Fifa 'family' farce taints football

On Wednesday, Sepp Blatter won a fourth term as Fifa president after an election in which he stood opposed.

It has been an extraordinary week of controversy and in-fighting, with Blatter taking centre-stage. The Swiss has traded accusations with his own vice-president and head of Concacaf, Jack Warner, and the head of Asian football, Mohammed Bin Hammam, both of whom have subsequently found themselves suspended.

Blatter, who himself has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Fifa's ethics committee, has called for unity amongst the Fifa 'family'. Presumably, in this family unit, Warner and Bin Hammam are now the estranged relatives. So too, it seems, are the English and Scottish FAs, who both called for Wednesday's election to be postponed after the only opposing candidate (Bin Hammam) dropped out of the race. The reaction to this show of disobedience has been vitriolic.

Blatter has stated that the English FA should have set an example. The head of the Cypriot FA Costakis Koutsokoumnis has blamed the UK media, referring to the "beautifully English word: 'allegations'." Julio Grondona, Argentinian Football President, claimed that Fifa "always have attacks from England, mostly with lies and the support of journalism."

The Fifa family's anger towards England is a prime example of how detached from reality Football's hierarchy has become. The allegations of corruption are such that action has been taken. Warner and Bin Hammam have been suspended. Blatter himself has promised reform. None of this would have happened if the claims were foundationless paper-talk.

It is rare in itself for the FA's blazer brigade to find themselves in the righteous camp against allegations of organisational corruption and failure, but in this instance all the FA are guilty of is standing up for what is right: how can an election be democratic and fair with only one candidate?

Under the ever-increasing spot-light, Blatter and co have begun to appear rather more like mafiosos than diplomats, right down to their self-awarded title: the Fifa 'family'. Blatter claimed that a special committee had been set up to persuade the FA against opposing the election - perhaps with an offer they couldn't refuse. He has asserted that outside forces will not force Fifa to change - he insists that this power will be kept within the family. 
  


The Godfather



Fifa President Sepp Blatter

 



The roots of Blatter's unchallenged rule burrow deep. To say he has been in charge for thirteen years, as President of Fifa, is to sell his role short. He has actually been in power at Fifa since 1975, with six years as Technical Director and seventeen as General Secretary, immediately before his ascension to the presidency. It could be argued that Blatter has single-handedly overseen the development (for good or bad) of the modern, commercially-driven game.

As for the FA, David Bernstein may not have woken up with a horse's head in his bed, yet, but it is clear that England is now on the outside of World Football's governing body. This does not bode well for England's chances in future World Cup bids. It does not, on the face of things, give us much hope for influencing the future of the world game.

On the other hand, the status and profitability of the Premier League does make England important. If the FA stick to their guns they may be able to force some change. If other major European leagues would unite with England -  the likes of Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and Holland - then Uefa could become a real problem for the Dons of Fifa.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5



What is equality anyway? And is it what we want?

We hear a lot about equality nowadays. Everyone must have it. But what is it?

Dictionary.com defines equality as "1. The state of being equal, 2. Uniformity of character, 3. Statement that two quantities are equal."

In other words: being the same. So yes, if you want men and women to look the same, act the same and blend so seamlessly in to oneness that we each become self-reproducing hermaphrodites then equality would be lovely. If you want however to live in a fully functioning, human world then equality might not be all it's cracked up to be.

Talcott 'Nemesis of the Feminist' Parsons (a nickname I have just coined, I believe) once wrote of the 'instrumental male' and 'expressive female' gender roles. A potted summary of this: men enjoy working, prefer to feel economically useful and are better suited to some jobs; women are more family-centric, relate better to children and often see raising a family as their primary role. Let me say here that feminists (generally) hate Parsons for this sweeping generalist theory. They have a point. Not all women want children. Some men want to be house-husbands. So Talcott is wrong, isn't he?

No. In the same way as examples of a theory being true do not prove it, examples of it being untrue do not disprove it. A hypothesis (according to basic falsification theory) can only be made more or less valid by this process of testing. Karl Popper's example was that all swans are white: his point being that if you sampled nine hundred and ninety-nine white swans (all white) you might say the theory was proven. If the next swan was black, the theory would be proven wrong. But it would still be valid in all but 0.1% of cases.

