SOME FOOTBALL clubs claim to be closely aligned to their community and understand the state of the nation. Indeed, some pride themselves on being representative of their city or town. Sometimes, though, it is hard to believe clubs really know what they are doing and why they think they can make insensitive decisions and avoid severe criticism.

The situation at the moment is an unprecedented one, nobody has experience of a country being locked-down, of the economy coming to an absolute standstill. It’s like a general strike or being placed on a war footing. We can, surely, forgive clubs for making foolish decisions in this uncertain environment, but they have been clumsy at interpreting the state of mind of the people for decades.

It’s risky business

In the corporate world, reputation has become an important part of the risk management process. In the past, risk was based around counterparty and credit. Then came operational risk, macroeconomic and finally, reputation. Maintaining good reputational risk has become more vital than ever in the post financial crisis world, and with social media crucifying any company stepping out of line, risk management has become a huge discipline that can cause significant damage if treated lightly. Many corporates have become very adept at managing their image and reputation, but some, to use the football lexicon, still score own goals.

Do football clubs do the same? Some have their hands on the tiller when it comes to looking good, sending players into the community to help the sick, the needy and those that come off the rails. They’ve become very smart at virtue signalling. Clubs are also diverse, they have no choice given the demographic of football, and they are embracing all segments of the community, including once taboo areas such as sexual bias.

Sometimes, clubs let themselves down by the stance they take, too often supporting players whose behaviour is sub-standard and on occasion, refusing to admonish player that may have brought the club and the game into disrepute. Perhaps the power of agents has something do with this.

With Britain’s employers coming under severe pressure during the Coronavirus crisis, the practice of “furloughing” staff has swept the corporate world. The term originates in America and involves sending employees home in extraordinary circumstances and paying them 80% of their wages through a government scheme. It avoids severance and also means a company can find relief from the scheme. In some ways, the angst is transferred to the employees.

Health

Some Premier League clubs, notably Liverpool and Tottenham, “furloughed” their non-essential and non-playing staff. This naturally incensed a lot of people as the industry, aside from the sums paid to players, is characterised by modest wages. Given the wage bills of Liverpool and Tottenham for the 2018-19 season were £ 310 million and £ 178 million respectively, it is arguable the employees sent home under the scheme represented a relatively small percentage of overall costs. However, these workers are easier to deal with as players will be on contracts that have to be fulfilled. Liverpool’s wage bill went up by 18% and Spurs’ climbed by more than 20% in 2018-19, and let’s not forget these were the two UEFA Champions League finalists. The action taken by these clubs should prompt questions about the financial health of the top flight. If a club like Liverpool is cash-strapped, we should ask why.

A week after making the announcement, Liverpool reversed their decision, admitting they had made a mistake. Tottenham, meanwhile, are being urged by their fans to do likewise. Many clubs’ players across Europe are now taking pay cuts to try and stave off a major collapse. The UK government has suggested a 30% cut, but that’s not necessarily to help football, it is to demonstrate “we’re all in it together”. Nobody is going to weep for Premier League footballers claiming they have been harshly treated, but we should all be clear that lower down, many professionals earn far, far less. Football is by no means the only sector where the rewards often appear to be out of step with reality.

Did these clubs think their ill-advised move would avoid a backlash from fans and media alike? Footballers are among the highest paid in the country and one of the most visible examples of conspicuous consumerism. They are also “of the masses” and therefore gestures such as taking a drop in wages will send the right type of signal.

For a long time, it has been obvious that in the football food chain, players have priority over other staff, hence managers come and go with regularity and when a coach has “lost the dressing room”, he is the one that has to pack his bag.

Mood

The current mood of the public in the UK comes down on the side of “those who serve”. This manifests itself in rising affection for the NHS, the emergency services and will extend to the military if the crisis becomes prolonged. From football’s perspective, the people that “serve” who never get close to the limelight are considered to be unsung heroes doing almost vocational jobs. They are ordinary working folk, “salt of the earth” characters following some sort of vocation and, ultimately, closer to the role of “loyal servants” than players will ever be.

