Tuesday 23 August 2011

Agents in Football

The government announced the 'Football Governance' Inquiry in December 2010.  Unfortunately, I missed the boat with regard to submitting written evidence.  I did write to one of the committee members after the inquiry started but did not receive a reply.
I have kept the document I sent and part of it refers to the role of agents (player representatives as some like to be called) in football and thought it deserved a blog.


How much has been spent on agents?
Premier League Clubs Spent £67.1 million in 2009/10 and £70.7 million in 2008/09
Football League Clubs Spent £12.7 million in 2009/10 and £8.8 million in 2008/09


Chelsea paid the most in 2009/10 (£9.3 million) and Manchester City in 2008/09 (£12.9 million)
If you take the recent transfer of Sergio Aguero from Atletico Madrid to Manchester City for £38 million and a modest assumption that a 5% fee was paid this equates to £1.9 million.


Evidence Provided by Patrick Collins (Mail on Sunday) to the Football Governance Inquiry
'When Wayne Bridge moved from Chelsea to Manchester City, the agent, Pini Zahavi, was paid £900,000.  Now, Bridge wanted to go to Manchester City, Chelsea wanted to sell him and City wanted to buy him.  Both clubs had chief executives who could have picked up a telephone and done the deal in about five minutes, I would guess, yet Zahavi took £900,000 from this deal and nobody thought that was appalling.  Years ago, in 2004, Manchester United paid an agent named Roger Linse £1.3 million for renegotiating the contract of Ruud van Nistelrooy--not negotiating a contract but renegotiating it, and he got £1.3 million for it.'


Now I am not doubting that there is a little bit more to it than two chief executives 'picking up a telephone' to negotiate a deal but I am sure that there is a different way of regulation, transparency, and who is actually involved in these transactions and what they actually 'offer' to the game at all levels.


Alternatives?
What do footballers do when they leave the game?  Some stay in the game through coaching, managing, tv work and indeed many have become licensed agents since the introduction of the Premier League.  Below I have outlined an alternative structure that could potentially be used.
The main focus for me would be on ensuring that throughout the transfer process, some kind of levy is applied and RING-FENCED for youth development.  So, in the case of Andy Carroll, for example, the £35 million fee could have a levy of, say, 2% equating to £700,000 paid to Newcastle that MUST be reinvested in youth development.  An applicable sliding scale could be applied if the player had played for another club, or, more importantly had been trained at another club's Academy or Centre of Excellence.  This would be in addition to the existing compensation arrangements and sell on clauses that go some way to protecting lower league clubs investment in youth players.  An even more radical idea would be for a similar mechanism for the professional club contributing to the grassroots club the player was originally signed from.


The above structure would mean the creation of an independent organisation with relevant oversight within the game. This is something that could potentially be centrally managed by the PFA or a combination of the Premier League, FA, Football League and the PFA. The area representatives could be organised in regions that are familiar to all of these organisations and they would independently represent footballers in their transfer and contract negotiations. The remuneration and regulation of representatives would be set by the organising body and it would actually provide opportunities for retiring footballers as a means to staying employed in football.  The football authorities could even go as far as training players (as they do with coaching qualifications) in the role of a player representative therefore actually educating players during their career in preparation for life beyond their playing days.  The cost of setting up the organisation could be funded by the Premier League Clubs and Football League Clubs based on a contribution using past expenditure on football agents as a benchmark and should represent a substantial reduction in comparison to the current amounts paid to agents (and therefore effectively lost to the game). Moreover, the concerns over regulation of agents would effectively be diminished as they would be monitored as an organisation rather than a disparate group of individuals.  

Thursday 11 August 2011

What Happened to School Football?

After announcing to the twitter world I was going to write this blog my immediate thoughts were "what a minefield".  It's sad really that something that I have great memories of (school PE) is something that now needs a blog discussing the ins and outs of something that, in theory, shouldn't be a topic of debate.