In my experience men do want to be 'instrumental' and women are naturally more 'expressive.' That might not be one-in-a-thousand true, but it is pretty valid, I think. Granted, Talcott Parsons might not have a firm handle on modern gender roles. He did die in 1979 though, so he can be forgiven for that.

The modern reality is that women can, if they so choose, do any job just as well as a man. That is equality. The modern reality is that, often, women choose not to. That is reality. Often women, feminist-at-heart or not, will decide that having a family trumps having a career.

If you are a career person, male or female, you can get to the top. I will not bore you with examples of female executives, and I would ask you to not bore me with examples of stats which say women are kept down in the workplace. I work in an office, for a mass employer, and there are women in high places. There are fewer women in high places than men. These facts are true. Does it mean women are subverted? You tell me.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Our best ever player got us relegated: Boro and the Juninho factor

In 1995, my beloved Middlesbrough FC signed the diminutive Brazilian superstar Juninho. I was thirteen at the time and, like the rest of Teesside, I was beaming with delight at seeing 'The Little Fella' pull on the red and white of Boro.

The signing of Juninho signalled a new, glamorous era of transfer activity at the club. Manager Bryan Robson went on to sign Emerson and Fabrizio Ravanelli the following season, while England internationals Paul Merson and Paul Gascoigne followed the next. Previous 'big name' signings such as Jan-Aage Fjortoft and Nicky Barmby paled in comparison to these illustrious new faces, and football fans across the country remember these heady days on Teesside.

They often forget, however, that before Boro signed Juninho they were comfortably in the top half of the Premier League, with Christmas approaching. By the end of his inaugural season, they were flirting precariously with relegation. A year later, along with Emerson and Ravanelli, Juninho was relegated. The question I want to address here is simple: why?

The simple question can be approached from two distinct angles. Firstly, why was the team successful before Juninho joined? And secondly, why did its performances deteriorate afterwards?

In answer to the first, the promotion-winning team which Bryan Robson put together in his first-season as player-manager of Middlesbrough was built mainly on unglamorous, hard-working professionals. The squad had quality, and Robson spent sizable transfer funds to make it more so, but there were no massive 'big names.' On transfer deadline day that season, Robson made a record signing by splashing out £1.3m to prise Jan-Aage Fjortoft from Swindon Town. Prior to that, Neil Cox (£1m from Watford) and Nigel Pearson (£750k from Sheffield Wednesday) were about as big as it got. The team was well set up though, and with the addition of Barmby, it was ready for the step up to the Premier League.

In Alan Miller and Gary Walsh, Robson had two solid and reliable goalkeepers. Pearson, along with Steve Vickers and Derek Whyte formed a fairly formidable trio of centre-halves. Neil Cox and Curtis Fleming were defensively effective playing as wing-backs, while Robbie Mustoe and Jamie Pollock were industrious in central midfield. But the genius was upfront. Fjortoft played ostensibly as a lone striker, performing the modern version of the target-man role. Behind him were Barmby and the much under-rated Craig Hignett. It was the interchange of these two which bamboozled Premier League defenders in the early part of that season: each would play as a conventional forward one moment, a winger the next, before dropping in to what we now call 'the hole' behind the front two (comprising of Fjortoft and the other of Barmby and Hignett). Indeed Hignett and Barmby, both diminutive and fair-haired, became so interchangeable that they required a collective name: The midget gems were born.

The triangling of this front three gave the deeper players an almost permanent range of out balls - a short pass to the feet of Hignett / Barmby, a through-ball to the other, or a punt to Fjortoft's chest or head, where he was well-versed in feeding the ball off to The Midget Gems. This was uncommonly difficult to mark - permanently having to guard against three varieties of attack, never sure exactly where each of them might pop up next. It was also new: no one had quite played this curious 5-2-2-1 formation before.

