Technology in Football

Having spent four years up to 2008, as a member of the International Football Association Board, which determines the Laws of the Game, I have followed with interest the debate on goal line technology.

The recent FA Cup semi final bewteen Chelsea and Tottenham again highlighted the difficulties for officials. In 2005, Sepp Blatter procliamed that the future lay in embracing technology, yet when Michel Platini took over at UEFA, this idea was ditched and his suggestion of deploying two extra officials behind the goals was experimented with instead. In observing this experiment, it is not obvious that the use of six officials has resolved anything, by way of improving decision- making in matches.

The emphasis on goal-line technology has detracted from the fact that the modern game is now so fast, that mere humans are not able to keep pace with it, and many officials have been found wanting. For technology to be of value, it needs to be deployed, principally in the final third of the field, where the play is tigher and big decisions are critical. That most infringements in the penalty area , for instance, are awarded against the attacking team is not a fair reflection of what actually happens. Match officials need to be judged on getting the "big decisions" correct.

There is a definite need for technology, as an aid to decision-making. Blatter has been adamant that for it to be introduced it has to applied in "real time" to prevent unnecessary stoppages to the game. This is largely irrelevant in my opinion. The game at the highest levels now is big business and managers' careers, promotion and relegation often swing on bad decisions.

We saw recently in the match between Manchester United and QPR how United gained a penalty as the result of Ashley Young recovering from an offside position, which was not spotted, to then win a penalty and the QPR defender was sent off, as a consequence. It looked a routine call for the assistaant referee, who was right in line with play, yet he must have taken his eye off the last defender, that he could not have spotted the offside. Everyone in the stand and watching on TV must have seen the infringement. The decision was wrong, the penalty should not have been awarded and QPR should not have had to play out most of the match with only ten men. The match was "dead" at that stage, as Mark Hughes, the QPR maanager pointed out afterwards. He was "cheated" as were the spectators of seeing a fair contest.

It technology is to be embraced, Blatter and others at FIFA will have to accept that there may be stoppages, as there are currently when players are injured, or substituted. For technology to work, the 4th Official also needs to be brought into play. He/she in observing the match on a video monitor, should be able to imform the referee through a microphone that a key incident has been missed eg offsie, off-the-ball incidents etc.

Fans want to see a fair contest. In the recent FA Cup semi-final, the referee could not possibly have seen from his position, whether the ball had clearly crossed the line.  Video replays were also inconclusive. In such a case, the referee should have been obliged to give the benfit of the doubt to the defending team, - Spurs, as that principle applies in all sport. It turned the match as a fair contest.

The Way Sport in the UK is Governed

The current Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson has often been on record, tearing his hair out about the way in which sport in managed in UK. He began, initially by telling football to put its house in order. Then we had the debacle at the Rugby Union, when its Chief Executive, John Steele was removed somewhat ignominiously, after only six months in the job.

Robertson, is also “tinkering” with the sports councils – UK Sport and Sport England to try to bring the two together. Ironically, when I set up UK Sport, as its first CEO, it was under a previous Conservative administration and now sixteen years later, another Conservative led government is trying to reverse those arrangements. Against the backdrop of devolution UK Sport was never needed in the first place, but having made something of it, under Sue Campbell’s leadership, it is equally bonkers to be trying to change the structure following the London Olympics.

The way we run sport in UK to a large extent mirrors what has gone on since the set up of International Sports Federations. The latter in theory at least recognise one controlling body in each country. In UK we have always referred to “governing bodies of sport” rather than “national sports associations” so there has often been a blur in identifying the actual controlling body in some sports. Karate is a particular case in question at the moment.

In football, the trouble started with the setting up of what originally was going to be a “Football Association Premier League” (FAPL). Its original blueprint was crafted by the FA’s Director of Coaching, Charles Hughes, a forward thinker. That blueprint had the new FAPL as a division of the FA, with a Director reporting to the FA’s Chief Executive. Had the intended structure been realised, we would be having a totally different discussion today.  Unfortunately, the powers-that-be at the FA in 1991, with Graham Kelly at the helm, capitulated under pressure from six League Clubs’ Chairmen, whom once they had realised, the potential financial opportunities of the FAPL, saw independence as the solution to all their woes.

