World Cup 2018 and 2022: Reasonable or Ridiculous?

So FIFA’s executive committee have made their long-awaited decision on the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Russia needing only two rounds to beat off competition from England, Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium to host it in 2018, whilst Qatar were the unexpected choice in 2022, beating off the USA, Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Whilst I am very disappointed that England were unsuccessful, I can see the argument for the decision to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia. However, the decision to take the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

Indeed, the decision raises questions on quite how FIFA see their role in the world. They are supposed to be concerning with promoting football and looking after the state of football. Instead, they seem to have an over-inflated opinion of their own power and regard themselves as single-handedly capable of solving all the world’s socio-economic problems simply by giving them the World Cup to host.

2018 – Russia

Russia has been the favourites to win the 2018 vote almost since the prospective hosts were announced. It has never hosted a World Cup before, which automatically makes it an appealing prospect to the people at FIFA, who love their idea of creating a legacy by bringing football to new countries. It also has the full-backing of the powerful Russian government, despite Putin’s decision not to attend the ceremony in Zurich. Combined with the almost bottomless pit of money that they could throw at the event, it was a very strong bid.


Clearly though, it does have its weaknesses. Security always has been, and remains, a major concern in Russia. Murders and kidnappings are commonplace in Russian cities and crime is something that must be addressed ahead of the World Cup. However, similar concerns were raised over South Africa, and the concerns turned out to have no real foundation – virtually no problems with crime affected the fans that travelled out there.

The other major concern is the distance between stadia, transport between them and issues with time-zones. Russia is a vast country, and despite the fact that matches will be restricted to the European part of the country, transport between cities will still be difficult. Given the state airline has one of the worst safety records of any airline, there are potential concerns here.

Finally, the issue of corruption looms large over this decision. The recent WikiLeaks revelations suggest that Russia is virtually a ‘mafia state’, where politicians and the secret service have close links with organised crime. Given the recent allegations against FIFA, one might suggest that the two corrupt entities are a perfect match for each other.

The failure of the English bid is another curious case. According to FIFA’s own delegation, the English bid was rated as the best financially, the best technically and the safest of all the bids, both for 2018 and for 2022. It was the only bid expected to turn a profit. Yet, England gained only two votes out of the 22 possible and was eliminated in the first round.


So, according to the delegations, England had the best bid, yet for the self-obsessed executive committee, only two of them, one of which was Geoff Thompson, the former chairman of the FA, felt that England deserved the award. It will raise questions as to how damaging the Sunday Times and Panorama revelations were, but it raises more questions as to how exactly the executive committee make their decisions and what they really want from a bid.

2022 – Qatar

If the 2018 decision was understandable, the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar can only suggest that the executive committee, with an average age of over 63, has collectively turned senile.

As with the 2018 decision, it raises real questions as to whether the executive committee pay any attention whatsoever to what the actual bid includes and what their own delegations actually think about the bids.

Qatar was described by the technical delegation as a high risk option, with more potential negative points than any other bid for either of the two tournaments. Let us look through a few of the potential problems.

The first issue flagged up was that the country is simply too small. In area, Qatar is smaller than the Falkland Islands and is predominantly desert with a short coastline. It has a population of only 1.7m people. Whilst there is nothing eminently wrong with being a small country, it begs questions of how it intends to cope with the influx of visitors that the World Cup would bring.

In 2010, South Africa welcomed over one million visitors to the country for the World Cup, with many surrounding countries experiencing a dramatic increase during this period as well. Germany saw over two million visitors arrive for the World Cup. How can any country cope with almost doubling its population for a month? They currently welcome 400,000 visitors per year. They can expect at least double that in one month.


Temperatures in Qatar in the summer when the World Cup will be taking place average around 115 degrees Fahrenheit – over 46°C. FIFA regulations set out recommendations aimed at reducing heat risk to players, suggesting that at temperatures over 32.2°C, football should not be played for more than 30 minutes without a break. Qatar comfortably finds itself within the extreme risk category.

The Qatari bid has come up with the revolutionary idea of air conditioning the stadia. It uses revolutionary new technology to cool the pitch area, and to a certain extent, the spectator areas down to a temperature of around 23°C. In a test, the new system effectively achieved this, wowing the delegation from FIFA.

However, it has so far only been tested on five-a-side pitches and a test 500 seat stadium. For the World Cup itself, they intend to use it on a far larger scale in multiple stadia each holding at least 40,000 people. It is vital that they are successfully able to scale up the technology.

One other issue with this is wind. It would appear that if there is some wind, it creates an effect where it effectively scours out the cool air, replacing it with the hot desert air. Given that June and July averages the most wind of any months, and the strongest winds, this is something that needs sorting quickly.

For many fans from throughout the world, the World Cup is a time for celebration, where they come to experience new countries and new cultures. Whether one approves or disapproves, drinking is a vital ingredient to all of this. However, in Qatar, public drunkenness or even openly displaying alcohol in public is illegal. It is unlikely that alcohol would be allowed in grounds or fan areas.

Furthermore, this is a country where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by five years in prison. A UN report less than two years ago claimed that the Qatari government "does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so."

Now, whilst FIFA is not a political organisation, it must surely take into account aspects such as this. However, their history hardly suggests that this even crosses their minds, given their close relationship with the likes of the Gaddafis in Libya, the oppressive regime of Ben Ali in Tunisia or their ignorance in previous incidents in the likes of Nigeria.


However, for me, one of the biggest problems I have with Qatar winning the 2022 World Cup is that it is not really a footballing nation. The Qatari national football team have never qualified for a world cup. In qualifying for South Africa 2010, they were beaten by the likes of Uzbekistan and Bahrain – hardly footballing superpowers.

Since then, they have suffered friendly defeats in Qatar against the likes of Haiti and Iraq, as well as defeat away from home against Kuwait. If they struggle against teams of that calibre, I shudder to think how they will cope in the World Cup itself.

Similar concerns were raised about South Africa. However, they could call on the likes of Steven Pienaar, Aaron Mokoena and Kagisho Dikgacoi – all players who play in the Premiership. Qatar have only one player who even plays outside of Qatar – Hussein Yasser, who plays in Egypt.

Indeed, they have only made it out of the first round of the Asian Cup once, back in 2000, when they reached the quarter-final as one of the best third placed teams, despite not winning a single match at the tournament.

Finally, one major supposed attraction of their bid was that the stadia could be dissembled and sent to other developing countries to use there. However, given that one of the major things that FIFA supposedly look for in a bid is a lasting legacy in the host country, it seems as though Qatar fall down. How is taking down all of the stadia going to leave a lasting legacy? Indeed, are brand-new state-of-the-art stadia really going to help developing countries?

Conclusion

Now I know this seems fairly negative. I am not of the belief that only established footballing superpowers should be given the World Cup, although they are in the best positions to hold them. The 2002 edition in South Korea and Japan was an excellent tournament, as was the 2010 edition in South Africa.

However, each of these countries has qualified for world cups before. Each of them had achieved relative success on a continental level. It is difficult to see past the accusation that Qatar has won it purely because of money.

Much as I would have liked England to win the 2018 edition, I have no real problems with the Russians hosting it. They had an excellent bid throughout and I expect them to host an excellent tournament.

However, the Qatar decision is simply ludicrous for me. If FIFA are determined to take the World Cup to more developing countries, then that is their decision. But take it to countries with some form of history in football. The iconic stadiums are part of what makes a World Cup. The likes of Wembley, the Nou Camp, the Maracana. Truly iconic names. Qatar will be building virtually all the stadia from scratch. Admittedly South Africa did the same.


The Qatar World Cup may be an excellent tournament. I am not saying that it will be a disaster. But for me, it raises more questions about the real desires of FIFA.

