“… discuss … could open the door …

… offered … prepare ….

… improved bid ….

… a final take it or leave it … offer ….

… considering a move ….

… weighing up ….

… pulled the plug on their … bid … after waiting … make up his mind ….

… approach ….

… wants … Champions League football.

… test … resolve … bid …..

… offer … attempt to land ….

… set [to] make ….

… looking to leave ….”

And how about Wednesday?

“… expected … talks … finalise …

… set to make a renewed bid ….

… heavily linked ….

… shock move … admirer …

… go all out to sign … fails to land … top target …

… hope to complete a deal … forced to settle for a bit-part role ….

… interested in signing … look to bolster ….

… considering a move … revealed … considering leaving ….

Heading out … exit door … agreed to sell …

… forced to sell ….

… monitoring … availability … could submit a bid ….

… keen to bring … received no offers … rejected one ….

… interested … sent scouts to watch ….

… willing to bide their time … a cut-price swoop … fallen out of favour ….

… keen to keep hold ….

… spending spree … bolstered by the fee the club received ….

… planning a … swoop ….

… on the verge of … [a] swoop ….

… weighing up ….

… look to continue their summer spending with a cut-price move ….

… set to beat … to the signing ….

… could sign … also wanted ….

… interested in ….

… expressed an interest … seek a replacement … looks set to join ….

… pursuing … all summer.”

Randomly put in the names of clubs with money to spend (Manchester City, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham etc) and randomly put in the name of players who are allegedly unsettled (Cesc Fabregas, Carlos Tevez, Samir Nazri etc), and you won’t go far wrong.

• The FA’s move at the Fifa Congress on Wednesday was defeated by 172 votes to 17. The Scottish FA was the only association to publicly back the FA. (It now appears that Vietnam voted for the FA motion by mistake – so it should have been 173 votes to 16).
• Blatter was re-elected after receiving 186 of the 203 votes cast to remain in charge until 2015.

One thing to come out of all of this:

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has announced that World Cup host countries will in future be chosen by a vote of all the 208 member associations.

Until now, Fifa’s 24-man executive committee has made the choice.

But the controversy surrounding the decision to award Russia the 2018 tournament and Qatar the 2022 event has prompted a change.

“I want to give more power to the national associations,” said Blatter, who was re-elected on Wednesday.

More scope for corruption then.

FIFA’s operations remain as opaque as ever.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Blatter seeking revenge against the English. It’s his final term, so he’ll be more interested in legacy issues, such as unveiling statues of himself in Haiti, Benin, Congo and Cyprus.

Blatter won’t renege on his promise not to force the Home Nations to have single representation in FIFA – after all, it would affect Wales and Northern Ireland more than England, and they supported him through the recent episodes.

Also, going after the English might force the English to try to lead a breakaway, which risks further fractures in the fragile peace that will be cobbled together following the Congress.

It’s his heir apparent, Michel Platini that the English should be worried about. Platini has the old-fashionedl French disdain for the English, and is resentful of the money in the Premier League.  With no legal limit to the number of terms a FIFA President can serve, Platini will probably have a further 16 years to work on attacking English football.

In reply to:

… people like Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il and other despotic dictators would not even get 100% of the vote, just goes to show what FIFA is turning into ….

and

It’s like something out of North Korea!

The comparison with Kim Jong-Il and North Korea has been around for some time.

Yes indeed – FIFA congresses seem modelled on North Korea – or a Mafia family gathering – a celebration of the Dear Leader, or the Boss of Bosses. How Blatter’s ‘family’ ticks the boxes that define Organised Crime – and the money that lubricates the FIFA machine. The worries of football fans are never heard.

Personally, I prefer the Mafia analogy. The FIFA establishment love referring to themselves as a “family”, and with a looser hierarchy and relationships, it has more in common with the Mafia than a totalitarian state.

The most brutal attack came from the long standing Fifa vice president for Argentina, Julio Grondona. He used his address as head of Fifa’s finance committee to plead with the English to leave the Fifa family alone and criticised Bernstein for his intervention.

He added: “We always have attacks – mostly with lies and with the support of journalism which is more busy lying than telling the truth.”

Julio Grondona, Blatter’s No. 2, has served the role of pit bull.

Julio Grondona, president of the Argentina Football Association and senior Fifa vice-president, launched a stinging attack on the FA this week, describing the English as “pirates” having previously told the 2018 bid team to return the Falkland Islands if they wanted his vote.

He is more infamous for the following:

‘I do not believe a Jew can ever be a referee at that level (Argentine Premier League) because it’s hard work and, you know, Jews don’t like hard work.’

FIFA senior vice-president and chair of Finance Committee, Julio Grondona, 5 July 2003. Buenos Aires

In Thursday’s Telegraph:

Maradona’s lawyers say they will launch a legal action for “slander, defamation and discrimination”, and accused Grondona of corruption.

The spat follows Maradona’s allegation that the Argentina team was offered stimulants – “speedy coffee” – before a crucial 1993 World Cup qualifier against Australia, and Grondona removed doping controls from the games to prevent positive tests.

Argentina won the two-legged play-off, but at the 1994 World Cup Maradona failed a drugs test.

