Is Everton a catholic club?

Everton's famous (and, unfortunately these days rare) derby win over Liverpool last week has prompted me to finish this piece which, you'll see from the references, involved quite a lot of research on a question I was sure I already knew the answer to.

Occasionally I see articles in the press which proclaim Everton is the catholic club on Merseyside, or that it isn't. Or which ask "is Everton catholic or protestant?" I've never given them much time before but I stumbled on one which gave some interesting insights into the background to the questions and led me to some further items, one of them a 474 page PhD thesis on the history of sectarianism in Liverpool over a period of two centuries.

However, I can cut to the chase and give to the quick answer before diving down the rabbit hole: the answer to the question is "is Everton catholic or protestant?" is quite definitely neither. I have on occasion debated the question with people who are genuine scousers (rather than, as me, born nearby in Lancashire) and who have occasionally been adamant as to the answer. But I know from my own experience that both clubs are essentially non-denominational. The anecdotes I normally recount to prove the point stem from the 1960s and 1980s.

In the 1980s there was a strange brief flirtation with "half and half" bobble hats, generally with an English club and a Scottish club. My recollection (confirmed by one of the links below) is that there were Everton/Rangers and Everton/Celtic hats. There were also definitely Liverpool/Celtic and Liverpool/Rangers hats, which showed up rather better with the colour contrast. My recollection is that the prevalence of these hats demonstrated no specific correlation between either Merseyside club and the undoubtedly religious based Glasgow clubs. They were also not particularly popular and pretty much frowned on by the majority of Merseyside football fans.

Which ties up with my 1960s anecdote. In those days it was necessary to get in the ground and onto the terracing by 45 minutes before kick off to get a decent speck, at least if you weren't still a full height adult. Which is rather a contrast to today, with allocated seating meaning that fans congregate in the refreshment bars  until 10 minutes before kick off, so there is no atmosphere in the stadium until just before the teams come out. Whereas back then there would often be a lot of chanting and singing in the half an hour before kick off, especially for big games. At Goodison in the 60s for the everyday games some fans on Gwladys Street started to relieve the boredom of the wait by chanting "Celtic" to which an equally small group would respond "Rangers". On and on it would go Celtic-Rangers-Celtic-Rangers until the rest of the crowd had had enough and drowned it out chanting "Everton". Not much evidence for a Catholic club there.

And to sort of prove my point, here is a Liverpool-Celtic half and half hat which you can currently buy online from a shop in the Anfield area:

I''ve often pooh-poohed the Everton is Catholic shibboleth by recounting the simple if mundane fact that Everton, as St Domingo F. C., was founded by a Methodist chapel minister for his younger congregation members to play football in the winter and cricket in the summer. Moreover, as the original St Domingo's morphed into Everton and then split into two clubs, Everton and Liverpool, it would be very odd for one to be Protestant and the other Catholic. As Michael Kenrick says both clubs were essentially formed by the same group of wealthy, middle-class people who were predominantly protestants, with a significant sprinkling of freemasons.

What I learned from reading the links below was that the early movers and shakers at both Everton and subsequently, when it came into existence as the Devil's spawn, Liverpool, worked hard to ensure that sectarianism had no place. Oh, they fell out about lots of other stuff  - part of the Everton-Liverpool split was to do with who got the beer sales, or indeed whether there should be any (Methodists, you see?).

Much later, with both clubs being firmly non-denominational, the Catholic hierarchy in Liverpool also worked hard to keep religion out of secular activities such as local politics and, yes, football. The Anglican and Catholic leaders on Merseyside have strived for many decades to forge strong ecumenical links, to the extent that one Anglican bishop from Liverpool interviewed by the Belfast Telegraph in the 1990s didn't want to be referred to as 'protestant', preferring the phrase 'catholic and reformed'. Which is strictly correct, of course. That reporter was of course able to find hardline protestants who wanted no part of papal infallability or what they call 'Maryology' by visiting an Orange Lodge, and there are still annual Orange day parades, though I had to look that up as I wasn't ever aware of such things when I  lived on Merseyside, which was until the mid 1980s. The last serious sectarian riot in Liverpool was probably in 1909 and there hasn't been any significant sectarian violence on Merseyside - I'm not counting a bit of name calling - since the second world war.  I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that when there was it was linked in any way to football. 

