The Unenviable Plight of Today’s Football Managers (With Reference to Mancini)

Perhaps it is the lure of stepping into a role in which achieving greatness as a football manager has been sold as a distinct possibility; perhaps it is about not being able to reject a lucrative offer to rub shoulders with the self-styled super elite; or perhaps it is simply about believing in the myth of football as it traditionally was.

Whatever it is that draws some football managers into roles for which their previous posts and achievements may or may not have prepared them, it is impossible to ignore the obvious facts that too many appointments are the result of hasty board room decision making, whilst many others are simply ill fated from the start.

Roberto Mancini would know all about that. A successful manager who had won seven trophies in four years prior to joining Manchester City doesn’t suddenly become any less of a manager after a poor season with the club. Yet his inability to achieve the ridiculously ambitious targets set by the club’s unimaginably wealthy owners meant that he was, in their view, worthy of quick dismissal, and a bucket full of compensation.

Therein lies the problem. Too often a manager’s fortune is determined by his ability to deliver results which, in many cases, are highly unrealistic given the context; the context within which Mancini, and others like him, have been expected to deliver sustained domestic and European success, has been deeply flawed for years.

It is no longer about football. It is not even about any particular clubs. The clubs are important, of course, but only in the secondary sense that they are waiting to be exploited to satisfy the excruciatingly tough demands of the billionaire business men financing the game; it is about ensuring the relentless and inexorable march towards global market supremacy for their own individual brands, and on some occasions, it is also about drawing a glittering drape over the multifarious activities of their faceless business associates.

They understand that football clubs have the potential to become powerful global business machines, if driven in the direction that market forces dictate. They will quickly and ruthlessly change whatever they deem detrimental to their objectives, and do so with alarming frequency and coldness: more often than not, it is the manager who is sacrificed first.

But whilst the clubs themselves may be of secondary importance to certain owners and backers, they remain of primary importance to their supporters, as do the solid traditions and unbroken histories that have shaped their clubs over the generations.

That aspect is now disappearing from many clubs, and it will be very difficult to restore without completely reversing the deeply set trends of recent years. But to do that now would be to pull the rug from under the clubs that draw the big crowds and the major sponsors, destroying the very fabric of today’s game in the process. And it may also open up another can of worms that many in officialdom would rather ignore – that the definition of sporting integrity has long since been auctioned off to the highest bidders.

Mancini’s dismissal is symptomatic of how so many top flight football clubs in Britain have been ripped out of their natural community settings, and had their purposes altered, whilst most football managers, like Mancini, have remained firmly wedded to their traditional footballing ideals. The two purposes rarely fit together comfortably.

But if that is the unenviable plight of today’s football managers at the top of their game, then so be it; if that is the career they choose, they just need to accept it and get on with it. That said, I believe it is an indictment of the game that there are actually very few managers who have the ability to succeed at the very top these days; and sadly, those managers who may have stood a chance of succeeding, are seldom given sufficient time to try.

Some Thoughts on Alex Ferguson and the Future of English Football

It is worth thinking about whether Sir Alex Ferguson’s decision to retire will have an impact, not just on the next couple of seasons at Old Trafford, but on the next five to ten years in English football in general.

Most of Ferguson’s successful teams have been built on the raw ingredients of hard work, loyalty and will to win. Tremendously gifted players have come and gone during his time in charge, but Ferguson’s talent has always been to instil his personal toughness into his teams and make them want to play out of their skins for him.

Being able to say exactly the right thing, at exactly the right moment, is a talent that only a few managers possess; but being able to condense the lessons of an entire upbringing into that single droplet of psychology is what sets Ferguson apart as a truly unique manager.

Remarkably, his intelligent and ruthlessly domineering football personality also sets the tone for the dynamics between the other teams in the league. Ferguson’s uniqueness is part of its cherished character; his irreplaceability is part of its unspoken problem.

Harnessing some of that uniqueness and injecting it into the Premier League as a globally marketable product has been the focus of commentators, pundits, writers and broadcasters for a number of years now. Regardless where things go from here, I think the marketers of the Premier League will know they have now lost its prize asset.

