It has been argued that if Rangers, in some shape or form, is permitted leave to remain in the SPL without any significant sanctions for their past misdemeanours, Celtic supporters will protest by boycotting away games to the detriment of the financial health of the entire league.
On the other hand, it has also been argued that if significant sanctions are imposed, Rangers supporters will protest by taking the very same course of action, with the very same result.
And thus it is believed that the SPL is facing an impossible decision. Whichever decision it takes, it is feared that the outcome will be financially disastrous. Indeed, followed through to its conclusion, either course of action could signal the end of Scottish football as we know it.
A false dichotomy is offered when it is argued that there are only two options available, neither of which are particularly palatable, but one of which, so the arguer will suggest, would be so damaging that we really need to accept his preferred option.
Should the SPL decide against imposing further significant sanctions, it would not be too inaccurate to think that they believe that the lesser of the two evils would be dealing with the boycott by Celtic supporters, rather than face the wrath of Rangers supporters.
In other words, they would be taking what they consider to be a calculated gamble: they would be assuming that it would be easier to encourage Celtic supporters back, than deal with the impact of banishing Rangers to Scottish footballing wilderness for the next few years.
This is the direction we would be pushed in if we were asked to accept that it would be better not to punish Rangers any further.
But it is a neat psychological confidence trick wrapped up in what would appear to be a choice between only two options: financial ruin for all concerned, or a gentle slap on the wrists to safeguard the future of our game.
A false dichotomy is often used when the arguer wants to avert our attention away from the existence of other possible solutions. It may take some creative thinking, and perhaps a strong dose of courage, but other solutions are always possible.
A false dichotomy is usually a scare tactic designed to secure an outcome that looks less than desirable to those who need to accept the choice and get on with it. And more often than not, a false dichotomy points towards a concealed preference; it’s just that they cannot come out and say as much.
Bollocks
It would be usefull to at least hint what these “other options are”. Publicly sacrificing the credibility & sporting integrity (yeah I know) of Scottish football for supposed financial expedience will reduce it to the cartoon credibility of the WWE. I’d also be intersted to learn just how Rangers’ support propose to “punish” SPL clubs from the 3rd division of the SFL? Should they (however unlikely) not be voted into the SPL.
That’s a good, thoughtful article, Liam. It deserves more response.
You’re right to point out the flawed nature of the public debate as it is being currently manipulated. Even within its own prescribed terms of reference, there are deep flaws.
For one thing, it has been assumed to be self-evident that wealth is produced and spread about because of the presence of Rangers in the SPL and yet there has been no examination of the reliability of this supposition.
For my own part, I don’t equate wealth with crushing debt. It was already known at the beginning of the season that Rangers were in substantial debt and were already on course for an expected loss of around £10 million for the year, long before there was widespread talk of administration. It was also well known that Rangers have been in substantial debt for decades. It is known that every other club in the SPL, including Celtic, is carrying a debt burden. In a number of cases the very survival of some clubs is threatened.
The current model of the SPL is clearly unsustainable and yet no consideration is given to the possibility that the worst culprit of them all might be having a negative effect on the rest.
Still it is assumed that, as bad as it is at the moment, it will be even worse without the club which doesn’t pay its debts to others.
Nor has any serious consideration been given to the very credible proposition that there will be higher weekly attendances at almost every SPL stadium if Rangers are not in the league. The best reason for believing that such a thing could happen is quite simply that it has happened before. When teams believe that they have something to play for and a realistic prospect of being able to compete, attendances increase. It also happens at the moment – many clubs which win promotion from the SFL to the SPL find that their attendance figures actually fall once they move into the same league as teams which are likely to beat them four times in a season.
That is just a single aspect of the debate which has been stifled so that there can be no challenge to the orthodoxy that an SPL without RFC faces financial disaster. It would be easy to find dozens of others that could produce valid but unwelcome alternatives to the pre-ordained conclusions which are being relentlessly declaimed to the exclusion of all others.