John Terry, English FA and why he shouldn’t be anywhere near the England national team until the trial is over.

Episode Four : A New Trial…..

In a time not so long ago, in a world departed from this reality….

A Man divided opinion of what was right and decent

A Man led a country; All its people, All casts,

All its hopes rested on his shoulders

His Name was John Terry…

OH F*#k!! We’re So very Screwed! Cue the music………..

I find myself in exact opposition to a United Legend. A man I believe as surprised a lot of people with his good sense and honesty since taking up with the coin of the Devil which is Sky Sports Inc. He has talked with eloquence and shared an insight into the footballing world that few other ex-pro pundits, such as Jamie [Place ADVERT HERE] Redknapp, Shearer ‘I know nothing….’ et al, have managed with such clarity and legitimacy that others have so lacked. He’s been there, done that and rubbished the T-Shirt…..

But I stand here in exact antipathy. He is wrong on so many levels about this one issue that I feel offended. Wrong because he relates fighting the Rio incident with this same issue. Wrong, because like Liverpool FC and the Suarez case, football has again completely and utterly and absolutely missed the very fundamental premise of this case;

‘John Terry is on trial for making a Racially Aggravated Remark.’

What has gone before us this season, let alone the bad old days of football discrimination, should be enough to ensure everyone’s eyes see the primary truth of this statement.

No-one can rightly accuse John Terry of being ‘A Racist’, as much as we could conclude the same of Luis Suarez. He will not be found innocent or guilty of that. He is not on trial for that. That is in fact not even a crime in British law. There is neither a specific law that transmits exactly as Anti-racial abuse law, but this may fall under the Protection from Harassment Act (1997). This is about whether one man has spoken or done something which in law is deemed offensive in discriminating against another person based on his or her race. Or if that a person’s conduct in question can be considered harassment by a ‘reasonable’ man/woman.

Or it may fall under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), where the offence committed demonstrates hostility based on the ‘Victim’s’ membership to a racial group or based on hostility towards a group based on their membership to that racial group.

So when he uttered the words he is accused of he may well be considered as acting with hostility towards a player based on the colour of his skin which narrates to the membership to a racial group. This is obviously a very simplified form of what will be a complex and complicated legal fight between the crown prosecution and Mr. Terry’s legal team in his defence.

So if I’m admitting the complexity of it why have I come over all righteous and indignant?

If we look at the reams of media produced by this it’s the simple argument between our Red-Nev and the Times Journalist Matt Dickinson on Twitter. Neville is quoted as saying “To ban without process is to sentence that’s what I fought for back in (2003) and still believe.” He replied to further prompts that the FA should only “ACT if it affects the performance of the team/Individual”. Neville has in one single instance, like many before him, become censure to the decent man’s moral conscience.

Dimitrina Petrova (2000) wrote that the ‘denial of racism is gradually conquering the sphere of manifestations of racism and becoming the most typical and widespread modern form of appearance of racist attitudes, opinions, statements, actions and policies, (European Roma Rights Centre). In categorically denying that the governing body should take action should against John Terry prior to the trial, Gary Neville has placed John Terry’s individual rights above that of football, its patrons the fans and in complete opposition to the implementation of policies to the ‘reasonable’ man. He as inexplicably condoned racism by denial.

Remember Him? The reasonable, Man? He’s not the one earning hundreds of thousands of pounds doing something we have such love and passion for and commands such adoration and hate. Football is tribal. The Vile bilious hatred that drips from the terraces against rivals is an ugly reminder of our darker sides. The respect of others is an argument for another day. But with the tribalism that tears at the very heart of integrity we must rise and say ‘NO’.

Our football club have witnessed firsthand how allowing the rights of an individual, not enjoyed by the rest of society, can poison further British football’s impressive stance and rally against racism. Abuse directed to an Oldham player and our own Patrice Evra under the banner of tribalism and banter as left me sickened. The fact that a respected club like Liverpool FC have effectively propagated Neville’s premise lies in the reactionary argument that other pundits and commentators hold, in that acting suggests judgment and prejudices the verdict and his treatment. It’s flawed and an argument not allowed to the rest of the nation’s workforce.