Therefore, in a period where so many are facing hardship, possible unemployment and certainly lower income, making decisions that seem to be preserving the wealthy, will never be popular. Football has never been a conventional democracy, but did Liverpool and Tottenham but was this really overlooked by clubs run by owners steeped in business culture?

It’s interesting that the possible fallout doesn’t seem to have been considered yet clubs work with their players and management to ensure they say a few hundred words of nothing when they are interviewed on TV or by the newspapers. Yet these incidents show clubs are really not tuned-in to the zeitgeist – until prompted.

Unprecedented times, certainly. An unusual industry, for sure, but clubs have to realise that when all this is over, they will need their employees and their fans more than ever. As Bob Dylan sang all those years ago, “the times they are a changing” and as a result, the rain that falls may be very hard.

@GameofthePeople

Photo: PA

Categories: Culture

Tagged: Corona virus, finance, Lead, Liverpool, Premier League, top slot, Tottenham Hotspur

Football post-virus: Old habits may disappear

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 6, 2020

FOOTBALL’s enforced absence may seem trivial compared to the losses and suffering endured by people at the sharp end of the pandemic, but the crisis has the potential to transform the industry and leave it compromised by a wave of economic destruction.

If it was just about the financial damage, then the game undoubtedly has the power, popularity and eco-system to stage a recovery. However, the real cost of the Coronavirus could create a very different game in terms of spectator behaviour and the business models of clubs.

People are at their most vulnerable from threat when they are gathered in crowds, making them easy targets for terrorism, aerial attack, bacteria and civil disturbance. Crowds in confined spaces are the worst places to avoid infection and ideal places for contagion to take root. A crowd of 20,000 people pressed into an area no bigger than a big office complex or housing estate, can be lethal in circulating disease.

This is the sort of story that provides film-makers with a guaranteed audience. An outbreak of a rare or unknown disease, an ignored scientist who has warned for years of the menace and the consequences of meddling around in labs, a hero (usually American, usually with issues) and a bit of love interest thrown in. We usually watch in a state of mild horror, but the current situation is rapidly becoming our own sci-fi production. A vaccine will arrive at some point and life will go on, but our confidence in modern-day medicine will have been shaken.

Confidence will be at the root of the recovery mode and whether fans return to football matches with gusto. Look how quickly the country has gone from business as usual to tumbleweed junction: mass shutdowns, economic statistics plummeting and everything grinding to a halt. Our streets are deserted, goats are coming down from the hills believing the human race has disappeared and the skies are empty. Those that live around airports cannot believe the roaring silence – the biggest things in the air at the moment are birds of prey who also cannot figure out why the volume switch has suddenly been turned off. They are actually flying lower in curiosity. Neighbours of football clubs have surely missed the fortnightly glow in the evening sky that – if you live close enough – enables you to turn off your lights and bask in the glow of a bank of floodlights.

When the all-clear is sounded (well, we are comparing it to wartime even though there’s scarcely a man or woman who now remembers WW2), will it signal a stampede back to the ways we took for granted for so long? Will we pack-out football stadiums, for example, greeting our season ticket neighbours like long lost pals? Does the prospect of cramming onto a tube train, experiencing the alcohol and nicotine-tinged breath of fans up close, seem as attractive as it once did? In our sanitised, toilet roll-free homes, will we have become comforted by antiseptic environments and frightened out of our skins by the continual news bulletins and alarming statistics? And do we want to sit, buttock-by-buttock with the man whose dry cough and troubled brow just might indicate he is carrying something that is going to lay you up for a fortnight in bed? Will we want to eat and drink in a stadium that has so many “hot spots” when it comes to infection? Furthermore, the stadium toilets, although a marked improvement on the 1970s and 1980s, are still a pot pourri of bacteria and stale urine.

All joking aside, we may find that our willingness to go through the old football experience may have been diminished by the Coronavirus, that we will want to adopt a more hygenic approach to everyday life and also keep our distance. The age of hugging and kissing, tactile relationships and group eating may, for the time being, become passe.

