Connect with us

English Premier league

Does football REALLY care about the fans?

Published

on

It can be argued, given the rising cost of attending football matches in the English Premier League, the EFL Championship and lower leagues, that the hierarchy of football clubs and the governing bodies care little of the fans.

The argument about rising attendance costs

One side of the argument coin seems to confirm the clubs care little about the fans. The cost of admission to football matches, since 2011, has risen by almost twice that of the inflation rate, according to a study carried out by the BBC. Given that the current inflation in player wages, signing on fees and agents’ fees continues on an upward spiral, the disparity looks set to continue long in to the future.

On the other side of the coin, the continuing increase in attendance to Premier League and EFL Championship games, set against a backdrop of increasing admission prices, it would seem football fans don’t care about price increases and tend to take it in their stride.

It could be said that the football clubs care little about their fans because the fans don’t seem to have an issue about the disparity between increasing attendance prices and inflation, and will pay whatever the cost to see their team play. However, it is a little more complex than just the ‘two sides of the same coin’ argument.

Is there a tipping point?

Does a tipping point exist where fans will start refusing to pay ever-increasing attendance charges to watch their favourite team play? The answer is ‘probably not’ and there are several reasons why that tipping point probably does not exist and football clubs will go on exploiting their fan base.

Loyalty

Football is unlike any other business. Where brands such as Marks & Spencer, Next, Debenhams and John Lewis, to mention just a few examples, have a constantly changing inventory and have to maintain a presence on ‘trending waves’ in fashion, home and electronics, for example, football has only one product.

High street names have to battle for the loyalty of their customer base and one element of the battle is the price of goods and services on sale in their stores. Football clubs know that they do not have to battle for the loyalty of their fans. Loyalty to a football club is an emotional attachment, one which was nurtured probably at an early and impressionable age, and is loyalty which high street names would die for.

Tribalism

Supporting a football team, whether it is Liverpool in the Premier League or Ipswich Town in EFL league one, is tribal. Supporters pin the colours of their team on to their heart, and once those colours are pinned, it is a lifelong connection and can span continents. It is like a love affair that never loses its flame or ferocity. Supporters experience the passion, the highs and lows and, above all else, the joy (and sometimes despair) is shared by so many wearing the same colours.

Live action is better than TV action

The stadium or ground where your team plays is like a place of battle, a coliseum where the players are gladiators carrying your colours into battle with the foe. Human beings have a deep-rooted need to rally to a cause, and football, to some, is more akin to a religion than anything else in their lives.

Games can be watched on any number of TV channels, social media platforms and are accessible 24/7 but, watching a live game inside a stadium full of kindred spirits, where your favourite team is going head to head with ‘the enemy’ is an adrenalin rush. Excitement, passion, flaming highs, and despairing lows cannot be replicated in your living room or on the bus if you’re watching on your Smartphone.

So the question posed originally – ‘Does football REALLY care about the fans?’ will probably be a resounding NO! Why would they when they can so easily exploit a paying audience who only want to see one product.

While footy fans the world over are prepared to pay ever-increasing attendance costs to watch their team live, to have shared memories and experiences with hundreds (thousands of others) then football clubs and the authorities will continue to pay lip service and not really care about them at all.

Until football fans vote with their feet, the balance is likely to remain in favour of the clubs.

Continue Reading

English Premier league

Southampton’s 9-0 defeat was all of their own making

Published

on

Southampton’s 9-0 defeat was all of their own making

Southampton’s 9-0 defeat to Leicester City was ‘horrible’ – well, according to the Southampton boss Ralph Hasenhuttl it was, but I doubt if any of the Leicester fans or players would agree. Neither would the astute punters who wagered a 9-0 win to Leicester, some of them coming out £1500 better off for their highly speculative bets.

A record English Premier League Away Win

Hasenhuttl blamed himself and took responsibility for the staggering defeat, a record home defeat of any team in the top flight Premier League era. Indeed, it is also a record defeat for The Saints, which saw Southampton drop into the relegation zone as a result.

Hasenhuttl shouldn’t have been so quick to take the blame, however, but should have taken the time to review the game and say something like:

…’ my players were an absolute disgrace and should hang their heads in shame and maybe send a letter to every Southampton fan with a sincere apology’…

But of course he won’t in this sanitised era of political correctness, so maybe we should look at where it all went wrong for the long-suffering S’ton fans and call out the team and tell it like it really is.

The wrong type of rain

Judging from the body language of some of the Soton players on the night, the rain didn’t help matters. Some of them looked as if they would rather be tucked away in the games room of their sprawling mansions, playing FIFA on X-box. Others looked as if they were not happy with the way in which the downpour messed their expensive (and ridiculous) hairstyles. Still, others probably wished they had remembered to bring their gloves with them so their poor little hands didn’t feel the cold.

The wrong type of defenders

Let’s face it, the S’oton defence was atrocious. At some point, one or two would be jabbing a finger and pointing at a teammate for a defensive lapse and then, a few minutes later, those same players would be making howlers of their own. Poor old Angus Gunn – I’ll bet he wished he had stayed put at Norwich City rather than join this bunch of clowns.

Red nose night

By the time the second half started, the stadium had been deserted by some forty percent of the home fans, some going home in the hope they could watch red nose night on the telly instead of on the pitch at Saint Mary’s stadium. Sadly, their hopes were dashed – too early for red nose day.

Some wag on Twitter had called out the S’oton defence as an ‘Alley of clowns’ which was quite an educational announcement. How many people knew that the collective noun for a group of clowns was ‘alley’? Perhaps that wag should have called them a ‘pratfall of clowns’ – much more appropriate.

Strikers on strike?

