Scottish Football’s Drift Towards Utilitarianism

I have been thinking about how the decision to allow a new Rangers FC to remain in the SPL would not come into conflict with the idea that sporting integrity is intrinsically valuable to Scottish football.

The only answer I can come up with is that Scottish football must be drifting towards some kind of utilitarian account of ethics.

When faced with a difficult decision or a troubling moral dilemma, a utilitarian account of ethics will define the right course of action in terms of its potential to create the greatest amount of good outcomes, and minimise the number of bad ones.

Utilitarianism is about deciding which action produces the best outcome for the majority of people concerned, rather than trying to decide whether an action is intrinsically right or wrong.

Now, should the SPL Chairmen decide that the right thing to do would be to allow a new Rangers FC to remain in their league, because the consequences of not making this decision would be financially disastrous for the majority of clubs concerned, they will have done so by adopting a utilitarian style of ethics.

One of the problems with utilitarianism is that its focus on outcomes as justifiers leaves open the possibility that a course of action may be promoted as the one which will lead to the greatest good, and therefore deemed the right thing to do, despite having stemmed from completely selfish motives.

In other words it becomes possible to accommodate a selfishly motivated course of action within what would appear to be an otherwise respectable moral space; and then it begins to seem obvious how the notion of sporting integrity would not come into conflict with a new Rangers FC in the SPL.

The answer is simple: the option of taking a course of action described as ‘upholding sporting integrity’ would be ethically managed out of the picture. On the utilitarian understanding of morality, equating ‘sporting integrity’ with ‘punishing a new Rangers FC’ would completely miss the point.

There would simply be no room for it within this moral space, because punishing a new Rangers FC would lead to an outcome inconsistent with achieving the greatest good for the majority of clubs concerned. So there would be absolutely no option but to eliminate this course of action as a moral contender at all.

And there we have it. No conflict.

But here is the sting with utilitarianism –

If you ethically manage the notion of ‘sporting integrity’ out of the picture, for the sake of the greater good, you need to be mindful that many of the beneficiaries of the greater good may not inhabit the same moral space of reasons and may completely disagree with the decision.

If they decided to remain true to their own moral space and refused to spend their money on their clubs next season, the SPL Chairmen’s decision to act for the greater good, as they calculated it, would turn out to be a serious error of judgement.

It is extremely difficult to predict how people are going to respond to major decisions like this one. It is completely new territory. The drift into utilitarianism may help the SPL chairmen feel better about looking after their short term financial interests at the point of making this decision, but it could end up being a financial and a moral disaster in no time at all.

By which point it would be too late to drift back towards the idea that ‘sporting integrity’ should somehow figure more prominently within their moral space of reasons.

It is one hell of a gamble to take.

A False Dichotomy

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.

Sporting Integrity versus Commercial Benefit

The relationship between sporting integrity and commercial benefit has come under intense scrutiny in Scottish football recently.

It is hardly surprising, given the manner in which the game has been dragged into controversy and ill repute, and the manner in which the relevant governing bodies appear desperate to find a way of ensuring that, behind the scenes, perceived commercial benefit is allowed to override sporting integrity.

Why did Scottish football back itself into this corner in the first place? Why did the SPL and its members agree to a media contract that depended on the continued presence of only two of its clubs, when they could not personally guarantee that either club would always be there? (What about the other clubs? What about the spirit of fair play and honest competition?)

Nor could they personally guarantee that the commercial conditions and sporting criteria for these clubs being in the competition would always be met; unless they could, of course, by reserving the freedom to change the rules according to a given club’s contribution to overall wealth. But that would be utterly despicable…

Whether or not the media arrangements in the SPL depend on both Celtic and Rangers being there is one thing; whether the rest of the clubs would end up in serious trouble without the presence of both is another. I am not totally convinced that the latter assumption is true, despite what we are led to believe.

The upshot is that the SPL has implicitly agreed that no other football clubs matter except Celtic and Rangers, and even then, only as a double act. And whether they acknowledge this point or not, they have implicitly agreed that, come what may, they would find a way of ensuring the continued presence of this double act in the competition.

