How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Sky

Over the past year,  I have embarked on the incredibly difficult task of conducting a piece of original, compelling research for an MA course I have been studying. For students around the world, the mere hint of the 'D-word' is enough to spark enough fear to ruin Countdown and Pointless for the next month, and the dissertation I have just finished has been no different. I knew I wanted to research something to do with Football - given the opportunity, who wouldn't want to spend months researching what they are most passionate about? However, this is one of the key problems in that when one is so eager to investigate so many different topics (and let's face it, every fan could think of at least half a dozen thought-provoking topics without a moment's notice), where do you even start to think of something that can ACTUALLY be researched using empirical evidence?

It was here that it struck me - as a student of Media and Communications, I have learnt a great deal about Media Monopolies and plurality, encompassing legal aspects as well as other factors such as public scepticism towards large media outlets. Arguably, in no other organisation is this scepticism better reflected than News International - since the turn of 2010 it seems like Rupert Murdoch can't lift a finger without creating a bigger scandal than Paolo Di Canio at a Women's Institute meeting - first there was his abandoned pursuit of a controlling stake at Sky, then there was the phone-hacking scandal and Leveson Enquiry, which threatened to bring the whole groaning empire crashing down around ol' Rupe's wizened ears. However, it seems that one element of Murdoch's influence that the British public, and consecutive Governments, have been willing to not only tolerate but sponsor, has been the overwhelming influence of Sky on Football in this country - especially considering the ties between the sport and the British people. Football is not only by far the most popular sport, both in terms of active participation and consumption, but it is a well-established fact that Football plays a vital role in the economy of this Country. However, one single broadcaster has been allowed a position of such incredible influence that it could be argued it has not only revolutionised the way British audiences consume sport, but has changed the Game itself forever in the process. 

I'll save you the rambling history of Sky's evolution that those marking my dissertation will get to enjoy over the coming weeks, but it is important to note that the company utilised football as not only a cornerstone of its coverage, but as the very deciding factor between success and failure, and the loss of billions of pounds of funding. It is for this reason that Sky staked so much in the Premier League so early on - they HAD to make it work at all costs, and this meant a better deal for football clubs than had previously been offered by BBC and ITV, as well as exciting new opportunities for viewers in the UK. This early spirit of excitement has, I would certainly argue, been a key component in the success story of Sky's football coverage, as the company has been at the cutting edge many times: Player-Cam, Fanzone, Red-Button match choice, HD and now 3D broadcasts - the list goes on. 

As Sky grew increasingly powerful in the 1990s, its bosses recognised the centrality of Premier League football to the future success of the company. During this period, the value of television broadcasting rights increased four-fold, even without viable competition for Sky to bid against. By the end of the Century, Sky and Football had forged a link that had rendered the two virtually inseparable - and it is a link that remains intact today. The deals between the two were so mutually beneficial that no-one could possibly lose. Clubs were getting richer and richer, and the Premier League became the shining beacon of all possibility - life for all clubs became a perpetual desperate pursuit for the attainment and retention of Premier League status. Of course, any sport that has ever existed has revolved in some way around being the most successful, but never before has even being present in the top division without ever experiencing the slightest possibility of actual success been as enticing for fans, Chairmen and players alike. 

The money involved in the Premier League is simply staggering. It's no secret that the relationship between the game and Sky has evolved to the point where, in 2013/14, the broadcaster will begin the first year of a £3bn contract that will last for the next three seasons. Even in a sport where growth has been unbelievably fast, this represents a jump of mesmerising proportions. This season, the team that finished bottom of the BPL will receive £60m in revenue for their position - more than was earned by Manchester City for winning the title just two years earlier. This is a frankly startling figure which truly highlights the rate of growth in the Premier League. When foreign investment, as well as that from BT Sport, the new rival to Sky's coverage, is taken in to account, the 3-year contract totals over £5bn - compared to £304m Sky paid for exclusive coverage twenty years ago. 

This may all sound squeaky clean and peachy, and that's what the Premier League and Sky would have you believe. However, when one examines the real figures that lurk underneath the shiny press-release exterior, it is not hard to see that there are serious problems on the horizon. 

What Has Gone Wrong

Unbelievably, it would appear that over the past twenty years, clubs across the world have decided not to merely sit on the vast sums of cash being thrown at them by TV broadcasters (no jokes about Arsenal here, please!), but rather, they have decided to take the unusual step of reinvesting this revenue in order to make themselves more successful. Before the proliferation of TV revenue, there was a financial hierarchy that was largely premised on success. In this system, more successful clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Leeds and Newcastle were able to afford higher transfer fees and wages for better players. However, if you slap £50m in Tony Pulis' hands, things will change somewhat. Some may be thinking that the increased financial capability of a wider variety of clubs will have proved to be a good thing, levelling the playing field between the biggest clubs and the rest, but they would be wrong. What has happened in stead, is that the hierarchical structure still exists (albeit with other clubs at the top of the pyramid), but these clubs have had to source vast sums of additional revenue from elsewhere (leading to the proliferation of foreign ownership). In addition to this, we now see clubs like Stoke, Norwich and Fulham with £40m to spend every single summer - this has not reduced the divide, it has merely created an even bigger and longer-lasting one between the top divisions and the lower leagues. In a system where everyone can afford to pay more, everyone does pay more. It's as simple as that. 

"He's good, but can we afford his wages?"

Now, in order to even stay up with the pack, clubs have to push themselves to the brink of financial disaster. Take Aston Villa, for example. This is a club that, in all likelihood, will not experience real success within the next decade, and the retention of Premier League status will satisfy the club's owners during this period. However, in 2011/12, Villa spent 94% of the club's total revenue on player wages alone. This means that only 6% of the club's revenue from TV, merchandise, ticket sales and commercial streams was available for everything else that running a football club entails. The story is even more serious in the Championship - in the same year, nine clubs spent more than 100% of their revenue on player wages in the desperate pursuit of Premier League status. If the gamble pays off, the rewards can be tremendous - as clubs such as Cardiff City, West Ham and Stoke have discovered. However, if this approach doesn't work, even within one season, very quickly promotion contenders and apparent Premier League main-stays can fall by the wayside - Leeds, Birmingham, Charlton, Portsmouth, Middlesbrough, Bradford to name just a few who have experienced this fate. Even Norwich City and Southampton had to plum the depths of League One before starting their resurgence against all odds. The current financial system in Football is absolutely unsustainable, of this there can be no shred of a doubt. Year on year, clubs pile debt onto debt in the knowledge that next year, an even bigger cheque will arrive from Sky to tide them over for another season. The only way I can adequately describe the situation is to compare this approach to Doctors treating patients on a cancer ward by giving them a make-over and a new outfit every year. It is, frankly, absurd. The fact that these clubs are not just private entities that can falter without further repercussions is the most troubling aspect of all - local communities such as those surrounding the aforementioned clubs have been hit hard by falling business after the loss of Premier League football in the area - and worse still could be on the way. 

What May Still Be Yet To Come?

Much has been made of the relatively quiet start to the Premier League campaign, especially in comparison to the cricket-scores we have experienced over recent years. Rarely do we see a Ford Super Sunday pass by with two drab nil-nils, however this kind of event is becoming increasingly familiar. Due to the increased capability of every club, we have experienced a levelling-out process in the Premier League where most clubs between, for example, 6th-17th in the league table are of a similar ability. This will inevitably lead to more closely-contested and tactical battles, which does not necessarily make for good viewing. 

A worrying concept is the notion that the system that Sky has helped to create through its incessant funding could ultimately be the thing that undermines the relationship between the broadcaster and the Premier League, and potentially could lead to the decimation of the League in its current format. If, for example, the next three seasons pass with increasingly regular 0-0 scorelines, fewer goals and less exciting content, it is unlikely that Sky and BT Sport will be clambering to offer £5bn at the next round of rights negotiations. It is very likely that in this situation, the scale of funding would decrease for the first time since the Premier League's inception, with potentially damaging consequences. You might think that the loss of even £500m worth of value for BPL screening rights would not be too damaging, and you would be right if we lived in a world where football clubs operated with sound financial planning and adequate contingency preparation. However, in the current system, where Premier League clubs make a combined net loss of on average £200m a season, Championship clubs lose £6m each per year and League One revenues have decreased year-on-year for three seasons, it is unlikely that this change could occur with minimal damage. This loss-making behaviour is occurring in a time of increasing revenue, when clubs should be feeling the benefits of surging profits. 

Furthermore, it is potentially damaging to the Premier League that other Divisions in Europe appear to be growing in comparison. For example, German football appears to be experiencing something of a renaissance, with an all-German Champion's League final in 2013 and Bayern Munich building in capability to become one of the very finest club teams in the world. Spanish teams continue to attract the greatest players in the world, including one of the Premier League's primed assets, Gareth Bale. Now, the Premier League must also deal with a growing interest in French football, as PSG's growth is now matched by huge financial capability at Monaco and an interesting League that has seen seven different Champions in as many seasons. Should consumer interest be diverted away from the Premier League and towards any of these competitors, it could also spell trouble for fans of English clubs. Sky already screen more La Liga games per season than Premier League (a rather surprising fact), so it is certainly not impossible.

What Can Be Done?

Unfortunately, it is seemingly hard for consumers to do anything, short of overhauling Clubs so that the financial responsibility lies with fans who can keep a more stringent eye on expenditure. However, it would seem that the greatest revolution Sky has created since the inception of the Premier League in 1992 is the change in the football consumer - no longer are we satisfied with Jason McAteer and Ray Parlour - we fume if our side don't sign a £10m+ player every season. Moreover, we are increasingly bored by tactically interesting encounters if they don't involve nine goals before half time. It is hard to blame Sky for these changes when it is we ourselves who have contributed to its existence too. I simply worry for what the future may hold if the precarious balance of the English Football system is affected in any way.

Twitter Talk edition 2: Tim Lovejoy

This week's Twitter Talk sees me catch up with Television personality and Chelsea supporter Tim Lovejoy. Tim was the host of popular football show 'Soccer AM' for eleven years, and now hosts 'Sunday Brunch' on Channel 4.

1.Do modern journalists have to be on Twitter? Would your job be more difficult without?

Yes they do as so much news is now broken on Twitter. I’m still working out how important it is for my job.  

2. There have been a few spats between journalists and players in recent months, what is your opinion about this phenomenon?

Players shouldn’t get involved. If you’re in the public eye people will critique you! Some people will hate you and some people will like you, it’s just a fact of life. 

3. How big a role do you think Twitter plays in modern football, what with the amount of players who tweet?

I think it’s fantastic for the fans. In recent years players have been treated like gods and removed from the public eye by clubs and PR. Whilst producing Soccer AM we found we were getting less access to the players every season and would only be able to get them through their boot sponsors. I always thought this was not a great, but understandable. Now Twitter has given the fans a chance to hear from their players again. However, in the future I think players will just post and not respond as there are too many spoof accounts and idiots who will try and wind them up.

4.    Footballers are now viewed as role models for younger people, do you think Twitter helps them in this role or makes it more difficult?

As I’ve always said, I got my morals off my parents and peers, not Kerry Dixon. They’re blokes who play a sport, calling them role models is just another way people can criticise them. It’s up to the people who run football to set the moral standards and the problem being they don’t punish bad behaviour off the pitch or cheating on it. They’re the ones who are not setting the right moral guidelines, players are just trying to win.   

5    5.   Is it right for managers to ‘ban’ twitter, as has happened at some clubs?

I think it’s hard to do. I feel they need an education on how to use it. i.e. don’t respond to idiots winding them up and drop this idiotic ‘banter’ ethos that they’re all getting labeled with.

6. How many people get into contact with you? How much of this is positive/negative?

Thousands. Some good, some bad. Football tweets always drags out the idiots.

7. What’s the funniest tweet you’ve ever received?

I just like the sharing of football clips URLs. It’s what keeps me coming back.

8.    What football figure would you love to see on Twitter? 

I suppose Zizou as he’s the greatest!

Twitter Talk edition 1 - Matt Holland.

Social networking in sport has grown exponentially over the last year. At first, sports men and women joined sites like Facebook and Twitter to keep in touch with supporters and give fans an insight into their lives, and this is still the case for the vast majority. Twitter, in particular, gives us, as fans, the opportunity to peak into the lives of our favourite footballers, Olympians, golfers and hundreds more in a way that would have been impossible before. 


However, with this growth has come an unsavoury side. Recently, we have seen Arsenal midfielder Emmanuel Frimpong fined for comments made on Twitter directed towards a Tottenham fan, in which the young Ghanain made (what he claimed was an inadvertent) religious slur. Similarly, Rio Ferdinand faces an FA charge for a racially-motivated comment he made on Twitter towards fellow England-international Ashley Cole. Most ashamedly of all, however, is the recent development that young British diver Tom Daley faced sick abuse on the social networking site from a Twitter 'troll' who made comments about the Olympian's deceased father. 


In this series, I will catch up with some famous 'Tweeters' from the football world - journalists, ex-pros, podcasters, famous fans and TV presenters, in order to gather their opinions on the role Twitter plays in modern football. My first interviewee is retired-Republic of Ireland international captain Matt Holland - a man who made over 500 club appearances and earned 49 caps in a distinguished career. Matt now hosts 'Late Kick Off' on the BBC:

1.     Do modern journalists have to be on Twitter? Would your job be more difficult without?

 I think so because you can provide instant news for your followers. If other journalists are on and providing news and you are not, then i think you can lose some credibility

2 There have been a few spats between journalists and players in recent months, what is your opinion about this phenomenon?

 Spats arise particularly when things that have been said in private are made public or when criticism maybe goes a little over the top. Most sportsmen realise that being criticised goes with the job but don't like it when a confidence is broken.

3. How big a role do you think Twitter plays in modern football, what with the amount of players who tweet?

I think it is good that so many players tweet. Often players are said to be distant from fans and this is a way for the fans to feel closer to their heroes

4.     Footballers are now viewed as role models for younger people, do you think Twitter helps them in this role or makes it more difficult?

I think as long as players are responsible with their tweets and realise it is not a text message to one person then it can be a useful tool, especially considering that, as you say, players really are role models now.

5. Is it right for managers to ‘ban’ twitter, as has happened at some clubs?

Banning twitter is up to the individual clubs/managers. I understand some banning it because certain information should stay within the club, but if can work with clear guidelines for players on the do's and don'ts of what to tweet.

6. How many tweets do you receive on a normal day? How much of this is positive/negative?

I have something like 22,500 followers and would say I get tweeted about 50 times a day. Sometimes more and sometimes less. Probably 99% is positive. Put it this way, I haven't felt the need to block anyone. The best thing to do is ignore the bad stuff!!

7. What’s the funniest tweet you’ve ever received?

 I can't think of anything off hand to be honest but a lot of what i get makes me laugh!!

8. What football figure would you love to see on Twitter?

 I would to pick the brains of Sir Alex Ferguson. I would be sending him questions all the time!!

Euro 2012: A lesson in the importance of 'culture'

Like most football fans across the globe, I have diligently watched this summer's European Championships and, like many, have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of football on display. When the announcement was made that Poland and Ukraine were to share the hosting duties, journalists, players and fans alike expressed concern that the region's infamous struggles with racial tension, and a checkered record for fan violence, would impact negatively on the tournament. However, by and large, the breathless nature of the vast majority of matches (England's defeat to Italy on penalties the first goalless draw of the tournament) has been the man topic of conversation.

I love the Euros. The tournament will always hold a special place in my heart, if for no other reason than the fact that Euro '96 is the first memory I have of the beautiful game. England's performances in that heady summer inflamed an intrigue and excitement within me for the sport which remains unabated 16 years on. This summer's showing has been no exception; there have been some sensational  moments, from Shevchenko's brace in joint-host Ukraine's first game, to Greece's unlikely qualification to the quarter-finals. Even Andrea Pirlo's chipped penalty against England, as much as it hurts to remember, was a simply breathtaking moment in a tournament of great quality.

England's exit at the quarter-final stage - something that some consider to be an inevitable occurrence when the Three Lions approach a major tournament - has been analysed and re-analysed from the very moment ex-West Ham winger Alessandro Diamanti slid his winning penalty into the corner of Joe Hart's net, and the reaction has generally been mixed. While some have been quick to condemn what was an underwhelming England performance against the 2006 World Cup Winners - a game where England's entire midfield failed to make as many successful passes as the majestic Pirlo, where the team conceded more shots on target in one match than they had mustered in all four of their games in Ukraine put together - others have risen to manager Roy Hodgson's defence, praise for the effort of the players and coaching staff considering the length of Hodgson's tenure so far - topping a tough group and scoring 5 goals in 3 games a solid effort for a team in transition.

What England's defeat does show, however, is how far the team has to go until it is ready to challenge the biggest in Europe, let alone the world. Yes, the team managed to avoid defeat against France in their first game, but Les Bleus were hardly at their best (as emphasised by their own meek exit at the hands of Spain), while the matches against Sweden and Ukraine were typical England - each moment of skill, technical class and creativity matched by a heart-in-mouth glimpse of nerves, poor concentration and discipline. For a brief period in the Sweden clash, you will remember, things looked quite bleak indeed. Many suggestions have been put forward, as always, as to what can provide the remedy to this 'condition' that the England camp seems to perpetually struggle with, from better training for young players to the need for higher numbers of English players at top Premier League clubs. The condition is what sets England apart from the really top teams of Europe, like the Italian side that swept us asunder on Sunday - but I believe it all comes down to culture.

One can hardly blame the England team for the nerves that seem to underly most performances in major tournaments, that is not the purpose of this post. Every tournament that the team goes into is punctuated by huge expectation, and even this year, where so many commentators spoke of 'historically low expectations', no one really meant it. If expectations were, in fact, historically low, there would be no post-mortems after a quarter-final exit - surely expectations had been exceeded? No, this was never the case for the British public, or, more profoundly, the British press. After that 1-1 draw against France in Donetsk, The Sun's website hosted an article with the headline 'Job Donetski' - and if one ignores the rather spurious pun, the purpose of the article is to congratulate the English team on a job well done against tough opponents, no? Well, not half an hour later, the article was replaced by an almost identical piece of copy, with only certain words changed. However, most notably, the headline to the new article became 'Yippee! We got a draw' - a sarcastic, pessimistic slight on the fact that we, ENGLAND, are happy to have DRAWN a game of football! The connotation, of course, is that we should be winning every game, a prime example of the kind of unhelpful, irresponsible journalism that blights the England players in these situations.

Similarly, in the final stages of the quarter-final against Italy, the only word on anyone's lips - be it the BBC pundits or the ever-enthralling Mark Lawrenson, Twitter users or fans in the stadium - was penalties. When the time came for the shoot-out, we were shown endless clips of unsuccessful England spot-kicks in similar situations, every statistic spewed by Lawro and his faux-enthusiastic cohort Guy Mowbray was of who has missed for England and when, barely any focus given to successful spot-kicks of the past. How many national teams are there who, when leading in a penalty shootout, still assume they're going to lose it?

This is the key problem for England going forward, and the most significant issue is that there is absolutely no easy or logical solution at hand. How does one go about completely overhauling how an entire nation views the national team? Personally, I don't know how it can ever be achieved - the only possible way that this self-fulfilling prophecy machine can be switched off is to unplug it at the mains. There will, one day, be an England team that wins a major tournament in the face of all the negativity -  maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when we will even knock the Germans out of the World Cup on penalties. My point about culture is easy to understand, but it passes us by unless we really strive to find examples when they occur: in England, quite simply, we have a predisposition towards negativity where the national football team is concerned. Think about it - every introduction Adrian Chiles or Gary Lineker deliver before an England game will include a phrase such as 'here we go again', 'it's never easy!' or 'same old England'. At times, such as after our defeat to Italy, I even begin to think that certain members of the media are even gleefully rubbing their hands together - after all, Ashley Young hitting the bar in the shootout will make a lovely clip to show for the next 20 years. I mean, for goodness' sake, we still are forced to watch Chris Waddle skying that fateful penalty against West Germany in 1990 - and as much as we think that times have changed, I believe even bothering to watch such things has an affect.

Look at Italy's defeat of Germany on Thursday evening - a result which, in all fairness to the Azzurri, has come from left field. Germany were hotly fancied to challenge Spain for their title, and most agreed that we would at least get to see a showdown between the two on Sunday. However, before the game it was endless clips of previous Italy victories over their opponent - some, like Grosso's superb winner in 2006 might still seem relevant today, considering that some of the players present at the time are still in the national side today, however others, like Marco Tardelli's sliding winner in the 1982 World Cup final, seem nothing more than ancient relics. However, what has happened? Italy have gone on to pull off another victory over the Germans, and the culture of self-belief in these situations continues, and is strengthened.

History shapes culture in such a profound way that it can directly impact the future, I believe this is plain to see. If this is not the case, why do we always say that 'Germany always win at penalties', or indeed, that England always lose them? Steven Gerrard should be no worse at penalties than Bastian Schweinsteiger, but who would you bet on to score in the European Championship final? Culture shapes our attitudes, and creates an atmosphere that is easily transferred onto the pitch when national teams walk out. Just imagine how different you would feel about football if you had grown up a German, and rather than a series of heartbreaks, you had experienced consistent success and triumph? You might well, in this situation, feel a great deal more optimistic when your team boards that plane.

As things are, I don't know what can be done in the short term to reverse this process. It will be a gradual evolution, from the pessimism, self-deprecation and sarcasm with which we approach the England team to a future where we are no longer embarrassed to be optimistic or shy away from fancying the team to succeed. Either that, or we could pretend to be German...

Neil Warnock - A Square Peg and A Round Hole?

With the controversial nature of Neil Warnock's career and personality, sympathisers for the outspoken Yorkshireman are few and far between. The Sheffield embodiment of marmite, it seems like you either love or loathe the man ingeniously referred to as 'Colin Wanker' in an (some would say appropriate) anagram of his name. As news filters through on Twitter and across the footballing world of his apparent sacking from Queens Park Rangers, however, many seem to be uniting in support behind one of the game's most colourful characters.


Warnock has been in charge at Loftus Road for just two years, in the process taking Rangers into the Premier League in a suitably newsworthy fashion - potential points deduction and rumours of boardroom unrest nothing out of the ordinary for a man who seems to attract attention. QPR currently find themselves in 17th, just one place above the relegation zone. In spite of this position, it is widely regarded that Warnock's departure is something of a shock - especially considering managers Steve Kean , Roberto Martinez and Owen Coyle all remain in their jobs in spite of doing worse so far. Ex-Arsenal defender Emmanuel Eboue has summed up popular opinion by asserting that QPR's executives must have been 'smoking crack or something' when the decision was made.

Is the decision wrong, though? Much of the support for Warnock seems to stem from personal sympathy, it's a shame this has happened to an honest bloke like him, rather than a frank assessment of his management credentials. Don't get me wrong, I am actually a big supporter of Neil Warnock. I respect the man's passion, his dedication and his honesty. I would now say though, as I did when QPR were promoted, that I don't think he is suited to the task at hand.

In the 21st century, football has essentially become a business. As we move forward, the room for sentiment in the modern game is closing dramatically. This sounds an odd assertion in a week where you'd be forgiven for thinking we'd stumbled into a romantic fantasy world - first Thierry Henry rejoined his beloved Arsenal on loan from New York Red Bulls, and then a veteran Paul Scholes returned from retirement to play once again for Manchester United. It remains true, however, as emphasised by the ruthless nature of Warnock's dismissal. QPR's chairman Tony Fernandes has stated that the decision to fire the former Sheffield United manager was 'in the club's best interest', and I think he may just be right.

Frankly, I would argue that there is simply too much money in football now for chairman and chief executives to make decisions based on anything other than results. Owners must be aware of the capabilities of coaches when they hire them, and indeed when they fire them. Let's use Warnock as an example - the Yorkshireman is experienced at chasing promotion to the Premier League, but has very little prior when it comes to keeping them there. Simply, he is a very good, experienced Championship manager, but not a seasoned veteran when it comes to retaining that status. This is the concern I, and others, expressed when QPR first gained promotion - to expect Warnock to be able to hit the ground running was a tad naive.

Football clubs don't just hire managers with no awareness of their capabilities. Similarly, they don't keep managers on for no reason. QPR's season has shown the first signs of mirroring Warnock's traditional pattern, and Fernandes & co. clearly hope that by bringing in a new coach before the end of the January transfer window will give them time to turn things around. Club owners are more aware of managerial capability than the average fan thinks - Martin O'Neill's appointment at Sunderland a case in point. O'Neill is experienced in bringing stability and relative success to clubs with humble beginnings. The Aston Villa side he inherited in 2006 was a world away from the one he left at the start of last season. Similarly at Leicester, he achieved a monumental amount with minimal resources. There is a reason he was hired instead of others who may have been interested, just as there was a reason Harry Redknapp, Alan Pardew, Martin Jol or Roy Hodgson now find themselves at clubs which echo their previous experience.

This is also, in my belief, the reason why Andres Villas-Boas has not yet been removed from his job at Chelsea - his previous experience and capabilities imply that he will be able to turn things around under pressure. Paul Jewell at Ipswich, one of the most under-performing clubs in the football league, remains in a job despite a significantly worse record than Roy Keane because of his previous experience in gaining and retaining Premier League status at Bradford and Wigan. Similarly, Roberto Martinez showed at Swansea that he is a builder of teams, rather than someone from whom you should expect immediate results, a reputation I think has kept him in a job thus far. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Frankly, how Steve Kean has survived the season this far is baffling, while Owen Coyle's previous experience at Burnley suggests that he is perhaps lucky not to have come under fire more seriously this season.


While it is undoubtedly a shame to see the reign of a manager such as Warnock come to an end, I don't think that his dismissal warrants the outpouring of scorn towards the QPR board that has been the trend so far. As far as I can see, Warnock resembles a manager whose own success has been his undoing - promotion and increased transfer money has resulted in the man's own job outgrowing him, a harsh but arguably inescapable fact.




As a final little tribute to 'Colin', i'd like to draw your attention to a video which sums up why I like him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im85NY4NKt4

The Rooney Rule Examined.

Over the past few weeks, as transfer deadline day rocketed my burgeoning Twitter reliance into a full-blown addiction, it has struck me the wide array of debates that people get into when discussing sport. While Michael Owen and Dan Walker were discussing their favourite wrestlers, and Joey Barton was continuing on his crusade to convince people he has a brain by tweeting his favourite exhibits in the Tate Modern, Daily Mirror journalist Oliver Holt was tackling an altogether more important subject: the Rooney Rule.

While, from my time spent endlessly refreshing Twitter in those long summer hours, Holt does seem the type to get a fairly large bee in his red-top bonnet quite regularly; his persistent and dogged arguments regarding the Rooney Rule struck me as unique. I approached my research of the subject with some cynicism - Ollie Holt had, after all, been almost equally persistent in his defence of Manchester City Chief Executive Garry Cook not a few days earlier. I wondered if this 'Rooney Rule' was another instance of Holt getting involved in a debate for the sake of involvement, but as Garry Cook sensationally parted company with Man City to make Holt's defence seem ill-advised, I discovered that his latest debate may be his most important.

The Rooney Rule, for the uninformed, is a ruling in the USA's National Football League that requires NFL teams to interview ethnic minority candidates for head coaching positions when they are open. Like many, I assume, I was previously unaware of the rule's existence and again, like many, I was eager to understand more about this fascinating solution to issues of race in such positions. Named after Pittsburgh Steelers chairman and league diversity committee Chairman Dan Rooney, the law came into existence in 2003. Since that point, several African American coaches have entered jobs that they may not have ever had the opportunity to if the Rooney Rule didn't exist.

Ollie Holt, in combination with his Daily Mirror colleague Darren Lewis, has begun campaigning on Twitter for the introduction of some similar ruling in English football, given the startling lack of black managers in the game. When one considers the issue for the first time, the initial natural reaction is to reel through your mind to name all the black managers there have been in the last few years. While these are numerous, the amount of black managers, and black english managers in particular, is shockingly small. In the English game at the time of writing, while over a quarter of professional players are of black origin, only two clubs employ black managers. Chris Houghton, for so long an assistant manager is currently at Birmingham City, after a spell at Newcastle United. Chris Powell is currently manager at the club where  he is considered a legend after his illustrious playing career, Charlton Athletic. The name so regularly wheeled out in this context is Paul Ince, but the Guv'nor currently finds himself unemployed after plying his trade for several years in the lower leagues, following six months at Blackburn Rovers.

Elsewhere over the last decade, Ruud Gullit added to the contingent of black managers, along with Fulham's gaffer of three years Jean Tigana. The tragic death at the age of 53 of the league's first full-time black coach, Keith Alexander, cut the number of black league managers at the time by a third. Previous black managers have included John Barnes, Viv Anderson and Luther Blissett, but among them none of these managers have ever come close to the managerial role at a sizeable club.

Why is this? Is there a troublingly archaic attitude at the heart of this issue? While England is one of the more forward-thinking nations when it comes to racism and racial issues in football (the shocking scenes during England's game in Bulgaria, where Ashleys Cole and Young were subjected to racial abuse from home supporters, emphasised just how far ahead we are of some areas), certain problems do still persist. While minority players are thankfully not subjected to the same kind of wholesale 'monkey-noise' racial abuse seen in some Eastern European countries, and on a smaller scale across Spain and Italy, racial abuse is still an issue in our game. Tottenham fans last year subjected Real Madrid's Emmanuel Adebayor, ironically now playing for them, to a well-known chant that exploits racial stereotypes, much to the disappointment of UEFA. England fans themselves harked back to the seventies against Bulgaria, and while not quite going as far as the home fans, chanted derogatory cursive about 'Gypsies' amongst other things.

Given the success and prevalence in England of campaigns such as 'Kick it out', it is shocking when one really begins to consider the deeper lying reasons behind the perpetual struggle of black managers to fight for opportunities in the English games. Take Houghton - a manager who successfully guided a decimated and destitute Newcastle side to promotion from the Championship at the first attempt and was sacked after just three months of Premier League life. Keith Andrews, a Lincoln City legend who took the team to four consecutive play-off campaigns, passed away in 2010. His death was recognised by the England national team, who wore black armbands for their next game, and by footballing luminaries across Europe. If he was so well respected, then, why did he never manage at a higher level than League Two?

Footballing greats such as Andrew Cole and the aforementioned John Barnes and Paul Ince have been unable to find any truly great opportunity in management, in spite of the great heights they reached in their career. In my opinion, not all of this can be explained purely by discrimination. In fact, for the debate, as life in general, we must look past the colour of their skin and examine their credentials. Paul Ince may not be that great a manager, while Barnes' record is sketchy at best. I am not arguing that either of these men should be offered the Chelsea job should Villas-Boas prove unsuccessful, but I, like Holt and Lewis, wish to highlight the fact that bog standard white managers are offered opportunities time and time again. How many clubs can Ian Dowie get relegated before Paul Ince is offered a shot ahead of him? How many times will chairmen turn to Alan Pardew, Nigel Pearson, Aidy Boothroyd or Steve Kean before John Barnes is deemed worthy of another chance? It seems that when white managers fail, a chance for redemption is never too far away. If a black manager doesn't succeed immediately, he is confined to the lower leagues, or indeed unemployment, for the foreseeable future.

So is the Rooney Rule the answer? It is certainly an intriguing option. It is reassuring to imagine a world where capable, skilled minority coaches are at least considered for the biggest roles. Without action, it is easy to see the size of the problem at hand. Ex players in particular deserve better. Take Manchester United - one could easily imagine Gary Neville or Paul Scholes being considered to replace Sir Alex Ferguson if they expressed an interest, but would Andrew Cole? When we are completely honest, most of us would admit that he would not.

The obvious argument in favour of the introduction of the Rooney Rule in English football is that certain scenarios would be largely bypassed. Black coaches would be given the legitimate and exciting opportunities they deserve, and if a white manager was chosen instead we could be more sure that at the very least the decision was fair. As things stand, the white elite by which the game is governed seem to be completely oblivious to the problem, rather than ignoring the plight of black managers.

Anti-Rooney Rulers establish the argument that the law is tantamount to positive discrimination and affirmative action, and while I can see the relevance of this point I would argue that affirmative action would be preferable to inaction. In the modern game as it exists, there is a definite gulf in equality, as time and time again black coaches are bypassed when new managers are hired. I sincerely hope that the game is brought into the 21st Century before more time and opportunities pass by.






For their stirling work in raising the prominence of this issue, i'd recommend the Twitter pages of both @OllieHoltMirror and @MirrorDarren.

Better Out Than In?

No matter who you support - the start of the 2011/12 Barclays Premier League season has been eventful. From Wolves' superb starting form, to the sheer excitement of watching a new-look Liverpool side play the game with a verve and style they have lacked for many years, the fledgling campaign seems to have something for most fans to get excited about. Even new boys Swansea and Norwich City, while both only on two points, have shown an early adaption that suggests good things to come - especially from one of the more impressive signings of the summer, Swan's keeper Michel Vorm.

Yes, it seems that the early signs show at least some hope to cling on to. That is unless you're an Arsenal fan. Like the Gunners' great 'Invincibles' side that won so many plaudits, Arsenal's beginning has seen them break records. Unfortunately for Wenger's side, and in a depressing contrast to that wonderful campaign, these records include the worst start to a campaign in decades, the first time the Reds have failed to score in either of their opening games in over ten years and, after Sunday's bewildering defeat to Manchester United, the worst result the club has suffered in 115 years. Most of the early season talk, aside from those waxing lyrical over Manchesters United and City, has been about the extraordinary plight of Arsenal, in a campaign which has seen the club lose two of their greatest players, end 3 consecutive matches with ten men and ship ten goals in two games. I feel, after the sheer amount of analysing and re-analysing our beginning to the season to anyone who'll listen, the time has come to get all my thoughts down in one place. At least this way, like a love-struck sufferer of a horrendously failing relationship, I might feel a little bit less empty.

For a start, things could be worse. Yes, shocking but true. Ultimately, although we have had a terrible start we have had some things go our way. Most importantly, after an impressive performance in Udine, Arsenal qualified for the Champions League group stage. If Arsenal had lost in Italy as well, then who knows how much pressure Wenger would be under now. The performance was enough to give some hope, despite the fact that the fleeting satisfaction was destroyed so mercilessly by United on Sunday. It was a performance of real quality - Song, Gervinho and Frimpong all impressive. Walcott took his chance well. Rosicky came from the bench to find some dedication and passion from somewhere. All this, and I haven't even mentioned that penalty save by the impressive Szczesny.


Then came Sunday. Bloody sunday. There are almost too many issues to mention, but like everyone who witnessed what occured i'll have an attempt. As Sir Alex Ferguson's youthful United side (it has been widely pointed out that the average age of the United starting XI was younger than Arsenal's) ran rings around Wenger's, Arsenal fans were subjected to a display to demonstrate the gaping chasm between the two teams in the most brutal fashion. Put simply, there is no comparison between the two, who for years have provided tense, tight football matches that have gone down as some of the best in the Premier League's two decades. The gap between Manchester United and Arsenal is bigger now, I would argue, than it has ever been under Arsene Wenger; the strength in depth of United is completely polar opposite to the skeletal Gunners, who barely had enough players to field a full team on Sunday let alone one to compete with the Champions. Most importantly, the quality of the full-strength first teams perfectly illustrates the difference between the two. The vast majority of Manchester United's first eleven would walk in to Arsenal's side, while I believe you could count on one hand the Arsenal players who could do the opposite.

With such a thread-bare squad, it is baffling that Arsenal approached Sunday's game with the same system they always do. It has long been said that we are only capable of playing one way, and Sunday was one of the best illustrations of the accuracy of that statement. Frankly, for Wenger to send out his team set up as it was, there was only ever going to be one result. The approach was completely ridiculous, and led to the lowest-quality Arsenal performance I have ever witness in my 14 years as a fan - the midfield trio of Rosicky, Ramsey and Coquelin offering nothing at all; not enough attacking flair to get anything close to penetration, and massively short of the kind of defensive capabilities a side needs to avoid such an embarrassing defeat against United. Andrei Arshavin is famously reluctant to get back and help his full back - a reputation he more than justified with a poor display. Theo Walcott must have felt like he was pushing treacle up a hill, and while he received some assistance from the hard-working Jenkinson, the winger was never able to produce anything more than a sub-standard display. Once again away from home, Van Persie was scarily isolated and consequently unable to do much else than make ill-fated runs in an attempt to create something, anything.

With his poor tactical preparation a given, one of the most frustrating aspects of the performance against United for Arsene Wenger must be the performance given by his more experienced players. Djourou's defending for the vital first goal was ludicrous, Rosicky gave the ball away time and time again in vital areas, while Van Persie's crucial penalty miss is, although perhaps unlucky, a poor error. Between them, these three have accumulated enough experience, international caps and Premier League minutes to do better. Given the pressures of the atmosphere and the context of the game, it is more understandable to see such errors from Jenkinson, Coquelin or the inexperienced Traore. To see them from the elder heads is incredibly frustrating.

Unsurprisingly for such a landmark defeat, there were questions after the game over Wenger's future as Arsenal manager. The question was quickly dismissed by the Frenchman, although the pertinence remains. Personally, I believe it would be a mistake for Wenger to leave now. While I don't think he'll ever be sacked, it would be a shame to see the club's greatest ever manager resign after the poor beginning his side has suffered. While he has been found wanting tactically, and obvious questions remain over his transfer dealings, I doubt there is any other coach who would do better in the current climate. I don't however, want to miss the opportunity to air my main criticisms of a manager who I have always defended vehemently, so often reminding others that 'Arsene knows'. While i've not quite lost my faith, i'll try and establish the niggling doubts that have crept in over the beginning of the season.

My main frustration, like most Arsenal fans', is the apparent ineptitude in the transfer market. In a simple comparison of the players the club has seen depart to those that have come in, the results are quite worrying for the future of the club this campaign. While, of course, Fabregas and Nasri have both left without adequate replacement, we have also lost Clichy, Eboue and Denilson, while Bendtner and Almunia have been apparently imminent departures since July. While Jenkinson has been recruited, I fully believe that Wenger's intention was not to play him straight away. Since Eboue's departure and Gibbs' persistent injury, however, he has started all four games so far. While Denilson was by no means my favourite player during his time at the Emirates, how we miss even a player of his stature now. When the manager is including players such as Lansbury, Coquelin, Ozyakup and Miquel, there is clearly room for an experienced first team player such as Denilson or Eboue in the squad.

Wenger's recruitment has been poor this season, there can be little argument. While the professor has repeated his mantra 'quality over quantity', while reiterating that he is 'not scared' to spend money, Chelsea have signed Juan Manuel Mata, Liverpool Jose Enrique, Manchester United Ashley Young. All of those players would have been easily affordable for us, and indisputably would have added something to the squad. Why, then, is there not even an attempt from the club to land such talent? Another case in point is battling midfielder Scott Parker, who is apparently Tottenham-bound for the measley sum of around £7m. Why has Wenger not got involved?  The biggest mistake the club has made in terms of transfers must be how long they have taken to do anything. Now, with two days left to secure the three players that Wenger has only just revealed he is desperate to capture, the only thing Arsenal have achieved is to push up the price of every player they bid for. Why would Bolton chairman Phil Gartside do anything but ask for £5m more than he would have done a month ago should Arsenal bid for his prized centre-half Gary Cahill, at least? It is unfortunately symptomatic of the naivety that has hindered Arsenal's progress for a few years.


The worst it is going to get for Arsenal FC is a 6th or 7th placed finish, with the latter being nearly unthinkable. In order to sustain our wonderful record of consistent Champions League football, change must come to the Emirates. Not a change of manager, but a change of attitude, policy and awareness. The time has come not for Wenger to step down, but to wake up and face the reality of what his beloved club is becoming. The manager must realise that, especially in terms of transfers, the one thing worse than rushing in to change system, or recruit players, would be inaction. If something isn't done, then it will certainly be a long, long season.

Thanks To A Departing Hero.

On Monday afternoon, a contract was signed that brought to an end one of the most protracted and extraordinary transfer sagas of all time. With the announcement that Francesc Fabregas had joined FC Barcelona, signing a 6-year contract, it signals the end of an era that Arsenal fans new was approaching for a long time. For the second time in 5 years, Gunners fans can only sit and reminisce as we watch our captain ride off into the Catalan sunset. This article isn't a criticism of Fabregas, or indeed his new club, like many have been spewing as the transfer has neared confirmation. No, in fact this is merely a thank you to a young player who has been amongst the best I have witnessed in my lifetime.

On the 28th March 2006, I clearly remember sitting down in my armchair to watch Arsenal's Champions League quarter-final against Juventus at Highbury. Before the game, much of the press speculation was centred around the return of Arsenal legend Patrick Vieira for the first time since his exit the previous summer. The former skipper had, of course, been an incredible talent during his time in North London, setting the stadium alight with his passion and skill. It was slightly unnerving, therefore, to see a young, relatively inexperienced central midfielder selected to face him. That young player was Arsenal's number 15 - Cesc Fabregas.

Of course, in spite of his age Fabregas had already gathered notable first team experience. He had already become Arsenal's youngest ever goalscorer after netting against Wolves. He had already scored a league goal against Blackburn, making him the Gunner's youngest ever league scorer, too. He'd started in the Community Shield final, as well as Vieira's last ever game - the F.A Cup final. In spite of this experience, few could predict what was going to happen that night in March.

To put it simply, Fabregas' performance was one of the single finest I had ever seen from an Arsenal player. In my memories of watching football, certain individual performances stand out as particularly excellent - David Beckham against Greece in that World Cup qualifier. Andrey Arshavin's four-goal haul against Liverpool, Steven Gerrard in Istanbul. Fabregas' showing against Juve was, in my opinion, as impressive as any of these. This is predominantly because it was almost unexpected. As the young Spaniard weaved his way through his opponents one-by-one, he made his former team mate and captain look positively ropey. Fabregas' 40th minute goal was followed by a superb assist to tee up Thierry Henry, capping off a performance that left jaws gaping and hopes high that this young lad could become something really special.

Arsenal fans cannot be disappointed. Sure, this is a player who we have nurtured into what he is, and ultimately the pessimist will say it is another who has not repaid our dedication. However, we should simply feel lucky to have been able to call Cesc our own, even if it was for a disappointingly short time. Some of the moments that man has given me, personally, are worth more than another season or two. The sheer joy as he fired in from 30 yards against AC Milan. The ecstasy as he curled a superb free kick against Aston Villa, to effectively keep Arsenal in the title race. His outstanding performance against his future club, scoring a penalty with a broken leg to level the game. These moments are what football is about, and I would personally like to offer my gratitude to this magician for giving me some of my favourites.