Footballers already seem to have the idea that ordinary rules of society somehow don’t apply to their world. Why shouldn’t they, they’re treated in equal amounts of loathing and reverence. They’re surrounded by people that tell them they ARE special, why shouldn’t they believe it. Why should they be judged by the same rules as us ordinary folk—– But footballers’ are human and are affected by the same emotions and should be judged and ruled by the same laws and ethics as the reasonable man.

I work for a large organisation. If I was reported as expressing the comments credited to John Terry my work would rightly take it seriously and investigate the matter. Due to the seriousness of this I would be suspended. There’s no doubt about that. That would be on full pay and would have no bearing on the appearance of guilt or innocence.

It’s part of the process. It removes me from being effected or being able to influence the investigation. I cannot influence the statements or attitudes of any witnesses or any potential victim/s. I cannot bring pressure to bear. I would be isolated from work colleagues whilst the investigation is concluded. After that I would be restored to my position or punished as per policy. In this case I would be in all likelihood looking at the sack, even deregistration and the end of my career.

This is another concept alien to footballers who due to their unique standing as ‘Assets’ are precluded from this devastating employment discarding. This I accept, but why Should John Terry be treated any different to me or ANY of the peoples of this great land!??? I am still waiting for a reasonable answer to tell this reasonable man why????

Surely the captains standing, within this insular and protective world that constitutes a footballer’s dressing room, is at the apex of this environment with the influence, power and dominance that role provides. It’s perverse to think that John Terry is still allowed to hold that sway within the international and his club’s dressing rooms. Worse still is that John Terry, as captain of England is our leader on the field.

An emblem of national pride, the badge on his chest and the statements of national fervour only further sully and defile sensibility. Britain has confronted and attempted to address the nature, the history and effects of racism in this country. It is not perfect. But if you compare us to other nations in Europe and around the world it’s a good start. John Terry as England captain carrying the mantle of England onto the field of play who symbolizes a nation is a charade.

Our national game is football, and embodies all its peoples no matter what race, sexual orientation or even tribal group (gulp! yes even the Bitters!!). A man stood accused of the inexcusable utterance of a racial jibe at a fellow professional should not be allowed to continue as a representative of this country. A country whose black men and women serve with distinction in its armed forces and local emergency services or even just scrape a living like the rest of us. How can he represent these people or even any of as a multicultural nation?

Why is there no realisation in football that this is utterly wrong on every level?

Why are we still being stained and ruined by distracters that fail to be guided by conscience who belong to the “if’s” and “Buts” brigade that defend people like Terry and Suarez?

John Terry seems a very unlikable and vile human being. There I’ve said it; this is my personal opinion of the man. He has a highly punch-able face and persona.

I really REALLY do not like Him. Viva John Terry is my ironic roar…..

But my personal feelings do not come into it. If he or football authorities had a shred of decency or principles he would not be representing me or my nation, he would be nowhere near a team that can only be influenced and torn apart by his actions. Like football, he is amoral as there is no glory or money in that direction……………….. Just decency and honour and integrity………….

Why am, I not surprised that these are traits it appears John Terry does not possess?? More surprising is that John Terry remains captain and now is defended by our own Red-Nev. We really are f#*ked!!!

Written by Jony Ball, who contributes on the Manchester United blog RedRants.com, and can also be followed on Twitter.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

The performances of the North African national football sides in 2011 have reflected the political actions of the Arab Spring.

The failure of Egypt, the champions of the past three tournaments, to qualify for the 2012 African Cup of Nations (ACN), alongside the absence of regional heavyweights Cameroon and Nigeria, has thrown the tournament wide open.

Egypt’s campaign in particular was a shambles, with defeats to Sierra Leone, Niger and South Africa in the final qualification stage. But 2011 has not been an ordinary year in North Africa. With Egypt’s revolution beginning on January 25 2011 and the Arab Spring in full flow, one could be forgiven for thinking the instability in the country could not have helped its football team, particularly given the continuing uncertainties moving into 2012.

However, the list of qualifiers for the African Cup of Nations has thrown up a number of surprise names, not least Libya and Sudan, as well as (less surprisingly) Tunisia and Morocco. While Tunisia were tournament winners in 2004 after beating Morocco in the final, Sudan have made little impression on the tournament since they won the competition in 1970. Libya has hardly ever registered in African football consciousness, a runners-up spot in 1982 notwithstanding. Alongside Algeria (who just missed out of qualification), all these nations have had significant upheavals and protests during the Arab Spring and in the case of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, regime change.

