England expects?

The politics of following the English national team appears to get stranger and stranger as each tournament approaches. Not since 1966 has England managed to win a major international trophy and despite coming close on one or two occasions, most notably in 1990 and 1996, the dream of winning anything seems rather remote.

Yet, the English, who invented the game and this being rather noteworthy, appear to have a morbid fascination in seeing their football collapse and capitulate. For every tournament they enter, the whole country expects them to go and win it; this is despite the severe technical deficiencies and sheer exhaustion of playing a Premier League season. It is not just the fans who crank up the pressure; the media plays its role. For example, before most knock out games, be certain to see a headline play reference to Lord Admiral Nelson’s famous adage that ‘England expects everyman to do his duty’. In fact, ITV’s recent build up has parodied England going into the tournament on the back of their twelfth straight World Cup victory.

The 'heroes' of 1966.

It is worth reminding that the so-called ‘Golden Generation’ that infamously went onto win nothing, was actually a name given to the team by none other than the Football Association. Talk about hyperbole.

For many years England did expect, purely because they did invent the game and that was that. England famously did not enter into early World Cup tournaments because they believed that they were not properly devised nor was the FA willing to acknowledge them.

Even the mentality was wrong, British players were often renowned for the idea that running with your head down can get you out of trouble. The so-called ‘kick and rush’ football may have worked in the British leagues and in the early half of the 20^th century, but footballing tactics had moved on. England did not. One Dutch commentator said that his country admired the way the English played but they thought it was completely suicidal.

And here we are today. Less than two weeks before Euro 2012 kicks off in Poland and Ukraine and everyone is trying to down play it all. The preparation was not good. The departure of Italian Fabio Capello was not an ideal scenario. Despite Capello’s unpopularity with the press and a number of players, he was a winner and he knew what he wanted. The FA’s bizarre attempt to find an interim manager and hire him less than a month before the tournament speaks volume of the organisation.

I do not expect England to win, nor do I expect most people. Yet, I don’t understand this idea of trying to subvert any optimism. We don’t need to label ourselves as dark horses or chance outsiders. Why would you enter a tournament without thinking you were going to win it? You don’t go to a strip club to enjoy the furnishings.

Tournament success is about preparation and a spot of luck, for too long the conversation was ‘we invented the game so we’ll win it’ and later it became ‘we’ve got the best league in the world so we’ll win it’. Two remarkable truisms that have no real logic. 

If England ever do win a tournament it will require hard work and good players, but it will mainly require ideas and knowledge. The FA’s previous solutions of throwing money at the problem will add nothing further disappointment. Let’s hope, but not get ahead of ourselves.

Manchester United: A hole in the middle

If Manchester United goes on to win this year’s Premier League title and beat their local rivals, Manchester City, then fans and players will undoubtedly unite in what has become one of the closest title finishes in recent years. Not only will United fans be happy vanquishing their wealthy and ‘noisy’ neighbours but it will make United the only English side to have won twenty league championships, two clear of their fiercest rivals Liverpool.

Yet amidst the potential celebrations, which by no means are likely, there appears to be a degree of gloom and uncertainty about the future. Anyone looking at the league table may be nonplussed by such assertions. So far this season after 36 league games, United have won 26, scored 86 goals and amassed 83 points. In last year’s championship winning side the team won 23 games, scoring 78 goals and topping the table with 80 points. This is a side that has played the majority of the season without some of their key players; Captain Nemanja Vidic ruptured his cruciate ligament in December, whilst midfielder Darren Fletcher has been fighting to save his career following a chronic bowel condition. The team also had the difficulty in replacing the Dutch goalkeeper Edwin van der Sar, who retired after six seasons with the club.

Yet, after the immense disappointment of losing to Barcelona in last season’s Champions League final, the result and manner of the victory against Man City in August’s Community Shield brought a deal of hope and excitement. Besides new goalkeeper David de Gea’s mistake against Edin Dzeko, United’s passing and desire was impressive. A midfield with a large Paul Scholes shaped gap was fluent and confident. New, young and dynamic players were making United quicker, on and off the ball. After coming back from two goals down at halftime to win 3-2, it showed a more determined and technical United.

The start of the Premier League season saw no relent either. Less than a year after he announced that he wanted to leave the club, Wayne Rooney was scoring freely and the team was trouncing sides with ease. Arsenal, Bolton and Tottenham all took healthy beatings. The loss of midfielder Tom Cleverley to injury was a blow, but the return of long term absentee Antonio Valencia reminded the fans of the depth in the squad. Even the league’s joint top scorer from last season, Dimitar Bebatov, struggled to get a game. By October, United and City’s free scoring dominance saw them canter away from all other potential title rivals.

United's record in the Premier League.

The embarrassing 6-1 defeat at home to rivals City was a black day. No doubt the score was flattering; people forget that Jonny Evans had been sent off early in the second half when City had a 2-0 advantage, but it was no excuse. It highlighted obvious weaknesses in midfield compared to City’s talent. Fletcher was not in good health and Anderson had a particularly poor game, but it opened the questions of why Sir Alex had not brought in a classy central midfielder in the summer. Besides Carrick’s excellent and unsung performances this season, the fact is that no quality central midfielder has been brought in since Roy Keane left the club in 2005. The return of Paul Scholes in January asked more questions than it solved of the previous ones.