If FIFA are determined to take it to developing countries regardless of the qualities of any other bids, then they should at least be honest about it. Countries such as the USA, Australia and England have all spent millions on putting a serious and competitive bid together. If they have no intention of awarding it to those countries, then why give them the hope that they might. I can probably guess the reason.

And finally, FIFA need to understand their real role in the world. Sepp Blatter has this mission where he is determined to solve global socio-economic problems by taking the World Cup and opening and developing football in new countries. He talks about how hosting the World Cup will improve the lives of poor people in developing countries.

But I would pose the question to Blatter. How exactly are the poorest people benefitting? The contracts and the money flows to the governments, to the existing rich. Have the poorest people in the poorest townships in South Africa found themselves any better off as a result of hosting the World Cup? Indeed, how many people really have benefitted?

I was out there for the tournament, and though it was a wonderful spectacle and occasion, a common question from the locals was what happens once everyone leaves? The brand new stadium in Cape Town is in the middle of the rich, white area of the city. The richer white people play rugby, so will not use the stadium. It is the poorer black population who play football. And they cannot afford to travel to the stadium and use it.

I heard similar concerns echoed in various other cities. It was amazing while the tournament was on, but that they would be burdened with multiple stadia and facilities that would not really be used. Can poorer countries afford this for a short boost? Can they afford to make the legal changes that FIFA demand? Does a World Cup really benefit developing countries?


Sepp Blatter and his executive committee can see their mission succeeding in the short term that they are around and care. But how much do they really care about the future? Blatter’s one-man crusade to solve the world of all its problems is probably good for his already over-inflated ego, but in the end, FIFA is only a football regulatory body. They cannot solve the world’s problems, and if they don’t really know what they are doing, they could hinder future development rather than helping it.

The Corruption in FIFA - The Jack Warner Story

In the first part of this series, we were introduced to the President of CONCACAF – the Trinidadian Jack Warner. Warner was the man who was involved in substituting a mysterious woman – the wife of the head of the Jamaican Football Federation – into the place of the absent Haitian delegate in the 1996 FIFA Congress.

He is one of Sepp Blatter’s closest friends and allies in football. “A wonderful and loyal friend. He is very competent and I just have to say that Jack is one of the top personalities in the world of football,” is how Blatter would describe the controversial Warner.


Jack Warner with Sepp Blatter
However, his popularity does not reach quite such heights in his own backyard. In Trinidad, he is described by many as a dictator, who has built his power at the expense of others and who has used his position within FIFA to serve his own financial goals. He has been called a ‘clown’ and a ‘disgrace’ by Roy Keane, and is deeply unpopular with the Trinidad and Tobago national team players for reasons we shall see later.

When meeting the Queen at Buckingham Palace, he complained to her that British companies were failing to spend their sponsorship money on football in Trinidad and Tobago. He has supported the corrupt former UNC government in the country, and estimates suggest that through his FIFA connections, he has amassed a fortune of almost £20m.

His first role in football came as the general secretary of the Trinidad Football Association. He immediately entrenched his power by setting up numerous organisations filled with his people, who could exercise voting rights should he come under threat from a competitor. He rapidly spotted a chance for further promotion when he ran for the presidency of the Caribbean Football Union, which came with the added prize of a seat on the FIFA Executive Committee.

One of the first instances where Warner came in for criticism over his seemingly insatiable desire to profit from football was back in 1989. Trinidad & Tobago were one result away from their first ever appearance in the World Cup. They needed only a point against the mighty Americans in Port of Spain to reach the global showpiece.

Jack Warner announced that extra tickets would be printed for the game and that alcohol restrictions within the ground would be lifted. The capacity of the stadium was 28,500. The local paper accused Warner of printing over 45,000 tickets.

Due to the crush of people, the ground was opened early. People crowded into the ground, filling every seat and aisle, whilst the bars served a roaring trade. Jack Warner relaxed in the VIP lounge with his pre-match drink, oblivious to the chaos outside.

Thousands of angry fans, who had spent their money on tickets to Trinidad’s biggest match in living memory, were stuck outside, unable to get into the ground. Opinion turned against Warner, who became the target of the crowd’s anger. The minibus carrying the Trinidad players was unable to get through the crowd, and in the end, the players had to be carried over the heads of the masses and into the stadium.

In the days following the chaos, Jack Warner had to backtrack on his original report to FIFA where he claimed that he had sold 43k tickets for the match. In a press briefing later, he claimed that they had only sold the 28,500 tickets that the stadium could cope with, and the turnstile figures of 34,834 were clearly wrong.

Soon, the government became involved, appointing an independent commission to look into the events. The words of the head of the commission speak strongly about Warner:

“Did Warner believe he was God or merely think he was running the country?”

Following the incident, Jack Warner resigned as head of the country’s football association, but had ambitions of a far greater nature. He was in negotiations with Chuck Blazer, commissioner of the American Soccer League, to challenge for the presidency of CONCACAF and become one of the most powerful men in world football.

He eventually won the election with 16 votes compared with 10 against him. Despite the fact that the other candidates had all withdrawn, he was still only able to get just over 60% of the vote.

We now fast forward twelve years to 2001. Jack Warner had managed to manipulate FIFA into awarding the U17 World Cup to Trinidad & Tobago. He named himself chairman of the tournament organising committee, an appointment that was approved by FIFA’s six-man finance committee (of which Jack Warner was a senior member) and the executive committee (of which Jack Warner was a vice-president). So, in other words, he appointed and then approved himself to organise a tournament that he had awarded to his home country.


Jack Warner with his son, Daryan, who conveniently won many of the contracts for the U17 World Cup controlled by his father

Five new stadia were built by companies linked to associates of Jack Warner. When technical staff from the broadcasting companies visited the new stadia, they discovered that roof beams and cables would obstruct the cameras views of the pitch. When they tried to question Warner and FIFA over this, they were sidelined.

All the food and beverage contracts for the new stadia were awarded to a local restaurant business. Seems legitimate at first glances. However, if we look at the owner of the local business, we find the name Daryan Warner. Jack Warner awarded these lucrative contracts to his son.

The fifteen teams that were travelling in to compete in the tournament needed a travel agency to arrange their flights and accommodation. On the recommendation of Warner, Simpaul’s Travel service, a family-owned travel agency, was awarded the deal. And which family was it owned by? You guessed it, the Warner family.

That is not all. FIFA were experimenting with introducing kiosks in hotel lobbies to enable fans to access instant reports and breaking news. The contract was with a company called Semtor, and with the help of Blatter, Warner forced through the deal worth around US$2m. The catch? The project manager for Semtor was none other than Daryan Warner, who picked up a check for US$60k as ‘management liaison between all web initiative consultants.’

We now head forward in time again to late 2005. Trinidad & Tobago have just qualified for the World Cup for the first time after Dennis Lawrence’s header beat Bahrain to send them to Germany. The only way that Trinidadians can get tickets for their team’s first round matches? Simpaul Travel Services. The company owned by Jack Warner.

For a hefty fee of £2,730.53, fans would get tickets for the three group stage games and shared accommodation. According to a Trinidad journalist, Simpaul Travel were making a profit of over £1,700 on each package sold. Indeed, the Independent newspaper in England suggested that Warner could make a profit of over £10m on his country’s ticket allocation.

A privately appointed committee was responsible for handling the sponsorship and merchandising for the team. Following a request from a London-based business, they requested a fee of US$80k, plus 5% of gross sales of the proposed merchandise. And who could the representative of this mysterious private committee be? Daryll Warner – another of Jack’s sons. How convenient.