25 years after the ‘Hand of God’, Maradona could turn around and help England get rid of its nemesis within FIFA.

Blatter has already shown he is prepared to sacrifice one crony within FIFA, Jack Warner, who was proving an embarassment. To further help paper over the cracks in the FIFA “family”, and prevent them from breaking out into fractures, he might have to be prepared to sacrifice another who is proving too embarassing.

The rule against “political” interference prevents or hinders governments from effectively cleaning up their domestic football associations, which allows FIFA’s system of patronage to continue unchecked, the bedrock of corruption within FIFA.

FIFA doesn’t understand governance, whether domestic or international. It’s not necessarily the same as politics.

Apart from Nigeria, the associations of Bosnia and Brunei have also been suspended. Also, the associations of Brunei Darussalam and Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe were not eligible to vote at the recent FIFA congress.

I can’t say I am in a position to comment on the merits of the suspensions or the grounds for the ineligibility, but I believe that in several cases, it was due government interference. On the other hand, FIFA would never dare do the same to a more powerful country like England or France. However, by making sure their cronies remain in power in the vast majority of smaller nations, the FIFA establishment is guaranteed the vast majority of favourable votes.

On the other hand, there is nothing to stop FIFA from interfering politically with countries.

More. FIFA is a registered charity.

Fifa pays little tax in its home country of Switzerland. It also requires tax exemption in countries wishing to host a World Cup competition. “Any host country requires a comprehensive tax exemption to be given to Fifa and further parties involved in the hosting and staging of an event,” a Fifa spokesman told the BBC last year. The 2010 tournament – the most expensive yet – cost South Africa 33bn rand (£3bn; $4.86bn). But a “tax-free bubble” was established around the event at Fifa’s request, relieving Fifa, its subsidiaries, and foreign football associations of any obligation to pay income tax, customs duties or VAT.

So what happens now, FIFA is rotten to the core, ….

Andrew Jennings has been saying that for years. Unfortunately, it is only after England, Australia and the USA fail in their bids to host the World Cup that the English-speaking world has followed suit.

In reply to:

… Sepp Blatter himself needs to go as well, he said he knew brown envelopes were doing the rounds, but he apparantly did not know they had changed hands, he should be booted for that alone, didnt John Higgins get suspended for a similar reason in that he knew money was changing hands and was himself offered cash which he turned down.

….

There is other evidence of Blatter himself being corrupt, especially in his earlier years as President. He is after all, a Joao Havelange protege, who was even more corrupt. What Blatter has done over the years is remove anyone who might threaten his position, and replaced them with his cronies.

The FIFA establishment will sweep any allegations against Blatter under the carpet and the Swiss authorities don’t want to upset the FIFA establishment.

In reply to:

So where does World Football go from here, I think FIFA should be shut down, scrapped and reformed with a different regime, I have noticed sections of the press saying England should pull out of FIFA for moral reasons, but who are we to preach to anybody, our own FA are not exactly squeaky clean themselves.

Going on the pull out of FIFA scenario, how can that be achieved, to be effective I would imagine we would need a few of the top 10 int’l teams to follow, along with major sponsors, I cannot think of many top teams who like us enough to put there int’l status on the line.

Would a massive vote of no confidence be enough to sort it all out.

Very few domestic football associations are in a position to stand up to the FIFA machinery. Apart from England and Scotland, perhaps Australia. And maybe Mali.

Prince William has backed the Football Association and Scottish Football Association stance that a fair election cannot take place following allegations of corruption.

Blatter is the only candidate as his rival Mohammed bin Hammam is suspended.

But the FA and SFA have struggled to find support for their proposals.

Other associations from the United Kingdom, including the Football Association of Wales and Irish Football Association, appear unwilling to back their neighbours.

In order to suspend the elections on Wednesday, about 150 of the 208 nations must vote in support of the move, a scenario that FA chairman David Bernstein admitted was unlikely.

But despite already having decided to abstain from the voting process, Bernstein said the FA was duty bound to make a stance.

The more powerful countries dominate under the present structure, so they have no incentive to challenge the FIFA establishment. The smaller nations depend on the goodwill of Blatter and his cronies for whatever benefits they get from the system. The system of patronage is very powerful.

In reply to:

…. Who polices FIFA, I know Blatter is the head honcho, does he answer to himself or is there some authority above, can the ethics comm. overrule the blatter and the exec comm.

See above – “The FIFA establishment will sweep any allegations against Blatter under the carpet and the Swiss authorities don’t want to upset the FIFA establishment”. FIFA is established in Switzerland and is governed by Swiss law.

In reply to:

What would we need to do under a new regime to clean things up, at the end of the day, we need an international ethics team independent of FIFA.

….

As a private organisation established under Swiss law, FIFA is only answerable to its members (each country’s domestic FA) and Swiss law. By having a rule that governments cannot interfere with the running of its members, Blatter is able to ensure that his cronies are in power in the vast majority of FIFA’s members, so very few of them will vote against him.

Cronies such as Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer have kept CONCACAF in line for a long time. The falling out between Warner and Blazer could be the first major crack – or it might not.