I'm sure there must be an element of  looking back on school days through rose-tinted glasses but there are genuine changes that have happened that must have had an effect on the quantity and quality of physical education in schools and this blog is going to look specifically at football provision in schools.  One undoubted fact is that research has already shown that children are becoming more unfit, less active and more sedentary and, in many cases, heavier than before.  This might be due to reduced activity outside of schools but only goes to highlight the need for high quality provision in schools.

My 'rose-tinted' School Days
Boys played football, girls played netball, apart from once a year where we played the girls at netball and football respectively.  We all played rounders, did gymnastics, swimming and athletics together.  School teams existed predominantly for football, netball and rounders.  We played a game on a Saturday morning and sometimes after school in the week.  The teachers supervised the training of the teams and the attendance at matches (yes at weekends!).  
Was it perfect?  Far from it.  Coaching consisted of getting the whole of the year group involved in a couple of games for the teacher to decide who was 'best' and made the school team.  I don't recall ever being encouraged to use my left foot and only by going through my coaching qualifications, playing left midfield and a little homework did I start to use it instead of standing on it.  We played 11v11 on a fairly big pitch with junior goals.  Did I enjoy it? Yes.  Don't get me wrong here, 11v11 is not the way to go for youth football and 4v4, 7v7, 9v9 in the formative years are far more appropriate but this still doesn't happen enough in schools.  I have seen games of more than 11 a side in school PE lessons!

It's the most popular game in the UK
So why does it seem to be treated as some kind of 'unwanted relative' in the primary school PE curriculum.  If you go into any primary school or talk to anybody involved in teaching, the word 'inclusion' will be used as a catch-all when you discuss focussing on a particular subject.  We are more concerned about excluding people than we are of improving them.  "We need to ensure those that don't like football get the opportunity to be included in PE" is the usual response.  Fair enough, but ask most boys and the vast majority will say that football is their preferred sport.  By all means offer after school activities for athletics, martial arts, skateboarding, volleyball etc. but lets be realistic and if boys choose football as a core PE subject (and the same for whatever girls choose as their favourite sport) surely it can only regain some much needed focus.  Why not as part of the PE and School Sport Survey actually ask the children what they want to do?  I am not suggesting that children don't experience other sports, far from it, I am well aware of the potential downside in early specialisation.  I enjoyed multiple sports at school but there was a particular focus on certain sports at certain times that does not seem to happen now as we implement this 'lets keep everybody happy' policy without thinking of the consequences for high quality sports provision.  What does Gordon Ramsay do whenever he finds a 'nightmare' kitchen?  He looks at the menu, invariably says there are too many things on it and advises them to narrow the focus to increase quality over quantity.

Health and Safety
Now this one is the subject of much debate, particularly in the tabloid press who have frequently discussed the whys and wherefores of kids playground activities.  I'm sure we have all been told about the wearing of goggles for conkers (or the complete ban of).  I recently read a quote that said..
"Children's play and education had been damaged, with some playgrounds becoming joyless no-go areas" 
This quote is from the Head of the Health and Safety Executive! who also said:
"Children today are denied - often on spurious health and safety grounds - many of the formative experiences that shaped my generation.  Playgrounds have become joyless, for a fear of a few cuts and bruises" and the people behind the rulings were often "well-meaning but misguided jobsworths".
It's well known that the 'chaos' type football that is often played in school playgrounds gives young people their early experiences of the game.  These games are often 'banned' or there is a 'foam-football' only policy! This chaos style football can get lost in certain 'sterile' coaching sessions.  To take the option away from school children also just means that we will need to re-produce this kind of football in coached situations even more than we need to now.