So my question is this: if sporting integrity takes second place to commercial benefit, what happens when the commercial benefits expire because the lack of competitiveness in our league eventually renders it worthless and pointless to its audience?

It would be too late to start again and attempt to restore the values of integrity, honesty and fair play.

Who would be prepared to pick up the pieces?

The game would already be over.

Misdirected Backlash

Immunity from some of the hard realities in life is something most of us have sought at some point.

When we are steeped in the history of a football club, it is easy to let our emotional attachment take priority over rational thought. Our sense of what is real and what is reasonable diminishes, as our sense of injustice grows.

It is not so much that we want to remain oblivious to hard facts.

It is simply that the urge to avoid discomfort means that we subconsciously select our preferred method of presenting the facts to ourselves. It is a way of keeping our emotions artificially balanced with our thoughts.

Primitive mechanisms like this are remarkably adaptive. They have to be, to enable us to cope with some of the more complicated social, cultural and political situations that they were never designed to manage.

More often than not we seek convenience.

The people in positions of power and their gallant friends in the media are usually only too happy to oblige.

We just accept the facts as they are presented to us through political spin or editorial preference. We somehow allow the media’s presentation of the facts to feel right to us.

When it stops feeling right, before we even think about it, we shuffle things around in our mind until we find a way of making it feel right again.

Sometimes this means ignoring obvious implications and suppressing what we actually know to be the case.

The human mind doesn’t always seek out the truth; it seeks out the presentation of the facts that is most convenient and best for its own comfort and self-preservation.

And coincidentally, the media doesn’t always present the truth; it presents a version of the truth that is best for the preservation of its complex relationships with wealthy individuals and those in positions of influence and authority.

It is all about gaming.

Truth by convenience works fantastically well, but only in so far as the game is left unchallenged.

Challenges may come in the form of hard factual friction. It brings the spinning wheel to a grinding halt; it usually happens when the money runs out and people demand payment. This is one way of forcing realignment with reality. It is rarely pretty.

Challenges may come in the form of awkward questions that many people refused to ask, for fear of public condemnation or social alienation. This is another style, which usually only happens after the latter. It is rarely comfortable.

The backlash is usually severe. It tends to be directed at the individuals responsible for forcing the eventual realignment, rather than the individuals who created the misalignment in the first place.

More often than not, particularly in football, the backlash is misdirected. It is usually a last-ditch attempt at shifting responsibility and avoiding the truth, just before the wheel finally stops.

I’m sure we’ve all done it; at some point, and with dignity.

The Myths in Scottish Football

The ease with which the media can build empires and reputations is frightening.

Whilst a carefully chosen fact or two is often used to anchor the supporting myths at the outset, the intrinsic manipulability of the human imagination is absolutely vital to the success of this type of irresponsible enterprise.

The momentum of the imagination draws us effortlessly into factual vacuums and permits inconsistencies that good old fashioned logic would otherwise block. When it takes hold, its grip is firm and relentless: we continually read the myths into everything, whether they are there or not.

Dignity, integrity and truth have been some of the salient myths woven into the fabric of Scottish football, designed to prop up its governing bodies, protect some of its wealthier characters, and sustain some of their grander ambitions. Fair play and respect are some of the others.

Corruption and exploitation have been some of the real, but ugly facts lurking behind the carefully controlled façade, that up until recently remained impenetrable and watertight; bigotry and sectarianism often erupt to the surface, but tend to be managed down again each time according to the prevailing political agenda and purpose.

The upshot is that Scottish football has been devouring itself for years.

If it is ever going to sort itself out, some difficult decisions need to be taken to rid the game of the shameful practices and regrettable histories that have been feeding its insatiable appetite for self-destruction for too long.

Forget about league reconstruction, youth academies, voting structures and revenue redistribution for the time being. None of that will help. As things stand, they would be mere tokens to make more clubs and their supporters feel a bit more comfortable within the existing vacuum.