Platini keeps UEFA largely in line. Africa and South America are easily bought. As matters stand, Asia is the only continent that might challenge Blatter, which is why he moved to replace South Korean Chung Mong-joon with Prince Ali bin Al Hussein of Jordan early this year. Bin Hammam dared to stand against Blatter, but has been destroyed by the FIFA machinery.

Damian Collins, Conservative MP for Folkestone & Hyde, is pushing for ChangeFIFA:

From Damian Collins MP and ChangeFIFA Directors:

We have been working with Damian Collins MP to set an agenda for FIFA reform which we have included below. We are asking members of parliaments and national assemblies to sign up to this agenda to demonstrate the growing concern about the leadership of FIFA. We will shortly be publishing the names of the first people who have signed up. If you would like to add your name in support please email Damian on damian@damiancollins.com

They’ll need a lot of weight behind them to shift FIFA.

In reply to:

…. I understand this can be a touchy subject at times and every man and his dog will have an opinion on this.

What do others think

As I said on Monday:

I hope not, but the more likely outcome:

(1) Blatter will be re-elected unopposed.
(2) Allegations against Blatter and his cronies will be swept under the carpet.
(3) Those who dare challenge Blatter will be destroyed, at least in the football world.
(4) Platini will continue in Blatter’s footsteps in four years’ time.
(5) Nothing will change.

Platini describes corruption as “small problems”. Blatter describes it as “some difficulties”, but not a crisis.

Anyone who thinks Platini is the solution is fooling themselves. Platini supports Blatter, knowing he will succeed Blatter. He may not be as corrupt as Blatter, but he’s not going to fundamentally change the system that brings him to power.

On the other hand, on 14 July 2008, I said:

I’m still banking on a major split in world football by 2012.

Ok, it might not be that soon, but if it does happen (assuming the world survives 2012 ), it’s not going to happen by challenging the FIFA establishment. The factors that might lead to a split will be the usual – money and power:

(1) The club v country debate is one about money – clubs pay players, countries use their services with minimal recompense, insufficient when top players are injured on international duty.
(2) The extent to which the wealth of football is concentrated in Europe, and the efforts of European clubs and leagues to develop markets outside of Europe.
(3) The distribution of wealth in European football, and how it is controlled – you have UEFA, ECA, EPFL, and the most powerful clubs and their owners.

For Platini, the move from UEFA to FIFA might be a logical step, as Europe becomes the real battleground – there is greater security of tenure as FIFA President than there is as UEFA President.

For the present, Bill Archer is reporting that AFC members are boycotting the FIFA Congress:

Today comes word that in fact a fair (though undetermined) number of them are refusing to participate in Wednesdays’ voting at all and ARE HEADED HOME, with one official who declined to be quoted by name saying:

“I can tell you that so far delegates from nine or 10 federations have gone home after arriving here.

“There is a deep sense of outrage amongst all of the delegates I have spoken to about the actions of the FIFA ethics committee. They have exceeded their mandate.”

It’s also known that several Asian members intend to stage a walkout from the meeting hall just prior to the balloting, which brings up an interesting idea which is making the rounds.

Since the agenda for the Congress has been officially established by the Syndicate – excuse me, I mean the Executive Committee – it would take 3/4 of the members voting to change it for FIFA to postpone the vote, which seems unlikely although ENGLANDS’ FA HAS JUST INTRODUCED AN OFFICIAL PROPOSAL to do just that.

However, it’s also possible – and slightly easier – to deny the Congress a quorum. The number making the rounds is 140 but I confess that I have no Earthly idea where that came from.

Let’s see if it happens.

FIFA’s sponsors express concern, but don’t expect any of them to withdraw their sponsorship:

“Let’s not forget the value of a relationship with FIFA, the value of a relationship with the World Cup and the Womens’ World Cup and everything that FIFA does around the world — from grass-roots football right up to international events,” ……..

Allegations like those haunting FIFA are more harmful to “values-driven” organizations like the International Olympic Committee, said Chris Welton, a sports marketing consultant whose former company was the marketing agency for the IOC when it was rocked by scandal.

It has to hit them where it hurts, in their pockets. I’d quite happily boycott all FIFA sponsors.

Visa have joined Adidas, Emirates and Coca-Cola in expressing concern. Anheuser-Busch have issued a statement, while McDonald’s Corp and Sony Corp have been silent.

Visa should have paid more attention to the experiences of rivals Mastercard before jumping into bed with FIFA:

‘Lying and deception and bad faith are standard operating procedure at FIFA.’ – Adam C. Silverstein, a lawyer for MasterCard in their successful action against FIFA, New York, December 1, 2006

Corruption is a global endemic, and FIFA’s conduct is merely symptomatic.   Before you can change FIFA, you need to change the world.

(Merger of three posts on Tony’s Non-League Forum – 1st, 2nd & 3rd}

Bin Hammam not only withdraws his candidacy, but he has been suspended by the Ethics Committee. Jack Warner is also suspended.

Blatter is now unopposed.

The Ethis Committee moved quickly to clear Blatter before the elections on Wednesday.

Ethics chairman Claudio Sulser recused himself on Wednesday because he shares Swiss nationality with Blatter. The former international player passed sentences last November on FIFA executive members Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii who got three- and one-year bans respectively after a probe into World Cup vote-selling.