The Belfast Telegraph article concluded that football was the new religion on Merseyside and everything points to that religion being blind to any others. Martin Odoni (see link below) says that there is no particularly solid evidence to support the proposition that Everton is a Catholic club and Liverpool Protestant, other than an assumed similarity to the rivalry in Glasgow which he refers to as a  "silogistic fallacy". One can understand why people who don't understand the city of Liverpool might think there were parallels with Glasgow as Liverpool has the highest catholic population of any English city, with similar proportions of catholics and protestants to Glasgow*. But really one might just as well say there's a lot of folk in both cities whose antecedents had something to do with ships.

Returning to football, Odoni describes the Merseyside football rivalry as unique, the clubs being far more intertwined from the outset than the Glasgow clubs ever were, the split stemming from a business feud that turned personal. As a result of the close geographic proximity of the clubs it has been common throughout the existence of the clubs for families to split in temrs of support for the blues and reds, which would hardly happen if the support was sectarian based.

Indeed, if the Everton hierarchy was Catholic, why would they have moved in the 1890s to a ground adjoining St Luke's Anglican church?  St Luke's is sometimes called 'the church with its own football ground'. So close is the relationship with Everton that funeral and memorial services for prominent Evertonians such as Harry Catterick and Andy King (photo below) have been held there. 

The Parish vicar was appointed as Everton club chaplain in 1994 and became a leading figure in Everton's former players foundation.

Indeed maybe some of this was why Geoffrey Wheatcroft, writing an article on politics in the Guardian in 2004, is the only person I've seen to state that Everton was the protestant team and Liverpool the catholic. This prompted many reader comments to the effect that any religious affiliations exist only as a memory and sectarianism is repudiated in the city, prompting a correction to be printed two days later. Which just goes to show you can trust the Guardian to get even an incorrect argument the wrong way round.

So where did the Everton is Catholic story come from? Possibly it stemmed from the fact that after the war Everton was the first club to set up a scouting network in Ireland. They recruited a number of Irish players, including Peter Farrell and Tommy Eglington both of whom played around 400 times for the club in the 1940s and 50s. It's possible that the idea took hold that the link was stronger, to the point where Liverpudlian families, such as Cilla Black's, espoused the belief that Everton supporters must be Catholics and Liverpudlians Protestants. But there was never any substance in it and Kenrick concludes none of it means very much today except to a few zealots and fundamentalists.

Oh one can point to random factoids and make a sandcastle argument from them. For example Liverpool apparently didn't sign an Irish catholic until Ronnie Whelan in 1979. But Everton had the better scouting links there and being a catholic didn't stop Tommy Smith signing for Liverpool in 1960 and staying until 1978 even though some in his family had queried whether he would belong there. 

The fact that the football rivalry is not sectarian is remarkable in a city that did suffer from soured sectarian relations between its residents for two centuries with many reports of sectarian violence (just not associated with football). Local politicians were often elected on the basis of their ethno-religious pedigree until the 1970s.Weakening sectarianism in Liverpool has often been attributed to slum clearance but the reasons are probably more complex, according to a 2015 PhD thesis by Keith Roberts who summarised his work as follows:

".... the downfall of sectarianism coincided with the creation of a collective identity; an identity based not on ethno-religious affiliations, but on a commonality, an acknowledgment that principles which united were more significant than factors which divided. Importantly, the success of the city’s two football teams, Everton FC and Liverpool FC, gave the city a new focus based upon a healthy sporting rivalry rather than sectarian vehemence. A complex interplay of secularism and ecumenism, the economic misfortunes of Liverpool and their political impact in terms of class politics, the growth of a collective city identity and the omnipotence of (non-religiously derived) football affiliations combined to diminish Liverpool’s once acute sectarian fault-line."

