Subscribe
More
    Home Blog Page 61

    Ramadan and Football

    By
    Ali Afzal-Khan , Dr. Erkut Sogut
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world with more than two billion followers across the globe. It is no wonder that Muslims are involved every aspect of the most popular sport in the world, whether it is playing on the pitch or working behind the scenes.

    The list of elite level Muslim footballers is extensive, it includes Mesut Özil, Karim Benzema, Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mané, N’Golo Kanté, Paul Pogba, Riyad Mahrez and İlkay Gündoğan to name a few. Therefore, with the month of Ramadan upon us, it is only right to explore the religious obligations that are placed on Muslim footballers and what the industry is doing to accommodate them.

    What is Ramadan?

    Ramadan is the holiest month of the year for Muslims, as it is the month that Allah first revealed the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). During this month, healthy Muslim adults practice self-discipline by fasting (abstaining from eating or drinking) from sunrise to sunset every day. Muslims believe that all good deeds are multiplied during the holy month and spend more time praying, reflecting, and reading the Quran, as well as giving to charity to become closer to Allah.

    Physical benefits of fasting during Ramadan

    On top of the spiritual and psychological benefits of fasting during Ramadan, there are also numerous physical benefits, which include:

    • Lower heart rate and blood pressure
    • Healing of the lining of the digestive system
    • Reduced stress on the immune system
    • It provokes substantial remodelling of the gut microbiome
    • The cleansing and remove of toxins
    • It promotes the healing of damaged cells
    • Increased energy, better concentration and improved memory (towards the latter stages of Ramadan)

    Can footballers fast while playing?

    Numerous elite level players have fasted while playing. It has been revealed that Karim Benzema had been fasting before scoring his hat-trick for Real Madrid against Chelsea in the Champions League quarter-final last week.

    Another example is Paul Pogba, who was fasting when Manchester United beat Roma 6-2 in last year’s UEFA Europa League semi-final. Pogba scored a header in the 75th minute.

    Finally, during Liverpool’s 2019 UEFA Champions League final against Tottenham Hotspur, both Mohamed Salah and Sadio Mané are reported to have been fasting. Salah scored in the opening 2 minutes and was later seen opening his fast with water at the 38th minute of the match. Liverpool went on to win the game 2-0.

    Although playing football at the highest level requires phenomenal fitness, stamina and conditioning, these are a few examples of elite player’s performances not dropping while undertaking the fast.

    What is football doing to support players that are fasting?

    Over recent years football has adapted to accommodate and even support those that are following their religious obligation to fast.

    In the build up to the 2019 UEFA Champions League final, Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp fully supported Salah and Mané fasting, “There is no problem with the fast of my players, I respect their religion, they were always wonderful and they offered the best whether they were fasting or not … In this life, there are many things more important than football.”

    Last season in the Premiere League there was an informal agreement between captains to allow a brief break at a goal kick or throw-ins to allow any Muslim players that were fasting to open their fast. Furthermore, during last season’s meeting between Leicester City and Crystal Palace, a pause had been organised by both teams and officials at Iftar time to allow Foxes defender Wesley Fofana and Eagles midfielder Cheikhou Kouyate to open their fasts. Crystal Palace’s Head of Sports Medicine, Doctor Zafar Iqbal was integral in planning this break.

    Endorsed and funded by the Premier League and EFL, the Muslim Chaplains in Sport (MCS) work with all 92 professional football clubs to deliver educational lectures and seminars to raise awareness regarding Islam and practices of Muslim athletes. Formed in 2014, this demonstrates the importance the Premier League and EFL place on learning to support Muslim players.

    The work done by Nujum Sports has also raised awareness of Muslims in sports by creating the Muslim Athlete Charter which seeks to “challenge organisations to create positive change” to support Muslim athletes. As is customary, Nujum Sports sent out 270 Ramadan gift packs this year, 180 of which were sent to footballers from the Premier League down to non-league. High-profile recipients include, Rayan Ait-Nouri, Asmir Begovic and Adama Traoré, while Derby manager Wayne Rooney handed them out to the club’s academy players.

    Watford Manager, Roy Hodgson, hailed the work done by Nujum Sports, “We’ll keep supporting our players in the best way we can, and it was good to see our players issued with gift packs from Nujum Sports recently. I was pleased to hear that there’s a lot of support from the club for Muslim organisations.”

    Conclusion

    With the rise of elite Muslim footballers fasting during Ramadan and the number of Muslims involved in the industry, more people are becoming aware of Ramadan and what it entails. We are now seeing non-Muslim players, managers and officials working together to support their Muslim colleagues practicing an integral part of their faith. As with all aspects of society, an awareness and respectful approach will help us ensure that we widen the pool of talent in the industry and do not exclude anyone due to their beliefs. It is hoped that the work that is being done will encourage future generations to join the sport.

    The Impact of Brexit on Football and its Players, Coaches and Clubs

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Most will be aware of the 2016 Brexit referendum that took place in the United Kingdom (UK). The consequence of the voting results was that the UK decided to leave the European Union (EU). This has a widespread impact on trading with EU countries for the UK and has caused the Pound Sterling to weaken against the Euro on the foreign currency exchange.

    Despite the widely discussed ramifications of Brexit, some might not be aware of what the vote means for the footballing world. This blog will assess the impact of Brexit on football. I will explore the expansive influence on UK, European and global football that Brexit has. This varies from the impact on transfers, the restrictions on the free movement of footballers, the introduction of Governing Body Endorsements, a potential influx of South American or African players and the increased prioritisation of homegrown talent in the UK.

    Prior to the Brexit vote, the Premier League and UK football benefitted from the wide talent pool available for employment in the European Union. As a part of the EU, there was free movement for all members and transfers of footballers in and out of the UK was simple, with minimal burden. The immigration act of 2021 ended the automatic free-movement right of EU nationals to live and work in the UK. For football this meant that the governing body, the FA, along with the Premier League and the EFL, introduced a points based immigration system that outlined the criteria required of potential players and managers that may be transferred to the UK. Those that meet the criteria are considered as obtaining a governing body endorsement (GBE). Clubs can register players without a GBE but they will be unable to represent or train with the team until they have received one. The responsibility of acquiring a GBE lies with the signing club.

    Governing Body Endorsement

    The UK Home Office requires a sponsor’s licence, T2 Sportspersons accreditation and a Tier 5 visa. Part of this requirement is to meet the criteria required of the GBE. There are different criteria required for men, women, coaches and youth players with hopes of moving to the EU. By receiving a GBE the player has demonstrated elite professional status and has shown they are worthy of improving and developing football in the UK.

    The GBE is awarded on a points-based system and is granted by the FA if a player reaches 15 points. There is also an ‘autopass rule’ which applies to those that have played a certain percentage of minutes (over the last 12 months) for their national team that is ranked in the top 50 by FIFA. This includes over 70% of any of the top 50 ranked international teams or above 30% of minutes for those nations ranked in the top 10. These players are immediately given a GBE and are able to play for a club in the UK.

    Those that do not meet the autopass rule are required to achieve 15 points through other means. To accumulate these points the FA also takes into consideration the quality of the selling club, the division they compete in, their league position and their continental cup progression. Individual statistics are also accounted for; specifically club appearances and the percentage of minutes played for the selling club. These points are formulated based on a banded or tiered system for clubs and divisions. For example, those competing for a club in the Bundesliga or La Liga will receive more generous points as they are playing at the first banded level of clubs.

    For women and for youth players the principles are similar and based around club appearances and standard as well as international representation. There are some differences however. For women, a total of 24 points is needed and does not take into account the continental competition progression of the selling club. Additionally, clubs are categorised into only two bands in the women’s game whereas there are six bands in the men’s version.

    There are now stricter rules in place preventing youth players moving into the UK. This prevents UK clubs signing young talents at a premature age. For youth players to meet the criteria to receive a GBE they are only rewarded points if they have made their senior debut and enough appearances thereafter to meet the required tally of points.

    Finally, it is also necessary for managers to obtain a licence and a GBE. Their criteria varies slightly in that the FA expresses the need for a pro coaching licence, diploma or equivalent certification from UEFA. They must also be entering a position where they have ultimate, but not sole, responsibility and decision making authority for first team activities. On top of this they must have endured at least a total of 36 months as a manager in the top professional leagues in Europe or for a top 50 FIFA ranked national team. Alternatively, they can also meet this criteria by having had 24 months consecutively at this level prior to the application.

    The Impact

    First and foremost, the largest impact of Brexit is on transfers of European players into the UK and a limitation on the ‘burdenless’ talent pool that was previously available to clubs in the UK. However, coinciding with the timing of the COVID-19 pandemic, the full extent of the impact that Brexit will have remains to be seen. It is less likely to significantly affect the top clubs in the UK as their transfer targets will ordinarily meet the autopass rule. Having said this, it would prevent these clubs from scouting players with top potential. Transfers like Leicester’s signing of Riyad Mahrez before he had announced himself as a top talent, for example, will no longer be possible. In order for a transfer like this to go ahead, the clubs may have to arrange for the player to be loaned to somewhere where they will be able to obtain the 15 points required to receive the GBE.