Sunday’s hearing will be chaired by Sulser’s deputy, Namibian judge Petrus Damaseb.

Was there ever any doubt that a lap dog’s deputy would not be any less of a lap dog?

Blatter has been in power long enough to have his cronies do his dirty work for him, while keeping his hands relatively clean.

Bin Hammam unfortunately had to do his dirty work himself, and with so many Blatter cronies about, was always going to be exposed.

Blatter has been planning for this for some time. First, he moved against a potentially stronger opponent, South Korean magnate Dr. Chung Mong Joon, early in the year:

Blatter has been infuriated for the past decade by the independent-minded Korean FIFA vice-president Chung Mong-joon and his frequent threats to launch a challenge for the presidency.

Blatter has never had the courage to confront billionaire Chung, a member of the family controlling the Hyundai conglomerate. Now he has found his Trojan pony, an Arab princeling, and he’s running him at the congress of the Asian Football Confederation this week.

It smells like a deal done in the Doha souk. Blatter steered 2022 to Qatar – in return the gas-rich, money-no-object statelet does the ‘persuading’ to enlist enough votes to rid their benefactor of his pestilent adversary.

The wannabe FIFA veep is Prince Ali bin Al Hussein of Jordan. He’s 35, a Sandhurst-trained chap who appears to have been passed over for the chance to join other sporty royals at the International Olympic Committee.

The outcome:

Prince Ali won the election for the position of FIFA VP representing Asia (25 votes to 20 for his opponent Dr. Chung Mong Joon) at the AFC Congress that was held in Doha, Qatar on January 6, 2011.

Bin Hammam has now been destroyed, especially after the FA backed away from backing him, after having induced him to stand in the first place.

Jack Warner has become something of an embarassment to Blatter over the last couple of years, so Blatter is prepared to sacrifice him this time round. Chuck Blazer’s allegations limit the damage to Bin Hammam (who dared challenge Blatter) and Jack Warner (who has become expendable).

However, Lord Triesman’s allegations are quickly dismissed, as the collateral damage would have extended beyond Jack Warner, to Nicolas Leoz of Paraguay, Ricardo Teixeira of Brazil and Worawi Makudi of Thailand. Blatter can’t afford to lose more than one crony at a time.

His cronies now include Platini, who is clearly being groomed to succeed him. Repeated allegations of corruption are “small problems”? Platini is the new Blatter in the making, virtually guaranteeing himself the FIFA Presidency when Blatter retires in 4 years time:

Michel Platini, who served as one of Blatter’s key aides before becoming Uefa president in 2007, was expected to support the Swiss who has pledged that, if re-elected, he would step down in 2015.

The understanding appears to be that Platini won’t stand against Blatter this time round, and will instead support him, and in return, Blatter will back Platini to succeed him.

A usurper such Bin Hammam would upset the arrangement, and it is not only in Blatter’s interest, but Platini’s too, that his candidacy is destroyed.

Allegations of corruption are swept aside by motherhood statements such as the unity of global football family and the hackneyed reference to the beautiful game. Reference to the family is also favoured by the Mafia.

The Swiss authorities could investigate FIFA if they had the political will, but Switzerland benefits greatly from having FIFA based in the country and they’re not going to do anything that might undermine their relationship:

Sepp Blatter’s 1998 election to the presidency of FIFA over UEFA President Lennart Johansson occurred amidst much controversy. His 2002 candidacy has been marked with rumours of financial irregularities and backroom dealings, culminating with direct accusations of bribery, by a third party, made in the British press by Farra Ado, vice-president of the Confederation of African Football and president of the Somali Football Federation, who claimed to have been offered $100,000 to vote for Blatter in 1998.

Amidst internal divisions, FIFA’s secretary-general Blatter’s deputy and former protégé, Michel Zen-Ruffinen drew up a 30-page dossier outlining allegations of financial mismanagement within the organisation. The dossier alleged that the collapse of FIFA’s marketing partner ISL had led to losses of up to $100m under Blatter’s management. The allegations were backed by Johansson, and the dossier was handed to the Swiss authorities, but they cleared Blatter of any wrong doing and FIFA had to pay all the costs. An internal investigation within FIFA was halted by Blatter because members of it broke confidentiality agreements. This questionable behaviour led him to remove Zen-Ruffinen from office immediately before the FIFA World Cup 2002.

After all, this is the same government that for 75 years turned a blind eye to Nazis and other criminals hiding their wealth in their banks.

FIFA is now in a rush to elect Blatter unopposed before any other allegations turn up:

Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke confirmed that Wednesday’s election would go ahead unless three-quarters of the 208 delegates voted to change the agenda.

It leaves Blatter clear to seek a fourth term in charge of the organisation, which he has run since 1998, unopposed.

“I am not Fifa, I can’t change the agenda,” Valcke said. “It is up to the delegates – they have the final say.”

“I don’t see what is wrong with this election with Mr Sepp Blatter.

“I think the most important thing is a commitment from all the members of the Fifa ExCo with the president to support a change within Fifa and in his last mandate make sure that Fifa is stronger and cleaner than it was.

Valcke, another lap dog doing the bidding of his master.  When an incumbent relies on the structures of his office and the organization to substantially improve his prospects for re-election, it amounts to abuse of power, if not outright corruption.

In the meantime, more toothless talk from establishment figures:

Former International Olympic Committee vice-president Dick Pound has told the BBC that countries could form a breakaway association from Fifa if the current problems are not solved.

….

“If Fifa is not going to do the game any good, the game may have to do something to Fifa,” Pound told the BBC.

“You could withdraw from Fifa, for example, and say we’re not satisfied that the organisation is not being properly run and it isn’t a credit to the sport we know and love, so let’s have an alternative.

“That’s one possibility. It has been done in other sports.”

and

Minister for sport, Hugh Robertson, says Fifa is “losing the moral authority to govern world football” and adds that the forthcoming Fifa presidential election “will be extraordinarily difficult to hold”, with both Sepp Blatter and his opponent Mohamed bin Hammam facing allegations of corruption.

Again, more words than action. Talk about Sir Trevor Brooking sitting on the fence – the whole British establishment is sitting on its hands.

I hope not, but the more likely outcome:

(1) Blatter will be re-elected unopposed.
(2) Allegations against Blatter and his cronies will be swept under the carpet.
(3) Those who dare challenge Blatter will be destroyed, at least in the football world.
(4) Platini will continue in Blatter’s footsteps in four years’ time.
(5) Nothing will change.

Like I’ve said before, “More Farce Than Football, More Soap Than ‘Soccer’”.

Earlier related posts include:

• Platini’s Proposals, posted on 7 September 2007
• Poor Leadership, posted on 23 October 2007
• The Refusal Of FIFA And UEFA To Use Video Technology, posted 7 May 2009
• Are FIFA Any Better Than Thugs?, posted on 18 June 2010
• Neo-Feudalism & FIFA, posted on 30 June 2010
• The Potential For Discord In World Football, posted on 5 July 2010
• The Future Of Football – What’s Really At Stake, posted on 16 March 2011
• Does It Matter Who The FIFA President Is?, posted on 19 March 2011

(Based on contents of my post on Tony’s Non-League Forum. )

Dundee United manager Peter Houston says he fears for the game if every penalty conceded results in a red card.

Houston did not dispute Rangers’ three spot-kick awards as United had a trio of players sent off in a 4-0 defeat.

But he said: “I worry about the game and where it’s going to if we are going to have straight red cards for every incident that’s happening in the box.

“I am frustrated that we have had three players sent off in a game when there was hardly a tackle put in.”

As I have said before:

…, as we have seen on many occasions, a player can be sent off for an unintentional foul which is neither violent nor dangerous, which changes the whole dynamic of the remainder of the game.

Where the foul occurs in the penalty box, the defending team is punished twice over – having a penalty awarded against it as well as having a player sent off.

There is no proportionality. More disturbingly, for no compelling reason, there is a draconian change to the basic dynamic of the game, a contest between two teams of 11.

I have been trying to keep records over the past three years or so, and even though what I have is very patchy, it often seems like a variety of ill-conceived changes to the laws or FIFA/UEFA/FA directives and decisions are at odds with common sense. Referees are caught in between, and you end up with are ever more inconsistent and controversial decisions.

The often repeated view that for any one club, bad decisions even themselves out over the course of a season is not the solution – it merely detracts from the full scale of the problem. Many wrongs don’t even themselves out to make a right. Further, in the longer term, it favours the bigger clubs over the smaller clubs, as the bigger clubs make more noise about bad decisions that go against them, increasing the chance that future bad decisions will go their way.

My own very rough estimate is that over the course of a season, 70% of bad decisions go in favour of the bigger club. Arsenal are probably one exception, but then British referees don’t seem to care much for Arsenal’s French flavour, pretty to watch, but lacking in old-fashioned British blood and guts.

I don’t blame referees as much as I do clueless administrators at the top levels of the game, clinging on to their positions for the sake of power and wealth.

As I have said before, the future of football is at stake.

(First posted on Tony Kempster’s Non-League Forum)

Nevertheless, early versions of the Cambridge Rules (originating in 1848), the Sheffield Rules (1858), the Uppingham Rules (1862) and the FA’s 1863 Laws of the Game are readily available.

I’ve come across a couple of references to the Nottingham Rules, but haven’t found the rules themselves (or any version of the rules):

(1) – “On 2 January 1865, [Sheffield FC] played its first fixture outside Sheffield against Nottingham, playing eighteen aside under Nottingham Rules.”
(2) – “1866, 22 February — Sheffield FC play first match out of town, travelling to play against Nottingham, playing under Nottingham Rules.”

It would appear to be the same match, just that the date is wrong in one (or both) of the references.

It is to the Sheffield Rules that a clear preference for a kicking game over a handling game is attributed:

The rules had been in use since the establishment of [Sheffield FC]. Although a selection of rules from public schools were seen there, the 1858 rules show little evidence of their influence. Many of the original members were from the local Collegiate School, which favoured the kicking style of the game, rather than handling the ball. The kicking game was also prevalent in the local villages of Penistone and Thurlstone.

The article contains an interesting account of the convergence between the Sheffield Rules and the FA’s Laws of the Games in the 1860s and 70s.

It would be interesting to re-enact a match played under early rules. I suppose it’s been done before. It would be a very different game from the modern one. Also, apart from differences in the rules and interpretation of rules, differences in formations and tactics could produce a game that appeared very different from that actually played in the 1860s and 70s. I suppose without actual footage, no one can be sure what the game looked like back then.

It’s one thing to say that the Sheffield Rules influenced Australian Rules Football – it’s another to say Australian Rules Football “resembles the original Sheffield code in various respects”.

I suppose any re-enactment would be aided by accounts still available of the “combination game”, a formation/strategy used in the 1860s and 1870s.

It will be the 150th anniversay of the Uppingham Rules next year, and of the FA’s Laws of the Game in 2013.

There might well have been other early sets of rules which have been lost in time.

(First posted on Tony Kempster’s Non-League Forum)

I asked myself whether I should do a post about it at all, as I imagine the subject will be analysed to death elsewhere. My ambivalence can be summed up by the following passage in an earlier post about some of the issues facing football:

“I don’t know if Sepp Blatter not being re-elected as FIFA President would solve anything, but it would be a step in the right direction.”

The link is to a BBC article in which it was reported that:

The Football Association will back any credible challengers to Sepp Blatter in the Fifa presidential elections in June, senior FA figures have revealed.

The FA board is yet to take an official position on the vote as Blatter seeks a fourth term but members are said to feel it is time for a change.

….

“We think three terms is enough.”

The FA supported Blatter when he first stood for the Fifa presidency in 1998 but backed his defeated opponent Issa Hayatou in 2002.

Blatter was re-elected unchallenged in 2007 and is standing for election again in a vote that will be taken in Zurich on 1 June.

I imagine that in the analysis elsewhere, a lot will be made of the fact that Bin Hammam is President of the Asian Football Confederation and Qatari, in all likelihood, important factors in Qatar being awarded the 2022 World Cup, over which there has been much controversy, as reported elsewhere.

More significantly, bin Hammam’s proposal to limit the FIFA presidency to two terms was heavily defeated in March 2010.  As reported on BBC Sport at that time:

… a move to impose an eight-year limit on the office of Fifa president has been heavily defeated.

Asian federation chief Mohamed Bin Hammam had proposed the limit from 2011 onwards at the Fifa executive committee meeting in Zurich, but the motion was rejected by 15 votes to five with one abstention.

The usual mix of threats, promises, inducements and calling in of past favours, whether communicated expressly or impliedly, will surely make Blatter the favourite to be re-elected, no matter how much he is personally disliked.

Thuggery or neo-feudalism?  Perhaps they are the same thing.

The fact is cronyism and patronage has been endemic in FIFA for a long time.  After all, that is how Sepp Blatter came to take over the reins from João Havelange.

BBC Sport editor David Bond puts it more kindly:

“Blatter is a formidable sports politician. And while he may not carry the full support of his excecutive committee, he enjoys deep and loyal support from the 208 member countries who will decide this contest on 1 June in Zurich.”

He makes another interesting point:

“… does Bin Hammam really represent change? He has been on the Fifa executive committee for 15 years, has been a key ally of Blatter’s and, afterall, was the driving force behind Qatar’s successful World Cup campaign.

Will he really clean up Fifa or is he just another insider?”

He goes on to add:

“He has already set out his ideas to expand the executive committee, to streamline decision making and to build better relations with the professional leagues and clubs of Europe.

His vision for change will play well in the media but all that will have little influence over the Fifa congress which is not dominated by concerns over public image or the interests of big football clubs and leagues.

Here the minnows of the game hold the upper hand and Blatter has had them eating out of his for years.”

Which comes back to my original ambivalence.  In the bigger scheme of things, a challenge for the FIFA Presidency does not change the landscape.  The real battles are yet to come.  The seeds of future battles are discussed elsewhere on this blog, including:

• A Broader European Pyramid
• The Future Of Football – What’s Really At Stake
• The Potential For Discord In World Football
• Rich Benefactors – The End Of History
• Club v Country
• The Market In Football Players

The details of the proposed structure are set out in several earlier posts, dating back to May 2008:

• Transnational European Leagues
• Proposals For A European League
• A British League
• Atlantic League
• How The Game Has Changed
• British League – An Outline
• Building A Pyramid

The structure

To summarize (click to enlarge):

A regional league could be as narrow as an Atlantic or British League (as previously discussed) or as broad as a Northern European League, comprising British and Scandinavian countries.   However, each country can only be linked with one regional league.

Promotion & relegation

There would be promotion and relegation both within the divisions in each tier, and between the bottom divisions of each tier and the top divisions of the tier below. For example:

• Between the Regional Leagues and the European League:
  • The top clubs from the various Regional Leagues would play the following season in a hybrid mini-league/knock-out competition (along the lines of the Champions League) and the four semi-finalists would be promoted the season after to the lower division of the European League.
  • The number of clubs from each Regional League that qualify for the cup competition will be based on a points system similar to the UEFA coefficient currently in use, with a minimum of 2 from each Regional League.  The points for a Regional League would be the sum of the points for all the countries linked to that league.
  • The bottom four clubs of the lower division of the European League would be relegated to the top division of the Regional league  to which their country is linked.  There may need to be some adjustments of numbers, but this can be achieved in the same way adjustments are currently made when clubs are promoted from the top divisions of domestic regional leagues to a higher level with fewer divisions.