Indeed, FIFA regulations even stated that packaging tickets with other services is not permitted. So, Warner’s own company was completely ignoring FIFA’s own rules, whilst he was accused selling FIFA tickets for his own personal profit.


The Trinidad & Tobago team that made it to the World Cup in 2006 - they still haven't received their payments from that tournament
And what of the players? They had been promised 50% of the commercial profit revenues during their qualifying matches and their World Cup matches in Germany. Warner’s own accountant drew up the accounts, but had mysteriously lost the copies of the hotel bills amongst others. No problem. They simply estimated the cost (higher of course), and moved on. He also decided that a third of the sponsorship money was really intended for the 2010 World Cup campaign, thus reducing the total pot by over £360k.

Overall, in excess of TT$173m (£17.4m) flowed into the coffers of the Trinidad & Tobago accounts from that campaign, with 50% of the revenues going to the players involved. So, how much did each player receive? A whopping £492.86. Shaka Hislop wrote to Warner complaining that “you have continually proven yourself heavily biased and opinionated in this matter.” Each player should have received in the region of £260k each. Significantly higher than the almost £500 they were actually offered.

A judgement in the courts concerning that case is expected in the coming hours or days, but it begs the question as to what happened to all the money that seems to have disappeared. Unseen costs? Lost in transit? Or possibly lining the pockets of various officials?

So while Jack Warner has controlled Caribbean football and CONCACAF with his almost dictator-like reign, he and his sons and friends have all been doing very nicely out of the money that should have been invested in football in Trinidad and the local fans. Is this really the type of man that we want in a senior position of power in the beautiful game?




This is the second in a series of articles looking at various stories of corruption, bribery, vote rigging and various other scandals that involve some of the most senior members of FIFA. The next part should be up tomorrow, so check back for that...
(first part available at http://sportdw.blogspot.com/2010/11/corruption-in-fifa-part-1.html)

Corruption in FIFA - Part 1

The issue of corruption within FIFA has become a hot topic in recent months, following the Sunday Times sting operation that caught out two members of the executive committee and the Panorama programme by Andrew Jennings that accused a further three members of accepting bribes from ISL back in the nineties. Sepp Blatter and FIFA have resisted calls for a thorough investigation for years, but the pressure on them is becoming almost too much to resist.

The FIFA executive committee is the main decision-making of the organisation and, amongst other things, is responsible for deciding the hosts of the World Cup. It consists of the President of FIFA, eight vice-presidents and a further fifteen members, appointed by the various confederations and associations.


Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA

Sepp Blatter is the President of FIFA, and has been since 1998 when he succeeded former President and mentor, Joao Havelange, who was named honorary life President. The vice-presidents include senior vice-president, Julio Grondona, who is head of the Argentine Football Federation, the head of the Confederation of African Football (CAF), Issa Hayatou, Jack Warner, the President of the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) and Reynaud Temarii, the President of the Oceania Football Confederation amongst others.

Amongst the other members of the committee, we find the likes of Ricardo Teixeira, the President of the Brazilian Football Confederation, Nicolas Leoz, the President of the South American Football Federation (CONMEBOL), Mohamed Bin Hammam, the President of the Asian Football Confederation and Nigerian Amos Adamu.

There are a number of other characters from outside of the executive committee that play a part in the story. We have former head of marketing at FIFA and current General Secretary, Jerome Valcke. Captain Horace Burrell, the President of the Jamaican Football Association, and Chet Greene, the former General Secretary of the Antigua and Barbuda Football Association are two more individuals that will play a prominent part. One final character that will appear on several occasions in a slightly different role is Jean-Marie Kyss, the head of the Haitian Football Association.

The most recent scandal was that involving the Sunday Times investigation. Undercover reporters recorded footage of senior FIFA members seemingly accepting money in exchange for their vote in the bidding for the World Cup. Vice-president, Reynaud Temarii, and executive committee member, Amos Adamu, were both subsequently investigated by FIFA’s ethics committee. Adamu was fined £6,341 and suspended from all football activities for three years, while Reynaud Temarii was fined £3,170 and suspended for one year for their parts in the scandal.

Four other former members of the executive committee was also indicted in the investigation. Botswana’s Ismael Bhamjee was banned from football for four years, Mali’s Amadou Diakite and Tonga’s Ahongalu Fusimalohi were banned for three years and Tunisia’s Slim Aloulou was banned for two years.

For virtually the first time, allegations of corruption had been investigated properly and punishments handed out. The public pressure from the allegations had been too great for FIFA to resist. However, this is by no means the first time that supposed incidents of corruption have taken place within the hallowed halls of FIFA.

The first short story we shall look at involves a predominantly Caribbean cast. In July 1996, FIFA were meeting in Zurich for their bi-annual conference with a particularly important item on the agenda – a proposal to increase the size of the executive committee. Jack Warner was hoping to push through the reform as he hoped it would give him and his allies greater power and seats on the committee.

Dr Jean-Marie Kyss was the head of the Haitian Football Association. His invitation to the event was delayed in the post and his federation was short of funds, so he informed CONCACAF that he would not be attending the conference.

FIFA’s head of credentials then received a call informing them that Dr Kyss had dropped out a while ago and that Haiti had sent a replacement by the name of Vincy Jalal. The new Haitian delegate took their seat next to Grenada’s representative, Colin Klass, and near to Jamaica’s Horace Burrell. This all seems relatively straight-forward.

Until we look a little more closely as to the identity of Haiti’s new delegate. Vincy Jalal was actually the wife of Captain Horace Burrell. Despite being surrounded by CONCACAF delegates who must have known the identity of Dr Kyss and some of whom who must have known Ms Jalal, no objections were raised by Jack Warner’s loyal representatives. When the roll call was carried out, Ms Jalal used the only word she knew in French, the language of Haiti, to respond – ‘Oui.’ Fortunately for her, she did not need anything further. She submitted her vote under Haiti’s name as she was instructed to by her husband, Burrell.


Captain Horace Burell with Sepp Blatter

Shockingly, this was not the only time that Jack Warner and his pals inserted an imposter in the place of Dr Kyss. Two years after Vincy Jalal had taken his place, a similar incident occurred. At the 1998 Congress, Dr Kyss tried to fly to Paris to take part in the vote to elect the President of FIFA. The two candidates were former General Secretary, Sepp Blatter, and Lennart Johansson.

However, Dr Kyss was unpopular with the Haitian government, having stood up against them to protect football in the country. As he arrived at the airport to fly to Paris, representatives from the Secretary of Sport in Haiti appeared informing him that he was banned from leaving the country. He contacted CONCACAF President, Jack Warner, and explained that he would not be there. He explained that he wanted Haiti’s empty seat at the Congress to symbolise the interference of the government in sport in Haiti.

The 1998 Presidential elections between Blatter and Johansson were expected to be very close. Each representative voted one-by-one, all the way down to country number 191, Zimbabwe, represented by Leo Mugabe. Therefore, with Haiti’s absence, there should be a total of 190 votes to be counted. When the first round results were announced, Sepp Blatter had beaten Lennart Johansson by 111 votes to 80. A total of 191 votes were cast. So what happened to the empty seat that was meant to be left for Haiti?

When Haiti’s name had been called out in the roll call, a response of a ‘present’ was heard in unmistakably Caribbean-accented English. No matter that they speak French in Haiti, not English. So who was taking the place of Dr Kyss?

The man was Neville Ferguson, a personal assistant to Jack Warner and General Secretary of the Caribbean Football Union. Again, not a single Caribbean delegate raised any comment about how the white, greying, spectacle-wearing Dr Kyss had seemingly morphed into a black man for the conference.