We would be having totally different debates today had the FA shown true leadership. Additionally, had David Sheepshanks been elected as the FA Chairman in 1998, instead of Geoff Thompson, I have no doubt that he would have appointed Richard Scudamore as his CEO and again the last fourteen years, or so, would have allowed the FA to take on its rightful leadership role. I was present at the meeting of the Premier League Chairmen, when they voted to a man, to support Thompson’s candidacy rather than that of Sheepshanks – a decision which even to this day is inexplicable. It was a retrograde step.

Since then the FA has lurched from one crisis to another, with Thompson being replaced by an independent Chair, Lord Triesman, who in no time at all spectacularly made a fool of himself and brought the credibility of the FA into serious dispute, both nationally and internationally. He in turn had watched as Brian Barwick his CEO and Simon Johnson, his No 2, ha, tripped round the country getting the various constituents to agree to the principle of accepting an independent Chair, and once in post his first act was to remove Barwick!

We are now at that point where the FA is struggling to remain credible in several circles. It has as its intellectual properties, the England team, the FA Cup, a money-losing stadium at Wembley and a coaching scheme which has long since lost its sparkle.

“He who pays the piper.......” and there is no doubt that the combination of the Premier League’s wealth and Scudamore’s astute leadership have made it difficult for the FA to keep pace, or to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. The post of CEO at the FA, was down-graded to that of General Secretary; Sir Dave Richards, the Premier League’s Chair, was brought into something called “Club England” by Triesman, presumably to build bridges, but in reality all it did was create another huge conflict of interests.

The FA would do well in utilising the new project at Burton-on-Trent to re-kindle its coaching schemes. Years ago, when Sir Bobby Robson was with the national team, most of the leading club coaches were also staff coaches of the FA. The two were intrinsically linked. The failings of the England national team and that of Scotland and Wales, are largely the consequence of a decline in the standards of coaching, which is highlighted within the club academy structures. Had those coaches been up-to-the-mark we would be seeing many more British players competing for places at the leading clubs, rather than sitting on benches.

The media and general public are clamouring for Harry Redknapp to take charge of the England team, when as yet, to the best of my knowledge, the FA has yet to go public, on what they perceive the job to be all about. If it is just about talking charge of the national team a few times a year, then it is barely a full-time job, but if it includes taking full responsibility for changing the entire face of our coaching philosophy,  as Walter Winterbottom did those many years ago, then it is a whole new ball game. Redknapp would provide “band aid” to the immediate problems of the national team, a short term fix but not the solution to delivering a longer term strategy, to place the national teams, on a continuous upward spiral, where winning becomes inevitable.

The FA is in the process of trying to modernise its corporate governance. It has a new independent Chair and two new independent Directors, which is laudable, but whether that group will have the influence collectively to place the FA where it should be as the lead body in English football remains to be seen. That the Premier League could have let loose its Chair, Sir Dave Richards to speak at a conference in Qatar this week, in an ill-informed manner, then try to pretend that he was speaking in a personal capacity, is indicative of a lack of understanding of corporate responsibility. The Chair of any organisation can never speak in a personal capacity. Equally, the responsibility for International affairs rests with the FA not the Premier League. That Richards fell into the swimming pool after speaking and not before must have been a huge disappointment to those football officials from England who were present.

Getting the right structure in place with “Club England” and the correct national coach will be the immediate challenge. That will require the FA to be brave, ignore the popular cry and show leadership.

The  dismissal of Mick McCarthy at Wolverhampton Wanderers opens the door for the managerial merry-go-round to begin again. Several names are "in the frame" according to the press. The more important issue is whether those responsible for selecting the manager at Wolves, or any other club for that matter, really have the competencies to do the job.

If the Club has a Director of Football, it is clearly his responsibility to prepare the candidate brief and the appropriate short list, but in many cases clubs still select managers on a whim and a fancy, without adequate reserach.