We can only begin to sort out the mess by breaking up the complex relationships that exist between the gentlemen responsible for football governance in this country, the wealthy individuals who continually come up with inventive ways of introducing fresh money into the game, and the sections of the media who have been only too happy to peddle their myths.

There are many individuals who need to reflect on their own ineffective contribution to the governance of the game and make the honest decision to step down; but there is every chance they won’t. There are many individuals who need to admit their part in running corrupt practices; but there is no chance that they will.

Scottish football needs the myths to be stripped back. Whether we like what we are left with, and whether there is any money left in our game at the end of it, Scottish football needs to be cut back down to its actual size in order to grow again; honestly this time.

It is more important to build genuine dignity, integrity and truth into the fabric of a scaled-down Scottish football industry, than have their mythical counterparts cover up the corruption and exploitation within a bloated, swollen and ultimately self-destructing empire.

Who would want to be a referee?

Who would want to be a referee?

The problem referees face is that their decision making is based on how things appear to them at the time, whereas our assessment of their decision is based on how things appeared to us, based on our priviliged vantage point and a slow motion replay of the incident.

There is no way of changing this unless technology is made available to referees to give them the time to analyse and reflect, in the very same way that we can, when we watch a replay and spot a crucial mistake.

Referees do make mistakes. Too many mistakes, in fact; but we are privileged in our vantage point and prone to see what we want to be the case. We look for reasons why a certain decision should be made, rather than another.

And, it is much easier to judge an incident in retrospect, with the benefit of technology, than it is to judge it at the moment it occurs in the thick of the action. But of course, that’s exactly what referees are paid to do and we expect them to get it right.

We are only interested in our own team. We scrutinise decisions against our own team in a way that we don’t with decisions against other teams. We rarely care about bad decisions against other teams. And in this sense we tend to experience decisions against our team as too frequent for our liking. But that is football.

Perhaps the standard of refereeing in this country is poor. Perhaps the majority of big decisions do actually go against our team. Perhaps referees make mistakes because they can’t concentrate for ninety minutes. Perhaps they consistently find themselves in bad positions. But so do many footballers. Yet they are quick to complain, as are we.

This is the just way football is played and managed. The vantage point we enjoy means that there will always be a difference between how things appear to the referee and how things appear to us. And there is not a lot you can do about it.

I don’t think it is personal, but it is very easy to feel that it is. I just think too many referees make too many mistakes. And like the rest of us when we make a mistake, we try to defend our decision and find a reason why it was justified.

Most of the time it just looks like a poor excuse, so we assume an element of bias. But we feel justified in assuming bias when we witness critical mistakes against our team on more than one occasion. The truth is, it is so much easier, and much more comfortable, to focus on a referee’s mistake than it is to focus on our team’s performance.

Honest or otherwise, the majority of referees in this country just don’t seem to be good enough, often enough; but by the same token, it is also far too easy for us to exaggerate the poverty of their game because of our vantage point and the emotions we invest in our own team.

So who would want to be a referee? Very few of us would, that’s for sure!

Martin Luther King Jr. on Scottish Football

I doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. would have been a big fan of Scottish football.

But the gentlemen who pull the strings in the SPL would have done well to take heed of his remark that, ‘true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring’.

Putting this insight into context, it amounts to saying that an act that is often claimed to be for the good of others may actually hold limited value in itself; often its true effect is to divert our attention away from the corrupt elitism that created the dependency situation in the first place.

Corruption, bribery and elitism are rife in sport. But corruption can be very difficult to detect, and bribery more difficult again; whereas elitism is often evident, but very difficult to challenge.

Particularly when there is a degree of invisibility in the governance of an institution that appears to promote the values of sporting integrity and financial fair play; and particularly when few people bother to question this obvious contradiction with any serious intent.

By proposing new rules to guarantee the restoration of a bankrupt company as a supporting pillar within an edifice that is structurally flawed, the SPL has attempted to promote the idea that it is acting in the best interests of all of its dependent members.