The performances in Europe were just as shocking. Last year, United were strong defensively and didn’t lose a game home or away. The Romanian side Otelul Galati were utterly  hopeless, but the slip ups against Benfica and Basle were impermissible. Confusing performances and needless mistakes became far too common, particularly at home. In the Europa League, they only just beat Ajax over two ties, whereas Athletic Bilbao gave them a footballing lesson. What I found most remarkable about the Bilbao game was not the match, but the reaction by Bilbao fans to the substitutions of Scholes and Giggs. The San Mames erupted into applause when the two left the field. It not only highlighted the fans recognition and appreciation, but it enhanced the idea that United needed severe investment. Fans only had to look at Bilbao’s central midfield three to recognise the difference.

A good beating in the Basque country.

Defeats, at different points, to Blackburn at home in the league, Crystal Palace in the League Cup and Liverpool in the FA Cup confirmed that United lacked a battling and technical quality in the middle of the pitch. Paul Scholes’s performances have been immense, but he is just a sticking plaster. It became more apparent in the second half of the season when De Gea, Evans and Ferdinand formed a solid defensive partnership and Rooney, Valencia and Welbeck continued to create and score goals upfront. United can score and stop goals, but it doesn’t necessary mean they can control games, particularly when other teams get their tactics right. I think particularly of the occasion when Newcastle beat them 3-0 at the Sports Direct Arena.

The trouble as Roy Keane notoriously, and rightly, made when he left the club was that at great clubs such as United, there should be no such thing as a ‘transitional’ period. Yes, players leave and retire, but young players should be part of the competition, not on work experience. If you can’t learn and adapt, then you’re simply not good enough.

Sir Alex has complained in recent years about the value for money in the market. He decided that Karim Benzema simply wasn’t worth £35 million and Wesley Sneijder’s wage demands were too high. Yet at the same time, the highly regarded Ravel Morrison was allowed to leave (though this may be down to his attitude) and the academy’s biggest prospect future, Paul Pogba, remains unclear. Certainly, scouting has become much better and there is new wealth in the game e.g. PSG, City and Malaga but whilst United have continued to improve through development and recruitment, it makes it more bizarre why the money hasn’t gone into the centre of midfield. United are constantly linked with the likes of Edin Hazard, Christian Eriksen, Javi Martinez and Luka Modric but what is the likelihood of any these players moving to Old Trafford. There are financial constraints on the club through the Glazers’s debt, which is unforgivable, but also the fact that Fergie is unwilling to spend top dollar for the so-called finish article or certainly what the selling club believes them to be worth. This is by no means a criticism of Sir Alex, as he has been the single biggest force behind the club this season but it may come to haunt United if the title does end up at the Etihad.

United may not win any trophies this season and some critics may say deservedly so. Yet be assured that if they do take their thirteenth title, it will all be down to Fergie. Out of the players, Rooney has scored the goals, but he has not been as consistent as Carrick, Scholes and Valencia. Jonny Evans deserves recognition for an outstanding season. One can only hope as a United fan that if it does become lucky 13 then we will see some new arrivals in the centre in the summer.

Capello: England's most successful manager

Yesterday's departure of the England manager Fabio Capello was greeted with both shock and hope in the football world. The Italian resigned from his position after he disagreed with the Football Association’s decision to strip England captain John Terry of the armband.

Terry, who was stripped of the armband previously, is alleged to have made racist comments towards the QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. The events have led to a court case that will be heard after this summer’s European Championships. The FA felt that an internal inquiry could affect civic justice and therefore decided to act to remove the captaincy so it did not become an issue during the tournament. However, Capello made his anger known on Italian TV believed that sporting justice should be served. The clash between the FA and Capello has now seen the Italian go just six months before the England team head to Poland and Ukraine.

On the same day, Tottenham Hotspurs manager Harry Redknapp was cleared of all charges relating to a tax evasion charge. Currently as the most successful English manager, fans, players and ex-professionals are all now calling for Harry to take charge. But will it really mean anything?

Harry Redknapp is an excellent football manager and has a proven record in the English Premier League. Most recently, he led Tottenham to the quarter finals of the Champions League and won the FA Cup with Portsmouth in 2008. Yet, the mysticism of him being English does not conceal the truth.

Capello, with a win percentage of 67 per cent is England’s most successful manager. Even the World Cup winner Alf Ramsey only managed 60 per cent. Capello took over a team that had failed to qualify for the 2008 European Championships and managed to re-establish them as one of Europe’s best. In the qualifications for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, England only lost once to Ukraine, in a game when qualification was already confirmed (plus England’s goalkeeper was sent off). More surprisingly, under Capello England have scored more goals, winning the average game by 1.5 goals.

His record in South Africa was not ideal and as many believe it is where he should have been judged. England was knocked out in the second round after losing comprehensively to Germany 4-1 in Bloemfontein. Capello admitted there were faults in the set up, yet people forget England regularly disappoint in summer tournaments. Not only did he have to contend with injuries to defenders Rio Ferdinand, Ledley King and a half fit Wayne Rooney. But like all other England managers, he took a burnt out squad, tired from a Premier League campaign. Capello became a national scapegoat.