So the non sectarian nature of the city's great passion for football is seen as a significant factor in the decline of sectarianism in the city. Football is indeed th new religion.

I'll end by quoting the conclusion of Martin Odoni's article, which seems to perfectly summarise one of the most special, intense and generally friendly rivalries in world football:

"The reality of the two fanbases, both in the city of Liverpool and beyond, is that there is no clear dividing line. Be it religious, social, historical, geographical, or even familial, there is no clear tendency influencing which of the two teams a football supporter on Merseyside is likely to support. Fans of both clubs are found in large numbers in all areas of the city, and always have been. Fans of both clubs are found with enormous frequency in the same family units, probably more so than in any other footballing rivalry, and, again, always have been. Yes, Catholics are about as likely to support Liverpool as Everton, and Protestants are about as likely to support Everton as Liverpool. Families of rich backgrounds, families of poor backgrounds, families of moderate backgrounds, if they are living on Merseyside, are as likely to have fans from both fanbases among their number as they are to have fans of only one of the two clubs.

The familial point is particularly strong, because in most parts of the world where there is more than one team, family preference is likely to be the decisive influence on which team a fan chooses, just as much as it will heavily influence which religion that person adopts. The fact that families on Merseyside tend to follow suit on religion, but can go either way on taste in football teams, is the most decisive bit of evidence available of the non-correlation between the two clubs and the Protestant/Catholic divide. Where fans do believe the myth of the teams being sectarian e.g. where a Protestant chooses to support Liverpool because of supposed Protestant sympathies at Anfield, they are probably doing so simply because of what they have heard, and not checked the history themselves.

It is a history they should feel is worth knowing. Partly because it is a remarkable and fascinating story in its own right. But more than that, without knowing such a history, without knowing what the rivalry is all about, what is the point of indulging in a rivalry at all?"

* Wikipedia makes the unsubstantiated claim that "75% (estimated)" of Liverpool's population have some form of Irish ancestry. This seems a bit on the highside to me: my personal experience is that I can recall school mates proclaiming Welsh links but not Irish. I didn't find any in my family tree going back to 1800, which admittedly proves nothing. UK census data does not distinguish between types of Christian in England. 57% of Liverpool's 2021 population was classified as Christian and 29% no religion. I've seen elsewhere estimates that 25% of Liverpool's population identifies as Catholic. If so the Anglicans would only slightly outnumber those of no religion and Catholics. In Scotland they do collect that data. For Glasgow it's not that different from my estimate for Liverpool: 32% Protestant, 29% Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/glasgow-merseyside.48424/ says you couldn't get Everton-Rangers half and half hats but as they would have been all blue it wouldn't have shown and the next link has someone explicitly saying they had a Rangers/Everton hat. It also mentions many other combinations and has a photo of a Wolves/Rangers combo: https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/who-remembers-the-half-n-half-hat-craze-in-the-80s.66396/

https://www.facebook.com/TheKopLocker/posts/rangerscelticrangersceltic-who-remembers-those-chants-from-the-old-kop-both-badg/1626387414196721/ shows half and half enamel badges with Liverpool/Celtic and Liverpool/Rangers and recalls the tiresome "Rangers/Celtic" chanting I heard at Goodison happening at Anfield.

Catholic or Protestant? Are Evertonians catholic or protestant? Seeking a balanced view by Michael Kenrick, Toffee Web editor https://www.toffeeweb.com/fans/beingblue/religion.asp

