Farcical Fridays

Last Saturday the most anticipated Premier League season for years (although that's what we say every year) made an overdue return, and to be quite honest, what an anti-climax it was, with reigning champions Leicester City going down two goals to one against an extremely depleted Hull City team. Gary Lineker presenting Match of the Day in his pants was probably the only true highlight of Saturday, with the fixtures only being able to be described as dour. But I digress.
The purpose of this piece is to discuss the arrival of Sky Sports' new addition to their footballing broadcasts; 'Friday Night Football', and it's possible impacts.

Friday Night Football: A good idea?

Now, as a League 2 fan who dabbles into the depths of non-league on a regular basis too, the fact that the Sky Sports corporate steamroller have ventured into a Friday night prime time slot as part of their £8bn TV deals means very little to me, and quite honestly I was unaware of it happening until very recently. It has no bearing whatsoever on my attendances at Wycombe Wanderers games, and its introduction will purely give me the option of watching a Premier League game at home or in the pub on a Friday night if I wish to do so. However, for many, the introduction of  'Friday Night Football' will have consequences - some positive, and some negative.
The clear winners here, are without a doubt the broadcasters, another box has well and truly been ticked, they have managed to secure Premier League football on a Friday, meaning effectively it could mean that we could see the stars of the Premier League, and the likes of Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher grace our screens every day between Friday and Monday, another nail in the coffin away from the old school tradition of purely having games on a Saturday at 3pm and the odd few on a Tuesday night. But like I've alluded to before, the giants of the corporate sports world (Sky and BT) care very little about fans, rather customers and viewing figures, and alongside this - lining their pockets with hard cash. If Friday Night Football is a success, which I'm predicting it will be - with the likes of Rachel Riley and Jeff Stelling involved, it could prove to be an extremely profitable venture. Obviously the arrival of Friday Night Football will also go down well with those who are Sky viewers, another opportunity to savour the delight of one of the most elite leagues on the planet - and with the prospect of more televised football it will likely mean more Sky Sports subscription purchases - another profitable tributary in the ever flowing monetary stream that is Sky Sports.
Another benefactor of the new Friday fixtures are pubs, as someone who has worked many a Friday night behind the bar I know that Friday is more often than not the busiest night of the week, the added incentive of football being televised is only going to see an influx in the amount of people visiting their local. Although, if you're like me and were unaware of these Friday games, I doubt it is likely to make too much of a difference to some establishments... regardless Sky Sports win in terms of exposure and pubs buying the rights to show these extra games.
Now, I fully appreciate the likes of BT Sport and Sky Sports and their ease of use, the users ability to discover new sports and their ever growing influence on sporting culture, however, the introduction of Friday Night Football could prove to be extremely detrimental to both football fans who regularly attend matches, and smaller league and non-league clubs who already live in the shadows of the superstar teams of the Premier League.
Although the Premier League have recognised the extortionate ticket prices and have therefore capped away tickets to a maximum of £30, the concern is logistic nightmares these Friday night matches could bring to away and home fans alike. Take tonight for example, as Southampton travel to Old Trafford to take on Manchester United, an 8pm kick off. A fan driving from Southampton would take on average three and half hours to arrive at the home of Manchester United, meaning your Average Joe working a 9-5 weekday job hasn't got a hope in hell of attending the match, whereas if the fixture was played on a Saturday they would more than likely be able to take the trip. In addition to this public transport is far from trustworthy, or frequent for that matter, with trains available after evening matches, especially on a Friday, at a premium. It would be a different story if television money acquired by clubs from the broadcaster was used to help out their fans that evidently care for the club, but obviously this feeling isn't a mutual one. This means fans could become alienated from their club, and attendances could prove to suffer because of this - Sky Sports win again.
Away from the glitz and glamour of the Premier League in the ever so different world of the football league and more so non-league there are concerns that the introduction of football on a Friday could see attendances continue to fall. Already faced by Tuesday night televised Champions League matches, some non-league clubs, such as Wealdstone and Oxford City who play in the National League South have begun moving fixtures from a Tuesday to a Monday night, as attendances have plummeted as the obsession with the biggest club competition in Europe continues to grow. It could indeed prove to be beneficial with football fans looking for another local club to support on a Saturday, however, time will very much tell.

Non-League teams have changed fixture dates to retain attendances

By no means has this piece been a tirade against Sky Sports, merely a way of analysing the effects of the introduction of Friday Night Football. However, what is clear to me is that we've enter into a new realm of televised football, in which money well and truly talks with sports channels getting preference over football fans. Evidently, not everybody is happy about its introduction, however what is clear is that it has arrived, and it's here to stay.

B teams: The Death of lower league football?

