Not Fit For Purpose

In recent weeks the FA has become more and more shambolic.  The organisation has shown time and time again that they are not fit to be in charge of the game.  I accuse them here of being both incompetent and negligent in their duties of care towards the players.

The number one role of the FA has to be to govern the game, and to ensure, through that governance, the safety of the players who compete in their competitions. I believe, in this respect, that they are not fit for purpose.

Two recent incidents which grabbed the headlines are the tackles of Wigan’s Callum McManaman on Newcastle’s Massaido Haidara, and Sergio Aguero of Manchester City on Chelsea’s Davis Luiz.  Neither player, despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, was punished by the FA.  This shows complete disregard for the injured players, and sends out a message that such tackles are acceptable.  The fact that the FA didn’t act because they said at least one official had seen the offence, is hiding behind their own rules.  Agureo got off because McManaman did, and a precendent was set. In this respect the FA, and their disciplinary process are not fit for purpose.

Following England’s World Cup qualifier in San Marino, reports were rife with accounts of the travelling support singing racist songs aimed at Rio and Anton Ferdinand.  Despite at least one radio station being forced to apologise live on air because the singing was clearly audible on the broadcast, the FA could find ‘no evidence’ that racist songs were sung by any England supporters.  Countless fans and journalists, if approached, would have been able to provide said evidence.  Yet, the FA buried its head, proving to the world that all its rhetoric on tackling racism within the game, is no more than lip-service.  In this respect, and in the matter of investigating misdemeanours by its own, the FA is clearly not fit for purpose.

On of the mandates the FA set itself was to establish and develop football at grass roots level across the length and breadth of England. Despite over £200 million being spent, football is, according to the Sports Minister, “the worst run sport in the country”.  The gulf in wealth between the clubs at the lower end of the game, and those in the upper echelons is gigantic, and getting bigger season after season.  The FA has a duty to care for, and help ensure, the financial stability of all clubs, and not just those who are the global face of brand ‘FA’.  In this aspect, the are also not fit for purpose.

All this brings me to the events of this week.  No-one with a modicum of intelligence could defend the actions of Liverpool striker Luis Suarez in the game against Chelsea.  To bite a fellow professional is reprehensible, heinous, and utterly bizarre.  But the FA’s immediate declaration that the charge of violent conduct and three match suspension that would normally accompany it, was ‘clearly insufficient’, is another example of their disciplinary process being deeply flawed.

While a bite is all those things, and more, it is much less an offence that racially abusing someone, or endangering an opponent’s safety with a reckless challenge.  Yet the FA deem it worse than both, issuing the Uruguayan with a ten match ban.  What is even more perplexing is the way they dealt with, or rather didn’t, deal with Jermaine Defoe in 2006. Defoe bit Javier Mascherano, then at West Ham, and received, on the field, a yellow card.  A precedent had been set.  Earlier in the same season, Ben Thatcher was booked for a challenge that left Pedro Mendes in hospital being treated for brain trauma.  The FA rightly decided that a yellow card was insufficient and slapped an 8 game ban on the Man City player.  They used an ‘extraordinary circumstances’ clause to retrospectively act in this instance.  By neglecting to take action against Defoe, the FA suggested that biting did not fall under  ‘extraordinary circumstances’.  Yet now biting is worth a ten game ban.  Seems pretty extraordinary to me.  The FA hides behind precedent when it suits them, and violates it when it doesn’t.  Precedent is used to ensure parity, and that each offence is treated the same.  In violating those basic principles of governance, the FA prove once again they are not fit for purpose.

None of this actually matters, because the FA is, and always been a law unto itself, changing its own rules when it sees fit, and woe betide anyone who challenges their all encompassing authority.  Until the clubs all get together and act as one, the FA will remain NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

Adaptations

Recently my TV viewing has been dominated by so-called ‘genre’ shows. Game of Thrones, Arrow, The Walking Dead, among others.

One thing about these and many other programmes, and films, is that they are not entirely original pieces of work. Arrow is based on DC comic Green Arrow, Game of Thrones on George RR Martin’s best-selling ‘Song of Ice and Fire’ series of fantasy novels.  The Walking Dead is based on the series of graphic novels of the same name.

Being as they are though, based upon existing works, they exist in pre-conceived worlds, with carefully created characters, and deviation from these tenets is usually ill-advised.  In Game of Thrones for example, the main characters, the main events, are set in stone, and only those on the periphery can be altered, and only slightly.  Martin has created an entire world, and any adaptation for the screen has to be faithful to this. The main bones of the original work must be adhered to, and the fact that the original work in this instance is unrelentingly good is in its favour.

Arrow, on the other hand is based upon one of the DC universe’s less popular characters. Green Arrow began life as a Robin Hood type figure dispensing his own version of justice in Star City.  He went through several changes, from Bruce Wayne-esque billionaire playboy to, after losing his fortune, a champion for the poor and disadvantaged. He was even killed off at one point! The character made a comeback a few years later, but with the original comics still largely unknown, the writers and producers of this adaptation, find themselves with a great deal of relative freedom to ‘tweak’ certain things.

The Walking Dead, meanwhile is burdened with the fact that the original material, like Martin’s ‘Song of Ice and Fire‘, is immensely popular, and its fans incredibly loyal. Any change made for the television show is immediately jumped on and dissected.  The show has, in terms of general story, direction, and tone, stuck largely to the template set out in the graphic novels.

There are, therefore, two groups of people who watch these shows; those who are familiar with the source material, and those who are not. There are benefits to being in either camp. Dramatic moments on screen are often such, simply because we don’t know what is coming. If, like me, you have read all of ‘Song of Ice and Fire’ (at least all GRRM has written to date, but that’s for another day!) then very little in Game of Thrones is going to come as much of a surprise. However, knowing the original material sometimes allows for a deeper understanding of what is happening on screen, knowing a little more about a character, a little more about what made him the man he is, or why he does the things he does, can often enhance a viewing experience.

Its a double edged sword and I believe there is room for both ideals, a re-telling of the same stories we have read before, and a new fresh perspective on tired old characters. In most things, if the stories or the characters were not interesting first time round, there would be no call to re-visit them, in any form.