned FIFA, except in his, and Sky’s, self-serving interest in promoting more reliance on TV replays?

Keys was just a below-average presenter who lucked out when Sky won the rights to monopolise Premier League football coverage and simply played the role of arse-licking hanger-on to Gray, feeding him the right lines and questions to make sure his over-sensationalised opinions could be aired to maximum effect.

So what? You may ask: so a few players/referees are inconsistently demonised by TV. Does it really matter? In RTG’s opinion it does. Firstly, we, the supporters have to pay for the pundits through the bloated Sky subscription fees - money that would be better spent on lowering the subscription fee or being invested in grass-roots football.

But there are other forces at work here. These guys influence the game in other more worrying ways. The most professional and impartial of referees can’t help but be swayed by the media, even subconsciously, if they are shown enough on TV. As discussed earlier, highlight a referee’s own mistakes often enough from the comfort of your commentary box and you can put immense pressure on him (or her!) not to give decisions a certain way.

If you doubt the influence of the TV presenter, just look at Italy where Aldo Biscardi hosted the programme ”Il Processo di Biscardi” (Biscardi’s Trial) for 26 years. The programme was considered among the most influential in Italian football but was tainted by publication of phone taps of conversations between him and former Juventus Managing Director, Luciano Moggi, in 2006 at the height of the Italian match-fixing scandal. Moggi influenced the choice of guests on the show, the choice of matches to be analysed, which incidents were to be analysed, the tone of the criticism and even the results of viewer polls. All with the aim of painting Juventus in a better light.

RTG is not suggesting that either Gray, or any other pundit for that matter, was up to the same underhand activity. Although RTG still finds it most curious as to the reasons for Gray’s fawning praise of the early Abramovich regime at Chelsea, where they could scarcely put a foot wrong, either on or off the field. But we shouldn’t take it for granted that this could never happen in the English game or that it hasn’t already. There are huge sums of money in football today. Teams are owned by billionaires who are used to using their money and power to get what they want. We’ll never know if there were other factors involved in the 2007 deal that saw Referee, Rob Styles’ company being awarded the contract to pave Roman Abramovich’s driveway. It was reported but did not receive the scrutiny that it should have done. And let’s not underestimate how reliant the media is on feeding off its own share of the football spoils.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable that we, the paying public, should expect the highest journalistic standards from regular front-line presenters, doing what is, after all, a journalists’ job. They should be guardians of the sport and not a mouthpiece for the businesses feeding off it. We want matches not only to be reviewed consistently, impartially and knowledgeably, but also have the pressing issues that affect all football supporters aired more widely.

Too often it appears that pundits do their research in ‘Hello’ and ‘Ok’ magazines and not in the FA’s rule book. David Beckham as next England manager anyone?

"Carry On" FIFA

As if the dubious back-room dealings in awarding the World Cups of 2018 and 2022 were not an affront to all right minded football supporters, Sepp Blatter then announced unilaterally that the 2022 World Cup may be played in the winter: thus disrupting two seasons in the professional leagues around the world and Europe in particular. Swiftly afterwards, Michel Platini, who now appears to be Sepp Blatter’s ever faithful lap dog, announced that the event may be played out in several other Gulf States. Thus two key elements of the bid process: where and when, don’t appear to have been even considered in the vote process. In RTG’s business experience, the question of timing and location are almost always the most important factors in any bid or pitch.

In Sepp Blatter’s FIFA world, what he wants, he always gets. However, if the Qatari proposal had specifically highlighted a winter timetable, they surely would not have won the bid. At best, this was an amateurish and unprofessional process. At worst, it was yet more devious skulduggery from football’s bete noir. RTG is thinking the worst. Intriguingly, the Qataris themselves have dismissed these two proposals out of hand immediately.

It would appear, though, that the latest shenanigans around the Qatari bid may be the first salvos in a bitter FIFA Presidency election battle between Mohamed Bin Hammam, the Qatari FIFA Exco member, and the present incumbent Sepp Blatter. Given that Bin Hammam has been a shady financier and backer of previous Blatter elections, even if Blatter gets his just desserts in the upcoming election, we should be very wary of someone who has been an integral player in the FIFA “carry on”. The fact that he has mentioned the word “transparency” in his opening gambit for the FIFA Presidency does not bode well.

Those of you who are familiar with Andrew Jennings’ journalistic investigations – both on the Panorama programme and especially in his eye-opening book – will recognise the Sepp Blatter modus operandi:

• say the word FIFA and “transparency” together in the same sentence many times;
• deny vehemently any wrongdoings by him or any of his colleagues;
• when forced by the weight of media pressure, buy some time by announcing a new anti-corruption initiative;
• give the initiative a terms of reference that renders it powerless and unable to do its job properly;
• make sure no significant change happens and if any wrongdoing is found, make sure any sanctions imposed are light – and don’t collect any fines.

Thus, last week, a senior German lawyer, Guenter Hirsch, resigned from the FIFA Ethics Committee citing his belief that the Committee were not interested in sorting out corruption within FIFA.

Recently ex-England manager, Graham Taylor, told the press that, following a visit to FIFA HQ in the 1990’s, he was actively encouraged by a FIFA official to set up a Swiss bank account so that he could defraud his expenses. The official told him that they were all at it and that it was normal. Clearly, the climate of corruption is well established within FIFA’s corporate culture.

It is a climate that also means that genuine supporters find it increasingly hard to attend matches at the World Cup. FIFA officials help themselves to seemingly unlimited amounts of tickets which then make their way onto the black market – and with the proceeds being deposited into secret Swiss bank accounts. When Nigerian FIFA officials were recently investigated for fraud, including tickets for the World Cup, Sepp Blatter played his trump card. He simply suspended Nigeria and all its clubs from all FIFA and African Conference competitions. Hey presto, investigation stopped.

Prior to the recent World Cup bid fiasco, many football supporters had never truly appreciated the levels of corruption that exist within FIFA. This appalling sham of a process revealed to all the atrocious levels to which Blatter and FIFA will go to ensure their lucrative supply of dirty money is maintained. The truth is they have been getting away with this for over 30 years using underhand tactics to sweep allegations under the carpet in the hope that supporters will ignore or forget. For the most part it has worked.

This year Blatter comes up for re-election as President of FIFA. This time, supporters must not forget what happened and join together to bring pressure to bear to get rid of this odious man. However, RTG believes that this on its own is not enough. The culture of corruption is too deeply ingrained within FIFA. As an organisation that runs the game across the world, it must surely be disbanded in its current form and with its current executive members.

Help us to change FIFA by signing up to Reclaim the Game

Sign Up Here To Support Reclaim the Game