General Football Thread - Any other business

Breaking - Leicester City win PSR ruling against the Premier League over jurisdiction pic.twitter.com/cwF4BoTKsj

— Martyn Ziegler (@martynziegler) September 3, 2024

 

Damning report released on the “madness” of the football calendar and “excessive” player workload.

The vibrant start made by Haaland and Salah to the new season highlights the importance of proper rest in a crowded calendar, say @PFA and @FIFPRO. Haaland, 7 goals in 3 PL games,…

— Henry Winter (@henrywinter) September 5, 2024

 

I do worry that all the talk of players playing time will just end up with players being pushed by their clubs to retire from internationals.

 

🚨⚠️ Bernardo Silva: “The schedule is completely crazy. We've just received the news that we only have one day off for the English League Cup game”.

"We’ll probably play every three days for months. It's been absolutely absurd”.

“In the Champions League, if you don't qualify… pic.twitter.com/y5huJ4pazX

— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) September 6, 2024

 

Chelsea FC’s Backers Clearlake and Todd Boehly Weigh Ownership Options https://t.co/rcH9KcGZQt

— david hellier (@hellierd) September 6, 2024

 

https://thechels.net/2024/pathways-to-destruction/

For anyone interested, this is a very detailed article on academy football and youth development in England, and the direction it's heading in. It doesn't make for positive reading and it highlights how the Premier League's increasingly exorbitant wealth is actually starting to become a huge hindrance to player development, with academies now much more focussed on recruitment than development.

 

It touches on something i've wondered, how actually beneficial is making a huge life changing move as a young teenager? Just looking through England's "star" players, they pretty much all either spent almost all their academy years at the same club, a number of them moved locally around <11. On a perhaps more dramatic scale we can see that Brazil though they are prolific producers certainly seem to have had issues in so many of their young stars moving at increasingly young ages and stalling.

Despite how often we see the "star" youth players making big moves as young teenagers, the success rate seems very questionable, even relative to the obvious low probabilities of making it in youth football. Which in itself isn't good news for the National Team given how it seems like pretty much all the stars these days are being hoovered up. I recall last season our under 15's or 16s call up at one stage was entirely drawn from "big 6 teams". bar perhaps one player.

And that to say nothing of the wider impact on the football ladder when it becomes increasingly difficult to keep hold of your top prospects.

 

Yep, it's a bit of an issue. I really don't know what the answer is and I doubt there's a perfect solution, but I think somehow it has to be made harder or more expensive for big clubs to take kids from other academies. Even discounting the effects on producing players for the national team, it's very bleak and immoral how young players are treated by clubs.

 

🚨🇪🇸 Luis de la Fuente on Lamine Yamal playing too much: “It’s lucky that we have a player of such a level and that he plays so many games for our national team”.

“If you can't play 180 mins in September, turn it off and let's go. We represent our country and play to win”. pic.twitter.com/zguq0qu3cy

— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) September 7, 2024

 

🚨 Clearlake and Boehly are in tatters. Boehly’s approach is to hire experts and let them get on with it, while Clearlake, particularly Egbhali, has taken a role considered by boehly as “micromanaging” - a source close to Boehly’s side described Eghbali as being “obsessed with…

— Pys (@CFCPys) September 9, 2024

The Chelsea fans here will have a better view on this than me, but the more I read about the ownership situation the more I realise how much of a scapegoat Todd Boehly has been made.

Boehly has basically been the face of everything that's gone on at Chelsea post-Abramovic but this Eghbali fella seems to have been the one making a large portion of the baffling decisions, and importantly he was the man who thought it was a good idea to tear down the academy structure and force out Neil Bath and Jim Fraser.

No idea what's going to happen with all of this but if Chelsea can manage to get rid of Eghbali and Clearlake it could be a fairly big positive for English football as a whole, as well as for Chelsea.

 

🚨🇳🇱 Koeman on Depay-Corinthians deal: “I disapproved Bergwijn to Saudi, with Memphis can be different”.