Where were Southampton’s strikers? Were they on strike for the night? Not one decent shot on goal from the front men and only one real shot on target all game by Nathan Redmond just about summed up the night. Leicester was rampant and Southampton players were easy pickings. If Southampton doesn’t get relegated this season, the players will have learned a valuable lesson from this drubbing and turned their season around.

And Hasenhuttl? He will take the can for the players again because that seems to be the way of the world, given modern-day players’ egos are so fragile, the truth might just tip them over the edge.

Continue Reading

English Premier league

Is the offside law in football completely offside?

Published

on

When the offside law was first incorporated into the laws of Association Football, it was pretty simple and everyone grasped its intent. When a ball is played to a member of the attacking team and where there isn’t 2 or more of the defending team between the attacking player and the goal, the attacking player is deemed ‘offside’ resulting in an indirect free-kick to the defending team.

Moving forward a century or so and we find that now a player has to be ‘active’ in order to be in an offside position.

How do we define ‘active’ in the context of open play?

Let’s say for instance the ball is played forward to a teammate who is in an onside position but another teammate is in an offside position but not interfering in play (another contentious issue) when the ball is played. That player cannot be flagged for offside, even though he is in an offside position.

Then, if the player has taken the ball forward and then passes the ball to his previously offside teammate who, two seconds later, is now in an onside position when the ball is passed, he is no longer deemed in an offside position. The trouble is, even though he was classed as being inactive at the time of the original pass to his teammate, he had gained a territorial advantage at the time.

All straightforward so far?

Probably not, as the law is now open to interpretation. Whereas before a player could be flagged offside because he was, now it is up to the individual linesman’s interpretation of the law and the player’s position at the time of the original pass.

All is fine and dandy if the offside player is on the opposite of the pitch, but not so fine if he is in the centre of the pitch where a short pass can rapidly turn in to a potential goal-scoring position and a goal results from the attacking move. The change in the law was made to promote attacking football but all it seems to have done is cause a lot of confusion amongst players and fans alike.

FIFA offers the following definition of being active as in the following:

…”Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate”…

The problem arises when a player in an offside position doesn’t touch the ball BUT causes confusion between the defenders of the opposing team and gains an advantage, even though the offside player does not get the advantage himself.

Now that we have VAR in operation the issue is a little more complicated because now a player is either ON SIDE or OFFSIDE as judged by a panel of referees looking at a stop-frame viewing of the incident, and players deemed to be unable to be LEVEL.

The offside law worked before there was any tinkering and also before cameras were positioned at almost every available angle which takes away the human element of the game.

Perhaps things will settle down in time but, I wonder if there will be a football player somewhere who decides to have green-tinted toes of his boots so the cameras cannot see if his toe is on or offside.

Continue Reading

English Premier league

Are VAR and football a good fit?

Published

on

Having seen VAR in operation in football, there is so much wrong in the way in which it has been rolled out and implemented. VAR is a laudable development and goes some way to removing doubt about decisions made by referees in the heat of the moment. Camera angles give pundits and TV audiences an instant confirmation if a foul is committed, a free kick or penalty is due or any other infringement has taken place, but not so the referee.

The referee on the pitch has a split second to make a decision and once that decision is made, VAR officials have little in the way of potential of righting a perceived (or definitive) infraction of the laws of the game. Rather than help the referee and ultimately the players and fans, VAR has muddied the waters. Rather than learning from the sports which have introduced technology into the game to improve decision making by officials, the football authorities have made the decision more chaotic than ever.

Cricket and ‘VAR’

Currently, in cricket, the ‘VAR’ system is a success because the onus on instigating a review of an appeal is down to the players on the field, not the umpire. If an appeal for, shall we say, a potential leg before wicket (LBW) is turned down by the umpire, the players have the right to appeal that decision. However, they only have one review available per innings and if a review is subsequently undertaken and the umpire’s decision is upheld, the appealing team loses that appeal.

As a result, players are extremely cautious in making an appeal if they are unsure. Indeed, they have a 15 second time limit to confirm the appeal and only challenge the umpire if they are CERTAIN he or she is wrong in their decision. The players are in effect still able to make an appeal and ultimately it is the players who have to shoulder that responsibility, and can no longer blame the umpires for poor decision making.

NFL and ‘VAR’

American football is perhaps the best-suited sport for a television audience and ‘VAR’ used in NFL has penalties in built into the system. Players can appeal an on-field decision made by the referee, but they seldom do. They are aware of the penalties doe an unsuccessful appeal of a decision, and therefore only make appeals if they are absolutely sure that the officials have got it wrong.

An unsuccessful appeal of a referee’s decision will cost them a time out. Time outs are sacrosanct and are used tactically by teams for many reasons, not least to break up play when things aren’t going according to plan. So to say the punishment for an unsuccessful appeal could be potentially massive for the team, appeals for perceived poor decision making by the officials are seldom implemented.

Football and VAR

The way in which VAR is used in football has left the responsibility of decisions firmly in the hands of the referee and abdicated all responsibility for VAR appeals from the players. Consequently, players and management teams still hound the officials and, with VAR the appeal can be upheld but, if the appealing team gets it wrong there is no punishment for their getting it wrong.

Perhaps appeals could be launched by the captain of the team when the ball next goes out of play if the team believe an infraction of the laws of the game has gone against them and not been punished. If an appeal is made and it subsequently upholds the referee’s decision, perhaps one of the three substitutions can be forfeited. Substitutions are now a major tactical weapon deployed by managers and coaches which often change the way in which a game is going.

Give each team the potential of three in-game appeals and take away the potential of an available substitute if the appeal upholds the referee’s initial decision.

The football authorities had the chance to introduce technology to help the game move forward but chose not to learn the lessons from other sports which implemented VAR systems many years ago.

Given the way in which VAR is deployed, currently it is not a good fit for football. That is not to say it will remain so.

Continue Reading

Trending

    Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.