• Between the domestic leagues linked to a Regional League and the Regional League.  Similar to above.  Taking Regional League A for example:
  • The top clubs from domestic leagues C1, C2, C3 and C4 would play the following season in a hybrid mini-league/knock-out competition and the four semi-finalists would be promoted the season after to the lower division of Regional League A.
  • The number of clubs from each domestic league that qualify for the cup competition will also be based on a points system similar to the UEFA coefficient currently in use, with a minimum of 2 from each country.
  • The bottom four clubs of the lower division of Regional League A would be relegated to the top division of their domestic league.  There may need to be some adjustments of numbers, but this can be achieved in the same way adjustments are currently made when clubs are promoted from the top divisions of domestic regional leagues to a higher level with fewer divisions.

Each country’s coefficient would take into account the performance of its clubs in:

• The European League
• The Europe-wide cup competitions
• The Regional Leagues
• The Region-wide cup competitions

Non-linked countries

You could conceivably have the leagues of individual countries not linked to a Regional League, and instead having its top team(s) seeking promotion directly to the European League, but it’s coefficient would have to be high enough for it to qualify for the Europe-wide cup competition, which would effectively limit it to the strongest countries.   I’ll leave this possibility aside for now.

Cup competitions

Some aspects of participation in domestic cups, league cups and divisional cups, are dealt with in the earlier posts.  These would be as follows:

• Every club from a country, whichever league they are currently playing in, will play in that country’s domestic cup, for example, the FA Cup in England.  The traditions of some of the oldest football competitions will be maintained.
• Every club from a league will play in that league’s cup competition.   For the leagues the European and Regional Leagues (with only 2 divisions), it could be a hybrid mini-league/knock-out competition (along the lines of the Champions League).  For domestic leagues (especially those with more than 2 divisions), it could be a straight knock-out competition.  Club’s that qualify for  the Europe-wide or region-wide cup competitions may be exempted.  Many Euroepan domestic leagues already have league cups.  The expanded form for the European and Regional Leagues provides an incentive for clubs in the second division of those leagues.
• For leagues with that have a straight knock-out league cup (domestic leagues), optional divisional cups, with the winners of the top division’s divisional cup qualifying for the region-wide cup competition, and winners of the the divisional cup in lower divisions taking one of the promotion spots.   The divisional cups would be a hybrid mini-league/knock-out competition.  This replaces the play-offs used by several European domestic leagues.  There would be no need for divisional cups in the European and Regional Leagues, as their league cups would be in the expanded form.

Advantages

The advantages of the structure proposed above:

• The European League is part of a broader European pyramid, instead of a break-away by top clubs.  It  builds on existing structures in a rational manner, serving to integrate European football league, without more radical changes or the risk of breakaway leagues.
• With more tiers/levels, clubs can more readily find their right level.   Each level would be more competitive.  Further, clubs are less likely to over-extend themselves in order to rise or remain at a higher level which in reality may be beyond them in the longer term.
• The top European clubs won’t have the unfair advantage of two substantial revenue streams (the domestic league and the Champions League), which their domestic rivals don’t have.  (I should make clear that the few clubs in each top flight not having an additional source of income is not the same thing as them earning less.  What with a guaranteed 30 to 38 matches against other top European clubs, incomes are likely to be greater, what with bigger crowds, more TV money and more merchandising, while not having to maintain extra large squads to deal with competing on multiple fronts.  The point I am making is more about a level playing field than about income levels).
• Potentially big European clubs in smaller countries, such as Ajax, Rangers and Celtic, don’t have to continue suffering the limitations of being big fish in small ponds.
• There should be no need for parachute payments, or other financial distortions to fair sporting competition on a level playing field.
• With better competition at each level, clubs, especially those at the higher levels, are likely to earn more, as described above.

The proposed structure avoids the weaknesses of the current structure, or recent proposals to enhance the current structure as reported in the media, including:

• A “Champions” League not confined to champions, and with a league stage that only serves to reduce the number of teams from 32 to 16, thereby merely increasing the number of games without any real benefit to the competitiveness of the competition.  There is also the weakness of European champions decided by what is largely a knock-out competition (with the luck of the draw, and only needing to do well in a limited number of games) as opposed to a league competition.
• A bloated and second-rate UEFA Cup.
• The half-baked proposal for a two-tier Premier League in England.
• Another half-baked proposal for Premier League clubs to play a 39th game each season in a foreign market.

Financial implications

To expand on the financial implications, the continuing risk of European clubs over-extending themselves in reliance on extraneous sources of revenue such as TV money and foreign markets, has been addressed previously on this blog.  The risk is of clubs, including several top clubs, spending more in the present than they can afford to in a strict accounting sense in expectation of substantially greater revenues in the future.

“However, with increasing international competition between sports markets, such increases in future revenue are far less certain than over-extended clubs need, with the risk of a future implosion in the European football market as great as ever, notwithstanding UEFA’s financial fair play rules.”