Dr Kyss, whose seat was twice taken by imposters arranged by Jack Warner and Horace Burrell

Dr Kyss did not find out that his empty seat protest had not occurred until 2002 – four years later. He was shocked to find out what had really happened, and through Lennart Johansson, requested FIFA set up an enquiry to look into what happened. In February 2003, Sepp Blatter announced that there would indeed be an enquiry into the events.

It was finally revealed in 2005 that there had been a secret hearing way back in June 2003 that FIFA had tried to keep secret. It found that Neville Ferguson received only a reprimand and would have to share in covering the costs of the proceedings with FIFA. It begs the question, if Ferguson was guilty as FIFA supposedly found, why should FIFA help cover the costs of the inquiry?

Bizarrely, FIFA also decided that Dr Kyss had breached article 12 of the FIFA statute. Article 12 regards members’ rights and states:

Members have the following rights:
a) To take part in the Congress;
b) To draw up proposals for inclusion in the agenda of the Congress;
c) To nominate candidates for the FIFA Presidency;
d) To take part in competitions organised by FIFA;
e) To take part in FIFA’s assistance and development programmes;
f) To exercise all other rights arising from these Statutes and other regulations

Quite which of these parts Dr Kyss supposedly breached when he was illegally prevented from leaving Haiti by a corrupt government is questionable. However, if he had still been in his position as Haiti’s delegate at the time of the inquiry, FIFA would have imposed punishments on him.

So, how have the men who appear to have been involved in the vote rigging scandal fared since the true version of events were made public?

Neville Ferguson continued as an official of various football organisations in the Caribbean under the control of Jack Warner, as well as earning fees as an international match commissioner. Captain Horace Burrell was awarded the FIFA Order of Merit in 2000, in 2002 he was made a member of the disciplinary commission overseeing the 2002 World Cup, and in 2004 he was given a role travelling the world giving advice to various football officials.

And Jack Warner remains one of the most powerful men in FIFA in his role as CONCACAF President and vice-president of the executive committee. However, we shall see more of Warner in the upcoming parts of this collection of articles.



This is the first in a series of articles looking at various stories of corruption, bribery, vote rigging and various other scandals that involve some of the most senior members of FIFA. The next part should be up tomorrow, so check back for that...

Real Madrid Red Card Fiasco

Jose Mourinho is no stranger to controversy. Supposedly circumventing a touchline ban by hiding in a laundry basket and arguably playing a part in the forced retirement of top referee, Anders Frisk, with his comments after Chelsea’s defeat in Barcelona are just two of the many controversial incidents that Mourinho has found himself at the centre of. And once again, he is back in the headlines.

It started in the 87th minute of the Champions League game in Amsterdam. Real Madrid had put on a masterful performance to crush Ajax and found themselves 4-0 ahead and through to the knockout phase. Xabi Alonso, already on a yellow card, placed the ball down to take a free kick. After gently wandering back to about a fifteen yard run-up, he proceeded to fake taking the kick six times before Scottish referee, Craig Thomson, decided to show him a second yellow card. There was no look of disappointment from Alonso, who just turned and headed for the dugout.


Then less than three minutes later, Real Madrid had a goal-kick. For some unexplained reason, Sergio Ramos decided to take the kick. After placing the ball, he adjusted the tape on both socks, rolled them back down, faked to take the goal-kick once, at which point Craig Thomson showed him a second yellow card. With no complaints, Ramos shook the hand of the referee and headed for the dugout to join Alonso.

So the two players will serve a one-match suspension against Auxerre in a dead rubber for Madrid, and will be back with a clean slate for the knockout phase. Cynics might suggest there is something suspicious going on.

If we look closely at Mourinho through this episode, we see something interesting. Just before Xabi Alonso received his second yellow card for time-wasting, he spoke to Mourinho on the touchline. Moments later, he was headed back to the dugout. We then see Mourinho speaking to substitute keeper, Jerzy Dudek. Dudek then speaks to Iker Casillas and Sergio Ramos. Moments later, Ramos is heading back to the dugout.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is definitely something dodgy going on. Real Madrid are denying anything untoward has happened. Ramos claims he did not deliberately get given a second yellow card. Casillas has claimed that Dudek was enquiring about his stomach problems, and that he told Ramos to keep an eye on one of the Ajax strikers. Mourinho has claimed that Thomson was at fault and has questioned the standard of Scottish refereeing.


But the question remains – should UEFA really do anything? There is an argument that they have brought the game into disrepute by their actions. But at least they acquired the second yellow cards through time-wasting. They could easily have just fouled Ajax players to get second yellows, potentially putting the Ajax players at risk of injury.

It is not as though this type of thing has not happened before. The highest profile occurrence was England captain, David Beckham, deliberately getting himself booked against Wales in a World Cup qualifier back in 2005. He admitted that he had picked up a rib injury and knew that he would miss the next match anyway, so by picking up a yellow card, he got his suspension out of the way in a game he would not have played in anyway. A smart move, until he explained it to the press.

Indeed, back in 2006, Lyon pair, Cris and Juninho Pernambucano, were fined a combined €25k for deliberately getting booked to miss a dead rubber group match.


It would be a surprise if UEFA took any further action than just fining the two players. They have already set the precedent for this in the Lyon case, so are likely to just follow that. It is a farcical situation, but it is hardly the worst thing ever seen on a football pitch. The commentator last night described it as blatant cheating and that they should be punished with a longer suspension.

As far as I am concerned, it was clearly not in the spirit of the game, but any further punishment other than a fine would be ridiculous. If football’s governing bodies are not willing to extend bans for terrible and dangerous tackles, but are happy to do so for a stupid bit of time-wasting, what does that really say about the state of football today?

DW

Athletic Bilbao - The Success Story of Home-Grown Talent

In an age when the amount of money flying around the game is beginning to pollute the beautiful game, Athletic Bilbao remains a breath of fresh air. They are one of only three teams never to have been relegated from the Primera Liga, along with Barcelona and Real Madrid; in the historical classification of La Liga, they are in fourth place; they have won eight Primera Liga titles and twenty-three Copa del Rey trophies in their history; one of their players still holds the record for the most Primera Liga goals with 252. What makes this all the more remarkable is that ever since 1912, the team has consisted solely of Basque players.

The Basque country is a region that spans the French-Spanish border. The Basque region is fiercely nationalistic and claims its own language, culture and customs. With a population of just over three million people, it is slightly less populous than the West Midlands. However, Athletic Bilbao have achieved all their prior success utilising solely players from this small region.


Over their history, they have been graced by some great names. The prolific Telmo Zarra spent fifteen years at the club, breaking a host of goal-scoring records. His 252 goals in the Primera Liga remains the record, ahead of legendary names such as Hugo Sanchez (234), Raul (228) and Alfredo Di Stefano (227), and he is the only player to win the Pichichi Trophy for top scorer six times. Furthermore, his 81 goals in the Copa del Rey is also an all-time record for the competition.

José Angel Iribar is another Basque legend, who was the first choice keeper at Athletic Bilbao for 16 years and for Spain for twelve years. During the 1970/71 season, he kept an extraordinary ten successive clean sheets at home (1,018 minutes), which remains a record.


The most recent Basque legend is Joseba Etxeberria, who spent 15 years at Athletic Bilbao, as well as making 53 appearances for Spain over seven years. He also put many highly-paid players to shame when he signed a final contract at the club that saw he play for no wages.

Given the limited stock of players that they restrict themselves to, their continued success is a huge credit to everyone involved at the club. They continue to develop top quality players through their academy system – Fernando Llorente and Javi Martinez were both involved in Spain’s victorious 2010 World Cup campaign, whilst the likes of Francisco Yeste, Asier Del Horno, Pablo Orbaiz and Andoni Iraola have all received plaudits both domestically and internationally.