Where does this leave football? The communal element of the game has always been one of its crucial selling points. Being part of something and expressing satisfaction, grief, frustration and ecstasy has long defined what the fan is all about. This could have been severely damaged but hopefully not eradicated by the virus. If we become hung-up on social distancing beyond the virus, and it is a possibility because who will wave the flag that says it is safe to go back into the water once more?, the whole concept of a large crowd watching sport will be under threat.

It may take time, longer than some clubs may have as the crisis decimates their balance sheets, but football has to accept that the audience returning to the game post-virus may not have the same level of tolerance or appetite for standing cheek-by-jowl with fellow sufferers. The answer could be to restrict crowd numbers, but if this is a extended or even permanent change of habit, then football could have a huge, possibly insurmountable problem ahead of it. Implementing social distancing at a football ground could mean cutting attendances by two thirds, a draconian measure that may kill clubs who have a substantial reliance on gate money.

On the other hand, perhaps nothing will happen and the crowds will flock back, more enthused than ever. Will government officials, football administrators and the clubs be happy to say that the doors are open and everything is fine? In this age of mass communication, litigation culture, career politics and social media dissection, it would seem unlikely.

@GameofthePeople

Photo: PA

Categories: Talking Points

Tagged: Corona virus, infectious disease, Lead, Politics, social media, top slot

England 1970 – better than ’66?

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 6, 2020

WINNING TWO consecutive World Cups has only been achieved once, by the brilliant Brazil team that lifted the trophy in 1958 and 1962. But when England travelled to Mexico for the 1970 World Cup, there were genuine hopes that Sir Alf Ramsey’s side could retain the trophy won in 1966. Indeed, the more patriotic contingent in Fleet Street felt the 1970 squad was actually a stronger unit.

The prospect of playing in a Latin American country, with all the challenges that came with it, may have made the task daunting, but there was enough confidence to suggest the holders could be real contenders. Even so, Ramsey admitted it would be tough for England to retain their title, but equally, it would be hard to take it away from them.

Nobody in England really knew how good the current batch of Latin Americans were. There was little, if any, coverage of the international game other than the European Cup final, and people only got to be aware of South American football through rumour and heresay, unless a national team went on a European tour or a club side caused a stir in the World Club Championship.

Mexico had hosted the 1968 Olympic Games and there had been a lot of concerns about the altitude and high temperatures. The European nations would have problems in acclimatising, the scientists and medics said, and the South American teams and the hosts would have a distinct advantage. Brazil, in 1958, were the only country to have won the World Cup on another continent. That said, in the Mexico Olympics, Hungary won gold, Bulgaria silver and Spain and France went as far as the last eight.

England expected their players would lose between eight and 10 pounds in weight during a 90-minute game. In order to combat the draining effect of playing in searing heat, they experimented with slow sodium capsules, which were supposed to replace the lost salts in their bodies. They also donned new Umbro aertex shirts that would be cooler than traditional football kits.

Staying power

England, since 1966, had largely maintained the core of their World Cup winning line-up. George Cohen and Ray Wilson, the full backs, had succumbed to injury and age, while Nobby Stiles had endured a disappointing post-66 career, partly due to the decline of his club Manchester United. Roger Hunt had retired from international duty in 1969. Jack Charlton, despite retaining his position in the England squad, was now a veteran and no longer first choice at centre half. Jimmy Greaves, the crestfallen striker who lost his place in England’s final XI, was last capped in 1967 at the age of 27.

Ramsey’s ‘66 side had very much been a team to fit a system, but the players that had emerged since were working for strong managerial and coaching figures such as Don Revie, Malcolm Allison and Bill Nicholson. The game had changed since 1966 and the ongoing debate over club versus country meant Ramsey’s men also belonged to employers with firm views on how the game should be played. Some were in very successful club teams that had played 60-odd games in a season.