They have already started to project some of Ferguson’s key attributes onto Davie Moyes in the hope that the former’s departure does not have a harder impact on the future dynamics of the Premier League than its marketing machine can handle. To push the idea that both are ‘cut from the same cloth’ is telling.

A handkerchief might be cut from the same cloth as the finest suit, but to turn up for work wearing only a handkerchief would be a disaster, unless you are relying on the same wave of collective denial that has swept through the entire Premier League for the past few years now.

This is not to deny the very good managerial ability of Davie Moyes. It is just to point to the obvious fact that the focus of attention is now quite rightly shifting towards the real power house of European football, which has been built on a different type of foundation.

The ridiculous and unsustainable financial boom that has elevated the Premier League to its false position will naturally come to an end in the next five to ten years, if not sooner. And there will be no other characters of Ferguson’s stature, cut from the same cloth or not, capable of grabbing it by its throat and stopping its eventual decline.

Some Thoughts on Paolo Di Canio

Paolo Di Canio’s recent appointment as manager of Sunderland Football Club is widely regarded as being a controversial one, largely because of certain provocative gestures he made whilst playing for Lazio, and an interview a few years back in which he is reported to have said that he was ‘a fascist, but not a racist’.

That Di Canio wholly subscribes to an extremist political movement that is defined by sustained episodes of violent racial discrimination is completely unfounded, and something he has denounced on several occasions; that his comments have been misunderstood and twisted to fit the sensationalist agendas of the press and its slavering audience is a much more likely assumption to make.

The appointment was sufficient for former Labour MP David Milliband to resign his position on the Sunderland Board, given Di Canio’s ‘past political statements’, and for many sports writers and commentators to have a field day in condemning both him and the club for his presumed affiliation with a movement that is said to promote hatred, killing, persecution and intolerance.

But without a full and complete statement of his position, it is difficult to understand exactly what Di Canio thinks and why he declared himself a fascist who wasn’t a racist, when in the minds of many people the two notions are vile and inextricably linked.

It may be that our understanding of fascism is just too limited, too politically distorted, and too riddled with cultural assumptions that we are simply unable to appreciate what may be the subtleties of Di Canio’s unique and personal view.

Perhaps Di Canio was simply referring to his sympathies with certain cultural, political and economic aspects of fascism, as an Italian movement from a period in history that valued collectivism over individualism; personal discipline, hard work and obedience, over laziness, revolt and anarchy; and strong, healthy individuals who lived and worked for the common cause of bettering the Italian nation.

Whilst it may have been an authoritarian and nationalistic movement, it does not necessarily follow that being sympathetic to some of the aforementioned values in their own right entails supporting violence, persecution and racial hatred. Maybe that’s where Di Canio sits.

The problem is we will never get an explanation of Di Canio’s true position now as a result of the media fuelled furore surrounding his move to Sunderland and our tendency to jump to unwarranted rag style conclusions.

Given how we have come to understand fascism in this country, and given the style of news we like to indulge in here, it is highly unlikely that he will speak again on the matter, especially not to the British press gang sniffing around for their next big story. He is here to manage a struggling football club and I am sure he will do that with distinction.

(As an aside, consider the position of an individual who declares that he is a supporter of the Labour Party in Britain. Nothing wrong with that, given the core socialist views that define this party; however, it was under a Labour Government that Britain entered into an illegal war with Iraq.

Does supporting Labour then automatically mean someone who agrees with invading other countries without mandate, and engaging in deplorable acts of murder in the name of fake national interests? Perhaps David Milliband could help answer that question, as he takes his principled leave from the Stadium of Light.)

An Ugly Impasse

It is hard to think that the Offensive Behaviour at Football legislation has had anything but a negative impact on the attitudes and behaviours of those it was intended to manage, despite the Scottish Government’s bullish claims to the contrary.

Whilst the police argued that they required a greater range of powers in order to deal with the perceived escalation in sectarian hatred in connection with some aspects of Scottish football, many others were reluctant to entertain the idea that existing laws were inadequate.