Their latest graduate, Iker Muniain, became the youngest player ever to represent the club last year at 16-years-old, and a week later became the youngster player ever to score for the club. He is also the youngest ever scorer in the history of the Primera Liga and has already attracted the attention of the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester City.


There is a legitimate argument that restricting themselves to Basque players has limited the club’s ability to push on and achieve greater success, particularly in modern times. However, in a recent poll of Bilbao supporters, 86% said that they would rather the club was relegated than give up their policy on Basque-only players. In the words of club President, Fernando Garcia Macua, “We would rather go down than change our habits, I know the supporters feel the same.”

Athletic Bilbao, and their policy of Cantera (literally ‘quarry’) remains a refreshing change in a growing world of money, greed and self-interest. Barcelona claim that they are ‘mes que un club’ (‘more than a club’), but Athletic Bilbao take it a step further. Their desire to maintain the policy was strengthened through the Franco era, when the Basque people suffered horrific oppression. Supporting the club was seen as a vote against Franco. The Basque roots are bedded deep within the club and it would be a surprise to see this change any time in the future.

The club’s motto sums up the mentality of the club perfectly:

“Con cantera y aficion, no hace falta importación” – “With home-grown teams and supporters, there is no need for imports.”

DW

Venky's Takeover of Blackburn: Could it be a Curse?

Blackburn today became the ninth Premiership side to come under foreign ownership as Venky’s takeover was confirmed. They join the American-owned Manchester United, Liverpool, Sunderland and Aston Villa, the Russian-owned Chelsea, the Arab-owned Manchester City, Hong Kong-owned Birmingham and Egyptian-owned Fulham.

Blackburn are now the first ever Indian-owned Premiership club after the £46m takeover was completed early this evening. However, any Blackburn fans hoping that the new owners intend to force their way into the top echelons of the Premiership will be disappointed.

Indeed, the comments coming out of the Indian camp, particularly from Anuradha Desai, the woman who has appeared to be the figurehead of the bid, raise questions about their ambitions, and even their knowledge of football in general.


“We don’t expect to be in the top five of the Premier League. We will be happy to be in the top 10 to 12.” This is hardly a statement of real ambition, considering they finished in the top half last season, as they have in four of the past five years. It is not as though Blackburn are a side that are regularly battling to stay in the division.

However, she continued to explain that “our first priority is to get the club on a strong footing and back into the Premier League.” It seems a decent promise for a recently relegated side that are involved in a promotion battle in the Championship. Unfortunately, Blackburn are not in the Championship. So quite how they intend to get Blackburn back into the Premiership when they are already there is to be seen.

Despite these limited, and slightly confusing, ambitions, the new owners have a plan of how they intend to use the transfer market. “We won’t need to buy expensive players, we can always lease them.” Personally, I am not quite sure how the lease market for professional footballers works. There is the loan market, but if the new owners are hoping to get top quality players through loaning them, they have much to learn about football.

As we looked deeper into the details of the recent interviews with the new owners, more worrying facts begin to appear. “The acquisition has been funded by ICICI Bank,” is one such comment that raises disturbing similarities with the style of takeover that has caused so much trauma at both Manchester United and Liverpool. Whilst the scale of the loan is much smaller, the revenue of the club is similarly scaled down.

In the wake of the Portsmouth implosion and Liverpool finding themselves hours away from administration, you would hope that the Premier League have looked into the finer details of this deal in order to ensure that everything is adequate and as it seems. However, given the past record of the Premier League in such matter, my expectations are hardly high.


Furthermore, they were happy to consider the idea of ‘allowing sponsorship of Ewood Park’. For such a historic stadium, could you possibly imagine it changing its name to the Coca Cola Coliseum, the Asda Arena, the Stadium of Npowered Light or the Poundland Pitch?

In the most recent interview, they have stated their desire to “create a whole nation of Blackburn Rovers fans in India.” However, there are two potential obstacles to this ambition. Firstly, outside of the top, famous sides, there is little interest in other Premiership clubs in areas such as India and China. Indeed, there is often the impression that fans support individual players, rather than clubs themselves. With the lack of big names coming in, it may be difficult to attract the interest of Indian football fans.

Secondly, Sam Allardyce’s brand of football is hardly going to grab the attention of the casual Indian football fan. The long ball style has served Big Sam well, but it has not garnered many fans in the wider footballing community, and it may be difficult to sell his brand of football to new Indian fans.

They will initially be making £5m available to buy new players in January with ‘much more’ coming in the summer. In the modern day, £5m would struggle to buy one of the top players in the Premiership. Whilst Blackburn have hardly been big spenders in recent years, it adds more fuel to the speculation that the new owners lack the knowledge about their new acquisition and the state of the league that they play in.


Although, given that they have admitted that much of the reasoning behind buying a football club is to ‘help build our brand’, maybe it is no great surprise that they are not seemingly that bothered about spending big money on the club.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against foreign ownership of Premier League clubs. Whilst it is nice for clubs to be owned by English companies or owners, there is no reason why it should be any better than foreign owners. Indeed, as an Aston Villa supporter, my club has benefitted hugely from the foreign ownership of Aston Villa.

However, it is crucial that foreign owners understand the scale of the English Premier League and the place of the club in the hearts of the communities that they find themselves in. Football clubs are interwoven into almost every aspect of life in almost every large town and city in England – arguably more so than in any other country in the world. And it can be difficult for new foreign owners to understand this link.


Understand this link and you will take a giant stride into gaining the support of the fans. Without the support of the fans, disquiet can spread from the stands to the players. Whatever they said, the problems off the pitch at both Portsmouth and Liverpool clearly had an impact on the pitch.

It will be important for the new owners to gain the support of the fans quickly. However, their early comments barely inspire confidence. Renaming the stadium, funded by the banks, leasing players and returning to the Premiership all suggest they are out of touch with the basics of the industry that they have bought into. And Blackburn Rovers is not just a business – a point that they must realise quickly. For thousands of people and for an entire city, Blackburn is a way of life.

Youth Revolution at Aston Villa

There is a saying that every cloud has a silver lining. Sometimes it can be difficult to find, but it is generally always there. As the injury list at Aston Villa continues to mount, fans could be forgiven for worrying about the upcoming fixtures. However, there is a refreshing air of optimism around the club thanks to the emergence of a new generation of stars.


As of this moment, Aston Villa are without 14 players who could realistically be considered for a place in the squad of 18. In the midfield, they are missing club captain, Stiliyan Petrov, who is set to miss at least three months with a knee ligament injury. In addition, vice-captain Nigel Reo-Coker is out for around three weeks, Steve Sidwell has recently undergone surgery on a troublesome achilles tendon, Fabian Delph is still missing after tearing his cruciate ligament last season, as is promising youngster Gary Gardner.

In attack, Emile Heskey and John Carew are both missing, whilst Gabriel Agbonlahor made his return last weekend against Manchester United, but has withdrawn from the England squad through injury. Hopefully this is just a precaution, but it remains to be seen. Finally, Andreas Weimann, who made his Premiership debut in the season-opener against West Ham has been missing since August with ankle ligament damage.

In defence, Carlos Cuellar, Habib Beye, Richard Dunne and Ciaran Clark are all suffering from various injuries, whilst their likely replacement from the reserve team, Nathan Baker, is also struggling from an unknown injury.

Any club would struggle without 14 first team squad players. However, it has forced Gerard Houllier to give some of the younger players an opportunity to shine. And they have impressed. Most recently, they were magnificent against Manchester United and were unfortunate to lose concentration late on and concede two late goals. However, they will learn from this.