“The level of the league in Brazil is different. So yes, Depay can still be part of the national team but it depends on his fitness and if he still reaches his level”. pic.twitter.com/G3VjkdpmQl

— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) September 9, 2024

I’m not sure the level is that much better,

 

I wonder if the FA will go back to the idea of selling Wembely once the new Man United Stadium is open with the strong feeling it will take a lot of Wembely’s international and domestic matches (There is talk that the league and FA cup finals could rotate every other year between the two) and therefore not be as cost effective to own rather than rent.

 

Where do you get all these 'strong feelings' from? The FA will choose where it wants games to go, and if it still owns Wembley will have the games there

 

I doubt they'll revisit that but the country is even more in need of grassroots funding now than it was when the idea of selling Wembley was initially floated. The government should be the ones funding grassroots football but with yet more austerity in the pipeline it's simply not gonna happen anytime soon. The FA are probably going to have to find ways of raising serious amounts of cash to step in or the game will die at a local level, and if selling Wembley is the best way to do it then so be it imo.

 

It looks like it’s more likely to be other way round as it stands with Boehly having a reduced influence or total departure.

 

🚨🇳🇴 Norway coach Solbakken: “Martin Ødegaard’s injury looked bad in the dressing room as well”.

Norway doctor Ola Sand: “He got a small ankle sprain. We will see, maybe we use ultrasound to look at it”.

“If we are unsure, there will be an MRI tomorrow”, Sand told TV2. pic.twitter.com/tRsE7nvqda

— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) September 9, 2024

Arsenal fans are already some off the most hostile to international football online and this will only futher it.

 

Reading about the prospered daylight offside rule and it seems it will be very good for attacking players (Particularly Strikers) and attacking teams but not so good for teams whose strength is defence / who don’t have three high quality attackers.

For England could be good but the lack of a top level striker coming through could mean a lack of ability to really take advantage of it post Kane,

 

BREAKING: The hearing over Manchester City's 115 charges will start on Monday 🚨 pic.twitter.com/9ujOCryVMF

— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) September 12, 2024

 

England risk ban from their own Euros, Uefa warns
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article...e banned,regulator, Uefa has warned ministers.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Officials have told ministers that Labour plans for a state-run football watchdog put the independence of the sport in jeopardy

England could be banned from the first Euros it has hosted in a generation if Sir Keir Starmer moves ahead with existing plans for a men’s football regulator, Uefa has warned ministers.

Theodore Theodoridis, general secretary of Uefa, the governing body, wrote to Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, this month saying that there should be “no government interference in the running of football”.

According to a leaked copy of the letter, Theodoridis cautioned against plans outlined in the King’s Speech to give the new regulator broad powers to oversee clubs in England’s top five leagues. He said the game’s independence was a “fundamental requirement”.

The last government tabled the legislation for a new watchdog in March to stop wealthy clubs joining breakaway leagues and to protect clubs from financial mismanagement. It ran out of time but Labour committed itself to the plan in its manifesto.

Theodoridis singled out proposed powers that would force club owners to make decisions based on the UK government’s ‘trade and foreign policy objectives’ as a potential example of state over-reach. This could include banning clubs from attracting investment from controversial countries or where they play friendly matches overseas.

He also criticised the idea that the regulator could override clubs concerning the distribution of revenue from TV and other forms of media.

At present, the two professional leagues – the English Premier League and English Football League – sign their own deals and distribute the money how they see fit. But there has long been pressure from smaller clubs and politicians that the wealthy Premier League should pay more to those playing in the English Football League.

Theodoridis also pointed to a proposed licensing system for clubs – a first – as being problematic, arguing it could encourage other countries to set up their own regulators. This, Uefa believes, would dilute its power and make the sport ungovernable.

Theodoridis said: “We have specific rules that guard against [state meddling] in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from Uefa and teams from competition.”