McCarthy probably stayed one season too long at Wolves. He had done a remarkable job, with limied budgets and limited players. That the club's chairman apparently believes that Wolves should be in the top ten, suggests that he is not on this planet, let alone living in the real world. He is living in the distant past, when in the late 1950;s and early 1960's the club was a force to be reckoned with, but since then it has punched well below its weight.

My former colleague, George Burley at Ipswich Town stayed one season too many at that club.In his first season in the Premier League, Ipswich finished fifth and George received the accolade of "Manager of the Year" in a season when Alex Ferguson with Manchester United won the Champions League truphy. Had George quit then, recognising that "this is as good as it gets" he could have named his club, such was his "currency" within the business. Instead a season, or so, later he was sacked and his star has never been in the ascendancy since - sadly.

Clubs often select mangers for no good reason and then sack them using the same lack of logic. Chairmen and Boards of Directors panic when the supportrres start protesting at matches. The fans pay their admission to matches and are entitled to their opinion, but that is all it is - an opinion. The Directors need to be able to articulate a clear vision and strategy for the club and that they selected the manager to deliver within that, but too many clubs lurch from one crisis to another with very short term objectives.

Wolves will be trying now to save their season, to remain in the Premier League, which McCarthy had been doing since their last promotion. Football management is a high pressure business. My expectation now is that Wolves will replace McCarthy with another manager whose track record is less than impressive, having done little research, inform him that the club has big plans (it was a big club) and that they want a miracle worked with limited funds.

It may be beyond the ability of most humans. Perhaps St Peter is the answer.

The FA is between a rock and a hard place, with regards tthe England men's national team The lack of any real long term strategy since the deaprture of Sir Bobby Robson, has seen it lurch from one crisis to another with a raft of natioanl team managers, who for one reason or another, have failed on the job.

There is a danger now, as it did in 1990, of pandering to the peoples' choice, Harry Redknapp being the 2012 equivalent of Graham Taylor. . Harry would probably be the choice of many media pundits. Capello's departure might provide a part-time role for Redknapp through the imminent European finals, but is is not the longer term solution.

But is does provide an opportunity for the FA to get in place a plan to ensure that whoever is appointed beyond the summer of 2012 is given a key responsibility to develop potential national coaches in future, which will be vital to get the best from the dwindling talent base that will continue to be available.

The Olympic Stadium in London

OLYMPIC STADIUM IN LONDON

It beggars belief that the new Olympic Stadium in London was not designed to allow seating to be moved hydraulically to cover the athletics track. This is not rocket science. Surely, the powers-that-be had worked out that the only athletics event that could fill the stadium would be the athletics event within the Games themselves.

Attendance at recent World Athletics Championships, have, in the main been disappointing. Surely, too, it must have been understood that football, and occasionally rugby, would be the only sports likely to fill the stadium on a regular basis.

This was also a golden opportunity to consider a ground sharing option by two clubs, which seems to have been missed.

Physical Education and School Sport

The link between a lack of exercise, over-eating and obesity is well documented, as is the correlation between obesity and type 2 diabetes. There is nothing new in recent suggestions that physical education should be “tested”. I have always been an advocate that specialist PE teachers should be deployed in primary schools, not to teach formal sport, but to educate young children about the importance of movement,  balance, flexibility, agility and skill learning.

I have empathy with those who are disaffected from the traditional team sports. In my view, we will not engage with the exercise agenda through those activities. In the early 1990’s Professor Neil Armstrong, at Exeter University found that the only activity which raised the heart rate of teenagers, (especially girls) to significant levels, was disco-dancing.

A year ago, I watched a television documentary, where two of the professionals from “Strictly Come Dancing” went into a London school and selected twelve couples, whom within a month were able to dance in formation and as couples at Blackpool Tower Ballroom, to a very high standard. These were teenagers whom from the outset barely wanted to talk to the opposite sex let alone touch them and dance with them. The results were amazing and showed that if one finds the right physical activity, which is taught well and is fun, children will engage and enjoy exercise. That seems to me to be the real challenge for teachers and parents.