    For clubs to be able to do this, there will be a demand for resources to be deviated towards planning, arranging and organising for players to acquire 15 points as well as their applications and GBE status. This places a substantial administrative burden upon signing players from Europe unless they meet the autopass rule which may negatively impact lesser clubs more than the giants in the UK. Clubs that are also not in a particularly strong financial position may feel the additional effect of the weakening of the pound sterling. Transfer prices are likely to be driven up anyway as selling clubs are more inclined to demand higher transfer fees in the knowledge that their player has become increasingly sought after if they meet the autopass rule or have acquired 15 points for the GBE.

    The impact of Brexit may be epitomised by an influx of players signed from non-European clubs such as in South America or Africa. The divisions in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico are in the third band of clubs in the points system. This means that a player will already receive 12 points if they have played for the title winning team in a certain season. Hence, they would only have had to have played 40% of minutes in order to reach the requirement of 15 points. This may be a more feasible option for clubs in search of potential signings that meet the GBE criteria.

    Brexit is not all bad news for football in the UK. The main positive of Brexit is that there is likely to be a considerable rise in focus and prioritisation of academy football. Homegrown talent will become an increasingly important element of clubs in the UK. This will be of huge benefit to the youth football system as with less competition from foreign signings, homegrown talent is more likely to feature in top teams and be given opportunities and experience from younger ages. More players of the likes of Smith-Rowe, Saka, and Phil Foden would be expected to emerge as a result of increased investment in and development of academy football. Furthermore, Brexit makes it more difficult for future superstars such as Jude Bellingham and Jadon Sancho to be lost to European football leagues at a young age. FIFA’s protection of minors rule that made the exception for the transfer of 16-18 year olds within the European Union will no longer apply to the UK, further preventing clubs from purchasing foreign youth talent or selling their own.

    Summary

    Brexit has a significant impact on football in the UK. Although the full extent has not yet been felt due to the pandemic, the largest impacts expected are summarised below:

    1. The removal of free movement for footballers and coaches and the introduction of GBE and Visa requirements.
    2. The increase in transfer fees for European players.
    3. A disparity in advantage for top clubs compared to lesser clubs.
    4. An increased investment in a priority of academy systems in the UK to produce homegrown talent as a replacement. I explained how the system of GBE’s and Visas work for men, women and academy footballers as well as managers. I also considered other possible changes that will occur as a result of Brexit such as an influx of non-European signings.

    The Complexities and Legal Implications of Third Party Ownership (TPO)

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    In this blog I will be assessing the complex nature of third party ownership, investment and influence in modern football. Whilst it has been banned since 2015, there is still a continuing problem that is difficult to find a solution to. Firstly, I will look at what third party ownership entails and the reasons behind it before outlining the legislation that now tries to govern it. However, I will then demonstrate previous examples of issues that have arisen despite these regulations and the continued problem for football, including those released on the football leaks website in 2015. It is important to understand that there are flaws in the laws for third party ownership in football but I will aim to suggest several ideas that may help to resolve the difficult issue.

    What is the Third Party Ownership of Players?

    The third party ownership (TPO) of players is an agreement involving private investors purchasing a percentage of a player’s economic rights. This can include an individual, a company or a fund that buys out these rights as an ‘investment’. This is done with the intention of economically benefiting once the player is moved on and transferred. This usually occurs when the player is transferred to Europe for a significant sum.

    This was a popular, widespread policy used in South America, particularly in Argentinian and Brazilian clubs as they relied upon third party investors to be able to afford salaries and transfer fees that would otherwise be unaffordable. TPO provides a significant proportion of income for these clubs and allows them to compete with other clubs globally that are in a financially stronger position. By third party investors financially bolstering the clubs in question, they are alleviated of part of the monetary burdern of some of their players and their salaries.

    The Legal Side

    In 2001, third party influence (TPI) was banned by FIFA. This simply meant that any TPO investors of players were not allowed to have an involvement in the decision making surrounding the player. For example, they were unable to influence the selection of the player in the starting XI, the transfer of the player to another particular club and any other club policies.

    There were questions over TPO undermining the integrity of the game and a worry that money that belonged to clubs was being taken out of the game by external investors. Former UEFA president Michel Platini and FIFA president Gianno Infantino had also both described it as a form of slavery, referencing the sense of ‘ownership’ and ‘objectification’ that players endured under TPO agreements. These factors led to FIFA forming an investigative group in 2007 to monitor the global state of affairs of TPO in global football. It wasn’t until 2015 that TPO was then banned by FIFA. Prior to this, the English FA had already taken the initiative and made TPO illegal in English football beginning in the 2008/09 season. This was following a significant issue surrounding Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez in their transfer to West Ham a couple of seasons before. I will analyse this example, alongside others in the next section.

    This arguably put Premier League clubs at a significant disadvantage for UEFA competitions as they were unable to share the burden of any transfers or salaries with investors. Other clubs around Europe and the rest of the footballing world were able to reduce their own expenditure whilst TPO remained legal as they were financially supported by investors rather than carrying the burden themselves. Rather than having the desired effect of protecting the integrity and fairness of the game, this had the adverse impact of rendering a handicap upon the Premier League and English football. Transfer fees also became inflated as clubs tried to protect their assets and financial fair play books were monitored closely. This was the case for the seven years before FIFA finally brought the global ban on TPO into place after finalising their decision in 2014 following FC Twente’s offenses.

    TPO Offenses

    The first major instance where TPO became an issue was the aforementioned case involving Javier Macherano and Carlos Tevez after their move from Brazil to West Ham United in 2006 despite several major clubs expressing an interest in obtaining their signature. Their economic rights were part-owned by a London fund at the time who gained a healthy remuneration from the transfers. Back in 2006, this was legal under the legislation of both the FA and FIFA as long as there was no influence over the selection and transfer decisions that West Ham made.

    It was discovered that there was a clause included in Tevez’s employment contract that stated that the Third Party Fund could choose to move the player on to any club and accept, reject and negotiate the transfer fee that would be paid in order to benefit themselves. This was adjudged as a blatant breach of the rule banning third parties having an influence over significant club policies. West Ham were also punished for withholding information from the FA. Eventually they were handed a £5.5million fine for the offense. Over the next two years the English FA created and implemented their new legislation banning TPO in response to the West Ham United case.

    In 2015 FC Twente became one of the most infamous cases of TPO regulation offenses cited by the football leaks website. Football leaks released details of vast amounts of secret commissions in transfers, false billings and backdated contracts by the company, Doyen Sports Investment. The issues with FC Twente’s TPO agreement were dated in 2014. However, it was revealed that Doyen Sports Investment had been profiting, manipulating and exploiting TPO agreements for a much lengthier period. They were reported as investing over €100million into TPO of star players. Doyen Sports were the commercial managers for superstars like Neymar, David Beckham and Usain Bolt but they had also financially benefited from TPO agreements with players and transfers such as Radamel Falcao from Athletico Madrid to Monaco, Adnan Januzaj, David de Gea, Xavi and were remunerated over €10million for the transfer of Eliaquim Mangala from FC Porto to Manchester City in 2014.

    In writing, it was stipulated that Doyen Sports Investment had no influence over any club policies where their players were contracted, as per the FIFA regulations. However, the football leaks website revealed a string of private message exchanges and conversations as well as details of transactions and contracts that revealed the substantial influence that Doyen Sports had over several clubs, their policies and their transfers. These included instances of bribery such as holding parties and making payments to persuade clubs to buy or sell their players that were under TPO of the company.

    FC Twente bore the brunt of football’s response to the football leaks documents. As a result of their concealment of vital details and deliberately misleading FIFA and the Dutch football association, their professional license was revoked meaning they were banned from competing in the Dutch Eridivisie (First Division) for three full seasons and were fined €170,000. Other major European clubs were also named in the documents such as Seville, Real Madrid, Manchester City and Porto.

    The Loopholes and Ways Around the Ban

    Despite the ban in 2015, many TPO agreements still exist, many of which were in place before the ban and they have continued through it. However, the difference is that investors, agents and clubs have found alternative methods of working around the FIFA regulations regarding TPO that prevents them either being caught or avoids them technically breaching the rules. The problem is that there are several loopholes in the regulations and TPO investors have found ‘solutions’ to allow them to continue to benefit. They are summarised as follows:

    1. TPO investors purchase shares in the club rather than a player directly. The ban on TPO doesn’t extend as far as clubs for the obvious reason that clubs rely on investment and financial support. Previous TPO investors of players have exchanged their rights to the player with the club and the contract will stipulate a certain remuneration, with interest, from the income the club receives from the player’s transfer. The issue with this is that the integrity of the game continues to be threatened due to the influence of TPO’s over the club and removing money from the game, especially when the same shareholder has players in two or more directly competing clubs.

