Football Media Watch: A job for the right boy – Phil Neville’s new role

THE problem with successful people is they believe they are good at anything and everything. Thanks to the world’s over fascination with celebrity status and wealth, such individuals are indulged by the broader population, partly because deep down, everyone wants to be the golden boy or girl and also, because they also despise the rich and famous.

Phil Neville enjoyed a fabulous playing career as one of Manchester United’s Class of ’92, appearing almost 400 times for United and winning an astonishing 59 caps for England. Neville was possibly one of the least celebrated members of that group, but he has truly leveraged his career to prolong his time in the spotlight.

Neville has announced he is leaving his job with the England Women’s national team to coach David Beckham’s Inter Miami. Once more, he has landed on his feet, exiting from a job that had gone a little sour and finding refuge in the sunshine state.

Neville’s time with the women’s side turned after the team was knocked out of the World Cup in 2019 and he was criticised for his tactics. His response was almost Trumpian: ‘”I’ve got a vision nobody else has. I’ve got bravery that no other coach had. So, do you know what? Thank your lucky stars. I’m here.”  Such a comment was never going to endear him to the media.

The Daily Telegraph’s Luke Edwards said that it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that Neville’s long-term plans as England coach were all about Phil Neville. Since the World Cup, results have been poor and progress appears to have stalled. He announced in April 2020 that he would be leaving the role, which does make you wonder why the Football Association didn’t replace him then. Like a CEO who lets the world know he is retiring in six, 12 months, power slips away at that point.

Alex Scott, former England international and now BBC pundit, struggled to see where the standout performances were for Neville’s England. “It never really happened,” she noted.

Scott also puts the SheBelieves Cup win of 2019 into perspective. “Is that a competition to be shouting about in terms of an achievement? I don’t think so.” Certainly, England’s displays against truly top teams has been sub-optimal. Neville’s win rate as England manager was 54%, 10 percentage points below Mark Sampson’s record before him. 

Jonathan Liew of The Independent, highlights the old pals’ act of Neville moving to Miami. “The defining motif of Neville’s coaching career to date is a series of doors being held open for him: a path that ironically enough would not exist for a woman of equivalent talent.”

Simon Jordan, the former Crystal Palace owner, was highly critical of the move. Speaking to Talk Sport, he said: “I’m not entirely sure his abilities merit it…I think there’s an element of ‘jobs for the boys’ here. Would he get the job if David Beckham wasn’t involved?”.

The Miami Herald said Neville’s arrival is part of Inter Miami’s second year makeover. He replaces Diego Alonso as coach. Inter finished 19th overall in Major League Soccer and 10th in the 14-team Eastern Conference. Beckham was mostly in the UK as Inter struggled to find their feet. He has said he will take a more hands-on approach for the second season. “I know his qualities, his decency and honesty,” said the former England captain, who called his old team-mate “a natural leader”.

The FA has already appointed Neville’s successor in Sarina Wiegmann, the Netherlands manager, but she will not arrive until September 2021. An interim appointment is obviously a priority.

It won’t be as expensive as the hiring of former Manchester United player, who has actually raised the profile of women’s football. “Phil Neville’s England reign is a costly mistake,” said the Guardian’s Suzanne Wrack back in April when his departure was known. 

Sources: BBC, Miami Herald, Daily Telegraph, Independent, The Guardian

Neville, Neville, how could they know?

THE WALLS are starting to close in a little on Phil Neville as he faces his first mini-crisis as manager of England’s Women. After a poor run of results, Neville reacted badly to increased scrutiny of his methods by the media, lashing out at journalists and developing something of a siege mentality.

Neville, according to Suzanne Wrack of The Guardian, just cannot take criticism. “Sometimes, it can feel like Phil Neville is speaking a different language,” said Wrack. He described the two performances against Brazil and Portugal as “outstanding”, which few scribes would have agreed with.  Wrack noted that Neville’s team struggled to beat Portugal, despite the fact that England have one of the wealthiest, most invested set-ups in the world of women’s football.

Neville insisted he had read some “shocking reports” recently and confronted one journalist who supposedly called for his head. “You wanted me sacked didn’t you?”.

One gets the feeling that Neville is not popular, perhaps because there is an air of arrogance about some of the players from his generation. Luke Edwards of the Daily Telegraph said Neville needs to be told how ridiculous he looks when reacting to criticism, describing him as “remarkably thin-skinned”.

Molly Hudson of The Times highlighted England’s shortcomings and the high number of goals conceded from crosses. Neville, she said, “faced sustained criticism for the defensive errors and concentration lapses.”

Neville said England are getting punished for every mistake, but 90 Minutes’ Jamie Spencer believes England’s women deserve a better manager. There are suggestions of inflexibility – “the system is non-negotiable” – and of a deteriorating relationship with the media. He’s happy with the direction the team is taking, but at the moment, that direction is downwards, said Spencer, who concluded, “Phil Neville has had his time and the gig is up”.

That may sound a little dramatic, given Neville has a win rate of 55.6% and is currently between tournaments, but his comment that things will perhaps improve at the next big competition didn’t fill people with confidence, given that will be in 2021.