When in actual fact, it has simply confirmed that its commercial strategies are built around maximising its own interests, and the interests of its hitherto prize, marketable asset, ‘Celtic and Rangers’.

So to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., genuinely acting in the best interests of Scottish football would not be a case of creating new rules to guarantee that you can still fling the other ten teams a coin tomorrow.

It would be a case of finding a way of restructuring the rotting edifice that produced this unhealthy dependency relationship in the first place. Rip it up and start again. For the benefit of everyone concerned about the future of Scottish football.

But that would only be a dream…

Some Thoughts on the ‘Rebel Ten’

SPL Chairman, Ralph Topping, recently wrote to the chairmen of the so-called ‘rebel ten’, requesting that they withdraw their resolution to change the league’s voting structure:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17604881

He believes that the existing set-up should be maintained, despite the fact that the majority of clubs in the SPL perceive it to be undemocratic and unfairly weighted in favour of Celtic and Rangers.

His letter suggests that the clubs have created uncertainty among potential investors and have unsettled the commercial interests of the league. Indeed, he claims, two contracts have already been lost as a result.

I think Ralph Topping may have been taking lessons from the David Cameron and George Osborne School of Spin:

If there is an appetite for a change that you don’t want, simply stir up feelings of uncertainty over future financial security as a direct consequence of that change; make it sound more frightening for those who want to instigate the change, and hope that they back down. It usually works.

But exactly why has Ralph Topping felt the need to object to changing the voting structure in so public a manner, using this particular line of argument?

Whilst he will claim that he has the commercial interests of the SPL at heart, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that his motive for speaking out is that he simply doesn’t want to alienate Celtic (and Rangers, speaking through their Administrators).

In his view, the latter are likely to be the sole reason why the SPL is able to attract commercial contracts in the first place, so perhaps it is best not to challenge the existing arrangements that happen to suit them.

But in the mind of those seeking change, Topping’s line of argument must come dangerously close to suggesting that the inequality they see within the current set-up is a necessary condition for the continued survival of the entire league.

In other words – “you might not like it, but be gracious and accept it; inequality is the best deal you are going to get”.

The problem I have with Topping’s argument is that it looks rather flimsy. Despite what he claims, it just looks as if he is trying to preserve the interests of the minority who generate the majority of revenue for the SPL, rather than preserve the interests of the SPL as a whole.

Perhaps for Topping, these interests are one and the same? He should just come out and say as much.

So I have a degree of sympathy for the other ten clubs. But whilst Topping’s line of argument looks like spin, so too does that of the ‘rebel ten’, who appear to lack unity in terms of their demands beyond changing the voting structure. They know they want change, but they don’t know what they will do with it when they get it.

And I just don’t buy into the argument put forward by certain ‘anonymous’ chairmen (which undoubtedly a changed voting structure would be used to bring about), that a fairer distribution of SPL revenue would help to improve the game in Scotland.

To begin with, it could be argued that there is nothing ‘unfair’ about the existing distribution of revenue. After every team has been given an equal share of almost half of the pot, each team is then rewarded according to its finishing position, with the first and second placed teams receiving more than everyone else:

http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=7618&back=home

(Whilst this has favoured Celtic and Rangers for most of the years that the SPL has existed, it is not too different from other results-oriented businesses, in which the highest rewards are reserved for the best performers.)

Sadly, even if the voting set-up did change, and a redistribution of commercial revenue occurred, the financial situation in Scottish football would mean that any additional income from the remaining pot would be quite small anyway, and it would more likely go towards covering existing players’ salaries and repaying debts, rather than being invested in the development of youth academies and modernising playing facilities.

So whilst Topping’s motive appears to be that the interests of the minority should be considered ahead of those of the majority, because of their perceived commercial clout, I think the ‘rebel ten’ are in danger of appearing to be more interested in getting their hands on additional money to cover their costs and service their debts, than bringing about changes for the benefit of Scottish football.

And why not? Football, the beautiful game, is an ugly business. Football chairmen are out to get the best deal possible for their own clubs; all twelve of them.