There was no blistering pace in this side, and no magic flair. There was, however, craft, guile, hard work and enthusiasm. The defensive players were workmanlike and willing. The forwards were like-wise. There was also a sense of the underdog spirit: itself a powerful performance enhancer. This effect is often put down to camaraderie, and this is probably partly true. The other part of the truth here is that football is an 11-a-side sport, and any 11 can beat any other 11 on any given day.

The names of the players do not give them a divine right to win. Rather, is it invariably the teams who combine a high quality of players with the excellence of tactical and cultural organisation which succeed. Manchester United do not build their team around star players: they have built their club with a fabric of hard-working, highly effective and versatile squad players in to which star players can be inserted and, just as easily, removed. This is why, after the respective departures of Eric Cantona, David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo, they have continued to win titles. The stars are dependant on the club's set up, not the other way around.

I think we have just hit on the reason why Middlesbrough's performances deteriorated after the signing of Juninho. Suddenly, Bryan Robson decided that the team must orbit its star.

With Hignett dropped to accommodate the Brazilian, the midget gems were shattered. Barmby and Fjortoft were adapted to a more orthodox front two - which didn't really suit either of them. Juninho became central to everything, dropping deep to collect the ball and going on exciting, lovely-to-watch mazy dribbles. Every fan willed the ball to be given to him, and every other player seemed to accept that this was now their role. The result: Boro became predictable, with only one channel of attack. Mark The Little Fella out of the game, and Boro were scuppered.

If the fruitful harmony of the old, well-tuned Middlesbrough side had been disrupted by reconfiguration to Juninho's sound, the acquisitions of Ravanelli and Emerson only served to amplify the interference. With three stars in the ascendancy, Boro's previous workmanlike consistency was replaced by soaring highs and crashing lows. Two great cup runs. Stuttering league form. Two cup finals, two defeats. Three points docked. Relegation. Team spirit and shared endeavour had been replaced by the occasional brilliance which can be sparked by individual talent. This is the Juninho factor and, despite the player's enduring (and deserved - it's not his fault he was misused) popularity, it got Middlesbrough relegated.

Strains of this Juninho factor have been evident in every facet of the club since, although it does seem that Tony Mowbray has set his heart on dragging the club back to its pre-Juninho roots. For the club of 1986-1994, the highest idea of ambition was to compete in the top-flight. The collective identity of the club, which Mowbray gladly embodies, is that of a working-class, industrial town. The club should probably never have tried to represent anything other than that. Under Mowbray, it seems, they won't.

The club will be rebuilt with a squad, an ethos and a playing style of which we Teessiders can be proud. Like Mowbray, our squad, our ethos and our playing style are one of our own. They are Teesside. If that means being a yo-yo club (which seems some way off now) then so be it. If it means that any future 'big-names' brought in must be carefully selected to fit in with these parameters then so be it. If that means relegations and promotions, and a dearth of European football, then so be it. At least any achievements gained, and any failures endured will, like our team, be our own.

 

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Ignorance, lies, apathy and spin: a true victory for good old British politics

In the run up to the referendum on political reform, it has become increasingly apparent that the British public don't, generally, have too firm a grasp on their own democracy. Many of us simply do not understand what we are voting for, or against.

What has also become clear is that our senior politicians will stop at nothing to push their own success. David Blunkett has admitted that the 'NO to AV' campaign lied to sway voters: you might suggest that the result (almost certainly now a win for the NO camp) should be declared invalid?

Of course, as you would expect in our modern British democracy, many of us simply did not vote. Whether through conscientious objection, laziness, or the latter dressed up as the former, the turnout figures, no doubt, will be low again. Do we not care, or are we just too disengaged from politics these days? Do we feel that our vote is even worth the ballot paper we splodge our 'X' on? Would splodging '1,2,3,4' really open up politics to the untapped masses, or would even AV have left the fate of the relative many in the hands of the agenda-bound few?

Regardless of the relative worth of AV and FPTP (I tend to believe AV is better, by a few millimeters, but I could probably be persuaded the other way), the only certainty of a NO vote is that it is a victory for David Cameron and Tories, and one which they will inevitably spin to block any future suggestions of electoral or even broader political reform.

