Association Football and How to Play It/Chapter 11
CHAPTER XI
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 £4 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 £4 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 £4 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.