Football history: is it true that Everton is a Catholic club and Liverpool a Protestant  club? Martin Odoni, 18 Sept 2020. TheCritique archives, wordpress. https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/football-history-is-it-true-that-everton-is-a-catholic-club-and-liverpool-is-a-protestant-club/. This piece includes a lot of detail on the split between the (Everton) "teetotallers" faction and the original saviour of Everton and founder of Liverpool, John Houlding. He covers the historical oddity that while Everton is officially the older club, Liverpool's company number is actually older, muddying the waters about which was actually the first of the two clubs. He gives a blow by blow account of what was a bitter and quite childish rivalry in the 1890s. Everton were probably complicit in keeping Liverpool out of the Football League in 1892 - they had to wait to join the new division 2 in 1893, playing in the Lancashire League in the meantime. Both teams reached the final of the Liverpool F.A.'s prime competition, the Senior Cup in 1893 - the first derby. Liverpool won 1-0 and the arguments started about refereeing bias in favour of Liverpool in that match, arguments that have rumbled on through Clive Thomas disallowing Bryan Hamilton's FA Cup semi final "winner"in 1977, Alan Hansen's goalline handball in the 1984 League Cup final, Everton's disallowed last minute winner (off Don Hutchison's back) in 2000 while a year later Gary Macallister scored in the last minute from a free kick that arguably shouldn't have been given. The 1893 incident was the most serious as Everton's accusations of refereeing corruption when a late penalty was not given to the blues for handball led to the trophy presentation being delayed until a later date. Eleven years later Everton, who finished third that year managed to lose to Stoke City in their last home game, condemning Liverpool to relegation instead of Stoke. Allegations that Everton deliberately threw the game were never substantiated but it was all fuel to the fire of ausually friendly but occasionally bitter rivalry that has continued from there. But it's nothing to do with religion.

https://efcheritagesociety.com/st-lukes-the-church-with-its-own-football-ground/

The rise and fall of Liverpool sectarianism. Keith Daniel Roberts, Liverpool University PhD thesis 2015. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/2010280/3/RobertsKei_April2015_2010280.pdf. This is a serious academic study and is 474 pages long

Scouse for cripes! Geoffrey Wheatcroft, the Guardian 20 Oct 2004. A correction was published on 22 October 2004 after an avalanche of comments from Liverpudlians (i.e. residents of Liverpool, not supporters of Liverpool FC). The article was about the bizarre occasion when Michael Howard insisted Boris Johnson go to Liverpool to apologise for a tactless article about self pity. 

The struggle to stay 'Protestant' on Merseyside. Belfast Telegraph 11 Jul 1996

For more on the 1909 riot see The Belfast of England, BBC archive https://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2009/06/18/history_sectarian_1909_feature.shtml

More unintended consequences - could the football regulator threaten English football?

Many things puzle me about the government's plan for a football regulator, the Independent Regulator for Football, known as IRef. (I'm not making that up). These include why the government thinks this is more important than making exisiting regulators for more fundamental services, e.g. water, actually work. And why it thinks this is more worthy of parliamentary time and ministerial attention than fixing the social care crisis that they said they'd fixed in 2021 (spoiler alert - they hadn't). Or why on earth they want to risk getting tangled up in points deductions that could threaten the viability of punished clubs, ostensibly in order to make them more sustainable.

However the biggest puzzle for me is how it is even possible, as FIFA's statutes prohibit political interference in football. Several national FA's have been suspended under these statutes, including Nigeria in 2014 and Kuwait in 2015.

The Premier League has had things to say about the proposed regulator but the F.A. seems to have been curiously quiet. Back in 2011 the F.A. had said that there was "no justification for government intervention in the governance of the game" and cautioned that FIFA sanctions could be imposed if politicians exceeded their authority in matters related to the sport. Why so quiet now?

The only thing that has changed is the threat of a European Super League. While not a new idea by any means it has become more real. The reaction of fans saw that off though Boris Johnson's threat to legislate against clubs joining the proposed league might have had some impact. FIFA didn't say very much about Johnson's threat at the time - they might perhaps have considered it helpful. 

FIFA has been criticised over the years for failing to react to government interference in the bidding for and hosting of tournaments. Government involvement in football and football clubs is now very real through sovereign wealth funds such as the Saudi Arabian PIF. 