As for Nick Clegg, the hapless champion of reform cum Tory tea-boy, his status will be in ruins if the NO vote does indeed win. His whole Lib Dem party might follow suit. Commentators who predict the Lib Dems will split over the coalition devil's pact may well be vindicated, and soon.

Democracy in action? Perhaps. I fail to see though how any democracy where barely half the electorate vote and less than half of those who do are ultimately represented in government can be considered, in any way, fair.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Obama: WE GOT HIM!

Consider these two statements:
1) Barack Obama has announced the death of the world's most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden.
2) Barack Obama is preparing to embark on another election campaign, through which he will seek to gain a second term as President of the United States.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I have no qualms about pointing out two simple, concurrent and indisputably true statements, thus putting them each in the context of the other. The casual consumer of today's news stories may have ignored the juxtaposition of those two statements. They may have ignored the second statement entirely. Put together they might rather easily give rise to one startling question: could the death of Bin Laden, or at least its announcement, really be an Obama campaign stunt?

On further thought, there are circumstantial details which deepen the mutual context of the two, and support the suspicions.

Firstly, Obama's popularity has waned in recent times due, at least in part, to the faltering global economy. The initial euphoria which followed his historic election victory had been slowing against the traction of reality - and of the rising anti-Obama 'birther' movement.

Killing Bin Laden is a huge publicity boon which will undoubtedly bolster Obama's chances in the forthcoming polls.

The announcement and coverage of Bin Laden's death, in particular Obama's Presidential statement, has been highly stage-managed. Watch the footage of the Presidential address: this is no ordinary political press release. Stood in an open chamber with imperial-looking ornaments behind him, Obama is playing on a carefully arranged stage. His role? He is playing Caesar, grandiose in victory and basking in the adulation of his subjects.

His language too is that of the conquering hero: "At my request a team was despatched"; "on my orders Bin Laden was killed"; "none of my troops were killed"; "we will continue to protect and defend our country, our friends and our allies."

In the hyperbole, this is not just America's victory: it is the single greatest achievement for which Barack Obama will be written in to the great, on-going saga of the American Dream.

There is a word for both the language and the staging of the message, and it is a word seldom-used for but no less true of the 'good guys' of the west. The word is propaganda. If you strip away the 'evil' associations of the word (it is perhaps most commonly thought of as a feature of Nazism), it refers simply to shaping your communications to influence the thoughts, beliefs and values that make up 'public opinion' to your own ends. Every politician uses propaganda, whether by dropping leaflets through their constituent's doors, or through speeches delivered to a global audience.

Propaganda does not, as some might think, necessarily involve outright lies. It does usually, however, include an element of what is commonly referred to as 'spin.' Spin is what allows two separate bodies to produce statements which contradict each other and yet remain both technically true.

For example, David Cameron will state that the Alternative Vote system (AV) is not a proportional system. Nick Clegg will say instead that it is more proportional than our current system. Both statements are, in fact, true. By a careful use of omission, emphasis and inference the two leaders are able to use parts of the truth for their own purposes. The full truth of both of their statements is that AV is more proportional than our current system, but not by much, and there are more proportional systems available - but such a balanced view is of no political use to either Cameron or Clegg.

Of course, serving the electorate and keeping them fully informed is not a politician's first priority. Their first priority is to get elected or, in other words, to further their own political desires. Obama is no different to Clegg or Cameron in this respect.

The ideas of spin and propaganda can be used to support conspiracy theories. As much as he has emphasised his own coup, Obama has carefully omitted the details which do not serve his agenda. For example, why did the US wait until now if they had "a good idea" of his location in August, or, as some reports suggest, as long ago as 2008? How was the attack pulled off so quickly and so neatly once the order was given, and why was Bin Laden's body disposed of so soon afterwards? Why was he not taken alive - for interrogation, trial and execution - in the same way as Saddam Hussein? How will the Taleban, al-Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist community react? We can only speculate on these questions while Obama and the agents of pro-western media concentrate dogmatically on giving his one message: WE GOT HIM!