A broader European pyramid as described above would allow European football to develop its market internally, without its current over-reliance on extraneous sources of revenue such at TV money and foreign markets, which, in the longer term, are not as reliable as those with a financial interest in European football might imagine.

The politics of making the proposed structure a reality

Somewhat surprisingly, while I believe that the European Club Association (ECA) is more likely than the European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) is to take on FIFA on the issue of players having to be made available for an ever-increasing number of internationals, despite all the past talk of a break-away European League, I doubt the ECA have any great interest in pushing for a re-structuring of the European pyramid.  As I said before:

Why isn’t the European Club Association pushing harder for a European league? A European league may mean greater profits, but it also means greater risk, and those in a dominant position are often risk-averse. Those that dominate prefer the status quo with minor tinkering at most, as it preserves the system on which their domination is founded.

In fact, it is more in the interests of the EPFL, and to a lesser extent, UEFA, to take on board the above proposal for a broader European pyramid, for it strengthens their hand vis-à-vis the most powerful clubs in Europe.

The proposal also serves ideals on which the European Union was founded:

• Open markets.
• Competition.
• Level playing field.
• Eliminating market distortions.

Perhaps the EU should take a greater interest.

FIFA, UEFA and the IFAB should bear the brunt of the blame.  The rules of any sport should be as simple as possible, applied sensibly, and keep up to date with changes in society.  You’re never going to get that with football while it is run by a bunch of clowns.

Chief Clown

I don’t know if Sepp Blatter not being re-elected as FIFA President would solve anything, but it would be a step in the right direction.

“[C]hanges in society” includes technology.

I was trying to keep a record of poor or controversial refereeing decisions at the top levels of football, but there are far too many.

Those who control the system and make the rules are ultimately responsible for the break down.  Unfortunately, football at the top levels is corrupt to the core.  By the term “corrupt”, I include power-crazed officials who seek centre-stage.

Massimo Busacca, just another football official seeking centre stage.

After more recent events (including last night’s Champions League game between Barcelona and Arsenal), it will be a long time before I watch the Premier League, the Champions League, La Liga, Serie A or international football on a regular basis again.

If more people took the same approach, you might begin to see some change.

Football has a lot to learn from other sport.

Two developments have to go hand in hand – (1) more control over emotions on the pitch, and (2) reducing the incidence of controversial/poor decisions which directly affect, or are highly material to, the outcome of matches.

With what is at stake at the top levels of football, controversial/poor decisions which affect the outcome of a game are going to inflame passions, which are likely to spill over in one way or another. We can say what we like about top footballers and managers being highly paid and needing to learn to control themselves better – ultimately, we are all human.

For me, the refusal of FIFA and UEFA to embrace modern technology has more to do with their own self-interests rather than any real doubts about the available technology and how its use might affect the flow of the game.

I really should get round to a book – “More Farce Than Football; More Soap Than Soccer”.

“Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.”

Two factors lie behind the introduction of the rules:

• The unfairness of clubs overspending on expensive players and their salaries, in order to gain an advantage on the playing field.
• Football’s reputation, when clubs blatantly over-extend themselves financially without regard for the economic consequences.

As far as football finance is concerned, I look out for the following each year:

• Deloitte Football Money League (issued in February each year).  The year on year ranking of clubs by revenue is summarized on Wikipedia.
• Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance (issued in June each year)

Deloitte no longer make publicly available their ranking of leagues by revenue, which is now part of their Annual Review.  However, it continues to be reported in the media.  For 2010, CNN reported:

The German Bundesliga has overtaken the English Premier League as the most profitable in the world, according to financial analysts Deloitte.

Despite predicting that the Premier League’s revenue will top $2.8 billion in the season just gone, Deloitte said clubs’ profitability has more than halved between the 2007-08 season and the 2008-09 campaign.

Deloitte’s annual review of football finance also showed that the total European football market grew to a record $19.3 billion in 2008-09.

Player salaries are a significant factor.   The CNN article went on to refer to financial regulation in Germany and ownership of clubs, contrasting the situation in England.

Many top European clubs appear to have been operating on the following premises:

• TV revenues will be sustained or increase in the future; and/or
• European football will continue to capture foreign markets in the Middle East, Asia, the Asia Pacific, the Americas  and Africa, thus increasing opportunities to sell merchandise and seek bigger TV audiences (which translates into higher TV revenue),

thus spending more than they can afford to in a strict accounting sense at present in expectation of substantially greater revenues in the future.   However, with increasing international competition between sporting markets, such increases in future revenue are far less certain than over-extended clubs need, with the risk of a future implosion in the European football market as great as ever, notwithstanding UEFA’s financial fair play rules.

Other statistics I keep track of are:

• Comparison of attendances at domestic sports leagues on Wikipedia.  The figures need to be updated to the latest season.
• Average attendances of European football clubs on Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, this has not been updated since 2009.

With the former, I have merged the listings for outdoor sports and indoor sports, and listed them by average attendances (based on the figures available on Wikipedia), which can be downloaded here.  I’ve listed the top 50 below.

European football leagues don’t only face competition between themselves, they face competition from football leagues in the countries in which they seek to capture markets, and from other sports.

European football cannot assume that their domestic markets, let alone foreign markets, will continue to lap up their product, as the competition increases.