It seems implausible that national footballers can remain unaffected by such political turmoil. With national football teams so often projected as a symbol of the nation; and aggressively so in the case of some North African states, could there be a link between the nature of political action and performances on the football field? Is there a case to make that powerful nations can be rocked by revolutions, but smaller and weaker nations can be emboldened and united by them?

So how have these six North African nations fared since the outbreak of their particular versions of the Arab Spring in the past year?

By collating the results from all matches (both competitive and friendly) since the beginning of the Arab Spring political action in each nation and comparing these results against performances from the previous 12 months (or at least eight games in the case of Morocco and Libya to ensure a fair sample size), it seems abundantly clear that almost all of the North African sides, with the dramatic exception of Egypt, have improved their results in terms of average points per match (see table below).

Taken as a whole, these six nations have competed in 53 matches since the start of the Arab Spring, gaining 87 points, with a 45% win ration and an average of 1.64 points per match.

In the 12 months prior to the Arab Spring (or at least eight matches stretching back into 2009 for Libya and Morocco), these same six nations contested 60 matches, but only won 79 points, with only a 33% win ratio and just 1.32 points per match.

Whilst a trend is clear, it is important to look at each country more specifically.

Egypt appears to be the exception to the rule. The country was arguably, up until 2011, the most successful team in African football during the past decade with an unprecedented three straight ACN crowns, boasting seven titles overall and have qualified for every tournament since 1982.

Although the Pharaohs had not begun their qualification campaign well, in the 12 months between their 2010 African Cup of Nations victory and the Egyptian revolution, they were boasting an average of 2 points per match including five straight wins in January 2011. This is even discounting their January 2010 ACN success, which featured 7 straight wins against high quality opposition, and would raise their points per match to a phenomenal 2.39. Their evident fall from grace has been staggering.

Since January 25 2011, Egypt have picked up one solitary win and one draw from five matches, with defeats to South Africa and Sierra Leone ensuring they finished bottom of their qualification group.

The Egyptian revolution was notable for the unity of the population in throwing off the power of President Mubarak. Indeed there was apparent cooperation in protest organisation between the fans of the rival Egyptian teams Al-Ahly and Zamalek, with the latter long regarded as a pro-government club during the Mubarak era. The only public backing to the regime came from a few club managers and Egypt’s national coach Hassan Shehata rather than fans or players.

While the other North African nations move towards new democratic regimes or have gained significant concessions from government as a result of their protests, the future for Egypt appears more convoluted and strained, demonstrated by recent protests against the interim military rulers. The ensuing instability of the post-Mubarak Egyptian nation has been echoed by poor performance on the football field.

This however, is not the general trend. Morocco, Algeria, Sudan and Tunisia have witnessed significant performance improvements since the Arab Spring, while Libya has maintained its strength overall, but has improved dramatically in competitive qualification matches.

“This is for all Libyans, for our revolution”.

So said 39-year old goalkeeper Samir Aboud upon Libya’s astonishing qualification for the 2012 African Cup of Nations, after a draw against Zambia put them though as a best runner-up.

Despite a recent poor run of friendly results, the Libyans are unbeaten in competitive matches since the revolution against Col. Muammar Gaddafi, notching up two wins and two draws to round off a qualification campaign that saw them go unbeaten and concede only one goal.

For a team that was significantly affected by an ongoing civil war, it was an astonishing achievement. Playing on neutral territory with a new flag, strip and anthem, coach Marcos Paquetá summed the mood up by stating the team was now “not only playing for football success but for a new government and a new country”. Even more so when you consider Col Gaddafi’s son, Saadi, ran the Libyan Football Federation and was once captain of the national team. The team had been a symbol of the regime.

It has certainly not been smooth sailing. Former star playmaker Tariq Ibrahim al-Tayib was notably absent from recent matches, following pro-Gaddafi outbursts including reference to dead rebels as dogs and rats. During the conflict there were reports of 17 figures from Libyan football, including four who claimed to be members of the national side, turning up in a rebel-held town and announcing themselves as opponents of the regime.

One of them, Adel bin Issa, the coach of Tripoli’s top club al-Ahly where Saadi Gaddafi used to play, announced he had come “to send a message that Libya should be unified and free”, and he hoped “to wake up one morning to find that Gaddafi is no longer there.”

The new Libyan side, made up from players from all parts of Libya, has the potential to become a powerful new unifying force post-revolution. Their performances thus far and qualification for the African Cup of Nations may represent a good focus for new beginnings as the new nation moves into 2012.

The statistics show that Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan and Algeria have all experienced far better results in 2011 since the beginning of their respective protests or in the case of Tunisia, regime change, as compared to the 12 months preceding the Arab Spring.

Algeria, where protests led to the lifting of a 19-year old state of emergency, had a forgettable 2010, losing 8 matches and achieving an average of 0.86 points per match. Yet in 2011 Algeria won three of five matches and ended qualification on a high, only losing out to Morocco.

Even Morocco, which experienced smaller protests but significant political concessions, saw their performances improve from 1.25 points per match in 2010 to 1.75 in 2011 and finish top of their qualification group.

Sudan, in a year when the country has experienced protest, violence and division with the breakaway of South Sudan, also qualified as a best runner-up behind Ghana in their ACN qualification group. Having played a large number of matches this year, a win ratio of 53% and a points per match of 1.79 is a huge improvement on 2010’s 25% win ratio and 1.13 points per match.

Finally Tunisia, the standout model of the Arab transition to democracy, also saw an improvement in performance from 1.27 points per match in 2010 to 1.75 in 2011 and a comfortable qualification behind Botswana.

“The events at home really stimulated our team and we believe that the players felt greatly liberated after what happened,” (Esperance coach Nabil Maaloul)

While the Tunisian national team were qualifying for international competition, leading Tunisian side Esperance were winning the African Champions League. Players were keen to invoke synergies between revolution and victory on the pitch, with defender Khalil Chammam stating: “One positive thing from the revolution was that, although we suffered a lot, those changes and the suffering made us stronger -mentally and physically.”

As in Egypt and Libya, Tunisian football suffered direct interference politicians before the revolutions. It was no surprise that in all three cases; national leagues were shut down upon the breakout of protests against the regimes. The majority of Libya’s squad was home-based, where league football was suspended in March, while six others play in neighbouring Tunisia, where the league has only recently resumed. It is impossible to separate the fate of national footballers from politics when the impact is so great.

The paths of the North African national sides have not been universally similar. Instead they have in fact tended to replicate the upheavals themselves. Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria have seen liberalising efforts or regime change. It could be argued a new sense of liberalisation and increased freedoms has been epitomised in the successes of these national teams. Certainly in the case of Libya and Tunisia it appears that the political changes have sparked a new found unity, inspiration and rallying call, factors that have seeped through to the national football sides.

Whilst the link may be casual and the statistics do not delve any deeper than top-line numbers, the North African national football teams seem to be reflecting the mood and progress of Arab Spring and their successes are symbolic of energised nations realising their potential. Only in Egypt has the national side not been a flag bearer for success. Rather than being freed from shackles, a powerful footballing nation appears to be more confused and unstable than it was prior to the revolution. In football as in politics, confusion can breed downfall.

You can follow me on Twitter: @matthewlbarrett.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

Football wages are a ridiculously easy target – whether it’s the high wages paid by Chelsea and then Manchester City, the astronomical wage bills of Barcelona and Real Madrid fueled by unequal TV deals or the retirement homes that front as football clubs in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, football wages have steadily increased in the last 20-25 years.

But by how much? And is the growth spread evenly across all tiers of the game or concentrated at the highest level? You may already know the answer to that question, but even then the numbers below are eye-opening.

The data is taken from sportingintelligence.com (who have used their own research + an official PFA document detailing basic wages for the last 25 years) – here are some highlights:

The text below is taken from sportingintelligence.com – see source articles here and here:

• In 1984-85, top division players in England earned a basic average of £480 per week (£25,000 a year), which was more than double what the average worker earned, and which was three times as much as players earned in the Fourth Division. Today the difference is 30 times as much.
• In 1984-85, according to the PFA’s data, the average basic wage in the First Division – as the top division was then called – was £24,934 a year, or about two and a half times the average working man’s salary. With bonuses, it would have been around £36,000, perhaps more.
• In 2009-10, the average basic Premier League wage was £1.16m and the average take-home pay was £1.76m.
• In the Premier League, double-digit annual growth has been the norm in most years of the competition’s history. The biggest single leap was the 28.52 per cent year-on-year growth between 1996-97 and 1997-98. This was due to a new TV deal kicking in.
• TV cash has fueled players’ pay rises in the Premier League era. The first Premier League deal was over five years (1992-97), then next over four years (1997-2001), and the deals have been three years each since then (2001-04, 2004-07, 2007-10 and 2010-13 currently).
• The average annual basic salary in the Championship in 2009-10 was £211,068, in League One it was £73,320 and in League Two it was £38,844.
• Top division footballers now earn 46 times as much as they did in 1984-85
• Those in the Championship earn only 14 times as much as their counterparts.
• In League One the figure is six and a half times as much. In League Two the figure is 4.6 times as much.
• The average working man earns about three times as much.

Image from sportingintelligence.com.

Note: The numbers represent basic pay; wages typically increase by 50 to 100 per cent with appearance money and bonuses.

On the other hand, football ticket prices have increased by almost as much as 30 times in certain cases (looking at cheapest tickets / season tickets at Manchester United and London clubs).

And if you look at the commercial revenues generated by US sports, it’s evident that football, a more global sport, has still some way to go before it can reach it’s financial peak. So expect the TV deals, player wages and ticket prices to keep rising.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

If ever there is a time to push football it is when the dark nights draw in and the jackets go on. Push football? I know, we all watch it; comment; log on; and couch surf our way through hundreds of hours of football. Yet, the number of us playing the sport can always grow.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with those of us who chose to watch instead of lace up. Encouragement to participate is never a bad thing though, so the FA and Mars are teaming up to get 150,000 new participants into football by 2013. With 100 ‘Just Play‘ Centres promised by the end of 2011, you can hardly turn them down.

That is exactly what Just Play is, the initiative to get out there and play football. You don’t have to be good or competitive, the idea is to play and enjoy football. Just Play is all about adults and will make a positive impact on an area of the grassroots game that is often overlooked. That is possibly where previous “schemes” from head-office have missed the target.

If you’re interested, then search Just Play and book a kick-about at your nearest centre.

Each centre will be staffed by specially trained organisers, delivering casual football sessions that can benefit up to 50 participants at any one time. To book a session go online or turn up and Just Play.

There isn’t really a reason not to, it costs just £3 on average to participate in a Just Play session and there are hundreds going on all over the country. So what are you waiting for? Just Play!

Interview and videography by Laurence McKenna.

Also See: Soccerlens interviews Robbie Savage.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

When Tottenham stepped off the pitch at Tynecastle, having subjected a Hearts team who finished in 3rd place in the SPL last season – and briefly looked to challenge the Old Firm duopoly – the laments for the state of Scottish football were loud and numerous.

It’s not hard to see how this position came about, and as usual, it’s all about money. The club finishing top of the SPL can expect to gain around £2million from TV rights and prize money, whereas the club finishing bottom of the English Premier League will gain around £40million. And it’s as bad in all small nations: Ajax’s European record in recent years is worse than Celtic’s, and the Dutch league receives just 100m Euros a season, a twelfth of the Premier League. Rangers and Celtic are among Europe’s top twenty clubs for matchday income – these are clubs that have done nothing wrong besides being based in their own countries. So what can be done

There’s been much talking about the new Financial Fair Play laws about to be introduced to football. The idea, a direct response to the actions of Chelsea and Manchester City, has been ushered in with the purpose of preventing billionaires from artifically boosting clubs with unsustainable levels of spending. It’s not as cynical as the reigning powers burning the ladder that they ascended to the top – preventing clubs from racking up dangerous levels of debt is a noble goal. But when they come into power, the 518 million or so people who live in European countries outside the ‘big five’ of Spain, England, France, Italy and Germany will feel short-changed, for It will do nothing to address the slow decline that their clubs have suffered.

These clubs still compete in Europe, though only nominally. Since Porto’s triumph in 2004 – a feat for which the club was rewarded by seeing their team instantly dismantled by Europe’s giants – no team from outside the big five leagues has come close to winning the Champions League. Instead, they are often relegated to the dreaded Europa League ,where European has-beens scrap around for a competition that most see as a distraction. The rewards on offer barely register compared to the Champions League – a game between Ajax and Juventus in the group stages of the Champions League is worth many times more than if the two clubs met in a Europa League Semi-Final.

And it’s not just the big clubs that have felt this. Rangers and Celtic have visibly declined over the years, but the gap between the Old Firm and the rest of the league has not diminished. The ‘trickle-down effect’ of money being poured in at the top may be as dubious as it’s supposed social equivalent, but there’s no doubting the impact in prestige. If up-and-coming players don’t want to go to Celtic, they certainly don’t want to go to Kilmarnock.

If there is some hope to be had, it’s that things cannot continue this way forever. Even with the vast TV deals of the big nations, the levels of spending being seen by some clubs are unsustainable. Wages are increasing at a phenomenal rate, and basic economics will tell you that the bubble will burst at some point. Whether it’ll be a slow shuffling decline or a cataclysmic financial apocalypse, we don’t know. But it will happen.

Anyone investing in a football club now is like a property investor of a few years back – making the mistake of assuming that prices will continue to go up and up. Yet football, like all markets, fluctuates. This has been masked by new income sources, but it cannot keep going forever. The limit appears to already have been reached with ticket prices, and when the decline does begin, European football will have to reorder itself on more sustainable terms. But until then, clubs from smaller nations will find themselves like their fans – priced out of the game. We cannot know the future, but when the present is bleak certainty, change can’t come soon enough.

Written by Callum Hamilton from Surreal Football.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

It is fact that the gap between the “haves” and “have nots” in European football grows evermore larger. Last season in the English Premier League proved this adroitly when Manchester City midfielder Yaya Toure reportedly earned more per week than the entire Blackpool squad.

The same situation manifests itself in every league. Success breeds success: as results improve, sponsor and prize dollars (generally) increase. This allows clubs to spend more on improving their squad. Or it does so in theory. In practice, beneficiaries who see clubs as expensive playthings dump large amounts of money into teams according to their means: for some, a la Everton chairman Bill Kenwright. Others, like Man City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, have deposited sums of money usually seen in the demands of Bond villains.

In order to make sure that all leagues don’t go the way of Scotland – or Spain – UEFA instituted their Financial Fair Play policy, which over the next two seasons will be enforced. This is ostensibly to cut down on the amount of oligarchs seeing their clubs as desirable holes in their pocket and cap clubs spending at a percentage of their incomings.

But by having his airline Emirates Air sponsor City’s ground, the City of Manchester Stadium, Sheikh Mansour seems to have successfully circumvented these guidelines. That the deal was struck isn’t an issue but the figures involved – reportedly ₤400 million pounds – dwarf those spent on a similar sponsorship deal for Arsenal’s home stadium seven years ago. That sum covers the transfer fees spent on Carlos Tevez, Sergio Aguero, Yaya Toure, Joleon Lescott, Gareth Barry, Nigel de Jong, Adam Johnson, Edin Dzeko, David Silva, Vincent Kompany, Mario Balotelli, Kolo Toure, James Milner and Alexander Kolarov – and have ₤125 million in change.

A salary cap has again been mooted but is obviously unworkable given the implications of a continent-wide application. Apparently Financial Fair Play is a step in the right direction, but a step in the right direction at best. If equalisation is a process the football world is serious about then further steps must be taken.

Means-testing billionaire team owners – there’s a phrase you don’t hear every day – would certainly equal out the proverbial playing field (say, cap owners’ private means at ₤1 billion), but would be as, if not more, unworkable as any proposed salary cap. While it would mean clubs would rely on business and football sense rather than just their position in the established order and well-disposed billionaires, it would prove very difficult to enforce. More problematically, it would also raise questions of what to do clubs already in the hands of the megawealthy.

Thus, the only way to strengthen these laws would be to investigate every sponsorship deal over a certain limit – say €1 million, policed by the individual leagues and required for registration of a team. Such deals – where a benefactor or his/her family simply reach into their pocket again as in this instance – would be judged invalid and clubs would risk point deductions. This way clubs could leverage their business sense and connections without actually receiving what amounts to donations.

This process, though it would take advanced forensic accountancy, wouldn’t undermine any established order and would force clubs to be more accountable for their money. As football has already gone the way of business, it makes sense to nudge it further along that road.

Matthew Wood contributes regularly to Soccerlens.  You can find more of his analysis and commentary at Balanced Sports or follow him on Twitter @balanced_sports

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

The BBC has obtained a document authored by the Carribean Football Union (CFU) detailing claims that Jack Warner had full knowledge of and participated in the distribution of cash bribes to members of the CFU at a special meeting promoting Mohamed Bin Hammam’s Fifa presidential bid.

In a report by the CFU general secretary Angenie Kanhai, on CFU headed paper and dated 15 July 2011, has now been submitted to the FIFA ethics committee that is investigating claims that Bin Hammam tried to bribe members of the CFU with gifts of £40,000 each. Kanhai has travelled to Zurich, where the hearing is taking place, and, crucially, was expected to give evidence on Friday.

Warner, Bin Hammam and two CFU officials, Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, refused to co-operate with Fifa’s ethics committee investigation, carried out by former FBI director Louis Freeh. So the apparent co-operation of such a senior figure at the top of the CFU – Warner was effectively Kanhai’s boss – is a significant development.

In a series of bullet points, signed by Kanhai, a detailed account is given of what happened during the meeting of the CFU at the Hyatt Hotel, Trinidad on May 10-11. The document states:

“I was directed to coordinate the special meeting of the CFU by Mr Jack Warner, who was at that time, president of the CFU. Mr Warner initially requested the meeting be held by April 18, 2011, but the May date was ultimately agreed.

“After the meeting I was contacted by Mr Warner who asked that the bag and any remaining gifts be returned to him.”

Jack Warner has had all charges against him dropped after he agreed to resign from FIFA and completely withdrew from football. And while Hammam continues to protest his innocence – claiming that FIFA had pre-decided his guilt and he wouldn’t get a fair hairing – it’s the following comment made by Jack Warner that is most illuminating (and damning):

“It’s not unusual for such things to happen and gifts have been around throughout the history of Fifa. What’s happening now for me is hypocrisy.” – Jack Warner, speaking on 20 June 2011.

Warner is 100% correct on the first part – FIFA’s history is riddled with nepotism and bribery, gifts of money and power used to curry favour and votes across the world by various FIFA presidents – but this isn’t hypocrisy – it’s one man being hung out to dry for collaborating with the enemy, Warner’s own greed (and attempt to undermine Blatter) being rewarded with a formal investigation until he agreed to go quietly.

In the same statement, Warner also said:

“I am convinced that since my actions did not extend beyond facilitating the meeting that gave Mr Bin Hammam an opportunity to pursue his aborted bid for the Fifa presidency, I would be fully exonerated by any objective arbiter.”

What he didn’t say was that if any objective arbiter knew the full facts, not only Warner but everyone involved in the higher echelons of FIFA would now be in jail.

While the report shows a clear chain of command between Warner and the officials who allegedly distributed the money, it does not prove a direct link between the cash and Bin Hammam. Leaked details of Freeh’s report into the affair concluded that although there is no smoking gun there is “convincing circumstantial evidence” that he was behind it.

When the story first broke, there was a lingering suspicion that Blatter and Warner had set Hammam up, and in the process staged Warner’s exit from FIFA. That may still be true, although Hammam’s history suggests that he’s not as clean as he portrays himself to be. But then again, who is at FIFA?

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

60 people have been detained as part of a major investigation into alleged fixing within Turkish football. The chairman of current champions Fenerbahce is part of those under arrest by the authorities in the Eastern European country. Police launched a mass operation across 15 provinces of Turkey, searching club premises and detaining club players and administrators in connection with the allegations.

Detainees included footballers, trainers, managers and board members from Turkish top league sides such as Sivasspor, Eskisehirspor and Genclerbirligi as well as the premises of Trabzonspor being searched by the authorities. The matches that are being investigated are two Fenerbahce games against Sivasspor and Eskisehirspor, both of which Fenerbahce were victorious.

Aziz Yildirim, the chairman of Sari Kanaryalar, was taken away by police officers on Sunday morning and resides in police custody. Yildirim was checked into the hospital on Monday, but released several hours later and taken back to prison. Fenerbahce released a statement, which expressed the faith they hold in the justice system and they are not involved in any wrongdoing.

The statement read: ‘Everyone should know that Fenerbahce Sports Club has never been and will never be engaged in any unlawful and illegal activity. We are proud of our clean and victorious past‘.

Turkish Football Federation (TFF) executives have revealed that they are closely monitoring the developments of the investigation and will release necessary statements when the correct information is disclosed to the TFF. Politicians in Turkey have also had their say on the scandal with Huseyin Celik, the leader of the reigning political party in Turkey, stating that the investigation will have a detrimental effect on Turkish football and is hoping that the allegations are unfounded.

Shares in Fenerbahce have tumbled by 10% following the police investigation and the shares of the respective clubs involved in the match-fixing operation have seen their shares also tumble on the stock exchange. Fenerbahce have won the Turkish Superliga 18 times and are considered as the best team in the history of Turkish football. These problems could force the relegation of the Sari Kanaryalar, if the court case is opened and defendants are convicted of the said crimes.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

On the 27th of May 2010, UEFA announced the approval of the Financial Fair Play(FFP) regulations.  The aim of these regulations is to make the football clubs self sufficient. With the advent of these sanctions, every football club has to break even i.e. spend what they earn.There have since been numerous discussions about this so-called game changing  announcement,but what do these sanctions actually mean?

Transfers

Over the past couple of years, exorbitant transfer fees have been the trend. With the sugar-daddy owners, clubs almost have a bottomless pit of cash to spend. The FFP will surely curb this wont it? Not quite. There may be a marginal decrease, but with the fees being calculated over the length of the contract, the effect on the expenditures is not substantial. For example, a player signed on a 5 year contract, for a 20 million pound fee, will cost the club 4 million pounds a year. Not very much is it? Thus, clubs will look to tie players up with longer contracts.

Wages

The biggest contributing factor to a club’s expenditure are staff wages. This is bad news for the the players, as clubs in an attempt to reduce their wage bill may not be willing to offer their players the astronomical amounts of money currently doing the rounds. This could also see clubs looking to the younger generation more than before.

Youth Setup

The FFP does not include expenditure on the youth set-up. Owners may thus be tempted into spending heavily on their youth academies, in the hope of finding the next superstar at the club, consequently doing away with the transfer fee requirements.

Champions League or Bust

The Champions League will  assume a greater importance for clubs now than in the past. It is a well documented fact that the Champions League is a major money spinner for the participating clubs and with the new FFP rules, clubs will be looking to every opportunity to increase their revenue.is no longer just about the prestige of being a part of the competition.

Clubs do have some time on their hand, as the  the FFP comes into action from the 2012-13 season. Moreover, the FFP does give the clubs some leeway by allowing them to gradually reduce their losses over the next three or four years. Certain things, however have to change before these regulations come into play. For instance, the television revenue distribution has to be evened out between the clubs, especially in Spain, where Real Madrid and Barcelona account for a huge majority of the revenue. This curbs the growth of the other clubs in the league, and makes the league less competitive.

The FFP regulation does look into some of the more pressing issues and is a good start to putting right some things which are wrong with today’s football world. However it remains to be seen if the billionaire club owners will find a way around these regulations.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

The FIFA Ethics Committee has opened proceedings against Jack Warner and Mohammed Bin Hammam over possible charges of bribery (official FIFA statement). The committee is due to meet (and most likely decide) on May 29th, just a couple of days before the June 1 elections date (and funnily enough, on a Sunday, right after the Champions League final).

Chuck Blazer, a staunch Jack Warner supporter in the past, had reported Warner and Hammam to the FIFA Ethics committee. There were reports that FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke had asked Bin Hammam to withdraw his candidacy earlier this week, and it seems that when Hammam refused, the FIFA Ethics committee proceeded with this case.

What’s the role of Blazer (and why is Warner, a close Blatter ally, implicated)? You can read the Soccerlens Twitter timeline for more insights, but briefly speaking:

1. One theory is that Bin Hammam managed to convince Warner to vote for him (through bribes / political favours) and Chuck Blazer has decided to side with Blatter in the hope that he will eventually replace Warner as CONCACAF president (and also get a future World Cup).
2. The second theory is that Blatter and Warner have played a double-bluff with Hammam, trying to discredit him and hound him out of FIFA. If this is true, Warner will be cleared of any wrongdoing and Hammam will be found guilty. Unless…
3. If Hammam withdraws his candidacy, this matter could be closed and put away for good.

Also see, an article from earlier today: Why FIFA cannot (and will not) tackle corruption.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News