School Sports Partnerships
This may be controversial, but, in my experience as with many government initiatives they are poorly implemented at the local level.  In theory, the use of Partnership Development Managers, School Sports Co-ordinators, Primary Link Teachers and PE teachers from secondary schools supporting their counterparts in the primary sector is laudable.  However, I believe they have become overly bureaucratic and no way near as effective as they could be.  Too many people planning when the money could quite easily be used for up-skilling or paying for high quality provision that has been authorised by the national governing body.  The current government proposed the abolishment of them on this basis but were forced into a u-turn and came up with a compromise of releasing a PE teacher for 1 day a week to support primary schools, again in my opinion missing the point.  The fact is not enough emphasis is placed on the subject by the government, the majority of head-teachers and teachers themselves. It is particularly worrying that during the teacher training process, my understanding is that they receive 4 hours of training related to PE in their 4 year degree!  

Where are all the Male Teachers?
When I was at Primary School the majority of sports provision during and after school was provided by 2 male teachers (there were 4 male teachers out of roughly 12 in total).  Apparently, one in four primary schools have no male teachers at all.  Now it is a simple fact that it is more likely for a male teacher to be involved with the education of sports such as football and this is evident in all the schools I have worked in.  I have never seen a female teacher that has been involved in the coaching of the school football team (boys or girls) and have worked in many schools. There simply aren't enough female teachers interested in football and some other sports working in primary schools.
Surely it can't be helpful having schools that don't have male teachers (regardless of whether its for PE or not) and recent research suggests that male primary school teachers are vital role models for boys, also indicating that they are more likely to work harder and approach male teachers about difficulties with school or in the home.

So what happens?  The schools turn to the use of external coaches, regardless of quality and some I have seen have been shocking.  Schools themselves don't have a consistent policy for the recruitment, support and deployment of sports coaches and don't seem to recognise that although coaching is a form of teaching, coaches are not school teachers.  Many schools leave the coaches to supervise lessons without any training, any support and clear guidance in managing children or fulfilling the objectives of the national curriculum.  It becomes a 'tick the box' process for many schools who are happy to be able to tell Ofsted that the 3 or 5 hour offer has been satisfied.  
The government should look at specialist PE Teachers in primary schools or continuing professional development for existing teachers/assistants and sports coaches as a minimum mandatory requirement so that all those providing PE provision in schools are appropriately trained in the requirements of the national curriculum for physical education.

The English Schools Football Association (ESFA)
What was the first thing that came into my head when I looked at this website? 
http://www.esfa.co.uk/directory/council.asp

Well I found a pretty good sketch from a Simpsons episode that seemed appropriate:


When reading this website the focus still seems to be all about the ESFA's various competitions.  Regardless of what I have heard about the ESFA's positive response to the FA proposals on the future of the game, I cannot see any real focus on developing talented footballers on the website.  I certainly haven't seen an ESFA Development Programme.  Their AGM refers to Honorary Life Members, Constitution of the Council, Eligibility of Council Members, elections etc.etc. and then goes on to discuss Competition 'Rules'.  Even when the discussion turns to what I would assume is a modern approach to the game - Small Sided Competitions, it only talks about who can or can't enter and whether players are eligible!

There is a document from the FA/ESFA called 'The FA Football National 'Development Programme - School's Competition National Football Framework' which does outline the relevant key stage age groups, number of players (e.g. 4v4 through to 11v11) and types of football festivals and competition that can be arranged.  However, it is referred to as 'Introductory Development Activities to introduce young people to high quality schools' competitions'.  There is no guidance on coaching, who should do it, what type of programme could be used over what period.  In short, the word 'Development' in the title seems somewhat redundant.

Quote 'Football for the Brave' - John Cartwright "From its inception, I believe the ESFA have been a major contributing factor leading towards the present demise of homebred football talent.  Fed by players, self-developed on the streets of the nation, arguably the ESFA were, nonetheless, happy to organise a national structure in which these youngsters played competitive matches.  Little thought was given to player instruction and development."
.."It wasn't until the professional game suddenly realised that the stream of talent was drying up, that provoked them through the FA to demand coaching time with young players.  This request was fiercely objected to by the ESFA and although inadequate compromises were implemented, football development remained firmly in the hands of the Schools' Associations - who had no real development programme!."
After much in-fighting between the FA and ESFA the result was that pro clubs were allowed to create a national coaching school at Lilleshall and Centres of Excellence or Academies for the more talented youngsters, whilst the rest of football's aspiring youngsters were left in the hands of well-intentioned, but in terms of coaching, football ignorant parents.


