Political Football

The government has passed a symbolic motion of no confidence in the Football Association.
The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee chairman Damian Collins said: "No change is no option" and that "if they don't pick up fairly quickly, reform will be delivered to them."

The committee has published two reports since 2010 recommending greater representation at the FA for fans and the grassroots game, as well as more diversity in positions of authority. It also wants to dilute the perceived dominance of the Premier League. Collins has said the FA was given six months to meet the government guidance on best practice for sports governance but had failed to do so. That guidance called for things such as a move towards gender equality on boards, more independent oversight, more accountability and term limits for office bearers.

That would be a committee with 10 middle aged white men and one middle aged white woman, so "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. And, being deliberately politically incorrect here and risking being compared with a Sky anchorman making off air comments about a female assistant referee, why should there be gender equality on the FA board when many times more men play football than women? (I ask this as someone who would welcome the women's game flourishing and predicted many years ago that it would become a big participation game and potentially the largest spectator sport for women).

The FA is a hard organisation to defend. And the government has a lever: the FA receives over £30 million of public funding each year. Eh? One wonders why the FA, even for community programmes, should qualify for any public money. That would seem a very easy budget cut to make and I wouldn't link it to reform, I'd just withdraw it.

But I am intrigued by what FIFA will make of this. FIFA is a truly awful, blatantly corrupt organisation. World football manages to continue to be highly successful despite rather than because of FIFA. But, whatever you think of FIFA, it has a clear rule prohibiting political interference. In the FIFA Statutes, Article 23 (c) requires its members "to be independent and avoid any form of political interference".

So, if the government does "deliver reform" to our FA, will FIFA take a dim view of it?

Lots of people got on high horses about the remembrance poppies affair last year after FIFA fined England following the World Cup qualifier against Scotland. But I thought FIFA got it right, in terms of poppies on the players' shirts. While we don't see the poppy as being a political symbol, we might easily see acts of remembrance for the fallen soldiers of other countries being just that - political. And, as Martin Samuel pointed out, you don't see other sports changing their kit around the time of Remembrance Day. Nor would you expect swimmers to wear poppies while competing.  Or competitors in just about any other sport. Poppies on shirts is some weird football thing that has got out of hand.

So if FIFA were to impose sanctions on the FA because of political interference aimed at encouraging diversity and equality, stand by for more angst.

Though if England were banned from appearing in the next World Cup Finals that might be a blessing and a relief, reducing national angst significantly.

FA Reform: MPs pass 'no confidence' motion, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38920489
FIFA's Statutes are at: http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf