“What G14 wants is simple apartheid. Its members would like to see an oligarchy emerge and they fear challenges. We in turn advocate democracy.”- William Gaillard, UEFA.
For years, we have waited nervously for the moment when money talks and competition, for much of the football world, is largely dismantled. And whilst on the face of it we all continue to wait, the evidence is there that it has already begun.
Over twenty years ago now, English clubs were removed en bloc from European competition, the sentence laid down for repeated hooliganism. Around fifteen years ago, Marseille were prevented from defending their Champions League trophy as a result of the match fixing scandal.
Today, AC Milan look forward to the Champions League final, something which looked a very distant prospect last summer when their involvement in Italys own match fixing saga came to the fore. Yet, rather than throw them out of this seasons Champions League, as was widely expected, Uefa side-stepped the issue by providing a back-door qualification for Milan, presumably in the hope that no-one would really notice. Today, we notice.
It is difficult to envisage that Uefa wield enough power to impose such bans as those mentioned above ever again, such is the financial position of the clubs themselves. The fear of litigation must now weigh heavily, not withstanding Uefas own fear over the continued success of the Champions League, which requires the participation of europes elite clubs.
But the reason all of this is currently to the fore is a result of actions, or inactions, in our very own country.
West Ham United have played almost an entire season with Carlos Tevez in their team, who has unquestionably been one of their very few success stories this season. Yet Tevez has been playing under a registration which is not permitted by the Premier League. Whats more, almost every fan and journalist across the country knew this from day one- it is implausible to consider that anybody truly believed that West Ham themselves were able to afford his signing (or that of his countryman, Javier Mascherano). When it has only recently been announced that even the bottom club in next seasons Premiership will receive an extra £30m in TV revenue, how on earth can it be justified that a £5.5m fine is a suitable punishment, particularly when considering that the impact of the player himself just might be enough to keep them in the Premiership this season, thus qualifying for that additional revenue?
According to the Premier League, it can be justified because its “not the sporting ethos” to take points away. Yet presumably its “not the sporting ethos” to add points on by playing a player you haven’t registered legally? Both Neil Warnock and Paul Jewell have voiced their disgust at the decision by pointing out that they do not feel that their own clubs would have been treated as leniently. Whilst there is quite possibly an element of truth in that, the best suggestion I have heard to even things up was from Danny Kelly in The Times podcast, who suggested that Paul Jewell simply borrows all of Arsenals starting eleven for their remaining couple of games, then settle up their fines later.
Its worth remembering that in 1994, Spurs were awarded a 12 point penalty, later halved on appeal, for financial irregularities. Whilst the crime is different, back then the FA did not seem to have issue with a points deduction which would unarguably have been “not the sporting ethos” either, given its inevitable effect on their forthcoming season.
Rafael Benitez decided that he needed to take his concerns about the quality of reserve football into his own hands by allowing his own reserve team to play in the Premiership game with Portsmouth. Liverpool were therefore able to rest their players before their Champions League Semi-Final, whilst Portsmouth were able to collect three more points with little duress, moving them closer to their own European dreams, and everyone was happy. Except that is for Tottenham, Reading, Everton and Bolton, whos own ambitions are dented and who are left wondering why the Premier League don’t seem to see this flagrant disregard for their competition as anything particularly problematic.
Leeds United were able to name six loan players in their squad against Burnley earlier in the season, when the limit is only five. They did it again, several months later (although were exonerated eventually as one of these was an international loanee). Yet the limit of their punishment has been a £2,000 fine (half suspended), which appears to be in direct contrast with the punishment suffered by Bury this season, who found themselves thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player.
All clubs stand on different financial footing. Different clubs will feel the effect of a fine in completely different ways to others- would Championship bound Watford be able to deal with a £5.5m fine as easily as West Ham might?
However, no amount of money can guarantee Roman Abramovich a Champions League trophy and neither can it buy points. Those are real penalties, penalties on their ability to compete, penalties which would carry some threat. Unfortunately, money and status* in todays football world seem to have brought fear to the authorities, which they seem unlikely to be able to countenance with their democracy.
Money is talking.
*only the latter of these applies to Leeds. Oh wait, League One Leeds? Perhaps neither then. Good work, Ipswich……
No comments:
Post a Comment