Conclusions
I will leave this for you to decide for yourselves.  Personally I believe there are many challenges to overcome the issues identified above.  Will the government change the school curriculum significantly enough? This is challenging in itself let alone re-prioritising football within it.  School Partnerships will continue to 'muddle through' with ever diminishing resources and an over-complicated mechanism.  Men will continue to be in the minority of teachers working in primary education for multiple reasons.  The FA must therefore concentrate their efforts on encouraging more female teachers to be involved in football.  The ESFA I look forward to with interest.  I have heard they responded positively to the FA's proposals for the future of the game but I have this feeling that unless the organisation is modernised it will fall seamlessly back into it's comfortable competition framework.

Monday 1 August 2011

Clichés and TV Pundit Language on My Banned List

This is a subject I have discussed with numerous people in the past and is a particular annoyance to me when watching grassroots football.


If I were coaching a grassroots team today I would personally require that along with a generic 'code of conduct' this banned clichés list should be integrated into it.  Ideally it would be strongly self-regulated by all (coaches, parents, players & managers).  I would also like it to be integrated into the coaching qualifications, courses, the FA Respect campaign and some kind of 'best practice' guide for youth football.


My I'm shouting from the sidelines, don't really know why, probably because it's what everyone has done before so I'm going to do it anyway List is as follows:


"Away" - as in get rid of the ball and concede possession as soon as possible.
"Get Rid" - as in see the above, complete negativity.
"If in doubt" - this is getting boring now.
"Clear it" - yawn.
"Row Z" - Not only is this negative, kids probably won't know what you are talking about.
"Play it simple" - This is probably the one that gets me the most along with............
"Play the way you're facing" - as in lets pass the buck to the goalkeeper or somebody who is in an even worse position on the field than me.
"Pass it! who do you think you are Messi" - I am convinced that this is the reason why possession based football in this country is so far behind that of our european counterparts.  What really annoys me is that even if a young player takes on two or three opposing players  but there is no 'end product' people from the sidelines automatically dismiss the innovative part of beating opponents with a negative remark about why the ball needed to be passed in the first place.
"Second ball" - I have a mental image of the kids looking for another ball to play with!
"Hit the channel" - Again, adult language that will just go over most kids heads.
"Get stuck in" - This is crazy and is just Sunday League pub football stuff.  Young players will always want to win the ball back if they haven't got it and they certainly don't need this kind of neanderthal comment.
"One of you" - For me, kids will learn a pretty quick lesson by bumping into their team-mate and this is a classic that everyone else has heard so think I'll say that!
"Noooooo! not there" - I don't get this.  For me, football is a game to be improved on in the development stage by experimenting, seeing what works, what doesn't work and doesn't need somebody from the sidelines preventing this kind of self-learning by criticism or negativity.  If something doesn't work in a game ask your player why it didn't work, what can be done differently in that position next time and where on the pitch it is more likely to work next time.
"Do we want this! or Don't we want this!" - What's that then? Me to be able to go to my mates in the pub or at work and say how my U9's 'destroyed' the opposition? Kids will always 'want this' as in they will always want to play.  They won't 'want this' if somebody from the sidelines keeps questioning whether they are even trying.
"Put him under!" - Under what exactly?
"Get your head up" - I've actually seen this happen where a lad just looked up into the clouds!
"Line it" - Just think about this from a 10 year olds perspective and ask yourself what exactly you think this might mean.
"Easy ball" - See Play it Simple.




Feel free to send me your own 'favourite' clichés, TV punditry and general useless comments that may have been heard from the sidelines and I will add a list at the end of the post.