Exclusion from Uefa would prevent England’s participation in the most watched tournaments on the planet, except the World Cup: the European Championship, composed of the national teams and held once every four years, and the Champions League, the Continent’s premier club competition held annually. It would also imperil England’s participation in future World Cups as Uefa administers traditional qualifiers for European teams, and the Nations League, the other route into the tournament.


Uefa declined to comment but a source familiar with its approach said: “The letter alludes to potential impact on English teams in the Champions League and England’s participation in the Euros 2028, hosted in England, if a line is crossed, especially in relation to independence from government and the potential disruption of relationships between football bodies.

“The letter is clear that Uefa is watching closely, especially in relation to the FA’s role, and is more than prepared to intervene given their concern this may be the thin end of the wedge.” The source added that World Cup qualification would also be in doubt.

The England men’s team and English clubs participate in the tournaments through the Football Association, the country’s governing body and one of Uefa’s member associations. The FA has welcomed the idea of the new watchdog. The Premier League, which is the world’s wealthiest and most watched league and sits at the top of the FA’s football pyramid, has not. Its chief executive, Richard Masters, has warned of “unintended consequences that could weaken the competitiveness and appeal of English football”.

Theodoridis wrote to Nandy on September 2 and has not received a response. His letter sets Downing Street on a collision course with Uefa days before the resumption of the Champions League, the first fixtures of which are on Tuesday, and less than four years before the next Euros.

The UK is co-hosting that tournament with the Republic of Ireland in 2028, with Cardiff expected to host the opening game and Wembley the semi-finals and final. It last hosted the tournament in 1996 and if allowed to compete will be able to draw on talent including Jude Bellingham and Bukayo Saka. Gareth Southgate led the team to the final in July, when they lost to Spain 2-1 in Berlin.


In its manifesto, Labour vowed to make Britain “the best place in the world to be a football fan” by introducing a Football Governance Bill. It said this would establish an “independent regulator to ensure financial sustainability of football clubs in England”. It also promised to stop clubs being “siphoned off from the English football pyramid” if the wealthiest European teams reconsider a closed competition akin to the controversial Super League.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has not said when legislation will be tabled but it is expected in October or November. Nandy has said creating a regulator is a “top priority for me in this job” and “personal to me”. Her plans are expected to mirror those tabled by Rishi Sunak’s government which, as a result of his decision to call the election, did not have time to pass through parliament, although several areas are being reviewed.


Uefa is aligned with the government on a European Super League, which cemented Labour and Conservative support for a regulator. Three years ago 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs – including several from the UK – threatened to form a so-called Super League, free from the control of Uefa to maximise TV revenues. The plan was scrapped and the resultant furore fuelled demands in the UK for a regulator to prevent this happening again.

Theodoridis is Uefa’s number two, reporting to its president, Aleksander Ceferin, and helped organise against the Super League when plans first leaked, describing it as a “shameless attempt by a few wealthy clubs to take it away”. In his letter to Nandy, he said the UK government, Uefa and the FA “have a strong track record of working together but that co-operation was threatened by the proposed regulator and outlined concerns about four elements of the plan.

1. ‘Any risk of political or governmental interference’
Theodoridis wrote that “it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA in accordance with Uefa and Fifa statutes”. He warned of anything that could compromise “the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England” or the ability of domestic leagues to set “their own season-to-season financial sustainability rules”. He raised “specific concerns” with a clause in the last draft of the bill, which stated the regulator “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom” in considering the existing and prospective owners of clubs. It is unclear how this might have affected takeovers such as Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of Newcastle FC, Qatar’s abortive bid for Manchester United or Abu Dhabi’s purchase of Manchester City.

2. ‘Backstop’ power
The regulator will be able to impose a financial deal on the top leagues if they cannot agree how to divide broadcast revenue. It is likely any future regulator would exercise such powers, as the Premier League and the English Football League, which is divided into the Championship, League One and League Two, remain locked in a standoff over how to allocate the billions of pounds. Premier League teams are keen to protect their own financial position and to keep a fair share of the money generated by the competition’s global success. Lower-league clubs want more cash in solidarity payments and to fund youth development, arguing the top teams benefit from the players they scout and cultivate.

Theodoridis said the backstop threatens “the balance of power within football governance”, adding that “mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us” and would “prevent amicable solutions being found”. If there was to be a mediator, he said it should be the FA. The current idea, he said, should be “carefully reconsidered”.

3. Licensing
The plans will force clubs to apply for a licence to operate and continue competing. Initially clubs will only need a “provisional” licence, then will have to obtain a permanent one, requiring them to demonstrate they have “appropriate financial resources”, “regularly consult” with fans on relevant matters” and have “suitable” owners and directors. Theodoridis said: “Any new licensing requirements … must be meticulously aligned with existing Uefa and national frameworks.”


4. Football becomes ungovernable
Theodoridis warned of “scope creep” and a far bigger remit for the regulator than initially claimed unless the government defines it more clearly. He also said other countries could follow suit, leading football governance to become impossible to govern. He said: “lf every country established its own regulator with similarly broad powers, this could lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the Continent.” England’s status within the sport and the Premier League’s dominance within the game means any decision taken by the government will be reviewed especially closely by rival leagues.

The DCMS is examining a handful of areas that it may update before the legislation is brought back to parliament. They include strengthening fan engagement, adding equality, diversity and inclusion to the regulator’s remit and adding the women’s game to the regulator’s scope. Officials are also thought to be considering the case for regulating ticket prices and kick-off times, prompting further concerns about the gradual expansion of the regulator’s remit.

It is unclear whether Uefa’s concerns are being considered. However, Uefa is understood to accept that the government is likely to create some kind of regulator and is not trying to block it outright. The body, which has its headquarters in Nyon, Switzerland, has instead sought to focus on the areas it regards as red lines.

While Uefa directly organises the Euros and Champions League, the fact that Fifa oversees the World Cup means banning England from that tournament would be less straightforward. The next World Cup will take place in America in 2026. Although qualification only begins in the spring, and the draw has not yet been made, England has already participated in the Nations League, which can provide a backdoor into the tournament. That makes the prospect of being banned from the next World Cup less likely, although Russia was suspended in 2022 as a result of its invasion of Ukraine, after it had been scheduled to participate in play-offs against Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland.

A DCMS spokeswoman said: “The Football Governance Bill will establish a new Independent Football Regulator that will put fans back at the heart of the game, and tackle fundamental governance problems to ensure that English football is sustainable for the benefit of the clubs’ communities going forward.”

It is understood that Nandy will respond to the letter shortly.

A departmental source claimed that the proposed regulator would not affect the England national team or English clubs’ ability to participate in Uefa tournaments, but would not say on what basis.

 

I told you the new football regulator would get us kicked out - Martin Samuel

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

A stern letter to Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, shows that England’s teams could face a ban from major competition if Uefa senses government meddling

It never was an independent regulator. This was in every way a government project. And, as such, that English football could fall foul of Uefa, and therefore Fifa, was always a possibility.

Right from the start there was this risk, yet warnings were waved away about the proposed new independent football regulator. Now with an exhaustively detailed letter sent by Theodore Theodoridis, Uefa’s general secretary, to Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, concerns can no longer be dismissed as project fear. If Uefa detects government interference in our football, it will exclude English clubs and all aspects of the national team from competition. Have no doubt what that means: not just England’s men’s team, but England’s women and England’s youth. Exit means exit, across every level. Even World Cup participation would be impossible. It may be a Fifa tournament — next to be held in 2026 — but qualification for European nations falls within Uefa’s remit. If England are outside Uefa, it sits outside that process, too.