English clubs became more European-savvy in the years after 1966. Leeds United, for example, had won the Inter-Cities’ Fairs Cup in 1968, just over 12 months after losing in the final of the same competition. This triggered off a three-year stretch of English success that included victories for Newcastle United (1969) and Arsenal (1970). Manchester United had won the European Cup in 1968 and neighbours City had secured the European Cup-Winners’ Cup (1970). The club game was looking very healthy, but people were generally unexcited by the national team, which was seen as efficient and lacking in charisma.

England’s Geoff Hurst in action against USSR in the 1968 Nations Cup play-off.

In fact, Ramsey was often accused of picking steady, solid players instead of character actors like Chelsea’s Peter Osgood and indeed, media favourite Jimmy Greaves. Some felt he was too loyal to the men who had won in 1966. Nevertheless, the players who were coming through, such as Colin Bell, Francis Lee and Terry Cooper, to name but three, were considered to be every bit as good as those that had helped England to glory. Those that remained from 1966 were getting older and 1970 would be their swansong in the World Cup. That group would have included Gordon Banks, Bobby and Jack Charlton, Nobby Stiles, Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst.

England’s performance in the 1968 European Championship (then the Nations Cup) ended disappointingly in Florence with a 1-0 defeat at the hands of Yugoslavia, a team they were expected to beat comfortably. They finished third in that tournament, beating the USSR 2-0 in the third/fourth play-off. From 1968-69, England were preparing for Mexico with friendly matches and the Home Internationals. They were held to frustrating draws with Romania and Bulgaria and then beat a poor French side 5-1 at Wembley. Some performances fell below expectations and not everyone was behind Ramsey and his mean.

The press never really gave them full credit for their achievements and often Ramsey’s tight-lipped response to questions and motionless poker face, would move reporters to be very critical. Nobody really saw the Ramsey way – “the wingless wonders” – as being attractive or acting as a standard bearer for the future of the game and hence, it took many years for full recognition to come the way of Ramsey and his team.

Coming together

Alan Ball against Scotland.

The Home Internationals saw England field the team that would take shape for Mexico and they won all three games, most impressively with a 4-1 demolition of a decent Scotland side at Wembley, with Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters scoring two apiece. The line-up, Gordon Banks in goal, Keith Newton and Terry Cooper at full back, Brian Labone and Bobby Moore in the centre of defence, a midfield of Alan Mullery, Alan Ball, Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters and Francis Lee and Geoff Hurst up front was soon seen as England’s optimal XI.

It was an ideal send-off for England on their diplomatic and fact-finding mission to Mexico, Uruguay and Brazil in the summer of 1969. England did well, drawing 0-0 in the magnificent Azteca Stadium, beating Uruguay in Montevideo and narrowly losing to a Brazil team that included six of the players who would become world champions in 1970. But England didn’t quite make as many friends and influence as many people as they had hoped and the Mexican public failed to warm to Ramsey and his team.

Little did England know at that point, but they would be drawn in the same group as Brazil as well as two difficult Eastern Europeans in Czechoslavakia and Romania. England came through the 1969-70 season but they had rarely shown their best form and one or two players had been off-song. Peters had moved from West Ham to Tottenham, largely because he was concerned about his own performances, the Leeds contingent (Cooper, Charlton, Norman Hunter and Allan Clarke) had endured a season of heartbreak, losing in the FA Cup final, finishing league runners-up and going all the way to the semi-finals of the European Cup.

On the other hand, there were some players who had enjoyed very successful seasons – Jeff Astle of West Bromwich Albion and Chelsea’s Peter Osgood had scored 48 league goals between them. Brian Labone, Alan Ball, Keith Newton and Tommy Wright had all been part of Everton’s league championship side. Of the 22 players who would form the final squad in Mexico, only Gordon Banks and Emlyn Hughes had not tasted success with their clubs. Compared to 1966, this squad had more experience of what it took to win medals.

Sir Alf Ramsey had been on a number of fact-finding missions ahead of the competition. Bobby Charlton, writing in Goal magazine, commented: “Sir Alf has spent so much time in Mexico these past three years that he knows it almost as well as his own garden in Ipswich.” A light-hearted take from England’s veteran midfielder, but the build-up suggested Ramsey was concerned about taking his champions to what he saw as a hostile environment.