One outcome of this is that the greater range of powers seems to be stretchable to match whichever interpretation of the occasion is deemed to suit, with the interpretation sometimes appearing to be influenced by the media, other times by an inability to understand political context and poor knowledge of historical fact.

As a result, a strong belief has emerged within certain groups, particularly the Green Brigade, that the manner in which they choose to support their team has been criminalised unnecessarily and that some of their members have been subject to police harassment, victimisation and disproportionate response.

Whether the controversial containment tactics used by Strathclyde Police in Glasgow on Saturday were appropriate to the situation has been challenged. Whatever the eventual outcome of that, it is clear that the march was unlawful in the sense that no permission was sought from the local authorities in advance. The police would have failed in their duty had they not intervened.

It is difficult not to acknowledge that the Green Brigade has become a powerful force with strong political views, a fact which may sit uncomfortably with some individuals within Celtic FC. But it is even more difficult to avoid the thought that extinguishing, rather than monitoring, a force of this nature is a primary objective of the police. It may draw into a long and complicated war of attrition. Neither side will back down. Neither side will win.

Whichever way you view it, the central issue remains that the Scottish Government caved into pressure to introduce a piece of poorly written and completely unnecessary legislation. In doing so it managed to create a context of confusion, mistrust and tension – perfectly illustrated by the now toxic relationship between the police and the Green Brigade – and we are still no closer to eradicating the problem of bigotry in Scotland.

Like most, I would be relieved to see the end of the type of bigotry that infects football here. As it happens, I would also prefer that political views were not expressed at football matches in a manner that risked creating the impression that such views were in some way reflective of an unwritten part of a club’s story.

Given the background causes, I am not convinced that either will transpire any time soon – but that neither justifies the Scottish Government’s poorly conceived legislative solution to the problem, nor does it excuse disproportionate police response to perceived episodes of non-compliance with that legislation.

We may have reached an ugly impasse. It is time for a re-think – without the media circus, without politicians positioning themselves to win favour, and this time with people who understand the true nature of the problem in this country.

Could Player Co-Ownership Help Scottish Football?

It is no secret that Celtic’s ability to identify and develop young players with potential has reaped tremendous rewards in recent seasons. Michael Grant recently wrote an article in The Herald suggesting that a potential threat to this successful formula is that other clubs would soon copy it:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/the-problem-with-celtics-global-approach-is-that-the-world-takes-notice.20467713

A threat related to this is that the increasing levels of debt across Scottish football could make this strategy difficult for Celtic to sustain in years to come. In order to attract young talent to Scotland, there has to be something decent on offer. The lure of Champions League football and the fast track to the English Premiership that playing in that tournament offers currently fulfils that requirement.

But the continued danger of other clubs going into administration or out of existence entirely must be a concern, in the sense that it may influence a young player’s decision on whether or not to take the chance of coming to Scotland in the first place, particularly if other clubs in relatively healthier leagues begin to offer the same route to the top.

So it is interesting to think about whether something similar to the Italian model of player co-ownership could be of benefit to Scottish football (and Celtic!) in the medium to long term as a means of averting this type of threat and ultimately sharing the wealth whilst helping to improve standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-ownership_%28football%29

Player co-ownership is a useful tool that enables clubs to share risks and rewards in the transfer market and in the development of young talent. Essentially, two clubs work out an agreement whereby they share ownership of a player, benefitting from playing rights where appropriate, and a share of the financial rewards if the player’s transfer value increases.

In the absence of a large enough fan base, an arrangement of this sort may help smaller clubs in Scotland benefit from Celtic’s global scouting system and solid financial position. Of course, it may seem too altruistic to imagine that Celtic would do such a thing, but short of being invited into a stronger league elsewhere, it may contribute to an improvement in standards here – and in the meantime, Celtic would benefit by sharing some of the financial risk and player development time with other clubs, whilst still receiving the lion’s share of the rewards.

In Italian football, the model usually involves a 50 – 50 split between two clubs. But it wouldn’t necessarily have to be that way in Scotland. It could be that one or more clubs in Scotland could pool their resources to buy into a 20 – 80 split with Celtic, thereby benefitting from access to players they couldn’t otherwise afford, and benefitting from a share of transfer fees they would otherwise lack. Player co-ownership may help financially stricken Scottish clubs stabilise and gradually improve, by providing a life-saving revenue stream currently denied to them.

It goes without saying that player co-ownership isn’t going to come with a guarantee. There are no guarantees for Celtic either. And whilst it may be difficult for Celtic to contemplate sharing the fruits of its labour in this manner, something like this could actually turn out to be a critical step in ensuring the survival of Scottish football in the long term – particularly if the clubs who benefitted were then obligated to do the same for other clubs, just as soon as they were in the position to do so.

‘Offensive Behaviour’, One Year Later

By the end of this week, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) 2012 will have been in force for one year:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/1/contents/enacted

One year on, I don’t think we are any closer to fully understanding how to apply this legislation properly. It was a hastily written piece of work, popularly referred to in the media as the ‘anti-bigotry law’, or the ‘anti-sectarian law’.

It hinges on a definition of ‘offensive’ which seems to imply that certain forms of behaviour at football matches are illegal if they cause a certain type of response in others. It has largely been about singing certain songs, or versions of these songs, that provoke an angry reaction because of their inflammatory, racist or sectarian content.

When trying to decide whether a piece of behaviour is offensive, an obvious question to ask is, ‘offensive to whom?’ and the most likely answer is, ‘to any individual belonging to a religious, social or cultural group that feels annoyed, angered, upset or intimidated by that behaviour’.

But relying on a shared emotional response as the criterion by which we judge certain displays of behaviour as offensive is tricky. It not only renders our definition too subjective, it also puts too much weight on a bundle of loosely structured emotions whose inherent volatility ought to mark them out as unreliable markers of definitional consistency in the first place.

The problem is exacerbated by the recognition that the types of emotional response in question are typically learned – but in an entirely damaging sense through involuntary exposure to a negative form of breeding from a young age and into adult life. It is from that perspective that much of what is regarded as offensive tends to be judged by the man in the street.

I think there is a general consensus among many people that the Act was introduced as a desperate measure to deal with an ugly spike in activity within the context of an embarrassing and shameful socio-cultural problem in Scotland. This ugly spike was still too raw in the public consciousness when the Bill was originally shaped, and that was a mistake.

It produced a situation in which the immediate response in some quarters to almost any form of behaviour, even loosely perceived to have a connection with a certain type of religious outlook or ethnicity, has been one of anger and outrage. The upshot is that too many different forms of behaviour have been popularly tarred with the same brush through a distortion in our understanding of what ought to count as offensive.

And from time to time it would appear that even those in positions of authority on match days have done little to prevent the view that what counts as offensive hinges on the misconception that if certain types of behaviour cause upset or anger, simply because they contain references to a particular race, religion or a political agenda, then they must be illegal.

In fairness, the Act itself does appear to recognise that being offensive isn’t simply about individuals feeling upset or angered that the group they belong to has been challenged, parodied or criticised; the key seems to be that the challenge must be made in a form that expresses or arouses hatred and is likely to lead to public disorder.

But surely expressing or arousing hatred cannot be sufficient either, when it is so easy for one group of individuals to feel hatred towards another, just because they are there and making a noise about everything that is important to them? It is all too subjective.

Clearly, there has to be more to it than that. I think it must also come down to whether belonging to a particular group has been challenged or criticised in a way that is contrary to that group’s integrity, or contrary to historical fact.

This would never constitute a definition in its own right, of course, but it would help sharpen up our understanding of what is permissible and what isn’t in a more objective context, provided we can be historically accurate in our assessment!

And whilst this would legally permit certain forms of behaviour to continue, and certain types of song to be sung at football matches, the appropriateness of doing so must nonetheless be assessed against the wishes and expectations of the club they represent – that should always be a key consideration.

It is fairly obvious to me that not every song or action that arouses anger, hatred or annoyance in ill-informed minds is in fact offensive. It is too easy to blame the wrong people here. Not everyone will think the same way about this, but perhaps it is the irrational response that ought to be criminalised in these cases, rather than the initial behaviour.

How Celtic Might Win in Turin, From a Philosophical Point of View

When the eminent philosopher of football, Friedrich Nietzsche, was asked for his opinion on how referees make decisions in high profile European games, he replied that ‘All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth’.

Alberto Mallenco would appear to be the type of referee who likes to follow the rules of the game exactly to the letter. For him, it would appear to be about truth, not power. Of course, Nietzsche was also keen to remind us that appearances can be deceptive.

However, this is what FIFA’s Law 12 on Fouls and Misconduct states:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

So although it frustrated, angered and confused a number of people at the time, it would seem that Mallenco was correct not to award a penalty when Juventus defenders held and wrestled with Celtic players during last week’s Champions League game.

But if that is the case, then perhaps Celtic should hope for a similarly minded, letter of the law type referee for the return leg in Turin. Wrestling like Juventus might turn out to be a winning strategy, if all else fails.

The relevant section of Law 12 states:

“The following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:

It must be committed by a player.
It must occur on the field of play.
It must occur while the ball is in play.

Remove any of these conditions and the offence is not and cannot be a foul.”

With that in mind, what would stop Celtic players flooding into the Juventus box at corner kicks and holding all of their defenders back, or pinning the keeper to the front post, whilst the ball is still dead, allowing the Celtic strikers to casually stroll into unmarked positions to wait on the corner being taken?

Of course, this could end up as a 21 man scrum (assuming the corner kick taker is left unshackled). But surely if the tactics used by Juventus were judged to be within the rules, then so too would this absurd scenario? Perhaps the same referee should be appointed across both legs, just to ensure consistency across the tie and to give teams the opportunity to take advantage of his particular interpretation of the rules from the first leg? Surely there would be nothing he could do about it?

When Ludwig Wittgenstein was working on the philosophy of mathematics he noted that ‘rules leave loop-holes open and the practice must speak for itself’; and when his good pal Friedrich Nietzsche asked him for advice on some of the vexing problems in the philosophy of football, he declared that ‘rules leave hoops hopes open and the passion must speak for itself’.

So I conclude, this is how Celtic might win in Turin, from a philosophical point of view.

Working the Industry Behind the Game

Referees take a lot of stick.

Sometimes they deserve it. Other times, when we are in a more generous mood, we are happy to admit that they have a tough job. Particularly at the highest level.

However, there are times when we are infuriated by their perceived incompetence and believe that we could do a much better job ourselves. We probably could, but we usually think this way when we are equipped with the benefit of multiple camera angles, slow motion replays and plenty of time to think.

We also need to remember that mistakes and inconsistencies are pretty much guaranteed in any fast moving, adrenalin fuelled situation. We too could have made the same mistakes in that situation, even when, from our vantage point, we can see exactly what went wrong. Human error is inevitable, and when there is a great deal at stake, the vultures are usually quick to pounce.

Having said all that, take last night’s Champions League game, in which Juventus defenders appeared to deploy tactics more suited to a game of rugby or a wrestling match than football. They were fully aware that one of Celtic’s strengths was the ability to score goals from well worked set-pieces. The Juventus defenders appeared well drilled in their tactic of nullifying that threat by bear-hugging the Celtic players or simply pulling them to the ground when they looked too dangerous.

Some might be inclined to describe it as nothing other than their traditional style of defending – suggesting this makes it normal, acceptable even – and I also heard someone say that Celtic were naïve to fall for these tactics – but Juventus got away with their negative and cynical approach all night, not because the Celtic players fell into their sophisticated traps, but because the referee and his stooges consciously chose to do nothing much about it.

—————————————————————–

There are times when refereeing mistakes and inconsistencies can be put down to inexperience, or intimidation by aggressive players and fans; there are times when they can be put down to genuine and honest mistakes; there are times when they can be put down to unconscious bias towards one of the teams; and there are times when you really do have to question the integrity of the referee and his entourage.

Refereeing integrity has come under scrutiny countless times in the past and it will come under scrutiny again in the future. That some referees have agreed to facilitate a certain outcome in return for a handsome reward is not a new thing. Managers and players are not averse to it either. There is a lot of money to be made here.

Last week, in response to the Europol investigation into the list of 680 games suspected of being fixed in the past 18 months, Sepp Blatter commented that match-fixing is such a small part of football that it will be overcome.

It seems to me that match-fixing is now such an integral part of football – and many other organised sports for that matter – that the chances of it being overcome are slim to none.

In a cynical moment, you start to wonder whether the manner in which football has evolved into a highly lucrative industry for already ridiculously wealthy individuals, and for those with the bravado and hard headedness to indulge in whatever dishonest money making practices they can get away with at the time, has resulted in the entire context being flipped on its head.

It may be that the honest competition we expect to see every week is now simply an addictively appealing smoke-screen that distracts our attention away from the real den of iniquity that sits behind it. We might not be too far from the truth if we went back to Sepp Blatter with the retort that honest competition, rather than match-fixing, is such a small part of football that it will be overcome!

—————————————————————–

So where does this leave Celtic in terms of the Champions League? Probably in the same situation as other teams not ‘expected’ to progress too far into the final stages of this glamorous competition – battle tired and weary, a little more experienced, an enhanced valuation for certain players, and significantly better off for their troubles. Not a bad return, when all is said and done.

Perhaps the biggest lesson to learn here is not that teams like Celtic are never going to be good enough at this stage of the Champions League; but that there are other teams from other countries whose presence in the final stages is far more appealing to the organisers of the competition. And hence (or because?) these teams and all their trappings are far more profitable targets for those who have mastered the fine art of working the industry behind the game.

(But enough of my paranoia – I am now praying for a small miracle in Turin.)

Some More Thoughts on Celtic Players’ Mind-Set

Henry Clarson’s thought provoking blog yesterday and Graeme Macpherson’s article in The Herald today have prompted me to throw my own tuppence worth into the debate.

http://henryclarson.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/heads_you_win/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/psychologist-questions-celtics-mental-preparation-for-semi-final.20037202

But I need to come at my thoughts indirectly -

Our perception of a football player’s skills and abilities, and therefore his value on the transfer market, is inextricably linked to the context in which he performs.

It is not too difficult to work out why the so called better players in Scotland automatically attract lower transfer market valuations than their counterparts in England. It is often more about context than ability.

There is an interesting irony here which is worth considering. The players in Scotland most likely to attract decent bids from English Premiership clubs are the ones who have had the opportunity to show case their talent in a different context, namely the Champions League.

This season, of course, only Celtic players have had this opportunity and they have invariably risen to the challenge. No sight of the psychological problems that have plagued them elsewhere.

Yet as the aforementioned writers pointed out, these same players have struggled to perform to the same high standard when competing in domestic competitions and against so called inferior teams (on paper, at least). The suggestion by Henry Clarson is that this could be down to some kind of fear of losing to the under dogs; whereas Graeme Macpherson’s article considers the view of sports psychologist Tom Lucas, that it probably comes down to complacency and poor preparation.

Different observations. Each worthy of consideration.

But this also got me thinking about how easy it could be for potential suitors to make costly errors of judgement in the transfer market by underestimating the significance of a context judged too weak to matter, and overestimating the significance of a context judged to be the ultimate marker of a player’s worth.

The problem is that the context deemed too weak to matter in this instance is actually the one in which a player’s strength of character faces an important challenge, which can be completely missed if we focus too much on the bright lights and the bigger stage.

What I mean is that when it comes down to mental toughness – an indication of just how valuable a player actually is to a team – the ability to rise periodically to the silky smooth occasion of Champions League football is perhaps not as telling as the ability to perform regularly on the rough ground of Scottish football.