One would think FIFA would respond to blatant direct government interference in football anywhere in the world. The UK government says it intends the regulator to concentrate on ensuring the financial viability of clubs. But how you can ensure that businesses operating in a competitive environment never go bust, when clubs have occasionally done so since the start of the game, is a puzzle. Sure you can vet business plans. You might be able to insist that clubs change those plans (won't that be popular with the fans!) It might be possible to judge that some plans are unrealistic while others are prudent. But I don't know how you decide that a club's business plan is sufficently rose tinted to require it to be changed. Will IRef decide that, if Manchester United's plan presumes routine Champions League qualification and the concomitant revenues, that is unrealistic? What will the fans in Manchester say if Manchester City is allowed to make such a presumption in its plans but Manchester United, based on recent track record, is not? How would it be fair to allow some clubs to assume European qualification and others not? Equally it would be daft to insist that they all plan on the same basis.

Why should one assume the regulator will have a perfect crystal ball on such matters? Who will take the blame when plans which have been approved by the regulator aren't fulfilled and it all goes wrong?

The regulator will presumably insist on a more prudent approach to plans than hitherto. Which will mean less money to spend and, potentially, a less attractive Premier League. The fans will love it. I can see protests against the regulator rather than the clubs' boards.

The regulator will have the last say over the budgets of not just the Premier League clubs but potentially also all Football League clubs. In deciding how much each club can spend it will be interfering directly in the ability of clubs to compete. Other than getting on the pitch and kicking the ball or intervening in team selection I don't know how much more directly the government could interfere in football than by appointing a separate non-independent* body with powers to intervene directly in what clubs can spend.

Football clubs are businesses and their boards should be allowed to decide how to run their business as they see fit and an on what basis to plan. Some will get it wrong. A small number may go bust. Very few have over many years of football and usually a phoenix club has arisen. 

I don't trust the government to get this right. There must be some risk that FIFA could impose sanctions on English football as a result. But when it comes to government intervention in English football, hasn't it already happened when the UK government did just that when it insisted that Chelsea be sold? 

In the meantime the evident truth that the Premier League's actions against Everton, Nottingham Forest and other clubs were intended to show that a government regulator is not required was plain to see when Richard Masters, the Premier League CEO, wrote a column in the Times the day after the second sanction against Everton was announced. Having said that I agreed with the main points in his article which included the oddity that the government, after all it has said about artificial intelligence, thinks imposing a football regulator is more urgent. Masters spoke of risk and unforeseen consequences.

However, Martin Samuel had great fun at Masters's expense, noting that the unforeseen consequence of the accelerated timetable for reviewing PSR breaches put in place this season. Now Everton has appealed their case will not be finally decided until a week after the end of the season. So several clubs may go into the last match of the season not knowing what result would keep them safe. Samuel ponders the reaction if, say, Luton go chasing a winning goal deep into stoppage time of their last match, in case they need to win it only to let in a goal and lose but find a week later that the draw would have kept them safe.

As Samuel said this unforeseen consequence could have been foreseen by anyone with a brain and  second's thought.

We have government ministers who make clear they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to football every time they open their mouths. And we have the Premier League CEO who makes clear by his actions that he hasn't got a clue either.

It's a wonder the Premier League is so good. But that doesn't mean it will always be so.

* of course the regulator won't be independent. How can it be? Who is going to appoint it's board members?

Yasin Patel discussed government intervention in football and the FIFA statutes in a Church Court Chambers news item, 2 April 2024: 

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/yasin-patel-discusses-government-intervention-in-football-in-law360/#:~:text=There%20are%20numerous%20cases%20in,and%20the%20KFA%20in%202015.

Richard Masters's column Premier League is the envy of the world - government must not put that at risk was in the Times on 9 April 2024

What's Going On?

What's going on?" sang 4 non Blondes in their hit song What's Up. It's got to the point where a lot of football fans are asking "what's going on?", if not WTF?

VAR was oversold as an answer to inconsistency in refereeing, But week after week we see examples of rulings which are controversial because - guess what? - they are a matter of judgement. The last seconds goal for Wolves disallowed for offside led to the Wolves manager saying no-one who knew anything about football would disallow it. Lineker and his two cohorts on MoTD agreed. I'd have disallowed it every day of the week when I was reffing boys' football and I listened with interest as two pundits on Radio 5Live said the same. That's the thing with judgement calls - they're judgement calls.