Marc Albrighton has been one of the revelations of the season in the Premiership, and has already been tipped as a future England international. Barry Bannan has come into the centre of the midfield and received high praise from all around, culminating in a first international call after only three Premiership starts.

Ciaran Clark, a central defender by trade, has been deployed in a holding midfield role and has not looked out of place. Comfortable on the ball, good in the air and tough in the tackle, he has a promising future. Having captained England at all levels up to U21, he has the potential to continue his impressive rise.

Nathan Delfouneso was given his first Premiership start against Fulham and scored his first goal of the season against Blackpool to give Villa a 2-1 lead. Jonathan Hogg made his Premiership debut against Manchester United and had a solid game in the centre of the midfield. Fullback Eric Lichaj and midfielder Chris Herd have also made their Premiership debuts in recent weeks.


We may see further debutants in the coming game against Blackburn. With the injury to Richard Dunne, we may see young Australian defender Shane Lowry making his Premiership debut after a spell on loan at Leeds last season.

This first team experience can only benefit these young players. So far, they have been some of the outstanding players for Aston Villa this season. Many of them have played together in the very successful youth and reserve sides – a potentially key factor.

A winning mentality is something that cannot be taught. Players and teams that are used to winning have that edge, and tend to continue winning. Players that haven’t experienced winning sometimes lack that extra something.

Virtually all of the young Villa players have tasted repeated success in the past. The reserve team has won the Premier Reserve League South for three straight seasons, winning the overall title in 2009. The year before, the group won the academy title, reached the semi-final of the FA Youth Cup and won the prestigious Ergenzingen Tournament.


Just behind the current graduates are another promising group. They include 18-year-old goalkeeper, Benjamin Siegrist, who won the Golden Glove award as Switzerland won the U17 World Cup last year and Gary Gardner, who has represented England at U16 and U17 level before suffering a serious knee injury last season, and who has already been linked with a move to Inter. Academy captain, Daniel Johnson, has found himself in the 18 for the senior team in the last two games. Two other names to keep an eye on in the coming years are Courtney Cameron and Samir Carruthers, who have impressed for the academy side this season.

Fans love to see their own academy products succeeding in the first team, and it is this pride that it the source of the optimism around Villa Park at the moment. Not only are they holding their own in the best league in the world, they are turning heads throughout the league.

DW

One Final Chance for Boxing to Save Its Image

Boxing has shot itself in the foot yet again. As referee Luis Pabon stepped in to stop the fight in the third round, you could sense that the sport knew. They have one last chance to save themselves and regain some credibility.

Last night, there were wins for two of the biggest personalities in boxing. In Manchester, David Haye crushed Audley Harrison, stopping him in the third round. Across the ocean, Manny Pacquiao put on a master-class to win all twelve rounds against Antonio Margarito. However, there are only two fights that boxing fans really want to see involving those two men. Unfortunately, who knows whether we will ever see them?


David Haye has claimed all along that he wants to unify the heavyweight division. That he wants to restore credibility to the division by beating the best. However, since winning the title from Nikolay Valuev, he has fought John Ruiz and Audley Harrison.

Whilst he is a good talker outside the ring, Audley Harrison should never have been anywhere near a title shot. He was simply there for the payday. Various boxing promoters have echoed these sentiments. “I never changed my views that Haye would win within three rounds. I don’t think Harrison should have been allowed to fight.” The words of Frank Maloney, a British boxing promoter.

Frank Warren was of a similar opinion: “I thought Audley Harrison was disgraceful. One person turned up, took his purse and that was it. He did not try to get into any shape or form and that’s a disgrace to any fighter who gets an opportunity like that.”

After all the hype, the fight itself was a bitter disappointment. Neither boxer landed a single punch in the first round, leading to the crowd booing the fight within the opening two minutes. The second round was no better. Harrison landed one jab, whilst Haye connected with a couple of weak shots. The booing continued.

And it was all over in the third. Haye was simply too fast and too powerful for Harrison. It begs the question of why the fight was even made. It is difficult to avoid the thought that it was simply made to make the two fighters some money.


David Haye must now manage to agree terms to fight one of the Klitschko brothers. There is simply no other fighter that he could put on a credible fight with. Yet, this has been the case for over a year now. Each side claims that the other is trying to avoid them. However, they need to sit down and do whatever it takes to make the fight happen. If not for each other, for the credibility of their sport.

Bernd Bonte, the manager of the Klitschko brothers, has today said they would be willing to fight Haye if all money from the fight is split 50-50. He has also said there would be any form of rematch clause. Supposedly the Klitschkos want Haye and Haye wants the Klitschkos. So stop the verbals and get the contract signed.

Across the Atlantic, Manny Pacquiao once again demonstrated why many believe him to be the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. He was magnificent in demolishing a good fighter in Antonio Margarito, leaving the Mexican a bloody mess by the time the final bell rang. Whatever your views on whether Margarito should even be allowed to fight any more after his previous antics is another matter, but he stood no chance against the sheer class of Pacquiao.


As for Haye, there is only one opponent left for Manny Pacquiao – the undefeated Floyd Mayweather. For a few glorious weeks earlier this year, we thought the super-fight of the decade was on. However, it was only another false dawn for a sport that desperately needs something to boost its image.

If they cannot somehow agree terms to fight each other, it is likely that we may have seen the end of Manny Pacquiao. Having recently been voted into Parliament in the Philippines, Pacquiao has often said that this would be his last fight. However, he would surely not retire if Mayweather was the final option.

Manny's promoter, Bob Arum, has today stated that fixing Pacquiao v Mayweather is his top priority. However, as with Haye, we have heard it all before. They need to stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk. Stop talking about signing the fight and just get it signed.


Whichever way you look at it, boxing lost a lot of credibility last night. For years, boxers have been accused of protecting their records by ducking the big unification fights. Fans don’t want to see their favourites simply beating up on someone who shouldn’t be in the ring with them. Boxing fans want to see the best fighting the best.

And this is why boxing desperately needs a Haye v Klitschko fight. And this is why boxing desperately needs the Pacquiao v Mayweather fight. Anything other than these and boxing fans may begin to desert the sport.

DW

Respect our Referees? Only if they start giving us something to respect...

It seems that after every single Premiership game, one of the managers is complaining about a decision that the referee made during the game. Fans are constantly moaning about the poor calls that have gone against their side. Pundits analyse each decision and give their verdicts after viewing it in slow-motion from every conceivable angle. What does this say about the standard of refereeing in the Premiership?

Now don’t get me wrong. I do have sympathy with referees. They have an incredibly difficult job that is not made any easier by the players surrounding and yelling at them at virtually every decision. It seems that the FA’s ‘Respect’ campaign still has a long way to go.


However, there has got to be a certain amount of reciprocation from referees if players and managers are to respect them more. It often seems as though the referees belong to a secret society that deem speaking to the media and the public as below them. Premier League managers are contractually obliged to give interviews after each match. Why do referees not give interviews to explain their decisions?

There is the often quoted cliché that decisions will even themselves out over time. And that may well be true. But the question is, over how much time? As Tony Pulis pointed out, by the time the decisions have all evened each other out, a team may have been relegated. Given the sums of money involved in football, and the Premier League in particular, relegation can be ruinous to a club.


Everybody accepts that referees are not perfect. After all, they are only human. However, we expect a certain standard from them. We have supposedly the best league in the world. So, surely it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that we should have some of the best referees, capable of at least getting the big decisions right. Indeed, it was an English referee, Howard Webb, who was awarded the World Cup final – the ultimate prize for a professional referee.

So why have there been so many major decisions that have been wrongly called this season? Admittedly, every decision is more closely scrutinised these days, and the pundits are still unable to agree after ten views from ten different angles. However, it is not these decisions that are the disappointing ones.