Representatives of the ‘rebel ten’ are scheduled to meet again on Thursday this week. It will be interesting to see whether the true underlying motives of all concerned are revealed at any point in the process.

Tainted

According to certain individuals in the media, including former professional footballers who should have known better, there is a sense in which Celtic winning the SPL title this season has been ‘tainted’.

But this reveals more about the psychology of these individuals, than the manner and style in which the title was achieved.

The title was achieved through the hard work of the players and the mental toughness of the manager. It wasn’t always brilliant football, but it was achieved through grinding out results, week after week against the teams in front of them.

When an achievement is genuinely tainted, it has been affected by undesirable and reprehensible qualities, or it has been secured through practices that would be deemed illegal or morally corrupt.

The suggestion that Celtic’s achievement has been tainted is ironic.

It is an indication of almost universal failure among certain sections of the media to acknowledge the reprehensible qualities and morally corrupt practices elsewhere, and it is a rather poor attempt at passing the psychological buck.

But I completely agree that there is a sense in which Celtic’s title has been tainted this season.

It has been tainted by the hatred and bigotry that has formed the ugly backdrop against which Neil Lennon has been forced to do his job and live his life in recent years.

It has been tainted by the many ill-informed writings in the media that created a storm of hatred around a mythological monster that too many people just accepted as true.

When you use the word ‘tainted’, you need to be very careful that you are not revealing more about your own failings than you are trying to imply about another person’s success.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time, and it definitely won’t be the last, that a heart full of bitterness has been revealed through an ill chosen word.

Political Intervention (Interference) in Football

Alex Salmond is widely regarded as a very clever politician.

He has built a career around extolling the virtues of ‘independence’ and ‘autonomy’. If anyone was ever in doubt as to the meaning of these terms, I am confident he would be able to explain.

Yet his recent intervention in the case between HMRC and Rangers Football Club could be in danger of compromising the fundamental principles of ‘independence’ and ‘autonomy’ in the world of sport.

The purpose of these principles is to guarantee that sporting governance is not affected by political agenda within any given nation; they exist as a means of preserving the core values of ‘sporting integrity’ and ‘financial fair play’ across the globe.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/elevenvalues/index.html

Political intervention (interference) is not unknown in the world of football. The punishment can be severe. Not just from a sporting point of view, but also from a financial point of view; I am sure Alex Salmond and his advisors will be fully aware of that fact.

In 2004 the Greek government adopted a new law to increase its involvement in the running of professional football leagues, thus interfering in an area that should have been reserved to the Hellenic Football Federation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/5141866.stm

Until the law was amended, the Greece national team faced expulsion from international competition, such as the World Cup and the European Championships, and clubs that had qualified for the Champions League and the EUFA Cup were also excluded.

The Scottish Government’s intervention in the case between HMRC and Rangers was driven by Alex Salmond’s belief that, whilst HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxation must be pursued in the public interest, they should also take cognisance of the fact that Rangers is “a huge institution, part of the fabric of the Scottish nation”.

Sympathisers may appeal to the argument that football is a recognised sociocultural and economic sector in Scotland, and as such the Government has a duty to intervene, despite what the international footballing authorities may have to say on the matter.

But if you accept this line of argument, you should also recognise that there is another urgent problem sitting right behind it: if you believe that intervention is legitimate, because of the assumed negative sociocultural and economic impact of not intervening, you ought to demonstrate true consistency in your position.

In other words, you need to follow through with the question why the autonomy of your country’s football governing body has created a context in which rule breaking has been possible in the first place. If you want to retain autonomy, you need to guarantee fitness for purpose.

Autonomy is a privilege which must be removed, not from football’s governing body itself, but from the fine upstanding gentlemen who hold office within that body, should there be any indication of institutional corruption and systematic abuse of power.

So by dint of intervention, Alex Salmond has inadvertently implied that the fundamental values the principle of autonomy was intended to guarantee were actually non-existent in Scottish football: sporting integrity and financial fair play.

He now needs to intervene again and sort that one out.