So my question is why do clubs place more weight on individuals playing well in Champions League games, for example, than they do on their sometimes faltering performances in domestic league and cup games? The answer has to be that it is all about context, and the context in question is one which has been created by the type of media hype that always wants to ask the question, ‘yes, but can they step up to our level?’

It is a smug sense of superiority that exaggerates the worth of one context over another and that distorts the perception of what matters most when judging the value of players and how well they are likely to perform.

Now, by way of tying all of these points together, I will throw another opinion into the mix – perhaps the reason why some very good Celtic players have struggled to perform to the standard we all know they are capable of in domestic games, is that they too have bought into the media hype and transfer market preferences that renders many of our domestic games of low importance when it comes to proving their calibre as the top players their Champions League forays appear to have made them.

So rather than fear of losing to the under dogs, or complacency because they should be expected to win easily, perhaps it is much more simple. Perhaps it is just a subconscious decision that they don’t have to work hard in these games, because despite their importance to the rest of us, these games don’t actually matter that much to them when viewed with one thought in mind: these are not the games on the basis of which they will earn their lucrative move to the promised land of the English Premier League.

An Unglamorous Option

In an interesting article yesterday, Michael Grant, Chief Football Writer for The Herald, wrote about English clubs pillaging the most promising talent from among the youth teams in Scotland, long before they have the opportunity to fully develop and make any real contribution to the Scottish game:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/english-clubs-cross-the-rubicon-as-they-pillage-young-players.19963437

He is referring to an aggressive style of courtship that has flourished partly because of the category two ranking of compensation fees between Scottish and English clubs, allowing English clubs to entice our best young players with the promise of significantly higher earning potential, at a relatively low cost.

He goes on to suggest that upgrading cross-border compensation fees to category one between Clydesdale Bank Premier League and the Barclay’s Premier League would help address this problem, meaning that English clubs would have to pay more than twice the amount they currently pay in compensation.

That would definitely be a start and I am sure the majority of Scottish clubs would be delighted with such a move. However, it doesn’t really help the long term ambitions of Scottish football in general. How can the game in Scotland ever be improved if this unfortunate pillaging of our best young players continues, albeit with higher levels of compensation?

We are often told that one of the key solutions to the decline in Scottish football is to invest in youth development, better training facilities and academies, and so on, in order to identify and nurture the best of our talent at a young enough age.

In Henry McLeish’s 2010 Review of Scottish Football, for example, he argued that, among other things, investing more in Grassroots, Recreation and Youth Development, would be essential to addressing some of the key problems in our game:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1957&newsID=5777

Of course he is absolutely correct in saying this. It is an obvious place to start. And league reconstruction is an obvious one too. But you really have to wonder just how effective all of this would be as a means of improving the game in Scotland when, even with a re-categorisation of cross-border compensation fees, the aggressive pillaging of our best young talent by the wealthy elite in England is likely to continue, unabated; even more so, if the calibre were to improve again as a result of significant new investment.

Thinking up a fine array of initiatives to improve standards at youth level and above is futile if we cannot find a way of incentivising that talent to remain in Scotland. Pushing for higher compensation fees would only help in so far as it brought some additional income into the Scottish game, but it certainly wouldn’t stop our best young talent being lured down to England.

It is difficult not to be too cynical. But in a world defined by unimaginable wealth and dictated by those who are in possession of it, ignoring the advances of persuasive agents in order to continue with the less lucrative hard work you have started, is most unlikely.

Until the financial bubble bursts in English football, the game in Scotland appears destined to be an occasional provider of under-developed Scottish youths with star potential, and a regular developer of unknown foreign players, for wealthier clubs in England. Few perceive it to be anything other than that now.

It would take a deep rooted attitudinal shift to reposition the Scottish game as an attractive end in itself, rather than the means to the more financially lucrative end it has become. But it appears to be no longer obvious to anyone within the Scottish game how that shift could ever be achieved. A radically new way of thinking is required. Until then, Scottish football will remain an unglamorous option.