Football Reform.
Has Association Football reached its zenith? "Certainly not," is the
reply I invariably give to any enthusiast or cynic who asks me the
question. Remember, there are a good many reforms that must be made, for
a game must keep up its position and also retain its popularity with the
masses, who are the mainstay of football. As I have already remarked, I
have a great respect for the F.A., and they have a great deal to do with
the game which is recognised now as the game of the country. It is much
easier to criticise than to legislate, and much of the work done by
these associations does not get the credit it deserves. Facts are
stubborn things, and when my old club, Tottenham Hotspur, played in the
English Cup Final, at the Crystal Palace, in April, before a record
crowd of 114,000, it was said that these figures would never be beaten.
It certainly has not been done in England, although it has been very
nearly approached, but last April, at Hampden Park, it was overshadowed
by 20,000 more onlookers. Cricket has had an infinitely longer innings
than football, but I can see no just reason nor impediment why football,
especially Association, should not go on for at least the lifetime of
the present generation. The majority of sports, such as cycling,
running, etc., have died through the want of proper management, and
sports as a whole should be controlled by an Association of Amateurs in
the proper sense of the word. Probably it is not known to many of my
readers that the F.A., to save the game from falling into the hands of a
speculator, have restricted the dividends to be paid to any club to 5
per cent. By the way, this rule does not apply to Scotland, but before
long I hope they will follow in the steps of their English brethren.
Again, to show how pure professional clubs are, directors, whether they
be five or fifteen, are not entitled to draw any money from the club,
and this shows that the real sportsmanlike spirit prevails at the helm
of professional football, and certainly no reform in this way is desired
or required. Rumours of a National League are quite rife in the air, but
on going into the matter, I hardly see any desirability for the idea
bearing fruit. For one reason, if it did come off it would become very
speculative, and, like the big trusts in America have done, do much
damage to the smaller tradesmen. Even look at the possibility of such a
great league when one comes to deal with the matter thoroughly from a
geographical point of view, and I have spent many hours in endeavouring
to see how such a league could become workable. Rivalry in football is
one of its biggest assets, and in this way I should like to see the big
Southern clubs formed into a Southern League and the Northern clubs into
a Northern League, and the two top clubs of each League to fight out the
question of supremacy. As I have already stated, I consider that the
present governing body of Association football is admirably constituted,
and it will be a sorry day for the game if the leading clubs rebel. At
the same time, systems are rarely if ever perfect, so I should like to
make a few suggestions upon the following points:
1. The transfer system.
2. The wage limit.
3. Neutral referees should be appointed by an independent body
of the Association.
Dealing firstly with the transfer system, I think it is iniquitous, and
when the Players' Union was first formed this was one of the burning
questions of the day. I fought the matter out strenuously, because at
that time the rules of the F.A. were contrary to the League. As
secretary I appealed to the F.A., and expected great things, but instead
of compelling the League to bring its laws into line, the Association
altered its own to correspond with those of the League. Looking at this
from a broad point of view, it is hard on a player who has cost his club
nothing, but has signed on for a year. At the end of that season he is
free, and his old club can put an astonishing large sum on his head.
This is hardly in accordance with English love of fair play, and is
probably one of the few blots on the game. I am looking forward to the
day when this system shall be abolished, and the player shall be a man,
not a slave. Of course, if a club gets a large transfer for a player,
then in one way it should have some compensation if he leaves them, but
in some cases a young fellow goes elsewhere and they get more out of his
transfer fees than they ever paid him in wages. It must be admitted that
things at the present day are infinitely better than they were some
years ago. The player has the right of a special appeal to a Committee
of the League, and the amount asked for players' transfers has been
greatly reduced. Still, I think that his club should keep him until his
transfer is settled. Talking about the old Players' Union, it reminds me
that at one meeting we had, a player stated that if a club had a horse
they wanted to part with, some one would have to find the horse in
fodder until the negotiations were finished. A player is during that
time between the devil and the deep blue sea, and has to entirely
support himself during that period, and I have known many excellent
players give up the game for this reason.
Turning next to the question of the limit wage of L4 per week for any
professional, there are a great many pros and cons in this case, and
once again I think there is a certain amount of room for improvement.
Should the abolition of the transfer system become law, ere long the
wage limit will have to be most seriously considered. The clubs
themselves have the power to alter it at any annual meeting of the F.A.
They brought it upon themselves to a certain extent, for at the general
meeting it is the clubs that settle such points as these. It cannot be
denied that much of the levelling of the clubs in recent years must be
attributed greatly to this rule. Whether it has been for the good of the
game is another question, but often a player knows that if he plays an
ordinary game he can always secure L4 per week. He has no monetary
incentive to improve himself, and this is perhaps the reason why "star
artists" do not come to the front more frequently. Last year the F.A.
raised the fee for playing in an International game from three guineas
to ten, which, to my mind, was a step in the right direction, although
the player should consider the honour of playing for his country above
any mercenary reason. Again, if a professional footballer could have
such a long connection with the game as a professional cricketer, a wage
of L4 per week would not be so bad, but as his career is a short one,
no time can be depended upon. This should be well weighed by the
administrators who look after the interests of the players. I should
like to see the control of the game, as far as the appointment of
referees and linesmen is concerned, left to an independent body to be
appointed by the F.A., who will give the appointments without favour. It
may be rather a tall order just at present, but the suggestion is worthy
of consideration. Should an official who wears glasses referee in a
first-class match? is a question which is greatly discussed throughout
the land. After talking the matter over with an old player, my opinion
is that if a player can play the game in glasses surely he can follow
the ball as a referee. An old player who was in conversation with me the
other day was exceedingly bitter on the question, and I should really
think that if the matter was put strongly before the F.A., sanction
would be given to an old player to follow his favourite game in the
capacity of referee. Whilst speaking about referees, I should like to
see the Association give him power to order a man off the field for a
foul without having to report him to the parent body. The punishment to
the club by losing him would be quite sufficient, and we may be sure
they would not deal with him very lightly.