England travelled to South America early and played a series of warm-up games, beating Colombia in Bogota (4-0) and Ecuador in Quito (2-0). The tour was soured by the accusations in Bogota that Bobby Moore had stolen a bracelet when visiting a store. Moore was arrested and eventually released but there was an underlying feeling this had all been designed to disrupt England’s preparations for the World Cup finals.

England remained one of the favourites to win the competition. Helmut Schön, West Germany’s manager, tipped them to retain their crown, while Mario Zagalo of Brazil felt his team, the Germans and England would be the main contenders.

Pele, Banks and Müller

Jairzinho scores the winner against England.

While the group game statistics will show that England won two of their three games, they had to grind-out both victories. Their opener was against a tough and determined Romania side who seemed content to foul the holders at every opportunity. England won 1-0 thanks a Geoff Hurst goal which was good enough to start the campaign, but this was quickly overshadowed by the way Brazil dismantled Czechoslavakia the following day.

On June 7, 1970, England met Brazil in a game that would, in many ways, see the baton passed from the 1966 winners to the 1970 champions. There have been many superlatives used to describe this fine example of modern football and there were some outstanding moments, not least the spectacular, impossible save by Gordon Banks from Pele’s header. England lost by a single goal, scored by Jairzinho, but played their best football of the tournament with Bobby Moore showing that Bogota had not affected his game and Terry Cooper outstanding at left back.

The same could not be said of their third group game against the Czechs. Ramsey made a number of changes, fielding Keith Newton, Jack Charlton, Colin Bell, Allan Clarke and Jeff Astle. In an unfamiliar sky blue kit, England put in their worst display for some time but won with a penalty from Clarke. It was enough to send them through to the quarter-finals, although the woodwork had to come to England’s rescue.

Had England really been convincing in the group matches? They rose to the occasion against Brazil, but one goal scored in open play in three games suggested they lacked the firepower and flair to win the competition. Brazil, of course, had captured the hearts of the football world with their exciting style and West Germany, with Gerd Müller scoring no less than seven goals in three games, had been tipped to go all the way. England had to face the Germans in the last eight and their form made them favourites to win in León.

England thought they would be at full strength, but another twist, one full of conspiracy theories, saw Gordon Banks, arguably the top goalkeeper in the world, confined to bed with food poisoning. Ramsey thought Banks would pull through, but he was weakened by the ailment and Peter Bonetti replaced him. Bonetti had just had an outstanding season for Chelsea and in his previous six games for England had conceded just one goal, but he had played only 90 minutes since the FA Cup final replay.

England were outstanding for an hour and were 2-0 ahead thanks to goals from Alan Mullery (31 mins) and Martin Peters (49 mins). Sadly, Bonetti was considered at fault for England’s capitulation, starting with a 68^thminute strike from Franz Beckenbauer. Of the three goals that West Germany scored, the first was, realistically, the one that Bonetti should have stopped. Uwe Seeler’s back header that equalised in the 81^stminute had a certain freakish quality about it, but it sent the game to extra time. England, who went into the following half hour without Bobby Charlton and Martin Peters, without looked ragged and it was almost inevitable that Gerd Müller, who had been largely anonymous for most of the game, should score the winner after 107 minutes.

England had been under terrible pressure in the second half as the Germans hit back. The media were clear about where the problem laid – England allowed their opponents in every game more chances as they created themselves. Nobody wanted to blame Bonetti, underlining the professionalism of the squad.

There was sense of shock afterwards, England had lost their crown to the country they had beaten in 1966. It was the beginning of the end of an era, especially for Ramsey. For four players, Bobby Charlton, Peter Bonetti, Keith Newton and Brian Labone, it proved to be their last international. Of the 1966 brigade, Nobby Stiles and Jack Charlton were also at the end of their England careers.

Geoff Hurst and Gordon Banks were gone within two years, Bobby Moore and Martin Peters lasted a little longer and finally, Alan Ball of the World Cup winners finished on the international stage in 1974-75 aged 30. The 1970 lads from Ramsey’s ideal eleven, Francis Lee and Terry Cooper were no longer required after 1972 and 1974 respectively. For every member of the 1970 squad, the World Cup would never come their way again, for England didn’t qualify again until 1982.

Journalist Alan Hughes, clearly no advocate of Ramsey, tried to extract some consolation from England’s elimination: “Perhaps defeat will benefit English football in the long run. There is every chance that had we kept the World Cup, most of our league teams would have been playing the functional but unentertaining 4-4-2 and bored the fans to death.”

Back home

Making comparisons is hard, but the popular view that the 1970 team was better than 1966 is even more difficult to assess. It might be easier to say that the 1970 side had experience and was perhaps “better liked” by the media and therefore the narrative was the team was better because we say it is. But England failed to beat the two strong teams they met in Mexico ’70, unlike their predecessors who had disposed of three good teams – Argentina, Portugal and West Germany. There is a theory that there were more proficient teams in 1970 than there were in 1966.

Taking one man at a time, you could argue players such as Terry Cooper, Alan Mullery, Brian Labone and Francis Lee were just as good as those they replaced. You could also make a case that Bobby Moore, Martin Peters and Alan Ball were more accomplished players in 1970. But as a unit, the 1966 team proved it could take on and beat the better opponents. Since 1966, the ability to dispose of really strong teams has somewhat eluded England and it may well have started with that World Cup. England’s two best games were both defeats in Mexico and for that reason, it is hard to agree with those that believe the 1970 team was a superior product. Bobby Charlton, who played in both teams, was asked some years later if the 1970 squad was better that 1966 and he opted for the side that won.

Certainly, by 1972, the 1970 team, if it had been better than 1966, should have been peaking in the Euros. It received another body blow, once more when coming up against the Germans, which really demonstrates that 1970 was really the end of something, rather than the start of something more promising.

@GameofthePeople

Categories: Teams

Tagged: Bobby Charlton, Brazil, England, Franz Beckenbauer, great reputations, Lead, Mexico, Peter Bonetti, Sir Alf Ramsey, top slot, West Germany, World Cup 1970

QPR, West London’s wilderness club

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 2, 2020

THE FUTURE of Queens Park Rangers largely depends on two things: how the club navigates its way through the Coronavirus crisis; and secondly, the relocation to a new, more versatile stadium in the future.

In 2018, an English newspaper named the club one of the worst managed in Britain. This was largely due to a poor record in the transfer market, overspending and a lack of stability caused by short-term managers and a high turnover of players.

QPR, desperate to be part of the Premier League gravy train, have only been in the top flight for seven seasons in the last 28, with the Championship (step 2) now appearing to be their natural home.

Clubs such as QPR have an uncertain future due to the Coronavirus and it remains to be seen if all mid-sized entities will survive the inevitable fall-out of no football, macro-economic collapse and political turmoil.

With London a crowded football market, QPR have Fulham (3.2 miles), Chelsea (4 miles), Brentford (5 miles) within close proximity. While QPR enjoyed their moment as the leading club among this quartet, the resurgence of Chelsea and Fulham over the past 15 years has pushed them down the pecking order. The club’s financial limitations, despite wealthy backers, means QPR struggle to compete locally, while on the pitch they have declined significantly.

Game of the People’s latest State of Play study looks at QPR’s last 10 years from a number of angles: financial, playing record, managers and attendances.

Click State of Play QPR to see more

Categories: State of Play

Tagged: attendances, Championship, finance, Lead, Loftus Road, Queens Park Rangers, State of Play, top slot

Furlough furore shows Premier League clubs need to focus more on reputation

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 8, 2020

It’s risky business

Health

Mood

England 1970 – better than ’66?

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 6, 2020

Staying power

Coming together

Pele, Banks and Müller

Back home

QPR, West London’s wilderness club

GOTP Editorial Team

Posted on April 2, 2020