Let us take a look at some of the poorer decisions over the first third of the season:

1. Mark Clattenberg – Manchester United v Tottenham

When it comes to refereeing decisions taking centre stage, there is nowhere else to start than Old Trafford. Nani rushed through onto a through ball and went down under the challenge of Younes Kaboul. Whilst lying on the floor, he grabbed the ball with his hands, assuming it was a penalty. Mark Clattenberg gives no penalty, and Gomes puts the ball down, assuming it is a free-kick for the handball. Nani then gets back up and knocks the ball into the empty net. After consulting his assistant, Clattenberg allows the goal.


Whilst it is true that at no point did Clattenberg blow his whistle for a free kick, surely common sense must prevail. Nani has clearly handled the ball. Mark Clattenberg should just explain the situation and give Spurs the free-kick. Nobody could realistically have argued with that decision. Instead, he awards the farcical goal.

2. Chris Foy – Tottenham v Bolton

This was another quite bizarre decision by Chris Foy. Tom Huddlestone and Johan Elmander were battling for the ball in the centre of the pitch. Elmander falls to the floor and replays quite clearly show Tom Huddlestone stamp on Elmander’s chest. Chris Foy did not give any decision at the time.


Surely this would be the perfect opportunity for the FA to retrospectively punish Huddlestone? Of course not. Chris Foy claimed he had seen the incident at the time and decided that no decision was needed. As a result, the FA cannot take any action retrospectively. Even if the full nature of the incident was not seen at the time.

So we have two possible outcomes from this. Either Chris Foy saw Huddlestone stamp on the prone Johan Elmander and decided that was perfectly legitimate behaviour on a football pitch. Or the FA and FIFA rules are so ridiculous that retrospective action cannot be taken. Either way, it is just plain stupid.

3. Martin Atkinson – Stoke v Sunderland

Stoke have felt that they have had their unfair share of refereeing blunders so far this season, and they probably have a point. However, one of the worst decisions came in their game against Sunderland. Kenwyne Jones rose highest to meet a cross and angle a header toward the top corner. Then comes the controversy. Lee Cattermole fumbles at the ball with his hand, touching it not once, but twice. In addition, the ball may or may not have been over the line. Martin Atkinson gives a corner.


Whichever way you look at it, Stoke can feel aggrieved. The replays suggest it is fairly inconclusive as to whether the ball had crossed the line or not. Martin Atkinson cannot really be blamed for that. However, if the ball has not crossed the line, it is a clear penalty and a red card. Cattermole prevented a goal by handling the ball twice. It was not even that subtly done.

Stoke felt even more aggrieved when moments later, Kenwyne Jones met another corner and it was Lee Cattermole who cleared the ball off the line. Legally this time, but he should not have still been on the field.

4. Andre Marriner – Manchester United v Stoke

Once again, we see Stoke involved. Gary Neville had picked up a yellow card halfway through the first half of the game at the Britannia Stadium. Moments before the half-time whistle, the excellent Matthew Etherington picked up the ball and ran at Gary Neville. He pushed the ball past him and tried to go round the outside of the United defender. Neville slid in nowhere near the ball, taking out Etherington.


In almost any other situation, it would have been a clear booking. We see virtually every challenge of a similar nature treated the same way, week in, week out in the Premiership. However, for some bizarre reason, Andre Marriner decided that it wasn’t worth a second yellow card and Gary Neville stayed on the field. Manchester United kept all eleven men and went on to win the game.

5. Phil Dowd – Manchester City v Blackpool

A game in which the plucky underdogs were taking on the might of the Sheikh-backed Manchester City money machine. That in itself makes it an uphill task for the Tangerines. However, they were also hampered by not one, not two, but three very poor refereeing decisions.

Blackpool thought they had taken the lead when Gary Taylor-Fletcher put the ball in the net. However, it was flagged for offside. Unfortunately, the assistant had flagged the wrong player offside. His teammate, Elliot Grandin was indeed offside, but not interfering in play in the slightest, whilst Gary Taylor-Fletcher had been comfortably on-side.

Manchester City then took the lead when Carlos Tevez put the ball into the back of the net. Unfortunately, he was clearly offside when he received the ball. Once again, Blackpool could rightly feel hard done by.

Then, moments after Blackpool had equalised, David Silva clearly tripped Ian Evatt in the Blackpool half. Nothing was given, Carlos Tevez received the ball and put Manchester City back in front.

Now, maybe Blackpool could have lived with just one of those decisions. But three clearly incorrect decisions that directly led to goals being wrongly allowed suggests that something is clearly wrong.

6. Stuart Attwell – Sunderland v Liverpool

Now we move onto the Stuart Attwell compilation. The Stuart Attwell of the ‘ghost goal’ saga. The Stuart Attwell who refused to respect the minute silence for Sir Bobby Robson. The examples of his blunders are not exactly hard to find.

When Liverpool played Sunderland earlier this season, there was two highly controversial incidents. The first came after only five minutes. Sunderland were awarded a free-kick and Michael Turner back-heeled the ball back toward keeper Simon Mignolet to take. Fernando Torres collected the ball, passed to Dirk Kuyt, who put it into the open net. The goal was given. Again, it seems like a situation where common sense should surely prevail. Turner was clearly not taking the free-kick. Who would take a free-kick in that manner? However, Stuart Attwell decided otherwise.

More controversy came later in the game when Steven Gerrard appeared to deliberately elbow Danny Welbeck in the face. Stuart Attwell showed Steven Gerrard a yellow card. If he has awarded a yellow card, he has clearly seen the incident. And if he has seen the incident, he has seen Steven Gerrard elbow Welbeck in the face. And if he has seen Gerrard elbow Welbeck in the face, it is a straight red card. But not in the view of Stuart Attwell.

7. Stuart Attwell – Arsenal v Bolton

Our favourite referee makes another appearance. This time, Arsenal are playing Bolton. Lee Chung-yong was brought down on the edge of the Arsenal area. A clear free-kick. Not to Mr. Attwell. He wrongly allows play to continue. Mere seconds later, Maroune Chamakh pushes the ball past Gary Cahill on the touchline. Cahill slides in, but catches Chamakh. A bog-standard yellow card. The type seen every week in the Premiership. The type Gary Neville should have received at Stoke. But once again, not to Mr. Attwell. With a flourish, he brandishes the red card at Gary Cahill and Bolton are down to ten men.


8. Mike Dean – Aston Villa v Manchester United

A youthful Aston Villa side took on the might of Manchester United at Villa Park. However, a series of decisions from Mike Dean brought back memories of having been wronged in the Carling Cup final last season.

Our first incident came when Dimitar Berbatov played a through ball to Javier Hernandez. Hernandez is offside, the referee blows his whistle. Straightforward enough. Hernandez turns round, angry at the referee, turns back and boots the ball away into the stand. A yellow card for dissent as stated in the rules. Not according to Mike Dean.

Later in that half, Stephen Warnock and Nani challenge for a ball. Nani accidently kicks a stooping Stephen Warnock in the face with his boot. Nothing at all wrong with the clash. Warnock falls to the ground, clutching his head. Mike Dean should have stopped the play. Head injuries are the one occasion when a game should be stopped for an injury. Head injuries can potentially be very serious. No action from Mr Dean.

Into the second half. Edwin Van der Sar hits a long ball forward toward Nani and Stephen Warnock, who have just had an altercation in the United half. Nani takes three looks behind him while the ball is in the air, then jumps back, swinging his arm into the face of Warnock. A deliberate elbow. Mike Dean has seen it, and gives a yellow card. A yellow card for a deliberate elbow?