This is a powerful message delivered in the context of 9/11 and the global war in terror. It is important though to realise that this is not the full context, and it is not the war won. In the worst case scenario, Bin Laden's martyrdom may become more dangerous than his exiled and therefore partially neutered existence of the last decade.

The use of spin does not make a politician dishonest, but it requires the insightful observer to read that which has not been said as much as that which has.

Justice in the personal case of Osama Bin Laden has, probably, been served. If he was responsible for 9/11, as we believe him to have been, then this death is not punishment enough: if I were a religious man I would enjoy the thought of him burning deep down in the fires of Hell. I do not possess such faith. Those who might believe Bin Laden to be a martyr, however, do. They might tell you that, having been released from his mortal struggle, he is most likely to be enjoying his rewards in Paradise.

America and the western world can celebrate today, but this is not purely the great victory that you have been seeing on your television screens. It would be remiss to not cast at least a cursory glance towards what lies beneath the victory, and what this might mean for tomorrow. The international community has already placed its terror defences on red alert. They seem to share my ominous sense of foreboding: the joyous spoils of war could, all too easily, become the precursor to a whole new era of tragedy, loss and terror.


Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Yes, he is black. So what?

In the Snooker World Championships this week, Rory McLeod played John Higgins. He was quite comfortably beaten. He missed too many shots that, at that level, are considered gimmes. He tried hard and upset a few people with his slow, attritional style. None of this is particularly remarkable, but what is remarkable is that Rory McLeod is snooker's only black professional, and no-one seems to mentioning that fact.

Hold on..... this is not another pro-equality, minority empowering blog. This is The Alternative View. So why is this issue so remarkable?

I don't recall McLeod's colour being mentioned at all during the BBC match commentary, their coverage or the match reports on their website. The Guardian's match report is the same. Apart from, ironically, me, no-one seems to have mentioned it at all. And why should they?

I recall a blog post on the Pink Stinks website about a Matthew Syed article published in the Times. Syed had interviewed Fran Halsall, the swimmer, and written a massively favourable article about her. He did make one mistake though - he opened the piece by commenting on her appearance. That small flaw set the alarm bells ringing at Pink Stinks HQ, and prompted the following response:

http://pinkstinks.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/dressed-for-success-what/

You might notice my counter-arguments tacked on the end of their blog. If you think I have held a grudge over this for two years, I really haven't. I like the Pink Stinks blogs and I think their "campaign for real role-models" is a great initiative which the authors, Emma and Abi, are clearly very passionate about. In fact, I have to actually credit Emma for her suggestion that I set up my own blog, which is where, um, this all came from!

For me the counter-argument to most pro-equality causes has always been that they tend to put people in boxes, and putting people in boxes is actually more divisive than it is helpful. In the Halsall / Syed scenario, Halsall is in the oppressed box and Syed is the oppressor. But, actually, Fran Halsall has gotten to where she is through hard work and determination and she is a good-looking girl. No-one, including Matthew Syed, would argue otherwise. She probably didn't feel oppressed or objectified, and he probably didn't intend for her to.

Syed has also gotten to where he is through hard work and determination, and not just with his award-winning journalism. He was an olympic table-tennis player. He must understand the effort that Halsall has gone through, but does that mean he can't acknowledge that she is a woman? If you follow the link (in the Pink Stinks blog) and read his article, you will actually find that he only briefly comments on her looks at the start, in the context of the glamorous photo shoot she is attending, and then swiftly moves on to itemise and laud her achievements and her character. It is hardly straight out of Nuts magazine, is it?

It is not enough to say that women are objectified or marginalised in sport. It is not enough to say that black people are under-represented in snooker. Without context these arguments are unsubstantiated. There cannot be a quota system for sporting achievement or media coverage, and if there was one, it would not represent equality. When a sportsperson of any colour, gender, creed, age or class can perform at the highest level, win or lose, and have no-one qualify their judgement based on anything but the contest at hand, then that will truly constitute equal treatment.