Back in 2014 Greg Dyke - FA Chairman announced a revolutionary plan to restructure English league football as we know it today. His idea was to introduce B teams to the football league pyramid and add a third division to cater for these new teams in the future - seeing the football league system go from 92 teams to 100, across five divisions. Most rational thinking FA members and clubs responded to it extremely negatively, giving his idea the proverbial two fingers, and Dyke's vision was rightly quashed. However, it seems in recent weeks this idea of B teams playing on same platform as League 1 and 2 teams has resurfaced.
To most league fans with any sort of understanding of the historical standing of the league system they would identify giving B teams the opportunity to compete alongside league sides could completely damage the integrity of the footballing pyramid in the future. However, money talks, and the recent news that the Premier League have paid £1 million for so called B teams to participate in the English League Trophy from next season is disappointing.

Barnsley lift the English League Trophy

On the surface, this news could be celebrated, the system hasn't been compromised, it is merely giving youth players the opportunity to play in a competitive cup competition, with the chance of silverware and a final at Wembley to play for. However, if you venture past the facade, this has the potential to just be the beginning - a Trojan Horse - a way of infiltrating the Football League. A way of identifying how successful a new system with B teams could be. Personally, this just doesn't sit right with me.
Now, the first clear issue with B teams from the Premier League being incorporated into this tournament, the clue being in the name, is that it's the football league trophy, not some sort of poor excuse of a Premier League reserves cup. As a supporter of a football league club, I do understand that the ELT is by far a priority for football league managers, with low prize money, the inconvenience of extra fixtures and sometimes extra travel - it's relative meaninglessness reflected by low attendances and the fielding of weakened sides, with teams only really starting to give any attention to it with the coup of a Wembley final on the horizon. If anything the trivial nature of the ELT will only become even less desirable for league clubs, with the already wavering competitiveness of the competition becoming even less so. On top an already relatively congested fixture list will be lengthened by at least three games, with the cost of holding these games likely to outweigh the benefits to clubs with low budgets. It could be argued that costs will be covered by increased attendances it matches featuring these B teams, with the supposed glamour of playing Premier League names, but in all honesty if Manchester City B team turns up, you'd be very unlikely to be treated to the likes of Aguero and co. Football league fans dream of playing the likes of Premier League goliaths, not their youngsters - as promising as they may be.
Another objection of this plan, as insignificant as it may seem, is the unpredictability of the plans,and the possibility that they could escalate into Dyke's original five tier division system plan. If the proposed plan of five divisions and 100 clubs got the go ahead, although B teams could progress passed division 3, theoretically, this is fair, however, the idea alone challenges the integrity of the league system and without a shadow of a doubt a bottleneck of quality B team sides would occur. This would put the concept of promotion and relegation as we know it in jeopardy. Not only that, it would mean that league positions that could feasibly be filled by non-league teams with great potential on the cusp of the football league, will instead be taken by B teams with no history, no real opportunity for league progression, and is purely just another cog in the machine of the ever expanding corporate empire the Premier League is becoming.
As a football fan, I do understand that the idea of introducing B teams does have its merits as well. It would give upcoming talent a platform to develop their skills up against well drilled, disciplined professionals that are normally playing to a higher standard than that of U21 level players, with the possibility of unearthing the next English superstar.
Although it is clear that B teams can be successful - just look at Spain and Germany for proof of this, with the likes of Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta all thriving at FC Barcelona B, before becoming cult heroes for the senior squad. It is also clear that a strong youth set up translates well into future first team performance both domestically, in Europe and also on international stage. However, this alone doesn't mean that B teams are the answer.

Carles Puyol and Xavi playing for FC Barcelona B in 1998

In order to quell the dangers of the possible death of today's lower league football a restructuring at youth level is required, not at senior level as Greg Dyke very naively believes. In order to harvest talent and keep it in the England, a shake up of both the youth league system, but at the same time also the way loans from Premier League clubs work is necessary. For example, if the youth Premier League was given a face lift, with more consistency in fixtures and played at bigger venues, rather than unkempt training grounds, it would appeal to more players and fans alike, this in turn would give young players the opportunity to get a taste of the professional game. This alone could possibly encourage more young players to stay in England, rather than make a name for themselves elsewhere. Making a conscious effort to overthrow the loan system could also make an impact. Chelsea currently have 8 players under the age of 21 out on loan to teams outside of the UK, with many others recently being recalled from Dutch club Vitesse - an evident feeder club for Chelsea. Now, if the youth system in England was improved, these players (most without a senior Chelsea appearance), would without a doubt have the opportunity to play week in, week out. Instead, many of them are rotting away on loan and have very little chance of breaking into the Chelsea first team - if they were of the required calibre they'd be there already. Playing in England however, would mean they would understand the pace and style of play, be much more closely monitored, and potentially increase the likelihood of breaking into the senior setup.
So overall, B teams are not the answer, although they can be a great platform for new homegrown talent, in the long run they will do more harm than good. Instead investment is required in youth league development.
It needs to be remembered the Premier League isn't the be all and end all in English football.