So no World Cup, no European Championship — embarrassingly, Great Britain and Ireland are the next hosts — no Champions League, or any participation in Europe, for England’s men, women or age group squads. Think we’ll miss that bloke from Pimlico Plumbers? We’ll miss the likes of Erling Haaland, Mo Salah and Cole Palmer more, once the best players see English football as a dead end and look elsewhere. This was always the worry. The Premier League is arguably the greatest success story, and export, of our modern age, which is why successive governments have been itching to get their hands on it. They want the glory by association. The NHS, the railways, education look too much like hard work. But anyone can appear smart running football; or so they thought.

Turns out there’s more to it than that. Theodoridis sent his letter on September 2, and almost two weeks later has still had no acknowledgment or response. Strange, given that Nandy said creating a football regulator was her “top priority” and policy that she took personally. Maybe there is another industry measured in billions that is commanding her attention instead; or maybe governing football isn’t quite as easy as assumed

Alarms went off the moment the previous lot gave the game away. In the last draft of the Football Governance Bill it was stated the regulator “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom”. And that was the pretence of neutrality blown out of the water. For those of us who had always viewed it as a government reguIator, not an independent one, here was the proof. What independent body takes into account foreign and trade policy objectives from on high? One that is appointed by government, to do government’s bidding.

The biggest lie, perpetuated at the earliest opportunity, when the former Conservative MP Tracey Crouch was conducting her much-vaunted fan-led review into football, was that a regulator might have stopped the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia buying Newcastle United. The reality was that mandarins close to Boris Johnson were furiously lobbying for the deal to be pushed through, and only the Premier League were resisting. That is the truth of a government regulator, as correctly identified by Uefa: it takes dictation.

There have been clues for months. When what is now Nandy’s department advertised for regulatory positions last April, the quality required of non-executive directors was the ability to maintain and develop “relationships with government, parliament, football bodies and other major stakeholders”. Note the order of the people to please. The chair role specification listed “experience of dealing with intense public scrutiny and ability to influence high-level stakeholders within government, parliament, the media and football sector”. Again, note the priorities.

The politicians who presume to run football were not even bright enough to keep their ambitions under wraps. Last week there were further leaks that a regulator would poke its nose into kick-off times. That means unpicking some of the most lucrative broadcast contracts in world sport. Who would trust Whitehall, or Westminster, to do this? Contracts worth £15.3 billion awarded by the Conservative government in relation to the pandemic have now been given red flags by the anti-corruption charity Transparency International UK.

Football isn’t perfect, but it would appear less in need of regulation that some aspects of public life. Alternately, have a look at the Liberal Democrats’ plan for football in its election manifesto: the Premier League compulsorily broadcast free to air on television. This would collapse the economy of the game at every level overnight and get every English club and national team thrown out of Uefa competition. Len Shackleton wrote a book in which a chapter entitled The Average Director’s Knowledge of Football contained a single blank page. An entire volume detailing the same for politicians could be brought out without troubling a solitary printer, save for the dust jacket. Nandy has succeeded Lucy Frazer in her department, an impressive figure who once spoke of 74 EFL clubs, not 72, and claimed football had been at the heart of national culture for 200 years, which came as a shock to the oldest professional club, Notts County, founded in 1862.

We all know how independence works in government because it is how we got here. Crouch conducted a review having stated before it began that she favoured a football regulator, spoke to exactly the type of people who would agree with her and to the surprise of nobody decided the best solution was what she thought in the first place. Every step since has had successive governments’ mitts all over it. Any regulator would be about as independent as Truth Social is of Donald Trump. It takes a lot for Uefa to emerge as the good guys but, on this, they are spot on.

UEFA are playing a risky game here. It won’t be the Goverment who will be able to back down - if they want to ban the majority of the country will happily support it.

 

The majority of the country will happily support what?

 

Being banned from international football if UEFA try and intervene in an attempt to stop the regulator.

 

I don't think the majority of actual football fans would, for whatever that's worth. The rest of the population you'll probably see a mix.