The same should be said of journalists and any other professional. Do not judge what I am, judge what I do. Judge the articles he writes, the snooker he plays, the speed she swims. Judge it on merit and relate to it accordingly. If you are bad at what you do, you can always work harder at it. You can never change who you are.

Matthew Syed's article is fair, balanced, well-written and complimentary. If you forget that he is a man, what fault can you find with it? It doesn't matter that Syed is a man. It doesn't matter that he is half-Pakistani, and therefore eligible for minority perspective himself. As a writer, he should only be judged on what he writes, not on some presumed agenda which he may or may not have.

People are different. The human population is multi-faceted and diverse, but there are trends amongst groupings. For example, West Indian men tend to be more powerfully-built than white British men, which can make them more suited to sprinting, but less suited to distance running than those from certain parts of Africa. But nature - in so much as our understanding of genetic and geographical influences allows - doesn't have all the answers. Culture is important too. I'll use my favourite example here again - Brits of Asian descent are well represented in cricket, but not in football. Whether for natural or cultural reasons, or both, those of West Indian heritage, like McLeod, are certainly better represented in athletics than they are in snooker. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as it is organic. There is another factor too: individuality.Rory McLeod is unique. But then so are John Higgins, Fran Halsall and Matthew Syed, and so are you and I.

So, for anyone with no agenda, other than trying to understand and occasionally pass sensible comment on the world around us, let's hope that some day everyone can simply be treated how Rory McLeod has been treated this week - just like anyone else.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes...

The pre-referendum pro- and anti- Alternative Vote campaigns are rapidly approaching full swing.

'Yes' is supported by Eddie Izzard and Stephen Fry, 'no' by Peter Stringfellow and Tony Hadley. Who gives a ****?

Stringfellow says that he understands the current system, and he believes it is "the right way", Izzard says AV will give "power to the people".

You have to wonder whether they even understand the proposals about which they are spewing out slogans. Their quotes suggest not.

If you are politically aware, this might not be the blog for you. But if, like many, you know little about this referendum, other than what Izzard and co think, read on. Compare their views to the facts and, I implore you, vote on the facts, not on the say-so of the celebrity backers:

1) Our existing 'First Past the Post' system and AV are BOTH majoritarion voting systems. In other words, they put power in the hands of the winners; the losers (and those who voted for them) take a backseat with no say in policy-making. This means more than 50% of the voters might not be represented at all by the elected member (under FPTP), or at all by their first choice (under AV).

2) Under either system each separate electorate (constituency) only has one member elected - anyone who didn't want that electee is unrepresented in government.

3) The Liberal Democrats, who now champion AV, did NOT want it before last year's election. They wanted the Single Transferable Vote.

4) STV is a version of Proportional Representation which elects multi-member constituencies via a quota system - in other words if you get a set portion of the vote you get a seat. The majority of voters actually get some representation in the resultant membership.

5) There are other versions of Proportional Representation, for example: The Regional Party List system, whereby you actually just vote for your preferred party, not candidate, and they get the proportion of seats for your area accordingly, given to party members in the order of the published order of preference.

6) The Proportional systems are not outlandish, far-fetched or extremist-friendly (the latter being a common prejudice held over, inaccurately, from inter-war German politics).

7) In fact, in European Parliament elections FPTP and AV are BOTH banned. Neither is deemed fair enough.

8) The UK use the Regional Party List system for European elections. Under this system, for example, the East of England has 7 MEPs (3 Tory, 2 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem) as per the votes cast. These 7 members all represent the whole area, ie. No-one is specifically aligned to and area such as Norwich North - they all represent Norwich North, and all its local neighbours.

9) David Cameron and the Tories are shit-scared of AV, because it might slightly erode their political strength. A fully PR system could actually prevent them from ever getting majority rule again (bearing in mind it took Gordon Brown's limping Labour for them to even get a minority victory...)

10) Because the Tories infiltrated Lib Dem ideology, and warped it to their own ends, we now have a referendum on AV. No-one wanted this in the first place, but it's all we can have for now.

So, that's the facts. There are only two options, because abstaining suggests we don't care either way, rather than caring too much. So what's it to be people? You tell me: Yes or No?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5