International minnows and their place in the game

The beers are on ice. The wall chart is hung proudly, pen at the ready. The patriotic flags and bunting line the street. The Euros are coming. Optimism fills the air, this could be England's year. In reality we'll crash out in the knock outs again, but hey-ho.
On June 10th the tournament begins, showcasing the 24 best teams Europe has to offer, all in with a shot of lifting the prestigious trophy at the beginning of July. However, spare a thought for those who didn't make the cut; Netherlands - very much fancied in qualification - failed to qualify, less shockingly, the likes of San Marino, Andorra and a relatively new addition to the UEFA family - Gibraltar, failed to make it to France - new campaign, same outcome - thrashing after thrashing, demoralised by the powerhouses of the international scene. Seeing these results year after year makes you wonder, do these nations justify being featured on the international scene?
As a non-league football fan, of course if low and behold the humble Aylesbury FC reached the first round of the FA Cup and took on a Goliath of the football league it would be amazing for the fans and the club, and has the ability for momentum to be created for the rest of the domestic season, and most likely be a relatively competitive game - due to the grandeur of the occasion. However, the novelty has definitely worn off for the minnows of the international game, with pretty much any opposition posing a huge threat to the regularly exposed frailties of said national teams.

Gibraltar celebrate their first competitive goal against Scotland

Historically, the likes of Andorra and San Marino have always been renowned as the 'whipping boys' of groups, with squads made up of semi-professional players with the stereotypical jobs of builder and bin-man often amongst their ranks, yes, of course the players themselves must embrace the opportunities to take on their idols, and have the honour of representing their country, but in most cases the demoralisation of a crushing defeat is inevitable - and the statistics definitely don't lie, with Andorra and San Marino both conceding 36 goals in qualifying respectively, whilst Gibraltar, on their maiden venture in international qualification shipped 56 goals in 10 games (but I suppose what do you expect with a population of 30,000 and very little financial backing or resources). Yes, playing adorning your nations crest upon your chest must be a terrific feeling, but if you're going out expecting to be beaten by 4,5, 6 or more goals, is it really worth it? Yes, it's great for the fans - who doesn't love a goal, but for both the team giving the brutal thrashings and the team on the end of them, are international qualifiers becoming completely pointless with the vastly increasing chasm of quality ever growing? Managers, ex-pros and journalists alike seem to think so.
This issue isn't purely a European one, prior to the 2006 World Cup, Australia (now part of the Asian confederation), competed in the Oceania confederation - with Australia and New Zealand being the only nations offering any real footballing impetus, this was reflected by the infamous scoreline of 31-0, against American Samoa. Following what can only be described as a monumental trouncing, the OFC restructured their qualification system to mean that lesser nations still had the opportunities to compete and qualify for major tournaments, but not left red-faced by the likes of Australia on the majority of match days.
The question is; should this same system be implemented in Europe?
Personally, I don't see why it shouldn't. It has proven to be affective in all other confederations, with all using it bar South America - but with only 10 nations competing, it would be pretty unnecessary to implement it anyway. If a staggered qualification system was to be introduced, smaller nations would potentially become more competitive in the long run, as they have the opportunity to gain confidence, see more investment, and more importantly - win games, unlike in the current system.
Alternatively, the system could be altogether be restructured to omit those nations with the lowest UEFA co-efficients, and instead of the European championship qualifiers nations could participate in a different cup, again allowing the opportunity for competitive matches and a chance of silverware - but a huge reduction in ridiculous score lines.
However, on the other hand, in omitting nations, progress in the international football set up in these nations may not necessarily be made, as although games are likely to become much more competitive, the challenge of an experienced regimented international side against a said minnow, could be much more beneficial in developing a side, than if they were playing teams of their own standing. This is reinforced by the fact that although many critics believe European international football is a dying breed, and small nations are ruining the game, through adversity of small player pools, and lack of physical and financial resources, the underdogs of Europe are actually improving at a much quicker rate than the likes of England. Yes, the minnows aren't winning championships, but they're putting in better performances, and conceding far fewer goals (see graphic below).

Source: The Guardian (2014)

Furthermore, if the structure did change, some of the magical fairytale moments in European football history wouldn't have even existed - take Davide Gualtieri's goal for San Marino against England after 8 seconds as a prime example - still the fastest goal in World Cup qualification history - in any continent.

Davide Gualieri celebrates his goal against England in 1993

Fans and the players alike live for these kind of moments, they only come once in a blue moon. Yes, many will argue there is no place for these nations in football - after all in other sports not all nations get invited. But with time, teams wills improve, and minnows become bigger fish. As a man who loves the sport, I believe everyone has a right to inclusion. So stop critiquing, and just enjoy the goals.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster