Tuesday, 15 May 2012

The FA (Fools Anonymous): The Unelected Dictatorship

The problem with an unelected governing body (or dictatorship if I am being politically correct), however large or small, is that it always seems to be run by clowns that would have more use asking the simple question “would you like fries with that?” than making rules over something that people hold very dear to them. Remarkably, I’m not talking about Cameron and his band of merry men, or Ahmadinejad and his nuclear-obsessed friends, but the FA. The FA, or Fools Anonymous as it is better known, seems to want to make English football the laughing stock of the world, and the decisions it has taken this year proves that.

“What decisions may these be?” I hear you asking. Well, lets cast our mind back to the start of this topsy-turvy season.

We now find ourselves back at Loftus Road, home of Queen’s Park Rangers, which is playing host to the QPR vs. Chelsea game. Of course, everyone knows what happened on this day; the Red Lion regular John Terry racially abused Anton Ferdinand in front of the Sky cameras for all to see. But yet, the FA decided to deal with it in July, rather than at the moment. Who on Earth decided that this was a good idea? The only sane reason I can see for this would be if the FA got their favourite chimp from London Zoo to flip a double-sided coin on the matter. In this case, the trial got postponed until July. In Luis Suarez’ case, he gets a six match ban almost immediately. How does that work out? From what I can see, both cases are to do with racism, so both should be dealt in the same way, severely. No matter who you are, or who you think you may be, racism has no place in the modern game. Suarez, Terry and Sepp Blatter should all be tied up, possibly as piƱatas at children’s birthday parties, and the children should be allowed to continuously hit them with a stick. I think that’s a quite minor punishment for something as serious as racism, but it’s a start. 

I now move onto the recent events of the FA unveiling Mr. Roy Hodgson as England manager. Firstly, huge congratulations must go to Hodgson on landing the job, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. I am a big fan of Hodgson, so I don’t think the FA made a mockery of the English game by appointing him. Far from it in fact. I do, however, believe the FA made a farce over how they went about finding an England manager. Let me ask you this, if you were a manager of a large company and you wanted to find your next employee, would you only interview one candidate? Does Lord Sugar only interview one candidate on the Apprentice? In the famous words of Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no!” McDonalds doesn’t interview one person, not for the position of “bread slicer”, not for the position of “chip maker”, and not even for the position of “cleaner”.  So why should the FA?

It seems that English football is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world, with racism not being dealt with, the FA being more concerned about money than performance and a team that only-had-three-shots-on-target-and-defended-for-175mins beating the best team in the world. But how do we solve it? Well, by George I think I got it.

The solution is simple, why not copy Parliament and elect the FA, and hold referendums on major issues within England, like the appointment of an England manager?

Before you start calling this a monstrosity and the most stupid idea since allowing Ray Wilkins to commentate on matches, have a think about it. We vote for a government who represents our best interests in Parliament. If we aren’t happy with what they are doing, we simply vote them out in a General Election. Everyone gets a vote, so everyone gets a say in how the country is run. Every constituency is represented by an MP who sits in Parliament, so that MP gets a say on how the country is run, who has in turn been told by his or hers constituency on how they want the country run. Now think about how this could be implemented into football. 

Every county has an FA. Middlesex has an FA, London has an FA, even Cumbria has an FA. How many of you actually know who the head of your local FA is? Why not use these as ‘constituencies’ and vote for a member of the local FA, just like we do in a by-election. Surely people would be happier with someone sitting as head of their local FA if they have voted them in? As a result of this, the candidates would have to go on the election trail, telling us what they would do if elected. Wouldn’t this mean that we were guaranteed to get improvements within our local areas, because if we didn’t we would simply vote them out and get a different candidate in. They would have to deliver. 

After all the county FA’s have elected members, then a carbon copy of Parliament could be set up at Wembley, where all the local FA’s come together to work in the best interests of the country. Not only would this give everyone a say, but it would make the system a whole load more democratic. At the moment, I feel the FA is more like Syria than Britain. Why should his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge be President of the FA? What does he know about the best interests of the common man’s game? Votes on the date of the FA Cup final, votes on whether England should apply to host the World Cup, votes on whether Celtic and Rangers should join the Football League. I still find it hard to believe why there are chief executives of major football clubs, such as Manchester United sitting on the board of directors at the FA. Wouldn’t this mean that they would favour things that would help them, rather than the game as a whole? The general opinion of the country would show through with democracy, rather than the opinion of a couple of highly paid men who think they can make a laughing stock of English football.  

This whole system would make the FA answerable to the people. I know a lot of people have issues and questions over the England manager affair, and I know that the FA does not wish to answer them. If we had an elected FA, then they would have to. It could mean that even normal people like you or I would be able to run for the local FA, and then maybe even work our way up. Local people like you and I who love football, and would make football the best it could possibly be.

I know that FIFA have a similar sort of system, but the heads of the national FA’s are the only ones who vote for the President. That is not democracy. Surely each individual country should vote for who they wish to be President, and then all the national FA’s put that person’s name forward for President, and then the results are tallied up. Also, I’m pretty certain that more than one person would like to be FIFA President, so I can see no logical reason why only Sepp Blatter has been running for it. It’s a joke if I’m honest. Sepp Blatter is the most corrupt, inept and idiotic man to have ever been involved in football. If democracy were to be incorporated into football, a man like this would never have a say in it.

Of course, there may be some problems with this system. For example, how would every football fan in England be able to register to vote? Well, once again it can take the same form as the electoral role. Obviously not everyone in England is a football fan, so it’d be up to the individual to register with their local FA, which could easily been done by using their websites. Using the FA’s FAN numbering system could even do this: a simple login that would then allow the individual to vote online. Sepp Blatter will most definitely be against this, seeing as it incorporates technology into football. But sod him. Technology is the way forward, and this would make football a whole lot better.  Wouldn’t is be nice if he fell of a ‘step-ladder’ trying to install goal line technology? How ironic would that be?

Another problem may be the length of time it would take the FA Parliament to make a decision on issues. But it can be said that there is plenty of time for decisions to be passed through, for example the England manager only has so many games a year, so the time length taken to appoint one wouldn’t have to be rushed at all. On other issues, such as the FA Cup final date, the decision could be taken at the start of the season, well before the FA Cup was due to take place. I don’t see time being an issue. As a famous television advert once said, “Good things take time”. 

Maybe this idea will be as revolutionary as the Arab Spring last year. Maybe people will look at the idea as fondly as they looked at the topple of Fascism and Communism. Or maybe the FA will simply ignore it, as they have ignored many good ideas before. The FA: Fool’s Anonymous. More than likely, I’m sure they’d like to remain anonymous. That way when things go wrong, the individual can stay out of the spotlight. It’s a shame that, everyone knows democracy works best. Unless you are David Bernstein, who obviously thinks dictatorship is. 

No comments:

Post a Comment