So, what now for Fabregas, and what lies ahead for his mentor Arsene Wenger. The fee for the transfer, reportedly £30m up front with £5m in bonuses and additional payments, seems frankly a steal, considering the extortionate amounts paid recently for Andy Carroll and Fernando Torres. It speaks volumes of the extent to which Arsenal's hands were tied. They knew their captain wanted out. They knew he would eventually leave, and that if he stayed his influence would become disruptive and negative. The deal had to be done this summer, and this offer was the best it was ever going to get. Fabregas has already been given the number four shirt by the Catalan giants, and though many Arsenal fans have maintained that the precocious midfielder is more than likely to sit on the bench at the Nou Camp, i'm sure the minutes he gets on the pitch will be increasingly regular, and more enjoyable than those spent in England for the player himself.

For Arsenal, the remaining days and hours until August 31st form perhaps the most crucial two-week period since Arsene Wenger took over at the club. With the departure of Samir Nasri also apparently imminent, the need to get new players in quickly is obvious to all at the club. While the deals completed so far, for Lille's Gervinho, Oxlade-Chamberlain from Southampton, Carl Jenkinson from Charlton and an apparent deal for young striker Joel Campbell emphasise Wenger's willingness to spend, they leave a lot to be desired. While Gunners fans see Liverpool, Manchester United, Man City and Chelsea spending money for experienced players and established talent, they become increasingly frustrated as more youngsters arrive at the Emirates. Now, surely, seems the time for Wenger to bite the bullet. He simply must spend some money on new, established talent.


Fabregas has gone. Nasri seems more than likely to leave, also. As painful as it may be, we must move on and forget about these two. This season seems to be the campaign for Arsenal to have a fresh start, and I can only hope that Wenger allows one to come about by opening his chequebook. Until then, let me go and YouTube some more highlights of an incredible talent we were able to enjoy for a while.

'The Cost of Football' - or The Beautiful Game's Ugly Truth

For years now, one of the favourite pastimes of the average football fan has been to compare the modern game to that of days gone by. While pub-talk conversations about the speed of the game, the quality of the pitches, stadiums, players themselves and even haircuts inspire great debate over whether the contemporary state of the sport is preferable to decades ago, one area around which there is little debate is the cost of football. Now, thanks to a startling in-depth survey by BBC Sport, football fans across the country are finally able to provide tangible proof for what we've all known for ages: the game is more expensive now than ever. 

The essential basis of the survey is as follows: every club in all division across England and Scotland have told the good ol' BBC a number of statistics about the cost of various aspects of watching their team at home. The survey itself is a quite brilliant idea, and one imagines that only the BBC would be able to pull it off in a climate where it is safe to assume a fair few clubs were reluctant to air their dirty laundry. The figures provided are the price of the cheapest ticket available at any point in the season, the most expensive ticket available, the average price of a pie or other food item in the stadium, the price of a matchday programme and the price of a cup of tea. The results are very interesting, and provide statistics that are eagerly and helpfully dissected on the BBC website. 

While the recession angle that The Sun or The Daily Mail spin on the results of the survey may seem a little bit cliché, it does not mean that it isn't completely true. At a time when so many people struggle for money and household spending power continues to be severely restricted, it is quite shocking to see the amounts that football fans are forced to pay on a weekly basis. The refreshing aspect of the BBC's analysis is that the total values and the subsequent 'league tables' are based on the cheapest possible day spent at each stadium, rather than the sensational values the tabloids bandy around with such relish. 

As an Arsenal fan, such 'sensational values' are unfortunately an unavoidable bi-weekly way of life. The prices at the Emirates Stadium somewhat unsurprisingly top the league tables, and provide the papers with yet more proof of how Gunners fans are ripped off. The most expensive ticket at Arsenal, for a prime-location seat at a so called 'Category A' game (e.g Man United, Chelsea or Spurs), is an incredible £100. This is, of course, the value that is thrown around in newspapers to show how expensive the game has gotten. Obviously, however, this is not reflective of an average game, nor is the figure a million miles away from the £87 at Chelsea or £80 a Tottenham. Regrettably, Arsenal is also the most expensive ground in England to purchase a pie, which will set you back an eye-watering £4. 

Arsenal is not, however, the most expensive 'day out' in the Premier League. Arsenal's cheapest ticket costs £35, the same as the cheapest available at Premier League new boys Swansea City and QPR. There is one more expensive ticket available, though, which pushes the club in question to the summit of the 'Hall of Shame', a fact that bewilderingly the papers have by and large ignored in the hysteria of that hundred-pound-monstrosity in North London. The club is Liverpool, and the cheapest ticket that can be purchased at any time in the season, even a midweek game at home to Wigan Athletic, is £39. £39!  The cheapest 'day out' at Anfield, admittedly probably not the amount it would cost a regular visitor to the ground who will rarely buy all three items, is £46.95. 

The discrepency between the most expensive and the cheapest clubs in the Premier League is startling. Liverpool's total is balanced by an entirely affordable £17.50 at Blackburn, a total brought about because of an incredibly cheap £10 ticket. This places Rovers in a unique group of clubs who offer tickets for a tenner. I feel these deserve special mention in the modern game. So here they are: Blackburn, Watford, Rochdale, Preston North End, MK Dons, Rotherham, Torquay United and  Plymouth Argyle.

I, like many others, feel a mix of strange emotions when I see these figures. Of course, it's fun to pick apart the different values and scoff at some of the numbers involved. However, it is important to remember that these astronomical figures represent genuine problems. Genuine sacrifices. I don't just mean that people sacrifice going to football matches, because football lovers will always find a way to return to their spiritual homes every Saturday. I mean that often people face choices between forking out for that ticket to see the derby match, or buying a new pair of shoes that they need. Buying a present for a loved one. Football fans should not be punished by their clubs. After all, without these faithful fans the clubs wouldn't even exist. They wouldn't have anyone they could rip off. Football clubs should remember who are the most important people in the game, and restore some sanity amongst the soaring prices and the gold-leaf, diamond encrusted pies.