Yet Capello is a winner. As both a player and manager he has had success wherever he has gone. Results was his only interest. He was paid £6 million a year to win trophies, he wasn't paid to help create a new generation of coaches or change English football's set up. When he failed on the pitch, it created a perception that he wasn't interested. The FA, with a new chairman and known to change managers frequently, believed the project must end. Who knows what they believe.

Whoever takes over the England job will go into the tournament feeling confident. Yet, whoever it is: Redknapp, Pearce, Neville; expect to see the same result both on and off the pitch. 

A gay footballer?

The fight to combat discrimination in British football has made impressive inroads over the past twenty years. In the 1970s and 1980s, black footballers were ritually taunted by the crowds with malicious and demeaning attacks. The audible echoes of monkey chants and communal throwing of bananas on the pitch were common features of league matches. The former Crystal Palace manager Ron Noades once commented that black players were needed for their “skill and flair” but white players were needed as they brought “brains and common sense” to a team. Yet British football has moved on and the national side has done much to promote the anti-racism message. In fact, when England players have suffered abuse in Europe, it came to deem racism as unpatriotic and something we no longer did. British football is aware of its ugly history and cherishes how far the game has moved on. The high profile cases of Chelsea captain John Terry and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez, though shameful, highlights how infrequent these events are.

There are still instances of hate crime on the terraces, but many songs by fans are jovial. Welsh sides are besieged by chants of sodomising sheep, whilst Manchester United fans lionise their South Korean midfielder Ji-Sung Park with the song:

“Park, Park, wherever you may be, you eat dogs in your home country. You could be worse; you could be Scouse, eating rats in your council house!” – (Music – Lord of the Dance)

It does ask a question, that as the Premier League has become more cosmopolitan and diverse, both players and fans, why no footballer has yet to come out as gay.

There are believed to be around half a million professional footballers in the world and of them, only one has officially declared his homosexuality. Be it, Anton Hysen, an obscure Swedish player .Yet, the remainder stay quiet. Why?

In a recent study of fans, 90 per cent said that sexuality is irrelevant. What mattered to them was the performance on the pitch. There are examples of other sportsmen who have ‘come out’ and it appears not to have affected them. The England cricketer Steve Davies, Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas and the former NBA player John Amaechi, all announced their sexuality. Similarly to football, basketball had no openly gay athletes so Amaechi, who decided to publish it through his autobiography, generated interest from the America media and from many of his fellow professionals.

Perhaps the legacy of England’s only gay footballer still haunts such players. Justin Fashanu, Britain’s first black £1 million player, voluntarily announced his homosexuality to The Sun in 1990; though many feel he was forced into it. It was apparently well known by his fellow professionals and his disapproving manager at Nottingham Forest, Brian Clough. Fashanu committed suicide in 1997 after allegations of sexual indecency in the US, though many believe the abuse he suffered during his playing days was a contributory factor.

Graeme Le Saux, the former Chelsea and England defender, endured years of homophobic taunting from fans and players, even though he wasn’t gay. On one occasion the Liverpool forward Robbie Fowler made a sexual suggestion to him on the pitch. Le Saux believed he got stick because he read The Guardian. From Le Saux’s account it emerges that ‘homophobic banter’ is widespread in the dressing rooms. Reaction to John Amaechi’s announcement was met with different responses in the NBA. Tim Hardaway said that he would want the player removed from his team. Charles Barkley didn’t see it as an issue. Whereas, Steven Hunter didn’t mind, as long as he didn’t make any advances.

The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) has launched a new campaign to highlight homosexuality in football, but it was only in 2010 when a similar scheme was withdrawn at the last minute. Agents and publicists have apparently advised footballers to refrain from outing themselves as it could have an adverse impact on their playing and marketing capabilities. To them football is still in the dark ages.

Historically, football evolved from the Victorian era as a tool for sexual restraint. Unlike rugby, where touching is part of the game, football represented a code of masculinity. Weakness was a sign of effeminacy. Hence, when footballers are called ‘poofs’ it is more subjective at a person’s weakness rather than their sexuality. Yet, this mentality has encroached throughout the whole sport. England defenders Ashley Cole and Sol Campbell are still ridiculed by opposition fans by stories that cannot be corroborated.

The fear from the terrace and the dressing room appear to be the stumbling block. Though, like the racism campaign, it will be interesting what happens on the day someone comes out.

Football's money men

Over the past few weeks there have been several stories in the back pages that have caused a great deal of comment regarding football finances and an inevitable look into how the game is run. Stan Kroenke, the reclusive majority shareholder of Arsenal said to several football journalists that the Glazer family, the controversial owners of Manchester United, had done a good job in running the football club. The American family, who bought the club through a leveraged takeover in 2005, have faced opprobrium from fans that have seen ticket prices soar and millions of pounds worth of debt secured against the club. Kroenke, who like the Glazers owns a National Football Team (NFL) in America, said that United fans should be thankful to the owners for their recent success the club has had domestically and in Europe. Last week, Newcastle United fans were venting further fury at owner, Mike Ashley, who has renamed the 119-year-old St James’ Park to the Sports Direct Arena. Ashley has never endeared himself to club’s fans and has openly been looking to sell the club to the highest bidder for the past few years; to fans, neglecting the club. Stories like this are not new to English football, yet fans continuously feel they have an axe to grind against corporate ownership, so what vision do they expect of English football and how is it supposed to work?