We're promised that semi-automatic VAR offside rulings, as they do in Europe, will improve things. Not looking at this example:

Ha - offside? When I was trained as a referee (and all the time I played) that's a classic example of "level". The law still says that a player is not offside if "level with the second last opponent". But it also now says the player is offside if "any part of of head, body or feet" is nearer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent". But the chap's foot above is very difficult to see in real time when standing on the line on a windy park pitch with a flag in your hand (a task I always thought much harder than actually refereeing). But you can see, even in the blur of action, that he's level. 

VAR has in effect changed the law without it being changed. It was always a tenet of football that the laws could be applied at every level of the game - even where they can't afford goal nets, which are still optional (though not in the Premier League). But not when it comes to video technology. You'd be onside in most leagues in the world but not the elite game. 

Meanwhile, the Premier League deducted a further two points off Everton this week, which was in line my expectation (I predicted three or maybe two - see Justice, Natural Justice and Double Jeopardy 20 March 2024). Much of the media discussion since then has revealed an almost universal puzzlement on the part of football fans - not just Evertonians - about what the league is trying to achieve with its Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Nobody thinks Everton, Forest or Leicester are unsustainable - though they could be tilted into it by the punishments they are receiving. I listened to pundits chatting on TalkSport the day the sanction was announced. They were totally bemused that Everton may face a third charge associated with interest on loans which the club says is for the new stadium and so outside the PSR regime. One pundit said it made no sense and it was time for an amnesty.

I doubt fans of most Premier League clubs other than Manchester City and perhaps Chelsea would agree with an amnesty, especially if it let City off scot free. But what is clear is that the rules will almost certainly change fairly soon to a totally different basis.

Pul McInnes put it well when he said in the Guardian that the Premier League has created the impression of a rigged game. That, Paul, is because it's not an impression, it's a fact.

The new rules will probably be based on the top teams being capped to spending a multiple of the lowest ranked team's broadcast revenue. This feels like progress - there is some limit to what any club can spend. But when you remember that the whole PSR/UEFA financial fair play (FFP) regime was brought in to ensure Bayern, Real Madrid, Barca, Man United, Liverpool and Juve stayed at the top for ever (and, more to the point, Roman Abramovich's Chelsea was excluded - oops, too late, but maybe Manchester City can be kept out of the party...) then you twig that it's to spike Newcastle's financial firepower. 

But more than that it's to ensure that big clubs are profitable all the time. Now football clubs have never been profitable, bar the odd, exceptional season. But the American venture capital owners of Man U and Liverpool don't want profits someday, when they sell. They want dividends paid every year. The new financial rules being discussed by the Premier League will ensure that. But what will the fans think?

As Martin Samuel said in the Times

...profit is a dream in the boardroom, not on the terraces. Whoever huddled over a cup of half-time Bovril longing for the chairman to be paid a lovely dividend? Well before the advent of the Premier League, in a leafy corner of east London, a director of West Ham United used to hold court at the bar overlooking the putting green, having played his 18 holes. “Such a well-run club, West Ham,” he would tell his audience. “In 20 years I’ve never had to put my hand in my pocket.” 

In his other columns railing against PSR and FFP Samuel has said:

The Premier League isn't worried about competition. It doesn't care about promoted clubs taking on the best, challenging the established order, not just at the top but even in the middle and lower middle. It wants Crystal Palace heads just above water, or even Sheffield United, rock bottom but compliant*.

Had Forest sold Brennan Johnson for £17.5 million less earlier in the season and not bought players they could well be where Sheffield United are now. And that would be fine. Masters (Richard Masters, the Premier League CEO) has no problem with Sheffield United 0 Newcastle United 8. There are no rules outlawing circumstances that lead a club to concede 26 goals in six homes games, as Sheffield United did between December 26 and March 4. That's all lovely. That all adds up. It's trying to avoid this that is the crime. Playing catch-up. Refusing to accept a dismal fate."

