Sport is loved by many the world over. Yet how many people really know the sport they love?
They may know individual teams, players or statistics and results from years gone by, but how many know how the sport is structured and how it is administered?
Many will say they don’t care, and clearly there are many across the globe who don’t. As a result without realizing it they have seen their sport turn from being a contest into becoming entertainment.
Sadly once that line is crossed all of the parameters that used to exist, and many of the rules that were put in place to protect the sport and its integrity go out of the window.
If you take Irving Scholar when he was the Chairman of Tottenham Hostpur he was labeled by many as ‘a visionary.’ As he was the man who has been credited with commercializing football. He was a major player in the creation of the English Premier League.
He convinced the other clubs that the Television stations should pay more for the coverage of games. Which has created a bidding war between rival stations and by comparison to his time in charge, astronomical sums of money being paid we are told so fans can enjoy the game.
Yet possibly the most impactful thing he did was in 1983 become the first club Chairman to float his club on the Stock exchange. He set up a Holding Company and made the football club a subsidiary, and boldly stated that the longstanding rules of Football’s Governing body no longer applied.
These rules which had been amended over the years since being put in place back in the 1890’s were there to protect the “sporting character” of the clubs. Rule 34 of the Football Association stated that dividends were restricted to 15% of the face value of shares. It also stated that Directors could be paid, but had to work full time and be approved by the Association before claiming a wage. Finally, if a club were wound up the shareholders could not sell the assets and pocket the profit. If following the sale of assets there was any money left over it had to go to another sports club or charity.
This is similar today with the player development fees implemented by FIFA. If a club that has developed a young player now playing professional football has since been wound up, the fees that the club would have been entitled to must be invested in junior development. Equally National Associations cannot claim “a commission” or an “administration fee” for processing these development fees. Both are illegal under FIFA Rules.
Irving Scholar was the first to float a club as a subsidiary of a parent company. Soon everyone was doing it. Suddenly stadia and players became major assets, which all added up to these major shareholders making large sums of money. Suddenly a new breed of person became involved in the game, those who simply saw football as a way of making money. The corporates became more important than the regular fans. A situation that lead to a quote being attributed to Manchester United’s former captain Roy Keane where it was claimed he said “Away from home our fans are fantastic, I’d call them the hardcore fans. But at home they have a few drinks and probably the prawn sandwiches, and they don’t realise what’s going on out on the pitch.”
The clubs were brazen about the situation even writing in their prospectuses of the ownership situation. Aston Villa wrote in relation to Rule 34 that “these regulations apply only to member club companies such as Aston Villa FC Limited. Aston Villa PLC is not subject to these regulations.”
What did the Football Association do? Nothing. Why did they do nothing?
This all happened in the 1980’s and 1990’s, but it set a precedent that has seen similar operations set up in other sports and individuals only interested in exploiting players, clubs and the game for their own gain come and go once they have taken all they can. All of this happening while the powers that be, or those with the ability to intervene sit on their hands and do nothing.
The answer as to why they do may be found from earlier events in football. For decades football had been administered globally by the dominant European nations. At the 1966 World Cup in England the defending Champions Brazil had been bundled out of the tournament in the Group stage. Superstar Pele had been fouled repeatedly and missed the second match against Hungary, which they lost, while his supplier Garrincha was missing in the defeat against Portugal. Many blamed the referees, but subsequently it has been revealed that the team was poorly prepared and the coach could not settle on a best team.
This defeat was however the motivation for Joao Havelange to make his charge for the Presidency of FIFA. One of his platforms was to break the European dominance of football which he claimed had resulted in a plot to see Brazil bundled out of the ’66 World Cup early doors. He targeted the developing nations in Africa and Asia to give him the votes to assume power. He promised an expanded World Cup with them involved, Youth World Cups that they would have a chance of hosting, and the suspension of South Africa over the Apartheid regime. Pele went on the campaign trail with him, while Horst Dassler then the Managing Director of Adidas lobbied delegates to make sure they had the votes. Havelange won, and so began a long relationship between FIFA and Adidas.
In order to remain in power both he and his successor Sepp Blatter had to keep their allies in the various Confederations close at hand. These key personnel were given key positions on various committees along with large financial rewards, and were expected to ensure that the votes, when required, went the way the powers that be wanted.
This was why there was a sudden proliferation of administrators from “developing nations” holding senior positions.
Football is not alone in this regard, since the 1990’s more and more sports have adopted a similar approach. The public is assured that a “comprehensive vetting process” has been followed, yet on many occasions even if that was the case the Constitution of the sport in question has not been adhered to.
The Constituation is the one document that is there to protect all sport for the masses; A document that must be adhered to by all. If you take the time to read many of these International Constitutions it states very clearly that Executive Board members must not hold positions within a national Body. Yet many do. If you go lower down the food chain the National Constitutions frequently state that a Board member cannot hold a position with a club or be a major sponsor of a club or competition. Yet they do. More worrying is no one questions this, not even their fellow Board Members.
As one lawyer employed by an International Association told this writer, “they have no concept as to what a Conflict of Interest is.”
One Board Member explained away the situation by stating that how could the representatives from “developing Nations” be expected to understand such intricacies? The answer is simple. Make sure that they have read the constitution. Make sure that they comply with it when they stand for election.
