Perhaps not but given the sheer scale of greed and corruption in the game I'm running out of ideas on how the game I love can be rescued from the greedy old coots. It utterly depresses me that the bastards flagrantly bend and twist the rules to suit themselves whilst simultaneously flipping the bird at anyone who objects. They are so untouchable they don't even care anymore.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, unfortunately, and there’s very little that can be done about it (bar stopping watching, as you say). There was a book written a few years back by author David Yallop, for example, called ‘How They Stole The Game,’ an exposé of FIFA, João Havelange, Sepp Blatter and others detailing shenanigans stretching back to the early 1960’s (when Garrincha mysteriously had a suspension withdrawn for being sent off against Chile so that he could play in the 1962 World Cup final). Indeed, it’s a subject that has gained relevance again this week with the resignation of Havalenge from his position as honorary president of FIFA over accusations of bribery, something which would come as little surprise to anyone who has read Yallop’s book (the only minor shock being that he actually
resigned, although at 96 he might have figured that it didn’t matter too much anyway). There are allegations in that particular book so outrageous that they would have surely landed its author in court had they been in any way baseless, but to my knowledge FIFA never took any action against him. That says a lot.
This is the governing body of the entire sport we’re talking about, and it’s been up to its neck in this kind of stuff for at least 50 years. And since shit tends to roll downhill, the ultimate irony represented by its motto ‘for the good of the game’ is always likely to be replicated in other, smaller organisations like the FA, the Premier League and even the PFA. In truth, the people who run these bodies typically couldn’t give a fuck about ‘the good of the game,’ yet they can usually be given a solid B- for effort for their deceit in arguing to the contrary and they do fool a lot of the people a lot of the time. Gordon Taylor seems to me to be typical of this type of official. He certainly never appears unduly concerned with being fair or scrupulous, which would immediately make him an outstanding candidate to hold office in any of football’s major governing bodies, and his hypocritical moralising and double-standards are simply par for the course in this kind of job. If he had any real talent or ambition, in fact, he would surely have ascended to the upper echelons of UEFA or FIFA by now. Thankfully he doesn’t, so it’s only the unfortunate members of the English PFA that have to deal with him.
In the Rachel Anderson article mentioned earlier, the term “representing the wishes of his players” is attributed to him. That, then, would be his version of ‘for the good of the game’. Yet as Anderson mentions, “they weren’t spending their own money; it was their players’ money wasn't it?” All for fighting a case that nobody in their right minds in the closing years of the 20th century would have wanted him to fight, certainly not his own membership. Yet he did so anyway. In Yallop’s aforementioned book, he quoted someone who knew Havelange describing him as an individual who would say hello with another man’s hat. Well, fighting a needless court case with your own members’ money would seem to me to be the perfect illustration of that. You have to wonder how they haven’t tired of him yet? Maybe it’s just a straightforward case of fooling all of the people all of the time?
Whatever it is, the members of the PFA might do well to begin considering that Taylor, as the leader of the organisation, ultimately reflects on them, and then ask themselves a few questions. Is it a worthwhile organisation at all, or merely an anachronism? What do they actually
want it to be – a real union that tries to tackle the myriad of problems that affect supporters and players alike, or just a vehicle for media soundbytes when
certain members get in trouble? Do they want it to represent them with integrity? Do they want it to represent them at all? Is it even worth the cost of membership anymore? And if they do want the PFA to be a more relevant, productive organisation, is Taylor really the man to do that when he seems to resemble a press officer more than the highly-paid chief executive of what is supposed to be an important body?
Back in February 2012, Taylor immediately offered his services (to the media rather than the player, naturally) to discuss Luis Suárez’s failure to shake Patrice Evra’s hand, storming that “I feel sick to the stomach that there were youngsters who go on the pitch with the players and they would have wondered what was going on.” PFA Chairman Clarke Carlisle was also disgusted. This was the Professional Footballers’ Association, through its leadership, leaving us in no doubt as to what it finds acceptable – a refused handshake sickened its chief executive, Gordon Taylor, to the stomach (this from a man who once played down Stuart Pearce’s racist abuse of Paul Ince by saying that it was “in the heat of the moment”). On the other hand, rape is apparently more of a grey area. By its very nature, it takes place in darkened rooms far away from the football pitch and, therefore, Gordon Taylor’s jurisdiction. This is presumably why Sheffield United striker Ched Evans, convicted last year of raping a 19 year-old woman, was allowed to keep his place in the PFA League One team of the season for 2011/12. Taylor subsequently justified the decision to allow Evans retain this honour by saying that it “was not a moral judgement.” Is it any wonder that Rachel Anderson was refused entry to the PFA dinner in 1997 with that kind of attitude?
Here’s what I don’t get. I work a 40-hour week for a decent wage, nothing more, nothing less. I’m in a union too. My free-time is my own business. However, if I was to be convicted of rape, do you think I’d still get that employee of the month award? And do you think the head of my union would be defending me on any level? Does football exist in that kind of sphere or is it out there on its own somewhere between the music industry and organised crime? And should it be? I wonder what the PFA members reckon, or are we to assume that Taylor's views are their views? The race issues which engulfed Luis Suárez (and, to a lesser extent, John Terry) over the past couple of seasons brought real world issues into football, a sport which normally exists in a bubble. Its people bristle at any outside interference, be it regulation, police interference or Panorama investigations. Suddenly, you had all of this posturing and chest-beating about what’s right and wrong, and although the message was predictably garbled and distorted by hypocrisy and self-interest, manipulated and squeezed for every single drop of PR it had to give while someone’s reputation was being savaged (Suárez), it was at least a positive one – racism is inherently wrong and it has no place in football or anywhere else.
So amidst the usual double-standards (e.g. the virtual media silence on instances of racism involving Chelsea and Manchester United supporters in comparison to the circus which sprang up around the Tom Adeyemi incident at Anfield, as well as one high-profile writer suggesting that ignorance is no excuse for Suárez even as he wondered aloud whether the term “black ****” is racist), at least the central truth was inescapable. Yet when it comes to sexual assault? Nothing, despite the fact that a third of Premier League fans are supposedly female. What’s wrong with coming out and saying that if you get convicted of something like that by a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. not 'on the balance of probabilities'), then your PFA privileges (whatever they may be) will be revoked? Why do I get the distinct impression that anything which doesn’t take place on the football pitch is somehow more acceptable? Perhaps it’s because of quotes like this one from Clarke Carlisle: “It was a democratic vote on professional ability, not a moral decision. Some things in life are a shade of grey. Separating professional and personal behaviour is one of them.”
Right, so let’s be crystal clear about the PFA position here. Luis Suárez (a PFA member himself) is fair game to be criticised, psycho-analysed and condemned over his failure to publicly shake someone’s hand and, more recently, his ‘bite’ on Branislav Ivanovic. Were he to be charged with and convicted of, say, beating his wife or raping someone, on the other hand, the PFA would draw a clear line in the sand between his personal and professional conduct, no doubt because it’s an area that’s outside of their jurisdiction (even though he’s a member of their organisation). So, really, the only thing Suárez did wrong in their eyes was doing these things on a football pitch? If he did it in the street, presumably the PFA would have no comment? Or maybe they would, considering that Gordon Taylor saw fit to comment on a police investigation in January 2012 when he said of Tom Adeyemi that “we can confirm that he was the victim of racist abuse.” The accused was eventually acquitted of all charges in this case, yet Taylor was apparently confirming his guilt within days of the incident. Is that within his jurisdiction?
If I was a player, I wouldn’t want this individual representing me in any way, and it reflects very poorly on the PFA that he remains its chief executive.
