by account deleted by request » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:31 pm
A grasping stunt that sells out the game’s heritage
The history of football is littered with landmarks. There was the abolition of hacking (1863), the introduction of the penalty (1891), and the change in the offside law (1925). Then there was that fateful February day in 2008 when Richard Scudamore opened his mouth and gave the game away.
For generations, football administrators have held their public in utter contempt, patting their heads while picking their pockets.
But even as they patronised and exploited them, they were always careful to pretend that their concerns carried weight, that their opinions actually mattered. Scudamore has scuppered that convention in the space of a single speech.
With a few minor modifications, the League system has endured for more than a century.
Even the birth of the Premier League in 1992 — that mercenary convulsion by which the rich grew unacceptably richer — did not distort the symmetrical structure of matches played evenly at home and away, with the eventual winners emerging from a level playing field. Then along came Scudamore.
We do not know if the Premier League chief executive was obeying the orders of his masters, or simply anticipating their wishes, when he announced the innovation of 10 extra games in five far-flung cities, with fixtures to be chosen by drawing of lots and destinations by depth of pocket.
But we do know that a respected institution has been egregiously demeaned and that a valued competition has been reduced to the status of a marketing campaign.
In truth, his pitch seems to have been conceived at a Friday afternoon sales conference, with all concerned anxious to get away to their cottages in the Cotswolds.
"This is an idea whose time has come. . . standing still is not an option . . . if we don't do it someone else will."
The cliches came tumbling; each one more obtuse, more bogus than the last. And each begging a host of questions. Why isn't standing still an option? Who else might leap into the breach? How much are they paying him to talk such transparent garbage?
If I dwell upon Scudamore, then it is because he knows the history.
He is not an emigre Texan, enjoying a sabbatical from Major League baseball, nor an emigre oligarch, buying a profile with his post-Soviet proceeds.
And certainly he has done nothing to attract the attention of human rights campaigners.
But he is in hock to all of those. He must serve, for instance, that charismatic leader of men at Bolton, as well as whichever comedian is currently controlling Newcastle.
There is also the Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy, who calls the game 'soccer' and believes that crossing continents for an extra match might help young players to make their mark.
Levy asks us to remember that "We have lots of overseas fans that are unable to come to matches played in the UK, so I think it is something that should be explored."
Truly, I would have expected more from one who made such a stylish fist of sacking his last manager.
And, of course, David Gold, of Birmingham, another keen supporter of the scheme.
He didn't really care where his club might be asked to play their extra match, provided it was "Nice and warm, in the sunshine. Preferably very close to a beach."
He also declared: "We are making history" when he really meant "making money". In fairness, I didn't expect more from Mr Gold.
But it is Scudamore's attempt to spin the rampaging greed of his patrons which is the real disappointment.
His was a huckster's performance.
On travelling to foreign matches, he said: "We have to make sure fans want to go there and they are affordable."
But naturally. We must remind him of that promise when Everton are drawn in, say, Melbourne, or Wigan in Bangkok.
He also came up with the line: "I would entirely refute the idea that this is a commercially driven exercise."
As if it were anything else. But the remark which cut to the heart of the matter was his assertion that: "It is not a threat to the integrity of the competition."
Of course it is. That's the whole point.
That's why so many who love the game are outraged at this crude, brazen, hardfaced attempt to wring still more money from the most prosperous league in the world.
At the moment it is decided on a just and traditional basis. But if the new measures are adopted, we shall have issues of success and relegation partly decided on an artificial basis, in a myriad of foreign cities, and by the luck of the draw.
If that is not a threat to integrity, then the term has no meaning.
Now, I do not wish to exaggerate the significance of all this. We are not choosing a President or fighting a famine, instead we are discussing something which is essentially trivial.
But it has its place in the national pattern because week by week, year by year, it attracts so much interest, so much innocent emotion.
And a basic reason for this interest and emotion is that it represents a kind of comforting stability. It is not a matter of sentimentality, it is entirely pragmatic.
Whatever else may be disintegrating, we still have this competition, attentively followed by millions and accepted by all as a fair and logical way of calibrating the virtues of the nation's finest football clubs. And we are about to tarnish that jewel by pursuing a cheap and grasping stunt, devised to sell replica shirts.
I know one man who would have been appalled by this aberration.
Last summer, the Premier League promoted a pre-season tournament in Hong Kong. The competing clubs included Liverpool, Fulham and Portsmouth.
It was, according to my colleague Joe Bernstein, an agreeable occasion.
One day, in the middle of the tournament, Bernstein saw a familiar figure returning from a round of golf. They chatted in the afternoon heat.
Bernstein asked him if he could imagine an authentic Premier League match ever being played abroad. The golfer dismissed the notion.
"Not while I'm in charge of the Premier League," said Richard Scudamore. But that was when sanity prevailed. Before he listened to his masters' voices. And long before he gave the game away.
you brought it up mate! I can't see were Platini or I said it was illegal CAN YOU ?