    1. A slightly different strategy for this is to give a ‘loan’ to the club. The sum of the loan is due to be repaid to the full with the addition of an interest payment based upon the value of the transfer fee of the player once they are moved on. This is difficult for FIFA to regulate as it is not a feasible option for them to ban clubs from receiving loans from external supporters.
    2. Agents are sometimes accused of being responsible for finding other ways to avoid breaching the laws against TPO of their clients. They negotiate an increased level of remuneration and commission within their contract, related to their transfer fee which is then distributed proportionately to TPO investors. This again poses problems for those trying to regulate TPO as it is particularly difficult to prevent agents negotiating their commission from transfers of their own clients.

    Are There Any Solutions?

    Despite the ban on TPO of players being in place for over half a decade, there clearly remains an issue to be resolved as TPO, in one form or another, continues to threaten the integrity and fairness of the beautiful game. The key to the solution is an increase in the transparency of all global transfers and transactions that take place. In accordance with this, FIFA have developed and established a centralised ‘Clearing House’. To ensure the success and effectiveness of this clearing house requires all transactions within football to be passed through and documented by this system. This emphasises the necessity of transparency in mitigating the negative impact of third party ownership.

    The presence of a clearing house to receive the exact details, financial and otherwise, of transactions between clubs, agents and players will allow for a greater ability of FIFA to monitor where money is being lost from football clubs and the game itself. This will hopefully mean that any continuing TPO agreements and infringements will be picked up on and eradicated. The additional impact of this is that it will prevent future TPO agreements from taking place, consequently deterring investors from pushing the boundaries and searching for loopholes in the regulations. A centralised clearing house positively impacts the footballing world and should go some way in solving a significant problem that FIFA faces in Third Party Ownership.

    The benefits of a centralised FIFA clearing house could be extended even further. Currently this clearing house accounts for all international transfers. The next step in combatting the wrongful loss of money out of the game could be to introduce equivalent clearing houses on a national level. If each national football association adopted the same system this would further mitigate against TPO. In any walk of life and business there will always be slight loopholes and indefensible aspects of the system. So, whilst TPO may be possible through intricate methods around the regulations, the aim of football governing bodies and methods such as clearing houses is to minimise this. A further increase in transparency will always help to achieve this. Prioritising policies such as using clearing houses and agent regulation reforms, with the view of doing everything through a centralised system, is the best approach to creating a more transparent world of football transfers and transactions.

    The Value of Education for Youth Players and The Responsibilities of Academies

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Of those youth players that enter the academy system from nine years of age, the percentage of those that make it as a professional is around 0.5%. Only 180 out of 1.5million young footballers in English football Academies will sign professional contracts; that’s an even lower statistic of 0.012%. Those that are released from academies at an early age are still given adequate opportunity to refocus upon their academic performance. However, those that continue in an academy past the age of 14 are required to commit a significant amount of time to their football training. This makes it difficult for them to simultaneously work sufficiently to achieve good grades at school.

    This is another troubling statistic as a high percentage of those that even make it to the apprentice stage in a youth academy still fail to make a career in football. This blog will explore the responsibilities of these academies in ensuring that if their youth players do fall short of the standard required for professional football, they are at least academically qualified and in a position to pursue other careers. I will assess the value that these academies place upon education as well as other initiatives used in football leagues to promote careers beyond football for their youth players.

    EFL Youth Development Program

    Education and a career from academic qualifications is a far more attainable goal than making a living as a professional footballer. This is why the EFL Youth Development Program in the UK created the apprenticeship system in 2004 for English academies to work in partnership with League Football Education (LFE). The LFE emphasises the importance of not disregarding academic studies despite success so far in reaching the apprentice stage in a football academy.

    45% of academy apprentices, or scholars as they are also known, will get professional contracts, yet over 95% will complete an apprentice qualification. It is usually in the form of a level 3 BTEC in Sporting Excellence although those that are high performing academically are also able to take an extended diploma which is equivalent to 3 A-Levels. The education also incorporates a UEFA C certificate in coaching to open up another alternative pathway for youth players that may need another career option.

    The aim of the Youth Development program is to suitably equip academy players for a financially and socially sustainable life outside of football. Therefore, on top of extensive academic education, the LFE includes valuable life lessons and development of other vocational skills. This includes improving the youngster’s understanding of taxes, mortgages, smart investments and other necessary knowledge. This stands them in good stead for a smooth transition into the outside world should their football career not materialise as they had hoped.

    Responsibility of the Academies in Supporting the Youth

    I believe it should be the duty of global youth football academies in supporting those players that do not succeed in signing a professional contract after coming through the ranks of their club’s system. It is also their responsibility to emphasise the issues with the problematic perception that these youth players should only focus on football. It is wrong for anyone under the age of 18, without a professional contract to not prioritise academic development and education.

    A major reason for this is the value of education and qualifications on emotional wellbeing. Education allows the youth players to develop holistically and improve their chances for a better future. It is well documented that the mental health of those that are released from football academies are often detrimentally impacted and they experience mental illnesses such as depression. If academies stress the importance of having alternative career options then players will be less prone to experiencing feelings of worthfulness or despair if they do not become a professional footballer. Instead, they will have another path to follow by utilising their academic qualifications.

    The emphasis on prioritising education begins before the LFE Apprenticeship Program comes in once they become scholars. Before this, academies have a responsibility to develop and maintain a three-way relationship with themselves, the youth player and their school. Their should be open dialogue to ensure they are completing their work to a sufficient standard and are not using football as an excuse to fall behind in their academic studies. This will hopefully go some way in ensuring the child fully comprehends the value of balancing their football with succeeding at school. At GCSE level it may be unfeasible to take as many exams as their peers but academies should not stand in the way of youth players completing all of the GCSE qualifications they wish to and are able to.

    Conclusion

    The importance of education for youth academy players across the world cannot be stressed enough. Those involved in academy set ups should be fully aware of the incredibly small statistics of those that go on to enjoy a long and financially prosperous career. An alternative pathway is vital just incase. An injury is always a risk but even injury-free, nothing is guaranteed in football. It is a safe and sensible decision to focus upon academic studies alongside youth football. This way, if the player fails to make it, they are able to meet the requirements for a different pathway. This is reflected in the fact that LFE have produced apprentices that went on to be anything from plumbers to office work to coaching.

    Football Stands Together

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Over the last week, Russia has initiated a military operation in neighbouring Ukraine. Governments around the world have made major decisions and been outspoken towards the events. Murmurs of World War 3 or at least the involvement of other European countries have been increasingly more worrying and countries have already offered military, financial and social support to Ukraine and its population.

    So where does football come into this? In this blog, I will be assessing the status that football has and its ability to affect political situations. I will begin by describing the action that football has taken so far and then analyse how, why and when football can influence such global and political events and the issues this raises. I will also specifically look at the predicament that Chelsea have found themselves in alongside their owner, Roman Abramovich as a result of the war.

    Football’s Reaction

    Four years ago, the 2018 football world cup in Russia went ahead, despite calls for it to be boycotted or moved after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. With Russia now invading Ukraine during a world cup year, football immediately discussed the presence of the Russian national team and Russian clubs in global and European competitions.

    Firstly, the 2022 UEFA Champions League Final was set to take place on the 28th May at the Saint Petersburg Stadium in Krestovsky Island, Russia. One of the first measures that football took against Putin’s military operation in Ukraine was removing the privilege of hosting the UCL final. UEFA very quickly made the decision to move the final to the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, Paris.

    Another important issue to address was Russia’s upcoming World Cup qualifiers against Poland and then either Sweden or Czech Republic. Originally, FIFA publicly announced that, following discussions with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), they had decided to impose sanctions on the Russian national team. This included changing their name to the Football Union of Russia, playing in neutral venues with no fans in attendance and without the display of their flag or singing of their anthem. However, this fell short of expelling them from competing in the world cup qualifiers. Instead, it seemed similar to the IOC’s approach to Russia in the Olympics competing under the Russian Olympic Committee.

    These measures were put in place by the IOC to take a stance against the systematic doping problem in Russian athletes. Many agreed that the military operation called for more severe sanctions and punishments. As the military actions continued, FIFA recognised the need to take a more drastic approach to show that football condemned Russia’s actions. They changed the sanctions to ban Russia from all forms of international competition until further notice. This will include the men’s world cup qualifiers and the tournament itself and the women’s European championship. This has been received in a far more supportive way, including by government officials, than the original decision to simply change the name of the Russian national team. However, Russia has also announced that it will appeal the ban imposed upon them and this will go through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

    Poland, Czech Republic and Sweden reinforced the opinions of many as they mutually agreed to refuse to play against Russia, no matter what name they competed under, if FIFA were to let them. This pattern continued as Scotland, Switzerland, Northern Ireland and England agreed to adopt the same policy. Scotland were scheduled to play Russia more than once this year but were also set to refuse to play the fixtures unless the situation was resolved sufficiently before there were any sanctions from FIFA. FIFA’s ban now means that this will no longer be necessary. FIFA have also considered Ukraine’s World Cup qualifying fixture against Scotland to be delayed. Robert Lewandowski, the Polish striker and Bayern Munich star, set a precedent for footballers with a large following and influence around the world by outwardly speaking against Russia competing as a national team. This has also been echoed in leagues across the footballing world with displays of unity and solidarity being seen at the beginning of games or in goal celebrations by players, especially those of Eastern European heritage, and reinforced by fans in an unified stance against Putin’s use of force on Ukraine.

    At the time, Spartak Moscow were the only Russian team left in a European competition, the Europa League. However, UEFA issued a joint statement with FIFA and extended the sanctions on Russia to include a ban on all Russian clubs participating in competitions. Spartak Moscow will now be expelled from the Europa League. Formula 1 had already taken such a decision by cancelling the Russian Grand Prix for the 2022 season despite it not being set to take place until September. They have also removed Russian driver, Nikita Mazepin, from the Haas team.

    Whilst there are more important and critical situations unfolding in the country, inevitably, the military action has had a significant impact on football in Ukraine itself. The Ukrainian top division, the Premier Liga, has been postponed for a minimum of 30 days in light of Russia’s actions. The league includes major European clubs such as Dynamo Kyiv and Shakhtar Donetsk. Dynamo Kyiv have decided to continue to train in an act of defiance against the Russian forces. Other clubs have dealt with this in different ways such as creating a volunteer group where players and fans have stayed to fight on the frontline as part of the Ukrainian army. This includes the former Arsenal player and now coach, Oleh Luzhnyi.

    Chelsea and Roman Abromovich

    Russia’s influence on football reaches further than just its national teams and clubs competing in European cups, The Russian billionaire and long-term owner of Chelsea, Roman Abramovic, has been targeted as a prime individual with influence over both football and Russia. An MP in the House of Commons called for him to sell the club. Rather than sell the club, which he originally stated he had no intention to do, Abramovic instead made his first announcement that he was handing over ‘stewardship and control’ of Chelsea to the charitable foundation of the club. However, this seemed more of a symbolic rather than a meaningful notion as the chairman of the charity is also the chairman of the club already so very little changes in reality.

    Over the next few days, his decision changed and he publicly announced that he was now open to offers for Chelsea football club in the region of around a £4million asking price whilst also setting up a charitable fund for victims in Ukraine. This was more of a significant gesture in trying to detach Russian involvement from English football. It was part of Abramovic’s wider ploy to sell off his UK assets including his London mansion in fear that his assets may be frozen under a government-imposed sanction as a result of his relationship with Putin. His fears quickly became a reality as the sale of his beloved club was halted after the UK government sanctioned Abromovich and froze all of his assets.

    This has had a major impact on Chelsea FC already: their main shirt sponsor 3 have suspended their £40million-per-year partnership, no new contracts can be signed, no transfers can be made, no merchandise can be sold, their company credit cards were frozen by Barclays, no tickets can be purchased by spectators that are not season ticket holders and they have even been given travel restrictions that may result in their removal from the UEFA Champions League. Significantly, it has also stalled the sale of the club as Abramovic can now only continue with the sale under a special license granted by the UK government and under the condition that Abromovic will not personally benefit from the sale. It is hoped that the sale will be completed in 4-6 weeks. There also remains hope as major sponsors Nike and Trivago have agreed to continue their support and sponsorship of the team. With all the negative news surrounding Abramovic, a spokesperson for the businessman has claimed that Abramovic is also working on brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and using his position of power to seek an end to the violence in Ukraine.

    It is not only Chelsea that has been impacted by the war. Russian businesses and banks have positions as major sponsors in many football clubs globally. Most significantly since the military action began, Manchester United have removed the Russian state airline, Areoflot, as an official airline sponsor and other clubs have followed suit as the situation continues and worsens. Everton repeated United’s example by suspending all commercial sponsorship obligations with three Russian companies, USM Holdings, MegaFon and Yota in deals worth over £20million a season. Moreover, the world-leading sports brand, Adidas, have suspended their sponsorship deal with the Russian national team. However, China, a global powerhouse and political ally of Russia, has also made decisions in response to football’s reaction. They have cancelled their TV and Broadcasting deal with the Premier League and European football after the sanctions were put on Russian football. Meanwhile, the Premier League has taken directly opposing action by withdrawing the broadcasting of the Premier League in Russia.

    What Makes Football Get Involved?

    Political events create a substantial predicament for football. There are many contributing factors and considerations that need to be made when football’s governing bodies assess how football should react to such events. There have been several wars and political situations where football has not responded significantly, such as the Iraq war. If football is going to take on a responsibility as influencing and impacting political events, there must be a foolproof system in order to find the right balance of involvement. However, this is a very difficult task and often, whatever decision football makes, to get involved or not and to what extent, will be objected to by some.

    One question that could be asked about football and politics is the fairness of impacting individual players that do not carry any responsibility for the political actions they are being sanctioned for. The Russian national football team and its players may disagree with sanctions being imposed upon them as they themselves are not part of the politics and simply want to play football. And what about in the case of Chelsea? Do the fans, players and staff of this historic English club deserve to be victims of the ramifications of the sanctions placed upon their Russian owner? Here, football and its governing bodies have to decide whether the situation necessitates an intervention and imposition of sanctions on the football teams connected to the political issue as these punishments might help achieve a positive political impact despite ‘inconveniencing’ the athletes affected.

    What About When Football Doesn’t Stand Together?

    Football does not always stand together or take a united stance on politics. Back in 2019, Mesut Ozil spoke out in condemnation of China’s treatment of the Uighur muslims. Arsenal immediately distanced themselves from Ozil’s comments stating that they ‘do not involve themselves in politics’. This was an example of a global issue that football did not deem to be significant enough for FIFA to take action.

    Football is selective about which political events it responds to. It seems arbitrary to pick and choose which global politics are significant enough for football to react to. I believe that if football, its clubs and its players are taking a united stance against the military actions of Russia, it therefore has given itself the duty of doing so in all instances of conflict and war. It is great that football is able to have a positive influence on these things but it comes with a responsibility to do so in a fair and complete manner. It cannot simply opt not to involve itself in some events whilst taking significant action against others.

    Conclusion

    Pressure continues to heighten on FIFA and other governing bodies to use the power and widespread influence of football to react to the military actions in Ukraine. As the biggest sport in the world, perhaps football governing bodies are capable of making major decisions that could influence war. However, it is not as simple as placing sporting sanctions on a country. There are many issues, obstacles, factors and considerations to be made before football’s governing bodies take decisive action to impact politics.

    The overlap of football and politics is, however, unavoidable. A sport with such a global audience has an important status. The policies of football’s governing bodies and the actions of players and fans can go as far as helping to prevent or stop the outbreak of war or influence other political events. Clubs and governing bodies should be aware of their power to influence and use their position in the public spotlight for the greater good, especially in crises.

    The Use of Yid: Are Offensive Terms Okay When They’re Chanted in Football?

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    The Origins and Connotations of the Word

    First and foremost, it is important to note that ‘Yid’ is a derogatory and offensive slang description of a Jewish person. It carries an underlying notion of anti-semitism. However, within this blog I will be assessing the different contexts that it is used in and specifically the impact it has had on football. I will focus on the widespread use of the word that has been heard in chants and in common usage by fans of Tottenham Hotspur and how this could be tackled.

    The term ‘Yid’ is derived from the variation of Jewish dialect known as ‘Yiddish’. It was a language that was commonly used before the tragedy of the holocaust and had notable similarities to the German language. The term then began to be used as a disparaging term with racist, anti-semitic connotations. In the 1970’s the Jewish community decided to attempt to overcome the word being used as a slur against their religion. In a manner that echoed the adoption of the N-word amongst the black community as a powerful identity of their community, the Jewish population also decided to recontextualise and reevaluate the use of ‘Yid’.

    Yid became a form of a defence mechanism, deflecting anti-semitism and regaining ‘ownership’ over the word. Jewish believers began to use the word as an endearing term for one another. This form of self-designation of their own people as Yids was a way of trying to remove the offensive connotations of the word. However much like the N-word for black people, it remains a racist and derogatory slur if it is used by anyone outside of the Jewish community.

    Tottenham Hotspur: The ‘Yid Army’

    Spurs have a large Jewish fan base. The assumption is made as the Jewish population of North London is high and the three chairmen of the club since 1982 have all been Jewish businessmen. The fanbase and the club are vulnerable to those with ignorant, anti-semitic agendas and have been subjected to abuse from rivals. Fans of opposing teams have occasionally been heard to use chants and songs that are fundamentally anti-semitic, it has even gone as far as Nazi salutes and deeply disturbing references to the holocaust. This is quite clearly abominable and has no place in football.

    It is the Spurs’ fans own use of ‘Yid’ that is also deeply controversial. In reality, the proportion of Jewish fans is not as high as is widely assumed. Despite this, fans within the stadium are often heard bellowing ‘Yid Army’ in ‘support’ of their own team. The Yid Army was a phrase created by the Spurs fans but has also been used by opposition fans against them. The Oxford English dictionary even added a second definition of ‘Yid’ in the 2020 edition. As well as defining it as an offensive term for a Jewish person they also added that it could be defined as a ‘player or supporter of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’.

    This was reacted to badly by many in the footballing world and in Tottenham Hotspur. What this seems to imply is that in the context of football and football fandom, ‘Yid’ can be seen as an acceptable term. It has become so normalised within this context to the extent that 50,000 fans can sing the word at the top of their voices on a Saturday in ‘support’ of their team. What if this was the same with the N-word to refer to a black team or chants of ‘P*** army’ to refer to a team of sub-continent ethnicity? This wouldn’t be seen as acceptable. Therefore, the fact that the use of ‘yid’ has become normalised by Spurs is troubling and people may have lost sight of it’s inherently racist connotations that are equivalent to those of the N or P-word.

    There is no justified distinction between using yid in the context of football and outside the context of football. It is unacceptable to shout ‘Yid’ at a stranger in the street and it is equally offensive to chant it at a football game. It is also irrelevant whether you are using the term to support your own team or not. It cannot be used in a positive way. It is a derogatory term.

    Some may argue that if it is used without malice within a Spurs game, by their own fans in support of their team, then this is different and acceptable. In my opinion it is unacceptable regardless of the intention with or context in which it is used. What about the numerous non-Jewish fans that are in attendance in the stadium that join in with the chants? They are not entitled to say the word in any sense. It is equivocal to a white person chanting the N-word. It is not a term that belongs to them and they do not have the right to say it. Furthermore, there will also be Jews in attendance, in support of Spurs or of the opposition that will understand the term for its fundamental disparagement of their religion. No fan of any team deserves to attend a football game and be exposed to, feel intimidated by and abused with racist chanting.

    Tottenham Hotspur recognised the rising issue and conducted a review of the use of the word amongst its fanbase. The survey and focus groups produced damning results. 94% of participants acknowledged the ‘risk of anti-semitism’ associated with using ‘Yid’. However, around 33% admitted to using it at football games whilst only 12% would use it outside of the football context. Presumably, this disparity comes from the difference in proportion of the actual Jewish community within the fanbase and those that just join in with the chants despite their non-allegiance to Judaism and having no inherent right to use the term. However, the most potent statistic is that over 50% of respondents agreed that it should be removed from chants.

    Of course, there is a difficulty with clamping down on the use of the word. Tottenham cannot eject 50,000 chanting fans each week for singing it. It is not as simple as a ‘removal from the stadium’ policy. The club, the FA, and the footballing world could instead lead initiatives in trying to mitigate the overt use of the offensive term.

    Education is absolutely vital. Football fans, especially young fans who have limited awareness of the historical origins of the word, may have a significant level of ignorance about the underlying connotations and anti-semitic implications of the word. A considerable emphasis on highlighting the offensive nature of ‘Yid’ may go some way in diminishing and eventually removing its use in football and a wider context.

    Conclusion

    I begin my conclusion by reemphasising how I began; ‘Yid’ is an unacceptable term. It can be compared to the N-word to describe blacks and the P-word for Asians. The Y-word belongs to the Jewish community. It has no place in a footballing context nor in society as a whole. It has become wrongly normalised and is seen in a different light to the other terms I compared it to. Education and awareness is vital. Ignorance of the connotations and the anti-semitic nature of the term plays a large part in its use in football games.

    The Derby Debacle: Administration in Football, and Can Rooney Help Derby Avoid Liquidation?

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

    Just over two decades into the 21st Century, there has already been a significant number of well-known football clubs in the UK that have been forced into administration. These have included big names such as Wigan, Bolton, Rangers, Southampton, Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Crystal Palace. Most recently, Derby County, the historic, 138-year-old former FA Cup and top-flight champions are on the brink of liquidation after declaring it was entering administration in 2021.

    In this blog I will analyse what administration means for football clubs. I will examine the pros and cons of being in administration and the system that the FA currently uses to govern the processes. This topic is particularly relevant as football clubs begin to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic in a less financially stable situation than before the virus.

    What is Administration?

    When a club is unable to pay off the debts they owe to creditors, they may be forced to declare their financial crisis and call administrators into the club under the insolvency act. These administrators are given complete control over the club apart from on the football pitch. They are given the license and support to restructure the club to an extent that makes it a more financially sustainable company. Restructuring will often involve offloading unaffordable assets such as the highest-paid players who will be sold onwards, finding more efficient financial strategies and may even include finding new ownership for the club. The main aim of these administrators is to help the club recover from their financial crisis. With administrators taking control of the club over shareholders, the club is protected from further action that creditors may take against them.

    Contrary to HRMC’s belief that all creditors should be treated as equals, there is a special ‘Football Creditors Rule’ that is adhered to by football clubs. This rule requires clubs to prioritise certain creditors to which they own a portion of the debt they have found themselves with. The priority creditors for football clubs are the players’ wages, managers’ salaries, other clubs such as through transfer fees and the association by which they are governed such as the FA in England. This legislation protects small clubs by preventing a domino effect within a league. In other words, if the club was not demanded to prioritise paying what they owe to other clubs, these clubs would then

    suffer financial losses and may themselves be forced into administration. After the priority creditors are remunerated adequately, clubs are then allowed to compensate external creditors if they are able to.

    It is important to note that a club, as with any traded company, can only enter administration if it is seen as still financially viable. This means that there must be a reasonable chance that the club has the potential to return to being a profitable business. The end result of entering administration is hopefully to come out stronger than ever before as a financial entity, through whatever means possible. It gives clubs the best chance of an effective recovery and aims for desirable outcomes. The best examples of these are Southampton in 2009 and Huddersfield in 2003, who emerged out of administration with a properly run and sustainably financed football club and have both enjoyed success at the top level of English football since their restructuring.

    Football clubs can struggle financially for many reasons. In the past couple of seasons, clubs, especially in the lower divisions, have had to battle hard to balance the books during the Coronavirus pandemic. Financial pressures have been a result of a loss of gate income with fans unable to attend matches as well as TV Broadcasting income being lost when the season was halted completely. This has driven some clubs to the brink of administration and financial turmoil, with some clubs, like Derby County, suffering this fate.

    In more usual times, there are still financial issues that cause a club to require the assistance of administrators. Irresponsible spending by the club owner, excessive wage bills, relegations and other factors have played a role in the administration of some former high-flying clubs in the UK as they suffer a decline. In 2018, only 1% of clubs reported financial struggles whereas in 2019, before the pandemic existed, this statistic rose to 8%, reflecting the increasingly financially vulnerable nature of the football league.

    Once clubs have entered administration there are three main exits that can occur. Firstly, a new owner may express interest and a deal will be negotiated that involves the prospective owner agreeing to pay off the debt that the club has and adopt the new restructured club for the future. A large influx of money from a new owner is an effective way of exiting administration as long as there are sufficient strategies that have been installed to ensure the club operates in a financially sustainable manner. The second option is to come to a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA). Whilst this also includes a significant level of financial restructuring and the offloading of assets, it is a way in which a club can be able to recover. For this to occur, the administrators will negotiate with creditors to agree upon an instalment plan that will mean they are remunerated what they are owed over a period of time in several instalments as the club is able to pay it.

    The final exit from administration is one that is seen as an absolute last resort for any companies, let alone for football clubs. Liquidation, also known as dissolution,

    requires the complete redistribution of all assets of a football club. Put simply, the football club will cease to exist. Chester and Scarborough have both suffered liquidation recently although both clubs have since re-established themselves under different names, different ownership and financial management. It is the hope of all clubs entering administration that this will never be the case and they will do everything to avoid it but it is always a worrying possibility.

    Punishments

    Before 2003, there was no further punishment for football clubs for entering administration. It was used as a tactical strategy of eradicating debt and restructuring the club in an attempt to be more financially effective. The English FA recognised that clubs should be deterred from entering administration simply to avoid debts as it was an unethical practice. Consequently, the FA decided to enforce points sanctions and other legislation for clubs entering administration.

    For clubs in the leagues below the English Premier League, a 12-point deduction is applied when they enter administration. It is only nine points in the Premier League as there are less teams and fixtures. This was brought into place to preserve the integrity of competition and avoid misuse of administration. However, after this was brought into place in 2003, there was still a loophole in the FA’s deterrent for clubs not to enter administration. Leeds United exploited this in 2007 by declaring they were entering administration at the end of the 2006-2007 season. They were already relegated from the Championship at this point but it meant that they suffered the points deduction in that season rather than having to start in the third tier on -12 points for the 2007-2008 bid to immediately bounce back. This undermined the FA’s commitment to preserving integrity of competition in the English football leagues.

    The FA was then forced to bring in a new rule that if a club enters administration after the last Thursday of March, the points deduction will be delayed until the following year. This has prevented clubs from being able to escape further punishment of entering administration by declaring it once the points deduction does not affect their season. They also stipulated that clubs cannot be in administration for more than 18 months and across two seasons otherwise they will be disbanded from the football league unless an immediate resolution is found. Further to this, any prospective owners or directors of a football club is not eligible for these positions under the FA’s rules prohibiting their involvement if they have been involved in two former clubs that have entered administration or if the club they are interested in has been in administration twice in the previous five years.

    Derby County

    Derby County officially entered administration in September of 2021. This followed over a year of financial hardship perpetuated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mel Morris, a Derby fan himself and now former owner of the East Midlands club, spoke of how the pandemic cost the club a loss of £20million alone but estimates that in total, owning the club has taken approximately £200m of his fortune.

    Derby County has been seeking a new owner and has reportedly been negotiating with three prospective buyers including ex-Newcastle and Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley. However, it is proving very difficult to complete this sale due to the complexity surrounding the debt reportedly owed to creditors by the club. The main problem is the potential for a lawsuit for a compensation claim from Wycombe that may end up in court. Wycombe are disputing their relegation as, had Derby suffered their points deduction last season, it would be them competing in League One rather than Wycombe. If Derby are to survive administration without being liquidated, they must seek a reasonable compromise deal with Wycombe which will appease prospective owners and provide a more hopeful future for the club.

    Middlesbrough were also reportedly pursuing £40m in compensation for Derby’s failure to adhere to financial fair play rules in the 2018-2019 season where they beat ‘Boro by a single point to take the final Championship play-off spot. However, they have now struck the kind of deal that will help save the club. Although the details have not been revealed, it has been publicly announced by both parties that a resolution has been found. This is a positive step for Derby in their bid to remain a club in the EFL although Wycombe still pose the threat of driving the club into liquidation.

    Currently, Derby County are under strict instructions by the EFL that they are to provide proof that they will be able to fund the rest of their season and fulfil their fixture commitments or they risk being eradicated from the league. Although they were already granted an extension, they have now been given a further month until the 1st March 2022 to provide this proof.

    Derby is a historic club in English football. They have existed for well over a century and have collected numerous trophies and footballing accolades. It will be a drastic shame and loss for English football if this club was unable to find a successful exit strategy out of Administration. Fortunately, they are in the enviable position of having the English football legend, Wayne Rooney, at the helm trying to guide them to safety and fill the fans with an unusual sense of hope despite the current situation for the club. Perhaps the influence that Rooney has on English football will help the club recover, attract new investors and avoid liquidation.

    The Varying Impact of VAR

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    The Concept

    The concept of a Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was first explored by a committee of referees back in 2010. Its primary motive was to eradicate the existence of clear and obvious errors and mistakes made by referees. The timing was appropriate after the infamous Thierry Henry handball against the Republic of Ireland in the previous calendar year. It was an exciting prospect and as the idea grew it was seen in many major competitions around the footballing world before being officially implemented into modern football globally.

    After trials in the Dutch Eredivisie, US Major League Soccer, International friendlies and the Australian A-League, it was finally added to the laws of the game in 2018. The Bundesliga and Serie-A adopted VAR for the previous season beginning in 2017 and the UK followed suit as the English FA decided to implement VAR for all Premier League games in the 2018/19 season operating out of Stockley Park in London.

    Nowadays in modern football, a VAR is always named as part of the refereeing team for a fixture and they themselves also have an assistant to share the workload. The philosophy of VAR is “minimum interference and maximum benefit”. In other words, the VAR is supposedly in place to only interfere when necessary to benefit the referee if they have made a clearly incorrect decision in an important event or they might have missed something significant completely. The four scenarios that require the involvement of VAR named by FIFA are for penalties, goals, red cards and mistaken identity.

    On the surface, this instantly seems like a great concept. Football fans would be forgiven for thinking that VAR would be the answer to solving all refereeing errors and football matches would no longer be stricken with controversy over major decisions. However, this is not exactly the case. In this blog I will explore the issues surrounding the implementation of VAR, its impact on football and its referees and how there might be ways in which the system can be improved to reduce the stigma surrounding VAR.

    The Issues

    The volume of criticism that VAR receives has stemmed from the previous misconception when VAR was first brought into the modern game that it would make refereeing perfect and that mistakes and controversy would be a thing of the past. The ‘maximum benefit’ part of VAR’s philosophy is aimed at removing all room for error for

    the in-field referee. Previous disputes over whether a team should have had a penalty, a player was offside when he scored and whether someone should have been sent off were considered as solved by bringing in VAR. However, since the implementation of VAR, arguably there is more confusion than there is clarity that it hoped and football fans hoped it would provide.

    VAR may be seen as more successful in being able to objectively correct errors made by referees that are based on facts such as giving the wrong player a card by mistaking their identity. An offense such as an offside is also arguably objective; either the attacker is in front of or behind the last defender. However, even the VAR’s decisions on the offside rule are often controversial and cause backlash. It is even worse with the lack of consistency and inaccurate interpretations of fouls that lead to penalties and red card offenses such as foul play.

    There has been a significant rise in the number of penalties given in modern football as a result of VAR. The 2018 World Cup broke the record for the most number of penalties in a single tournament (29), beating the previous record of 17 in 1998 comfortably. This is because it is now common for referees to change their decisions regarding the awarding of penalties. The process is that once a referee denies a penalty, the VAR replays the event and will communicate to the referee that there may have been a mistake. The final decision is the on-field referee’s. They will consult the monitor themselves and make a final call as to whether to change their decision or not. This leaves the decision open to subjective interpretation as to whether the event deserves a penalty or not.

    Other than subjectivity, there are many problems with this process. Firstly, the pressure that is inevitably applied on the referee. Once called to check the monitor, the referee has almost been coerced into believing they might be wrong. They know that their decision is being questioned and in an attempt to appear in sync with the VAR, they are considerably more likely to change their decision once they view the monitor.

    Furthermore, the replays seen by the VAR and shown on the on-field referee’s monitor are both real time replays as well as slow motion. Slow motion is always difficult to interpret. Often a real time replay will look less incriminating than a slow motion repeat of the same event. This can influence the referees to change their decision that in real time was probably the correct one originally. This also can take a considerable amount of time which has a negative impact on the speed, intensity and momentum of a match. The average VAR consultation takes at least 80 seconds to come to a final decision. This makes football less appealing to an audience and this becomes even more frustrating if the final decision seems to be the wrong one and unnecessary.

    The same issues are applicable to penalties and to red cards. Ultimately, they are subjective decisions so VAR is unable to completely eradicate refereeing decisions causing controversy and being disagreed upon. No matter which side the referee decides in favour of, there will often be room for other fans to see the situation

    differently and condemn the decision. VAR is currently not succeeding in its role of assisting on-field referees and appeasing football fans. It is widely criticized and its usefulness is questioned. In the next section, I will explore how the VAR system and processes can be improved in a way that will change the impact of VAR to one that is seen as positive by the football world.

    The Positives

    In its basic, fundamental form, I believe that VAR can be very useful for football. The reason why the concept of VAR was first devised needs to be considered in order to understand how it can have a positive impact on football games. A year after the blatantly obvious Thierry Henry handball that led to William Gallas’ goal against the Republic of Ireland, VAR was conceived of as an idea as to how to prevent obvious errors or mistakes made by referees on the field.

    This is how VAR should be used. If the decision is taking a considerable amount of time to reach a conclusion then it is not worth the hassle. Penalties and red cards will always be subjective and will never be agreed upon by everyone, so why bother to take so long deliberating a decision that is not obviously wrong? In these cases, greater credibility would be given to a referee who stays strong in their own convictions and sticks with his original decision that wasn’t an obvious mistake. VAR should only change a decision and impact the game if the decision originally made is a clear and obvious error. Moreover, small mistakes are part of the sport. It is part of the emotional rollercoaster and enjoyment of the sport. If this is taken away by trying to seek perfection then VAR is having a negative impact. To prevent this there should be a high bar that has to be met by a decision for VAR to rightfully intervene and halt proceedings of a match, rather than difficult, unclear decisions.

    VAR is also helpful with objective mistakes. The goal line technology system and helping referees with mistaken identity are examples of how the VAR can be correct and avoid disagreement and upset. Once these objective mistakes are identified, the process to correct them will not take long as a debatable and inconclusive decision review would. This helps the referees in avoiding obvious errors such as a ball crossing the line of the goal or a significant offside and these cannot be disputed. In summary, VAR should only be used in football for CLEAR and OBVIOUS mistakes, just as it originally intended by rectifying glaring errors and objectively wrong decisions.

    Importantly, the referee should not feel the pressure of VAR, nor should they be intimidated by it. Instead, they should see it for what its role is, an assistant to them. A referee should be allowed to make a decision themself to go to the monitor and have a decision checked by VAR to avoid being coerced into changing a decision and potentially making the wrong one. The referee could see an event in real-time and, as humans are not perfect, they might be unable to conclusively make an accurate

    decision on what they had just seen. In this case, the referee would be praised for making the personal decision to consult VAR and watch the replays on the monitor before making a decision. This is preferable over making an original decision and then being pressured and humiliated by changing their decision. It is not as admirable if they are told to reconsider their decision than it is for them to choose to assess it further before making the decision in the first place.

    Another way in which VAR can be improved is by increasing the level of education that they are given regarding the physical elements of the sport of football. There has been heavy criticism towards VAR decisions as demonstrating a lack of understanding of how footballers’ bodies move and make contact during games. VAR can be improved by consulting ex-professional footballers, those that fully understand football and adopt new perspectives on certain events. Football is a contact sport to an extent and this needs to be considered by VAR when making decisions over physical events in a match. By understanding this more clearly, VAR is more likely to intervene in a positive way rather than resulting in questionable decisions.

    Finally, and this suggestion may be more complicated than the others I have made, is to increase the transparency of VAR for football fans, players and teams. If the communication between the on-field referee and the VAR was to be available publicly, either in live time or after the match is complete, fans would be able to gain a better understanding as to the decision making process and the result. This is already the case in the Decision Review System in Cricket and the Television Match Official in rugby for example and has made for better viewing for fans as well as helping them understand decisions. This may be a difficult suggestion to implement as it could have an adverse effect and lead to more controversy and more disagreement from fans. However, there is such a significant volume of debate over how and why VAR and the on-field referee reach some of the conclusions they do that this might be a way of reducing this criticism.

    The Best Footballer in the World: Ballon d’Or Vs FIFA’s Best

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0
    Photo by Ank Kumar (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nomad_gsx/) on Flickr (licensed under CC BY 2.0)

     

    Introduction

    At the end of every footballing year, there are two major individual awards that claim to recognise the World’s best footballer for that year, the Ballon d’Or and The Best FIFA Men’s Player. These awards can produce different and inaccurate winners and have been subject to significant criticism in the footballing world. In this blog, I will consider which award has the most credibility and recognition amongst football fans and how there might be a solution to the problems identified with them.

    The History

    The Ballon d’Or is the longest established award; recognising the best footballer in the world since 1956 when England’s Stanley Matthews was named as the very first winner. The award is translated into English as ‘The Golden Ball’ and was created by the French sports news magazine France Football. However, the award was only for European players up until 1995 when it was made global.

    In 2016, on the 60th Anniversary, the magazine decided to conduct an international reconsideration of the almost 40 years of only-European winners. On completion of this it was decided that Pele would have been awarded the Ballon d’Or seven times, equalling the record currently held by Lionel Messi and closely followed by Cristiano Ronaldo with five wins.

    Up until 2006, the Ballon d’Or was voted for by international journalists alone. Since then, managers and international team captains have also been given a vote. Each voter nominates their top ranked footballers of the year, their ranking is scored as points which are then added together to eventually award the Golden Ball to the player who receives the most voting points. There are almost 150 journalists from different countries that are given the right to vote as well as the managers and players.

    The Best FIFA Men’s player, formerly known as the FIFA World Player of the Year, was established in 1991 as a direct competitor to the Ballon d’Or. However, it also claims to take into consideration on and off field behaviour and conduct, as well as footballing performances. Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane and Ronaldinho are amongst the names with multiple FIFA World Player of the Year titles. As well as naming an individual as the best footballer on the planet for that year, they also choose the FIFA’s Best XI team as part of the ceremony.

    The voting system for FIFA’s award differs from the Ballon d’Or as it includes the opinions of the fans. Whilst the media, national managers and national team captains comprise 25% each of the votes, global football fans have a 25% stake in the voting system. The fans have been given this right to vote since 2016. It is also done on a nomination basis and then uses a points-based ranking system to determine the winner.

    The awards have not always been separate. Between 2010 and 2015, an agreement was made upon a single award, known as the FIFA Ballon d’Or. A partnership between France Football Magazine and FIFA meant that for these years, a single player was announced as the world’s best. Then again, since 2016, the awards were split into two and became competitors once more.

    The Issues

    There has been considerable criticism aimed towards both of these awards. Some football media have even claimed that the Ballon d’Or no longer matters. It seems a shame that, especially in the era of the Ronaldo versus Messi rivalry, there is not a respected and advocated award objectively recognising the greatest footballer of the year. So why is it that the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player awards have been criticised so widely?

    One of the biggest criticisms of these awards is that it seems to be significantly biased towards attacking players, especially in recent years. The closest a defender has come to winning the Ballon d’Or in the last decade was Virgil Van Dijk who actually had more first place rankings than the winner Lionel Messi, but lost out on the award based on the points system. This seems unfair to lean towards attacking players as the world’s best footballers each year and plays a part in the lack of respect that these awards are given.

    This situation is worsened by the strange voting that is released to the public each year. The public are able to see a breakdown of who votes for which players and often there are many confusing rankings. This has led to criticism and accusations of the awards as corrupt and inaccurate.

    The inaccuracy of awarding the ‘world’s best footballer’ can be demonstrated by looking at the 2018 winner of the Ballon d’Or, Luka Modric. 2018 was a damaging year for the reputation of the award as quite obviously, Modric was not the best player in the world that year. It seems that he was given the award based on his role as captain of the Croatia team that reached the world cup final, and his input into the Champions League winning Real Madrid side. The same can be said in 2021 with Jorginho coming third for the award by being part of Chelsea and Italy whilst Mohamed Salah came seventh and Lewandowski failed to win it, despite his 41 goals in 29 league games. These awards are individual awards and should not be based on simply being a part of a successful team. In 2018, Modric scored a measly 2 goals in 43 matches for Madrid.

    In 44 matches, Ronaldo scored 44 goals and Messi had 65 goal involvements in 54 games, yet Modric was the best player of the year according to the Ballon d’Or voters.

    It seems to be self-explanatory why the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player award are not respected as they seem to produce the obviously wrong results. Awards that claim to recognise the best player in the world that is then so widely disagreed upon, will struggle to establish great credibility amongst the footballing world.

    To make matters worse, the 2020 Ballon d’Or was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a considerable outcry from the rest of the footballing world who believed that Robert Lewandowski was an obvious winner of the award. This created further criticism of the award as being unfair and corrupt. Even with the input of national team captains in recent times, there have been issues with fairness and bias. Ronaldo has never once voted for Messi despite voting for himself, whilst Lionel has only voted for his rival twice. This makes these awards very subjective rather than objective. Ronaldo and Messi are voting tactically rather than for who is actually the best player in the world. This is why objective awards are respected more than the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Player. Accolades such as the golden glove and golden boot in the Premier League are more respected by football fans as there is no room for subjectivity and corrupt or tactical voting, it is simply given to the player with the most goals or the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets.

    The Best FIFA Men’s Player epitomises the bias present in the subjective individual awards by their selections for their Best XI. This year, the best XI played a bizarre formation of 3-3-4, which many claimed was simply to ‘make room’ for Cristiano Ronaldo alongside Haaland, Lewandowski and Messi. It was a clear demonstration of the favouritism that these awards show towards attacking players. For either the Best FIFA Player of the Ballon d’Or to be considered as meaningful, credible and respected awards there must be a system devised that makes the winner a more objectively agreeable selection, regardless of their position on the pitch.

    A Potential Solution

    In my opinion, there is no better group of people to accurately decide and vote for the best players in the world than the players themselves. They understand the game and the ability of their opposition or teammates to the greatest extent possible. An award could be created which allows the votes of all professional footballers to decide who is the best footballer on the planet. I believe this award would carry more credibility and produce more accurate results than the current awards.

    There would, of course, be issues with this award. Players would once again be accused of voting tactically or with a bias towards their teammates and friends. However, a system could be implemented that includes the use of data and potentially

    incorporating a method of nullifying the possibility of bias and instead, would produce more objective results.

    Conclusion

    Unfortunately, there may never be an award for the best player in the world that can be given objectively. The media, teammates, fans and coaches will always have subjective, and potentially biased opinions of who deserves the award. Even if data was used to decide the winner, someone then has to decide what data deserves more recognition and will struggle to compare goalkeepers to strikers for example.

    It is important to recognise individual talent and awards like the Golden Glove and Boot are good ways of doing this. Perhaps it is best to keep awards for best players separate on a positional basis rather than an award that could be seen as favouring certain positions over others, such as attackers versus defenders.

    The important aim for these awards is to aim to be as objective and agreeable as possible. The shortcomings of the Ballon d’Or and the Best FIFA Men’s player are currently the lack of respect and credibility that they are given by the footballing world. They risk becoming totally meaningless and irrelevant if they continue to be swamped with criticism and results that are quite obviously wrong.

    Africa United: The Importance of AFCON for Football

    By
    Dr. Erkut Sogut , Jamie Khan
    -
    0

    Introduction

                From January 9th to February 6th, 2022, five cities in Cameroon will host the 2021 African Cup of Nations, which had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been controversy around the competition in the news, firstly with the decision to go ahead with the event, despite the ongoing Omicron variant and a security threat in Cameroon. Further issues have risen following Emmanuel Dennis’ absence from the Nigeria side as he will instead stay and play for Watford as he was ‘threatened’; Senegal also accused the Premier League club of refusing to release Ismaili Sarr for the tournament. Due to the lack of media coverage, promotion of players into ACFON and hype surrounding the competition, Arsenal legend, Ian Wright, labelled the Premier League’s and the clubs’ attitudes towards AFCON as “embedded with racism”. This was reinforced by Crystal Palace manager, Patrick Viera, who tried to emphasise the value of AFCON.

                This is what I will focus on in this blog. Despite the negativity surrounding this year’s tournament, AFCON holds significant sentimental, financial and cultural value for the nations, players, governing bodies and fans that are involved. I will assess the importance of this competition.

    Back in 1957, three nations, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia competed in the inaugural African Cup of Nations (AFCON). Since then, it has been held every two years and is now comprised of 24 African nations competing to be the best footballing country on the continent. Egypt boasts the best record having won the competition seven times.

    Value

                I will present the value of AFCON in two categories, the socially and economically beneficial impacts of the competition. There are problems dispersed across different areas of the continent of Africa; extreme poverty, high infant mortality rates, government corruption, violence and insurgency and poor healthcare affect many areas. AFCON can go some way in helping to tackle these problems through raising awareness and boosting economic investments, even in its current form and has the potential to be even more of a beacon of hope and unity against political, social and economic issues.

                Socially and culturally, AFCON can play an important role in highlighting prevalent issues on the continent. For example, all the way back in its very first year in 1957, the tournament was supposed to involve a fourth team, South Africa. However, in a football and AFCON-led stand against the Apartheid regime in the country and their insistence on only white players being part of the team, South Africa were banned from competing. They would also be served a 10-year ban from the tournament in the eighties and were only allowed to enter once again after the Apartheid era was ended. AFCON has also created global attention and awareness for other problems that damage the continent such as civil wars, other dictatorships and insurgencies. Issues with animal poaching and threats to species are also brought into the spotlight of a world audience to help prevention as well as helping to tackle human poverty in African countries by promoting humanitarian charities throughout the tournament.

                On a problematic, but beautiful continent, AFCON seems like the perfect model to celebrate the brilliance that Africa has to offer whilst helping the rest of the world to become aware of how they might be able to help the areas that need it. For the people of Africa, it is uniting, it brings them together for a month of celebration of the best footballing talent that the continent offers. The average attendance in the 2019 edition of AFCON was 18,136 per match and brought together football fans from across the continent, increasing the income from tourism, hospitality, entertainment and investments into the areas surrounding the venues. Whilst these attendance figures could be significantly higher, it is important to recognize the competition for its social benefits.

                The tournament has considerable economic benefit too, especially in the host country. This is why the rights to host AFCON are so sought after and campaigned for. After Cameroon were unable to host the 2019 competition due to the threat of extremism, Egypt managed to generate an estimated revenue of $83million which was a similar figure to that generated by the host nations, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon in 2015 and 2017 respectively. This allows the countries to invest into their infrastructure before and after the tournament, boosting their economies and improving the quality of life and financial situations of the population.

                In 2016, the petrol company, Total, signed an eight-year primary sponsorship package deal estimated to be worth around $250million for the naming rights of the tournament. The company will support 10 Confederation of African Football (CAF) competitions, including the Women’s and Youth AFCON tournaments. They join the likes of secondary sponsors, Orange Mobile, Yamaha and Visa in supporting and boosting the revenue generated by AFCON. The tournament has also boasted previous sponsors such as Pepsi, Samsung and Adidas. Lucrative sponsorship deals can only be of benefit to African football, the CAF governing body and the nations involved in the tournament. The prize money in 2019 was higher than ever as a result; $4.5million for the winning nation, $2.5m for the runners-up, $2m for the other two semi-finalists and $1m for those who reached the quarters. The minimum sum of money that any of the 24 competing nations received for their participation in the tournament was $600,000. These are vital sources of revenue for the African nations that can be reinvested into the development and improvement of their football team and society.

    Issues

                There are underlying issues that present obstacles for AFCON to overcome in order to be seen as a flawless football competition. As a result of poorly educated and underpaid footballers and staff coupled with corrupt governments or even football governing bodies, AFCON has struggled to avoid controversy. Groups from the global North have been known to offer life-changing sums of money to vulnerable players in return for match-fixing commitments such as the allegations for the Mali vs Benin game in 2008. This also filters into campaigns for hosting the tournament being thwarted with accusations of bribery and foul play. Even when countries are given the rights to host the tournament this doesn’t always guarantee they will be able to follow through with it. Countries like Libya and Cameroon in recent times have been deemed unable to host AFCON safely despite being awarded the tournament due to civil war, political problems and security threats.

                Despite all of this, one of the biggest concerns for AFCON is the respect that it is shown around the world. If we consider how much publicity and hype the Euros are given, it creates the impression that AFCON is not as important or respectable. This is further demonstrated through the reluctancy of certain European clubs in letting their players go mid-season in order to represent their countries in the competition. Some of the best players in Europe currently; Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mane, Edouard Mendy, Riyad Mahrez and Achraf Hakimi compete in AFCON.

    The issues lie in the discouragement of playing in AFCON. It is a massive honour for these players to represent their home nation and their participation boosts the attractiveness of the tournament as a spectacle which would draw the eyes of the footballing world to some of the best players on the planet. On top of this, the greater the audience for AFCON, the greater the exposure for African football and their emerging talent. The dream of most young African footballers is to find a lucrative move to the European leagues which has the added benefit of bringing in revenue for African football from their transfers. However, if the competition is not given the respect and global recognition that it deserves then these rising stars are not given the exposure and opportunities that they deserve, despite what they might be capable of. The problem is exemplified in the volume of players at European clubs that sense the lack of respect and recognition that AFCON is given and so instead opt to represent different countries they are eligible for rather than their African roots. Premier League superstars such as N’Golo Kante and Antonio Rudiger could have played for Sierra Leone and Mali respectively. This is further demonstrated by the Boateng brothers, Jerome and Kevin Prince, one of whom chose to play for their home of Ghana whilst the other found the opportunity of capitalizing on his German eligibility more appealing.

    Solutions

                There are many aspects in which AFCON could be improved. It holds the potential to be an iconic biannual football event that celebrates not only the footballing talent of the African continent but the magnificence of the continent itself. In short, I believe that AFCON needs to be appropriately respected, governed and funded.

                European clubs and the rest of the footballing world need to understand the importance and value of AFCON in providing the opportunity for players to represent their country as well as its role as a display of the football talent the continent has to offer. The tournament deserves greater media exposure and positive publicity in order to demonstrate its worth. Players should be celebrated and congratulated for playing in the tournament rather than held back or seen in a negative light by not committing to their club. Once the tournament is given the respect that it deserves, it will be able to flourish and fulfil the potential that it has as a celebration of African football.

    Football is an integral part of African culture and AFCON is an opportunity to promote and improve it. The governing bodies across CAF have a duty to come together and ensure the tournament is given the support it deserves. If these football organisations are able to properly market the tournament, attract sponsors and spend the investments wisely, the potential of AFCON could be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is a need to create a safe and accessible environment at the events so that fans and sports tourism can thrive and bring further benefits to the host country. With players as world-class as Mohamed Salah playing in the tournament, stadiums should be sold out and bringing fans to support their countries should be a priority of CAF. This can be done by sensibly pricing tickets and travel arrangements to lower the obstacles that are posed to fans.

    There also needs to be a deliberate and sustained effort to protect the integrity of the competition, preventing the influence of corruption in any form, from bribery to match-fixing. It could be seen as a duty for FIFA to intervene here by creating projects and providing sufficient funds for AFCON to support the education and fair treatment of players in African nations to discourage and prevent integrity issues. This will increase the global respect for the tournament and the extent to which it is appreciated across the footballing world. If these issues are resolved and a strategy is put into place that will market and advertise the competition sufficiently, then I have no doubt that AFCON will fulfill its limitless potential as a celebration of the continent that has produced some of the best footballing talent seen in Europe in recent years. It is time to ensure that the African players and their countries are given the respect that they deserve.

    1...60616263Page 61 of 63

    Subscribe To Our Free Magazines

    Explore our exclusive newsletters, designed to keep you informed and engaged with every aspect of the game. Sign up today to stay ahead.

    Site Map

    The Football Week is an innovative sports media company designed to become the premier source of information, education, publishing, event and networking for stakeholders in the football industry.

    © Copyright 2024- All Right Reserved By The Football Week.