Blatter Sounds Off - And Upsets Baggies - 16/10/2005

Fifa president Sepp Blatter is nothing if not controversial and having written an outspoken article about the state of the game which received front page billing in the Financial Times, he then made remarks on Radio 5 which offended West Bromwich Albion. Blatter claimed that a Baggies official had told him that when playing big teams like Chelsea the club 'will not field the best team because they know they will make no points', saving their players for encounters with a better chance of a result. A Baggies spokesman retorted, 'We are astonished and total mystified by Mr Blatter's remarks. We can categorically state that no Albion official has spoken to Mr Blatter this year - let alone in the past month.' The remarks made by the Fifa president could form part of a broader agenda he is pursuing about the state of the game. Some of his comments may resonate with fans, but they are often weakened by overstatement. He argues that the game has degenerated into a 'wild-west style of capitalism'. Individuals bringing money into the game often have 'little or no history of interest' in it but 'have happened upon football as a means of serving some hidden agenda.' In fact this may be no more than another form of conspicuous consumption like buying rare works of art, but Blatter sees the sums of money they invest as 'pornographic'. Having gone on to complain about a new form of slavery in the game, with young Brazilians being the main target, Blatter lets fly at 'the spectacle of semi-educated, sometimes foul-mouthed, players on £100,000 a week'. Not many players are geting that much, but this seems to be falling into making the same complaint as those critics of the game who resent the fact that it provides a route for upward mobility (at a time when society is becoming less socially mobile) for individuals from deprived backgrounds. Blatter goes on to complain about 'greedy club owners' interested in maximising their own income. One of the driving forces for a capitalist market system is that individuals want to maximise profits. Now, of course, there is a valid argument that football clubs are not just commercial assets and belong in some sense to their communities, although turning that aspiration into a reality is often more difficult than it seems. But even if one accepts that Blatter has a case, his article seems long on colourful rhetorc and short on solutions, particularly ones that are compatible with competition law. What we are promised is a new Fifa task force to deal with the problem. I am less confident than Blatter that 'this new initiative will bear fruit quickly and decisively.'

Postscript - FT Readers Hit Back At Blatter - 21/10/2005

After what this page thought was an article in the Financial Times by Fifa's Sepp Blatter that showed signs of economic illiteracy, FT readers have hit back in the paper's correspondence columns. Admittedly, one of the letters comes from a self-described former £14 a week Millwall player who confusingly lives in Chislehurst yet appears to be some kind of Marxist. Another letter from Mr Henry Samuel of Barnes SW3 notes that Blatter shows 'a surprising lack of understanding of economic theory and how it applies to the workings of professional football.' As this writer points out, 'Professional football is an interest and passion for fans, an occupation for players and a business for club owners. Each of these stakeholders has competing interests.' The letter continues, 'Professional football shares many attributes with the entertainment industry: star talent commands vast sums of money; talent agents and others have motives not always aligned with the best interests of those they represent or the industry; and the profit motive of producers/owners is not their only objective - ego, publicity and celebrity also play leading roles.' Of course, football fans do not always like the entertainment link: it grates on me when matches at Charlton are introduced with the cry 'It's showtime at The Valley!' One almost expects to see a line of dancing girls rather than footballers. However, the writer makes a good point when he says that 'capital flowing into the sport has not, in itself, been a bad thing.' Fans have been benefitted from better stadia: going to Portsmouth tomorrow to sit on the open away end in the rain reminds me of the importance of that. Where I think that the writer is on less sure ground is when he recommends an American system of salary caps, draft rules etc. used in sports such as baseball and American football. It is argued, 'This model is a more regulated approach than the more freewheeling capitalist style adopted in Europe.' This is a reversal of the usual roles of America and Europe. However, it was made possible by a rather extraordinary decision on anti-trust law as it applied to professional sport taken by the Supreme Court a long time ago. European competition law, rightly or wrongly, can be much more restrictive.