Then Aston Villa break forward. Gabby Agbonlahor slides the ball inside for the on-rushing Ashley Young, who is brought down as he is about to shoot by Wes Brown. Penalty, yes. Red card, no. The rules state that a red card should be shown for denying a goal-scoring opportunity. How much more of a goal-scoring opportunity can you get than about to shoot one-on-one from about twelve yards? Either way, Ashley Young scores the penalty and runs to the crowd to celebrate. Yellow card for the celebration. Ridiculous, but correct according to the rules.

Manchester United launch an epic comeback, and it is completed when Nemanja Vidic stoops to head home at the far post. He rushes to the Manchester United fans to celebrate with them, just as Ashley Young had done. Yellow card surely? But he is already on a yellow card. Mike Dean decides not to show him a second yellow for that. Talk about double-standards.

Respect is a two-way process

A referee’s job is not easy, and we do need them. Indeed, it is ridiculous that technology has not been brought in to try and help them, rather than just used to ridicule them afterwards. However, we do demand certain standards, and even just a level of consistency. Clearly all referees are different, but similar offenses should be punished in a similar fashion.

The Gary Neville and Gary Cahill examples above demonstrate this. They were virtually identical challenges, yet one was given a straight red card, whilst the other was not even deemed worthy of a yellow card.

And sometimes we need to simply use common sense. The Nani goal and the Michael Turner incident are examples of this. Had the referee simply used common sense, nobody would have even batted an eyelid. Nobody would have talked about it after the game. It would have just been another straightforward decision made by the referee.


We constantly have the ‘Respect’ campaign shoved down our throats by referees and by the Premier League. However, when the referees seemingly show no respect for players, managers or the public by refusing to explain their decisions, even refusing to tell us what they have said to each other over their microphones, it is difficult for us to build respect for them.

Respect has to be a two-way process. It is simply wrong to be told we must respect referees if they show us no respect.

DW

Blackpool - Weakened Team or Squad Rotation?

When the Premier League gave Wolves a £25k suspended fine last season for fielding a weakened side, they set a dangerous precedent. It suggested that the manager was not free to select whatever team he felt suitable for any given football match, and that the Premier League would determine what the strongest side was.


This issue is back under the spotlight again after Ian Holloway made ten changes ahead of Blackpool’s trip to Villa Park last night, with midfielder Keith Southern being the only player retained from Saturday’s home draw with Everton. As it was, the ‘weakened’ Blackpool side played brilliantly, and gave Aston Villa a real shock in front of their own fans. They thought that they had grabbed a point when DJ Campbell’s shot was deflected past Brad Friedal, only for James Collins to break Tangerine hearts with only one minute left.

However, today the Premier League have announced that they will be investigating Blackpool’s decision to make those ten changes. If they find them guilty of having fielded a weakened side, then one would imagine that they would receive a similar £25k suspended penalty. On the surface, it is not really a major issue for the club. However, it is the thinking behind it that is worrying.

Who are the Premier League to suppose that they know what a manager’s strongest team is? The manager works with his players on a daily basis, whereas the Premier League occasionally see them play once a week. In this day and age, football is a squad game – a club does not simply have 11 players, who play week in week out. Indeed, the Premier League has set a rule stating that clubs have a squad of up to 25 players. Yet if a club uses this squad, it will be punished?


And why does this argument only ever seem to relate to the smaller clubs? When Manchester United travel to Villa Park this weekend, they will send out a strong team undoubtedly. If they sent out a line-up consisting of the likes of Tomasz Kuszczak, Wes Brown, Gary Neville, John O’Shea, Anderson, Ryan Giggs, Javier Hernandez, Wayne Rooney, Darron Gibson and Gabriel Obertan, would the Premier League take any action? Of course they wouldn’t. Bringing in all those international players couldn’t possibly be equivalent to sending out a weakened side.

So why should Blackpool’s team be classed as a weakened side? In goal, he brought in Richard Kingson. Kingson has played in the Premiership for Birmingham and Wigan in the past, he has played in Turkey for Galatasaray, and he has won 83 international caps for Ghana. Should he really be classed as such a ‘weak’ player compared to Matt Gilks?

Chris Basham has played for Bolton for two years in the Premiership and cost the club a record fee of £1m. How could including the club’s record signing be classed as weakening the team? Dekel Keinen has represented Israel 15 times – he can hardly be classed as a poor player. Jason Euell is the club captain with almost 15 years experience playing in the top division of English football. Matt Phillips is a current England U19 international. Marlon Harewood has played for Nottingham Forest, West Ham and Aston Villa in the Premiership.

Yet the inclusion of all of these players has been construed as fielding a weakened side. Ian Holloway is quite correct when he says that “I’m the manager of Blackpool and I manage the players how I want.” As he admits, “we’ve got four games in 12 days and the lads I’ve played every week are struggling to keep up the level.” Would the Premier League have rather he kept playing the same eleven players for every game, even if they were exhausted and not able to play to their best level?


If someone told you that a team was set to replace a keeper who had played in two World Cups, and had twice been named the goalkeeper of the tournament at the African Nations Cup, with a 28-year old that had never played internationally, and who only had seven appearances in the Premiership, you would argue that it was weakening the team.

If someone told you that a team was set to replace an Israeli international defender with a player who had a grand total of 11 Premiership appearances in his 11 year career, you would argue it was weakening the team.

If someone told you that a team was set to replace their club’s record signing, with several years Premiership experience, with a player who had not even played in the Championship until last season, you would argue that it was weakening the team.

However, if Blackpool revert to their usual side this weekend, that is exactly what they will be doing. It should not be up to the Premier League what team Ian Holloway picks. He has a squad of 25 players, all of which he will feel are capable of performing in the Premiership. Otherwise, they would not be in the squad.

Not only does this bring up the question of whether the Premier League should interfere at all, it also re-raises the question of whether the same rules are not fairly applied to the bigger teams, simply due to the strength of their squads.

Let us go back to the penultimate day of the 2006/07 season. Fulham were fighting for their lives, battling with Wigan, West Ham and Sheffield United to avoid becoming the third relegated team. They welcomed Liverpool to Craven Cottage, expecting a tough battle. However, Liverpool had made nine changes from their side for the previous match, resting the likes of Javier Mascherano, Peter Crouch, Dirk Kuyt, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Daniel Agger. They were replaced by the likes of Gabriel Paletta, Emiliano Insua, Alvaro Arbeloa, Momo Sissoko and Robbie Fowler.

Now, even with all those changes, Liverpool had nine players who had represented their country in their starting XI, and the two that hadn’t have subsequently been called up. However, they are clearly playing a ‘weakened’ side, going by the definition of that by the Premier League.


Fulham went on to win that game 1-0, and stayed up by one point, relegating Sheffield United. If Liverpool had played a full-strength side, it seems unlikely that Fulham would have got that win. In this situation, the Premier League took no action, although it had a far greater impact on teams’ seasons that either the Wolves or Blackpool games.

Is it because Liverpool could put out a team of internationals as a second string side that means that they can do that? Is the Premier League saying that the top teams are allowed to rotate their teams, but that the smaller teams should have to stick with whatever side they start the season with?

The problem the Premier League have given themselves is that they have to fine Blackpool for it. Having handed out such a punishment to Wolves last season, they now have no choice. But in reality, the Premier League should not be involved at all in determining what team a manager plays. The manager is the one in charge of selecting the team that he feels is right for each match, given the overall aim of the season.

As Ian Holloway has said:

“If some bright spark from the Premier League wants to tell me who I can pick, then come and have a cup of coffee and you’ll probably get it chucked in your lap. Let them try and fine me, it’s an absolute disgrace. I’ll show the Premier League. We were a credit to football, and let the Premier League try to tell me otherwise.”

DW