Some football commentators reserve certain clichés for different clubs, Everton are often dubbed a ‘well-run’ club. Most Premier League fans have an admiration for the Liverpool club and certainly believe their manager David Moyes has done a fantastic job for almost a decade. In the early years of the Premier League, Everton flirted with relegation on a number of occasions, yet under Moyes, the club attracted quality signings, reached the FA Cup Final in 2009 and most notably finished fourth in the Premiership in 2005. Put into perspective, Everton, one of England’s most dominant teams in the 1980s, have continuously punched above their weight. Yet, the club are stagnating financially compared to other clubs around them. They do not have an Arab Sheikh or Russian Oligarch bankrolling them, Goodison Park lacks corporate facilities and is in a location that would prevent it from being redeveloped. Current owner, the impresario Bill Kenwright, is openly looking for new investment but compared to other clubs, Everton are seen as unfavourable. Long gone are the days when the local rich man owned and bankrolled the club e.g. Jack Walker (Blackburn) and even the modern day comparisons like Wigan’s Dave Whelan are more realistic in what they can spend. Several years ago Kenwright, prevented the club from being sold to a Russian tycoon called Alexander Gaydamak. Eventually Gaydamak bought Portsmouth on the South Coast and with his funding they were able to spend freely on the transfer market and won the FA Cup in 2008. Portsmouth have subsequently faced administration, the first Premier League side to do so, after Gaydamak withdrew funds from the club. It is perhaps ironic that Kenwright has received criticism from Everton fans because he is more frugal on transfer policy, yet the sensible policies are seen as backward and unadventurous.

The English and the Scottish leagues are the most historical in the world and each club has a deep sense of community spirit within it. Yet, through the mass television deals that open new markets to clubs, cosmopolitan owners that come from different backgrounds and teams that do not feature a local youngster, it does make a difference to what the club means. Although it wouldn’t work, it is not crazy to believe that many of the owners would prefer an American style franchise system where clubs are relocated to different parts of the country after a boardroom meeting, the size of the UK and amount of clubs that already exist would have an effect. The issue for clubs is that prize money for the Champions League is enormous and clubs would be foolish not to chase such golden tickets. This has meant selling their history to the largest bidder, either to finish in the top four or to stay in the Premier League. Most clubs in the top two divisions of the English football league have either moved or improved their stadium infrastructure over the past two decades. Games cost between £40-£80 to watch rather than 50p at the turnstile. The sponsors are no longer the hi-tech Japanese electronic brands of the 1980s but from the Gulf Arab states. The change from what fans saw when they were growing up is profound and only highlights the difference new investment has made, yet for footballing institutions like Everton and Newcastle new money is the only way to survive.

Michael Owen: a bit better than Robbie Fowler.

There are several stories that seem to emerge from the back pages of British newspapers when recurring events occur; and ultimately they never happen. One is that Arsenal should sack Arsene Wenger when the club go through a dip in form (as is happening currently), and when Michael Owen scores a goal or two, he should be in Sir Alex Ferguson’s starting XI at Manchester United or certainly on England manager Fabio Capello’s radar. There is no doubt that Michael Owen was a talented player and can still perform a role within the Premiership, but is the talk pure hyperbole and the career of Michael Owen now part of football history?

When Owen joined Manchester United in the Summer of 2009, many writers believed that with the exits of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez the arrival of a player with Owen’s goal scoring record and experience could be a shrewd signing by Sir Alex, the main question was how many games he would play and whether he would remain fit. Owen’s father was a professional footballer and had a successful career at Everton and Chester City in the 1960s and 1970s. His son, Michael, came through the ranks at Liverpool and made his name by scoring on his league debut in May 1997 against Wimbledon. Owen had also played at different age groups for England, despite many people claiming he was Welsh. When Owen graduated into the Premiership, he was one of many top class England strikers, who all had proven at club and internationally that they could score goals. The likes of Les Ferdinand, Ian Wright, Alan Shearer all had made a big impact. Owen was soon to join this band of talented goal scorers, included in Glen Hoddle’s World Cup squad for the 1998 competition in France, Owen made an impression scoring firstly against Romania and then a wonder goal against Argentina in the second round. Here was an English striker that terrified foreign opponents: his explosive pace, sharp shooter finishing and intelligence off the ball were all destined to make Owen a great for both Liverpool and England.

In his early years with Liverpool, he was part of a side that collected six pieces of silverware and not forgetting in 2001, he was named the European footballer of the year, the first Englishman to win the prize since Kevin Keegan in 1979. No England fan will forget his hat trick in the 5-1 mauling of Germany, in Munich in September 2001. Yet, when we fast-forward a decade, with spells at Real Madrid, Newcastle and now Man Utd, Owen’s name is normally precluded to the substitutes’ bench or the stands. Why has his personal career been in slow decline since that night then years ago?

Injuries took their toll on Michael’s body and have ultimately had a lasting effect. Groin and hamstring tears, plus knee ligament damage changed the player renowned for his pace, to a rigid front man. Undoubtedly, the timings of his injuries were unfortunate but there is no reason why he couldn’t adapt or change his style of play. Alan Shearer, the great England centre forward of the 90s, thought his career was ending after endless problems with his knees. Bobby Robson, then Newcastle manager, told Shearer that he needed to change the way he played. He needed to use his strength and intelligence to run off defenders and if necessary come shorter to receive the ball (something unusual for a traditional English centre forward), Shearer went on to become the Premiership’s all time leading goal scorer and most pundits even forget about this transformation. It was the same for Teddy Sheringham, a player who is most famous for ‘playing with his back to goal’ signed for Manchester United when he was 30 and continued playing in the English Championship into his forties. Sheringham was known for his intelligence but even when his legs started to go, he was able to dictate play and helped West Ham reach the Premiership in 2005.

Owen said in an interview after his knee injury with Newcastle, suffered when playing for England in the World Cup in 2006, that he put on a stone in muscle to protect himself from recurring muscle injuries. No longer was Owen the nippy sprinter that we remembered of old. He was much broader and stronger, a striker who took the ball to feet rather than chasing through passes. Owen still managed to score goals, but not as prolifically as before, and not as effortlessly as we remembered. It was a similar tale for his former Liverpool teammate Robbie Fowler. A striker with a brilliant ability to score goals for fun (he still holds the Premiership record for the quickest hat trick) yet his fortunes were not helped by continuous injuries in his middle years. Fowler, like Owen, still scored goals but they weren’t as dynamic or thrusting as before.

Both players grew up and came through a system where English football was still flawed by its inability to adapt. Foreign players were increasingly drawn to the English game by the money and the excitement, but the tactics or the technical skills hadn’t fully trickled down. Owen and Fowler were fabulous finishers, both benefitted from the experience gained playing in European competitions and in an England shirt, but they didn’t have anything else beyond that. When you watch the best players today, they are quick, strong, intelligent and technically brilliant. Owen is a product of the twentieth century coaching, unlike Wayne Rooney or Sergio Aguero. This is reflecting in the teams he has started against, mainly in the Carling Cup, not against top class opponents.

What is interesting when listening to recent interviews with the players is that they are still hungry to score goals, but you feel there is a great deal realism and acceptance that they both reached the peaks of their careers at an early age, hastened through injury. Both have made their fortunes in property and Owen is known for his love of horseracing. (Tabloid writers joked that Sir Alex only signed him for betting tips) Neither player has anything further to prove. Owen will continue to play for United for the rest of the season and will certainly score goals in the games he plays. The only reason why Capello would pick him is for a player who scores goals in the final ten minutes of matches, some may be deemed this a luxury. Hall of Fame is certain, but breaking further records? Unlikely.

The genius on the ball: Bergkamp and Cantona

When we watch football, do we watch it to satisfy a certain emotion? Is the game played to an audience that expects anxiety and yet minutes later rapture? Is football a metaphor for something deeper or metaphysical? Is it a re-enactment of military battles or does it represent something more conceptual? Is football art? Are certain sportsman bringing a more rugged, yet enduring piece of art to a mass market?

Football fans can breed an aura of ignorance or certainly blitheness to the comings and goings of their football team; and many of them are pigeon-holed as yobs or certainly trouble makers. However; if you compare the cost of following your football team over a season to going to the ballet or opera, then you would probably find that watching football comes at a higher premium. Football fans can be harangued as stupid people; why would someone want to follow something that often brings misery to your Saturday and where you have no control over the outcome? Football does not have the crescendo of an orchestra or the soliloquy of a play; yet its arbitrary and refreshing notions take it beyond the realms of higher art; it is safe to say that some footballers are artists themselves.

Two greats of the game, who transformed the way the English game is played and followed, are now curators to the game in another form. Dennis Bergkamp, the former Arsenal and Holland striker is now assistant manager at his boyhood club Ajax. Eric Cantona, the unforgettable Gallic king of Manchester United is now director of soccer of the reformed New York Cosmos. Both men, not necessarily the best players the Premiership has seen, but both brought an artistic deference that can never be murmured.

Anyone that saw Bergkamp control the ball and thread a pass could not mistake it for a work of a genius. His ability to think and play; intelligence is not necessarily an attribute that footballers are compensated with, yet his calmness and display on the pitch was a joy to watch for Arsenal and Holland. There isn’t a football fan who didn’t acknowledge the effortless brilliance of his goal in the quarter finals against Argentina.

Cantona’s mystique was something different. The arrogance of the upturned collar, he was a rebel; but not the teddy boy or punk rocker. He was thoughtful and delicate. His English appeared patchy (he is synonymous with strange adages), yet he was able to express his thoughts on the football pitch. His love of art and poetry from an early age may appear absurd to contrast with away matches against Coventry or Middlesbrough on a Saturday afternoon, yet Eric loved it all. This was his arena. He was a bullfighter and this was his show.

Neither of the two men were blessed with looks, nor the personalities to adore themselves to a family audience. However; art is fundamentally about expression of oneself and the environment around us. Both men employed their talents to define games, seasons and tournaments. Football may not have the prestige of La Scala or the Bolshoi but both men found their way to proclaim themselves and their history is etched on the backs of football shirts and club legend.

Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?

Old Firm: The Queen's eleven, maybe.

Despite the prospects of an independent Scotland and the hope its politicians desire, the decline of Scottish football is all too evident. Ten to fifteen years ago there was talk of allowing Glasgow Celtic and Rangers to play in the English Premier League. Both sides had terrific squads, stadium and support. Many believed they would be equals when it came to competing against England's best. Yet, the lack of prosperity and heavy debt burdens left many of Scotland's historically big clubs unable to compete financially against other European clubs and has seen a real decline in the quality of football.

Last week, the story that dominated the sporting headlines was the attempted nail bomb posted to Celtic manager Neil Lennon. Lennon, a Catholic from Northern Ireland is no stranger to controversy. He retired from international football after receiving death threats from Loyalist groups when he was captain of Northern Ireland. Recently he had graffiti laced upon the wall opposite his home calling for his death. (Unfortunately the artist wrote R.P.I instead of R.I.P – whether it was a reference to the Retail Price Index or dyslexia we’ll never know). Lennon is a character who courts animosity. He revealed in a recent interview that he got into a fight near his home in Glasgow with two medical students, whilst his girlfriend looked on. Something you may expect of youth players but not high profile managers.

Lennon took his seat yesterday in the final Old Firm fixture of the season in a match that takes precedence for the Scottish game. Yet since the Good Friday Agreement and general integration between Catholics and Protestants, do the whole religious undertones really mean anything anymore or does it breathe life into a league that appears banal compared to yesteryear?

Sectarian hate is nothing new, the game used to be a ceremony for fans to violently belittle each other. It was said that religion in Northern Ireland was something never mentioned on the street, yet the Celtic Rangers match was the occasion for exalting your religious bigotry. Songs about the IRA, the Queen and Bobby Sands were all too common. Mo Johnston, the first Catholic player to play for Rangers (or openly Catholic) had previously played for Celtic and made the sign of cross towards Rangers fans during a match (His dad was a Rangers fan and a Protestant). Graeme Souness had tried to sign Ian Rush, a Welsh Catholic, when he was manager in the late 1980s and Mark Hateley was viewed with suspicion from fans because he was married to a Catholic. It all seems quite pathetic now, but this was at a time of daily violence in the Ulster and perceived discrimination of Catholics in everyday society. The Rangers chairman David Murray saw introducing Catholics as a way of making money from sponsorship and investment.

Watching the match yesterday, particularly because of the Lennon incident, the atmosphere was boisterous as expected but it still lacked visible quality on the pitch. The tricolored Irish flag and the Union Jacks decorating the terraces (probably not in anticipation of the Royal Wedding), plus chants of ‘God Save the Queen’ did nothing to alleviate potential rest. No doubt Rangers fans thought the referee was a ‘Feinian’ after his dubious penalty decision. Yet there were few talking points otherwise in this humourless game.

Like most football derbies, there is history, as well as hate. The Easter Sunday clash marked 95 years since the ‘Easter Rising’ at the Dublin Post Office and the subsequent executions of those involved. For Real Madrid and Barcelona, there is the political battle of federalism and Catalonia. Ajax Amsterdam and Rotterdam’s Feyenoord clash over the difference between their cultural and industrial hearts. Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao in the Basque region of Spain both used to have transfer policies that did not permit the signing of non-Basque players, these have now been relaxed in recent years like the violence in that region. Football does move with the times, even England have a more continental outlook to the game than previously. It is the fan culture that loves to look back; it is the history that makes them and the club. Changing stadiums or signing players are important issues and nothing to be taken lightly. Arsenal fans voiced their disgust when the club issued a white away kit, colour of their rival's Tottenham. History is indicative of the future.

Perhaps the bellicose of yesterday’s match hides the decline of the Scottish game in general. Matches are worth winning, but they are definitely never worth dying for. Traditions are for keeping.

True greatness - Ronaldo.

Sporting greatness is an aspect of society that still holds reverence to talent and natural skill. Sport scientists and sociologists have pointed out that in today’s world it is possible to succeed to the top with a balance of determination, fitness and in some cases a bit of luck. Sporting historians and fans alike will point out that sporting greats are the people who didn’t just amaze us with their ability; but endeared us to their personality. It is why people would rather watch Usain Bolt to Tiger Woods (at his best), or why Shane Warne is considered the best spinner, above Muttiah Muralitharan. They say that India comes to a standstill when Sachin Tendulkar comes to the crease and the world watched and listened when Muhammed Ali entered the ring.

Football is difficult to contend with nowadays, with its vast wealth of coverage and scrutiny. People deem it an insult that David Beckham is the most capped outfield player for England, yet they do not seem to take into consideration the nature of football that he played in. People may reflect on the statistics and the appearances; but they must consider the joy and gratification of the audience.

Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima, one of the greatest footballers of the modern era retired from professional football today. We knew him as Ronaldo and though later as ‘Fat Ronaldo’. His legacy will be recorded as the top goal scorer in FIFA World Cup history (15), with a trophy cabinet as wide as his belly.

Ronaldo should be recognised beyond his success. He represented the idea of what a star should be. He possessed pace, positioning and above all else his lethal finishing. He had a penchant for beautiful ladies and indulging in late night outings before matches, but it didn’t seemed to affect him on the day.

There are two questions that will always be asked in years to come. Firstly, what would have happened if a fit Ronaldo had played in the 1998 World Cup Final in 1against France? (he apparently suffered a fit earlier in the day and was only included in the final XI with minutes to spare). Secondly, if he hadn’t succumbed to crippling knee injuries, how many more records could he have broken?

Ronaldo wasn’t a brand, he was a religion. He had every schoolboy performing step overs in the playground and mystifying defences with his innate genius, all with that childlike smile. Perhaps the beauty of sport, unlike politics, is that the audience remembers their true greatness. Ronaldo’s destruction of the Compostela defence that left Sir Bobby Robson speechless and the Champions’ League hat-trick that left Man United fans on their feet applauding. It is hard to underestimate the bewildering talents of the man.

Greedy footballers: Wayne Rooney

One thing about being a football fan is the question of why do we put ourselves through it all? The pain and heartbreak of defeat, the uncertainty and speculation over the club and squad; it all puts it into perspective. Why don’t people choose hobbies that provide the relief and excitement without lamentation and soreness. The obvious answer that all football fans can give is besides the nadirs of following a club, nothing can replicate the euphoria of a victory or glory; it is the same as religious evangelism and creates a passion that is intangible to analyse.

Sport at an anthropological level is full of heroes and villains. The soap opera and pantomime stories that follow the professional game highlight the cult and age we live in. It is unfortunate that the denigration and naivety to idolise players has distorted their real characters and personalities. Sportsmen and women are rarely the amateur peoples’ champion that we all love; they are driven, single-minded athletes. They lead a live that is furious and demanding, yet they lead it for glory and to etch their name into history. To describe a sportsman or woman as selfish is not to defame their moral character but their persistence to perform and win. The professionalisation of sport created an industry that pushes athletes to new levels and creates spectacles we can only admire. It also creates a vanity and a spectrum for fame and wealth. Nobody should deny them the opportunity to earn, nor penalise their success; it just happens that most of the time it is not just their own lives’ they are changing.

The saga that has become Wayne Rooney’s future enhances the selfishness of the modern day player. The pronouncements from the Rooney camp are unequivocal in his desire to leave, but do not detract from the ambiguity of previous comments. Rooney left his first love, Everton Football Club, to join Alex Ferguson and Manchester United at the age of 18, so we should not be surprised. ‘The boy’ is ambitious and has already won a great deal for the club, but his ‘desire’ is being used to masquerade his greed. Rooney does not see himself as a Bryan Robson, playing at a club for a decade among inferior players, he feels he deserves he should be at the top club being paid top brass. His overtures to an extent have some truth and the Glazer tenure has made United’s future less secure financially and competitively, yet his arguments are as thin as his loyalty. Rooney is a financial mercenary like John Terry or Joleon Lescott, and the kissing of the club badge is about affectionate as treading in shit.

Superstars perform on the pitch and off the pitch to their club’s commercial arm, to an extent it can be deemed an insult to the intelligence of fans but shows their naivety to believe in this facade. Rooney probably has respect for his club's supporters but we have seen his spite when representing England. If and when he moves, fans will be bitterly disappointed but they will soon appoint a new poster boy. Rooney certainly did enough, particularly last season, to show how good a footballer he is but it goes to show it inevitably doesn’t matter what shirt you’re wearing, as long you’re being handsomely rewarded for it.

I'm with the brand.

Sport is a funny old game and the traditional industries and loyalties that tie supporters to their local team have become blurred. It is unimaginable that in the 1960s and 1970s boys from Liverpool could ever grow up cheering on Man Utd or Chelsea. What then has changed socially or culturally that makes these conversions acceptable?

We must acknowledge that people have always had second teams, or certainly been fond of another. Many Londoners see Leyton Orient as their second side and people on Merseyside will see how Tranmere Rovers have done on a Saturday evening. In the footballing book, Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby, the Arsenal fanatic, supported Cambridge United at University as well as his beloved Gunners. Many people have affection for bigger teams like Liverpool and Manchester United because of past dynasties like Bill Shankly and Sir Matt Busby. A new generation has been raised up watching Sir Alex Ferguson’s sides in European competitions. Is there a reason though why children wear Chelsea shirts in Northern England?

Social mobility is a cause; people nowadays are far more likely to move away from the place they were born than they were say, 50 years ago. So the roots of both parents and children are far less embedded in the soul of that person. The other reason that seems far more pernicious and irrevocable is the soul of the club. Clubs originally evolved as a leisure activity from Victorian industry e.g. Arsenal was formed by workers from a munitions factory in Woolwich. The increased commercialisation of football clubs has developed them into companies. Some of the current chief executives of Premier League have a background in marketing or managing FTSE 100 corporations. The success of clubs has exponentially become a model of global imperialism. Money spinning tours and selling merchandise is the most effective way to maintain a healthy income stream and increase in global following. You could argue that the omnipotence of the Premier League and the revolution in television coverage means that clubs are no longer entrenched in the heart of certain regions. It is accepted, possibly for the better (?) that watching your local Premier League side you aren’t guaranteed to see any local boys or names on the back of the match programme. According to a statistic 99% of Man United fans have never been to Old Trafford, it’s probable that 98% of them don’t live in Manchester, or England either.

Amateurism died a long time ago, as did the Corinthian spirit. Can we say that clubs have sold out? Possibly, certainly their priorities have changed. Winning the Champions’ League is much more important than the FA Cup. Club emblems have dropped their traditional Latin mottoes for more friendly and modern logos. Owners aren’t local entrepreneurs, they are wealthy foreign businessmen. Football involves nostalgia and talking of golden eras, it is just that we are in an age where romance and glamour-killings happen less frequently.

Fathers will always take their sons to watch the match and people will always support their local sides. But the brand might take them elsewhere, we might even see Premier League games abroad...

Football: Money = Success? I debt it?

Listening to a debate this morning about football, what is it that ultimately motivates owners of football clubs to pump money into clubs? The argument has arisen after the recent departure of Martin O’Neill from Aston Villa and the supposed demands he made to owner Randy Lerner. Previously, Villa were an inconsistent mid-ranked team, but under O’Neill’s management with Lerner’s investment, they have become one of a handful of clubs pushing for a place in the Champions League. The issue for Villa and for many teams in this region is that by consistently finish in third or fourth spot, it requires the necessary investment: 50 million to 100 million pounds, something Lerner, we understand, was not willing to do.

What is an owner to do because the financial model would not make sense in any other business sector that they have worked in. Football teams nowadays are judged by silverware and their competitiveness to sign 'top' talent. In business, research and probing investment is fastidiously raked over to ensure a healthy return on investment over a long term plan, in football spending £25 million on a striker may not lead to instant success. Lerner is generous with his wealth and O’Neill spent millions on a large squad with a large wage bill, so why can’t he be happy with what he has? Let’s us not forget the competitors around them, Manchester City have an Arab billionaire, Tottenham will line their pockets in the Champions League this year and then we can’t forget the likes of Liverpool and Everton who always need to be watched. It’s a marketplace like no other.

Then there are the shareholders: the fans. Traditionally, a good cup-run and a higher than expected league finish would suffice.However, now there is an increasing desire to attract the top stars and their wages, this continuous investment can literally produce no palpable returns. The problem with many British clubs is that recruitment is purely done through the manager. The European model of ‘Directors of Football’, who oversee the talent search, are seen as undermining and meddling. It does sound like an alpha-male syndrome; but when the tenure of football manager on average is just over the year, it is daft to spend so much on players and staff when inevitably it tends to go wrong. There are so many precedents from recent years that show that demanding fans or managers does not necessarily lead to long term glory: Leeds and Portsmouth spring to mind.

No one would question the interests of Lerner and to add to that Bill Kenwright, but the increasing percentage of ‘owners’ (We never called them that 10 years ago) and the business of football makes that next step up impossible to call. I personally argue that green and gold protests at Old Trafford are very romantic; but would Man United fans’ accept the prospects of barren years and austerity? Quick answer yes, but when they think about it, probably no. Today, success is built on a mountain of debt or sugar daddy wealth.

The one hope we have is that football is potentially becoming more accountable, particularly to its fans and society. UEFA’s decision to tighten fiscal imprudence is a necessary step to quell the unharnessed spending of current times (as long as it is implemented sensibly). Success is the desire of all football clubs, yet amassing billions of pounds of debt is fruitless and reckless. How all owners would love a manager like Arsene Wenger. Wenger invented the term ‘financial doping’, he knows that short term interests serve no purpose in running a football club and though many draw to Arsenal’s naked trophy cabinet over the past few seasons, Arsenal fans know from other supporters and from their own experience that despite football being a billionaires’ playground, success is something to be built on, spraying cash at it doesn’t mean anything.

Mikel Arteta - no senor.

England has historically been a melting pot for immigrants from around the world and many have contributed positively to the way we live and across all the counties. Indian doctors and African nurses in the NHS, Polish plumbers and Australian bar workers. Often the avenue that has brought cultures together has been through sport and it is obvious to see through diaspora of colours and names in the English national team. It is a tribute to their hard work and love for their new nation.

I remember listening to the English Cricket team reaching an all-time nadir, losing a home test-series against New Zealand in 1999. The answer seemed controversial at the time but the decision was to bring in a foreign coach, Duncan Fletcher from Zimbabwe. Results and consistency finally brought home the pinnacle of test glory, an Ashes victory after an eternity of defeats against the Aussies. England have built on these imports, another Zimbabwean, Andy Flower is the latest head coach along with some naturalised South Africans players and some Australian and Pakistani coaches. This is becoming standard form across the cricketing world, even the world HQ is now based in Dubai. Look at the likes of Rugby League, Super League is dotted with Australian coaches and in Athletics Team GB is headed up by a Dutchman. English sport is truly globalised.

The story that deflected a lot of attention was the potential recruitment of Mikel Arteta to the English football team, perhaps a step too far? Arteta, a Spaniard, who has played football in Britain for seven years has recently attained British citizenship and has yet to gain a cap in the Spanish national team. I personally agreed with the recruitment of a foreign coach and think the national side has improved from the coaching methods and knowledge from these foreigners. Is this potential call-up a reflection of Britain as a society or a desperate call after a miserable summer? He wouldn’t be the first player to change nationalities in footballing terms, think Deco, Podolski, Eduardo. Also the fact we have had two foreign coaches appears to make the so-called sacrosanct Three Lions appear futile. I like Arteta and I think he would be a good player but I just don’t think it is right for the England team. The other sports I named earlier are embedded with the moral codes of Empire, the subsequent legacy and competition of these games seems natural as they are only played by a small group of countries, technical coaches are therefore a sparse commodity. But then, you could argue that football is the ultimate global game, where globalisation has changed how we watch and play the sport, is this not the next obvious step? By all means yes, but it seems ignore all the inherent problems within our game at the highest and the lowest level, Arteta would be a short term solution for a long term problem. It wouldn’t surprise me if something like this happened in the future but now is not the time to be doing it.