Neville told The Guardian that he would leave the Lionesses if it was the right thing to do, but does not consider that he’s vulnerable at the moment. At the same time, he points the finger at the media and the gradual move towards the men’s game in terms of the way journalists operate. “There is real criticism and real praise, but nothing in between”.

@GameofthePeople

Photos: PA

WSL may never have a better chance for growth in 2019-20

WITH a number of Women’s Super League games set to be staged as freebie exhibitions at major stadiums, the 2019-20 season will get off to a high profile start and attempt to build on the interest generated in the Women’s World Cup.

There’s no denying that the World Cup was an enjoyable event and was far better than previous editions, but a little bit of hype got in the way of the true picture. The average attendance for the competition was 21,756 which was the lowest since 2003. The final attracted 57,900 to Lyon’s Parc Olympique Lyonnais, the third highest for a Women’s World Cup final.

What people have focused on, in judging public appetite, is the large TV audiences for the competition. England’s defeat at the hands of the US attracted 11.7 million people in the UK, while the final between the US and Netherlands drew 4.7 million. As a guide, these figures are good and encouraging but way-off the 27 million that saw England’s men lose to Croatia in the 2018 semi-final.

More women coaches

Women’s football in the UK has gathered momentum in terms of media coverage, its general profile and the eagerness of people and corporates to attach themselves to it. Phil Neville’s presence has helped raise awareness, but the fact a man was appointed as national team manager – one with no great credentials – is not necessarily a total positive. In the World Cup, only nine of the countries had a female in charge, including the US and the Netherlands . The figures make for better reading in the Women’s Super League (WSL), with eight out of 12 clubs employing a women as coach. In any developing segment of football, one of the signs of maturity is the home production of coaches and being able to steer away from constantly importing managerial talent.

Another important stage in the evolution of the women’s game is match attendances. Sadly, there is a possibility that women’s football may have plateaued as a spectator sport. All over Europe, gates have been falling in the major leagues. In constrast, there have been some headline crowds, such as the 60,000 that saw Atlético Madrid play Barcelona. The important figure here is the 27,000 that actually paid for a ticket, the rest were given free passes. The same scenario will apply to the WSL’s opening weekend fixtures – fans will accept a free ticket but are more reluctant to pay to see the game.

That said, the WSL has seen crowds stumble since 2015 and In 2018-19, the average was just 833. Chelsea (1,800) and Manchester City (1,400) generate the highest crowds in the WSL and interest is certainly on the rise at these clubs.

Lyon, Europe’s top team, play in front of just under 1,500 at their home games at the Groupama Training Center at Décines Chapieu, but they recently clinched the French title by beating Paris Saint-Germain in front of almost 26,000. PSG’s interest reflects how Europe’s big names are seeing women’s football not as a “nice to have” but as something of a necessity and a commercial opportunity.

Familiarity

Manchester United have now entered women’s football and Real Madrid, who long resisted the call to form a team, have finally started the process. Their fierce rivals, Barcelona, have reached the last eight of the Champions League for the past four years.

What we are seeing in women’s football an accelerated polarisation that took decades to develop in men’s football, mainly because the elite clubs have entered the market and have the resources to instantly create successful teams. The WSL is a good example, with the top three comprising the same three clubs for five years: Arsenal, Manchester City and Chelsea.

Look across Europe and some familiar names prevail: Lyon, PSG, Wolfsburg, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Atlético Madrid, Barcelona, PSV Eindhoven and of course, the aforementioned English trio.

At this early stage of professionalisation and media support, the domination of the “same old names” may not be good for the development of the women’s game. For most people, the WSL is something new and fresh, but if it merely starts to mirror the men’s league in terms of limited competitiveness, enthusiasm may get strangled before it has been able to take root.

However, this won’t prevent sponsors buying-in to the WSL – in fact, the more clubs like Arsenal, City, United and Chelsea are involved the more clout the league will have with broadcasters and commercial partners. Troubled UK bank Barclays has recently agreed a three-year deal with the WSL, which will not only act as a signal for the women’s game, but will be a positive PR move for the bank.

Audiences

The more money in the women’s game, the more chance female players have of getting a better pay deal, although calls for equality are premature and not really backed by the mathematics. The prize money for the men’s World Cup was the equivalent of £ 319 million versus the £ 24 million allocated to the women’s version – the disparity is huge and is being addressed. The prize money is generated by ticket sales, corporate sponsorship and advertising. At this point in time and the evolution of women’s football, the demand for men’s football is massively higher than the women’s game. The TV audience for the men’s World Cup in 2018 totalled 3.5 billion, three and a half times higher than the 2019 competition.

Interestingly, according to Forbes, when prize money is calculated as a percentage of the total revenue generated, women are actually paid more than men!

If you consider that the average attendance for the WSL is under 1,000 it is not unfair to compare the women’s game to step two of the non-league pyramid. If that is the case, they cannot complain about the media attention it attracts.

So 2019-20 represents a big opportunity for women’s football in the UK. With two World Cup semi-finals, a new sponsorship deal, greater attention being paid to wages and conditions and an obvious upturn in quality, the women’s game may never have a better chance to attract more people to matches. The England team will lure people for the big occasions, but the domestic game has to develop and draw-in more spectators and achieve the critical mass needed. The real litmus test will not be in the reaction to “curio” games held at Premier League grounds, but when fans have to pay to watch bread and butter league games.