Oh but won't it all be wonderful when there's a government backed regulator? Er, no, why would it be? We have the world's most succesful domestic football product. The man (or woman) appointed by Whitehall can only cock it up. 

Here are some straws in the wind. Take the owner's test. The government was always in favour of the Saudi take over of Newcastle. It was the Premier League that had a problem becauise of pirate broadcasts in the middle east. The West Bromwich Albion owner was sound for a while but took money out when his other businesses got into difficulty and did a flit. The Chinese owner of Reading failed the Premier League owner's test but passed the EFL's at a time the UK government was cosying up to China. Reading is now sinking in unpaid bills. 

Oh, you can doubt the ability of the Premier League and EFL to assess these things - who wouldn't? Maybe we should trust the big audit companies like Deloittes. So what about Dozy Mmobuosi? He's a Nigerian tycoon who didn't pass the Premier League and EFL tests when he tried to buy Sheffield United. But Deloitte and the US Nasdaq exchange thought he was sound. His Tingo Mobile (I'm not making this up) was supposedly worth $1bn but it eventually turned out that it actually had no meaningful customers or operations and had about $15 in it's bank account. These things aren't as easy as they seem. 

So I had hoped that the government would go cool on implementing a compulsory government backed football regulator. After all, why would they want the controversy of docking clubs points, or declining prospective owners with money to spend?  Maybe they think that, like the water industry, the preposterously named Ofwat (er, we want it on, not off, bozos) deflects the blame when the sewage is flowing in the rivers. Have they really not noticed that it doesn't?

Anyway our moribund government, incapable of implementing anything much that actually matters, has announced recently that it intends to press on with the football regulator, supported on the sidelines by Labour, who normally won't commit to any policy. It was summed up for me when Lucy Frazer, the Culture Secretary (culture - has she been to Goodison?) announced that "football has been at the heart of our nation for 200 years". D'oh, the first football club in the world (Sheffield FC since you ask) was formed in 1855. That's er....169 years ago Tracy. Not good at maths or sport, eh?

This all gives me further ammunition that politicians don't usually know what they are talking about, but especially when it comes to football. I seriously doubt that I can vote for a party that introduces or supports the ridiculous idea of a football regulator. Which could be awkward as that rules out Tories and Labour. I'm not sure about the LibDems (who is?) but some of their peers have been pressing for the return of free to air broadcasts for a selection of Premier League matches. This won't be particularly compatible with current broadcasting contracts but, more importantly, it would wouldn't be compatible with the Premier League retaining its international standing as the best domestic league in the world. Fans will just love it when we return to our leading clubs selling their best players to Italy, Spain and Germany as happened with Keegan, Rush, McManaman and Beckham. Or more likely, to Saudi Arabia.

Who'd vote for that? Which may leave me few options to vote for. I wonder what Plaid Cymru's policy is on a football regulator? And would it even apply to Wales?

The world's not gone crazy. It's post crazy.

* Sheffield United's compliance as far as the Premier League is concerned won't stop them being docked points if and when the go back to the EFL for breaching that league's rules. 

The 4 Non Blondes song is just a 1990s pop song but I love it, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NXnxTNIWkc

Dozy Mmobuosi was in Martin Samuel's Times column on  24 March 2024

Premier League has created the impression of a rigged game with PSR. Paul McInnes, The Guardian 9 April 2024
Martin Samuel. Every owner gets to be the Glazers once anchoring takes hold. Times 19 March 2024

No room for football now Premier League plays out in law chambers Martin Samuel Times 18 March 2024 noted how we can't necessarily believe what we see on the pitch as things will be decided elsewhere. If Everton appeal their latest points deduction the vedict will come after the final matches of the season. There was a very odd atmosphere at Everton's last home game against Burnley, two days before the expected (justifiably it turned out) second points deduction.Partly, I think, because no-one understands what the  result is actually likely to mean.

If you don't believe me that goal nets are optional in the laws of the game check https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en. I found such snippets useful when playing and refereeing, being well aware that goal nets were optional but corner flags weren't.

And for level is onside see: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/#offside-position