At the end of last week the International Olympic Committee announced the 10 New Members up for Election to the IOC Session.
The IOC stated that the final candidates were selected on the basis of “their expertise in different domains (including medical, sociological, cultural, political, business, legal and sports management expertise), in addition to geographic and gender balance.”
The candidates came from Greece, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Lesotho, Cape Verde, Cote D’Ivoire, Indonesia, India, Algeria, and the Republic of Korea. They come from one European nation, five African nations, three Asian nations and one from Central America.
Hopefully they do have the required expertise, but from an Olympic perspective with the exception of the Republic of Korea, known to many as South Korea, their Olympic records are poor.
| Nation | Games attended | Gold won | Total medals |
|---|---|---|---|
| Korea | 18 Summer/18 Winter | 121 | 337 |
| Greece | 28 Summer/19 Winter | 33 | 116 |
| Cameroon | 14 Summer/1 Winter | 3 | 6 |
| Lesotho | 11 Summer | 0 | 0 |
| Cape Verde | 6 Summer | 0 | 0 |
| Costa Rica | 13 Summer/ 6 Winter | 1 | 4 |
| Cote D’Ivoire | 13 Summer | 1 | 3 |
| Indonesia | 15 Summer | 7 | 32 |
| India | 24 Summer/3 Winter | 9 | 28 |
| Algeria | 13 Summer/3 Winter | 5 | 17 |
When one hears that Lord Coe was not included in this list, a man who has won Olympic Gold, served as a Politician, delivered an Olympic Games, and is the President of the IAAF it leaves many shocked. The reason given is that Coe continues to hold the position of President of a sports marketing company, “which makes it difficult for him to join the IOC.” As long as that is declared and that business does not receive any IOC contracts where is the problem?
On the other hand the Greek candidate, is also an Olympian and was involved in the delivery of Athens 2004 Games. However this individual was involved in ticketing irregularities at the London2012 Olympics. Yet IOC President Thomas Bach is quoted as saying that “It was seven years ago. IOC Members are representatives of the IOC in their respective countries, where they promote Olympism and its values.” He claimed that the commission, chaired by Princess Anne, ruled that Capralos had served his sentence and that a warning should not mean permanent exclusion!
There is no place at the table for the new head of FIFA Gianni Infantino either. This is in spite of both his and Coe’s predecessors holding positions with the IOC. Both of these predecessors Sepp Blatter at FIFA and Lamine Diack at the IAAF were IOC members, but both still face legal problems for suspicions of corruption.
So there are contradictions in terms of what is allowed and forgiven and this continues to baffle most. Of course there are many that would say that FIFA with its recent record needs to restore public faith before sitting on the Commission again.
It is very hard to make sense of the processes that exist and those who make these short lists. Maybe it is a case of history repeating. That those appointed are given the appointment in return for their loyalty and votes when they matter.
Cricket as we have seen has been highjacked. India, Australia and England taking control of the game and the Lion’s share of the money. Many have questioned whether these people are Guardians of the game, or whether they have in fact opened the gates and let a select few in to share in the spoils.
In Cricket, frequently we hear the same line trotted out, that ‘things had to change.’ ‘The old ways didn’t work.’ T20 was supposed to be the fix the game needed. It was going to help grow participation, increase the fan base and help convert them into fans of One Day Cricket, Test Matches and all levels below. That has not happened and the report that revealed those very important statistics has been buried.
What T20 has done is prioritise making money for those at the top above everything else. Now one by one we are watching other sports head down the same path. Many of these sports being encouraged to adopt the shorter versions of their sport by the IOC with the carrot that they will gain or continue to be guaranteed Olympic inclusion.
Why does the IOC want such events rather than protecting the integrity of the Olympic Games? The Olympic Games has become an expensive event to host, and unwieldy to manage. Few cities are putting up their hands, and few Governments are prepared to commit the funds and give the tax breaks expected to the IOC. So they need to make money another way. These shortened versions of sports have nothing to do with the attention span of the youth, but everything to do with making money. Shorter games, allow more teams, which means more games, which results in more ticket sales. There is little or no thought in relation to the athletes. Will ticket prices be reduced for the shorter games from the levels they were for the traditional length games?
These are scary times for many sports.
In the documentary “Death of a Gentleman” which looked closely at the power grab for control of cricket, respected Cricket writer and historian Gideon Haigh said “a question that I don’t think administrators have answered is does cricket make money in order to exist? Or does it exist in order to make money?”
It is a question that should be asked of many a sporting body and administration, and asked by all who care about their particular sport. They should keep asking it until they receive a clear answer.
Despite these worrying times the documentary concluded, cricket will continue to be played on parks around the world, in schools and back gardens. It will still be written about, because it is a game that belongs to all who play it, watch it and love it. The same applies to all sports. It is vital that this remains the case. However that does not mean that eating most of the cake and only leaving the crumbs for the masses is right or good for a sport’s long term future.
Remember the Constitutions were set up to protect the sport. Make sure that they are adhered to. If they are some sports will find that their Governance will improve. Some it appears have gone past the point of no return, like Cricket where the Constitution was changed to suit those in charge…
