Yet for so many of us, our National game provides so much more than a source of entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. As shown by the Toolstation Western Leagues #ThinkOfAFan campaign, football provides an important social platform, bringing people together and providing an opportunity to escape from the stresses and strains of everyday life.
For some, football has become the totem for when ‘normal’ life will return in the wake of Covid-19. Logically, we can’t see football grounds being opened before other parts of the leisure industry and for non-league football in particular, Clubhouses won’t realistically be opened before pubs. Even if it was safe to open grounds with social distancing, without Clubhouses the financial implications of such a concession would render the restart of Western League football totally impractical.
The Government have dangled the prospect of some ‘leisure’ businesses opening as early as July. Yet at a time when families are still unable to extend their social bubble, it feels highly unlikely that lockdown restrictions would be lifted at such a pace, as to facilitate a return to football in the next six weeks. The July date is also significant as it marks the traditional start of Clubs pre-season preparations. So with football unlikely to start in July, this will inevitably push back an August kick off to the Western League campaign.
The FA have asked the Non-Leagues to work on the basis of a ‘normal’ start to the season, although they are also “planning for monthly restarts up until early 2021. At which point we enter the worst case scenario for no 2020-21 season.” If this were to be the case, it is likely that it would reopen the can of worms caused by the cessation of the 2019/20 season, which prompted 151 Clubs to write to the FA, opposing the decision to make the season null & void.
At that time, the FA’s decision was predicated on the belief that prolonging the 20/19 campaign would cause problems getting the 20/21 season underway. Yet, now the FA have acknowledged that the potential exists for the voiding of next season, it brings back to the table the argument raised by many from the start of this crisis that its better to void a season that hasn’t happened, rather than one that has.
With the FA’s decision ratified by their Full Council, the chance of the games governing body performing such a spectacular U-turn is not terrific. Indeed, many administrators at the base of the pyramid would argue that Clubs restarting where they left off in March is now impractical, given the significant changes in playing and managerial personnel and the horrific prospect of Clubs being lost to the Leagues, because of the financial impact of this crisis.
But these are unprecedented times and supporters might feel that the FA shouldn’t ‘make the perfect the enemy of the good’, particularly if it delivers “the fairest method on how to decide the sporting outcomes for the season”, to borrow a phrase from The FA's head of National League System, Laurence Jones, in his explanation for ending the 19/20 campaign.
In practise, it is likely to take around 30 weeks to complete a season, with the most optimistic conclusion achievable in 26 weeks, with no Cup games. Both timescales will prove particularly challenging at the base of the pyramid, where bad weather decimated last season’s fixture schedule over the winter months. In the event a full season cannot be completed and with the resumption of the 19/20 campaign seemingly of the table, Radstock Town Chairman, Simon Wilkinson has come up with his own novel suggestion for delivering a curtailed 20/21 Western League campaign. The Step 5 and 6 divisions could be sub-divided into two smaller Conferences. This would enable each team to play the others in their Conference, home and away. The winners of the two Premier Division Conferences would play off for the League title and automatic promotion. The top two sides in each First Division Conference would be liable for promotion, with the winners of each playing off for the Western Leagues First Division crown.
The FA have called for a “flexible approach to the commencement of the 20/21 season as a result of Covid-19 and the social distancing measures”. However, flexibility from the FA was in short supply prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, when the Western League asked for an extension to their season on February 25th, only to be told that the League’s Committee “expect at this moment in time for all Step 5/6 games to be completed by 25 April.” At this time the FA proposed a fixture calendar that “would result in Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday fixtures”. Again, I’m reminded of the words of Laurence Jones, when his explanation for ending the season cited that:
“In some leagues, clubs have as many as 16 matches left to play. On the basis that a club was able to play up to two matches per week, this would require at least eight weeks to play out those fixtures. This is before consideration is given to time needed for players to become match fit and for play-off matches to take place prior to the beginning of the 2020-21 season. Notwithstanding the fact that it may not be possible at this level, practically or logistically, for clubs to play up to two matches per week.”
The FA have taken a huge amount of criticism throughout this crisis, primarily for the archaic way they consult and communicate with the football family. Yet far from criticising the FA, I’m hoping these contradictory statements represent a Road to Damascus moment for the governing body.
Flexibility at the base of the pyramid will be key in getting football up and running again. The financial imperatives of the professional game, particularly those involving promotion, may be able to dictate the final outcomes of the professional Leagues, but their haste to realise something of a competitive outcome to their playing season should not hold the grassroots game to ransom, either when it comes to starting or completing the next season. If the FA genuinely believe that it’s not practical or logistical for non-league Clubs to “play up to two matches per week” when they wish to void a season, they can no longer suggest that the same Clubs play three or more games a week, in order for them to meet an administrative deadline of the FA’s own making.
Coronavirus provides the game with an opportunity to reflect on how well its structures have enabled it to deal with this crisis. The Premier League do as they wish and their motivation for continuing to play behind closed doors aligns them only with the Championship, rather than anyone else in the game, or wider society for that matter. The National League appears to have more in common with the EFL, given the EFLs statement that the “principle of relegation across all three divisions is integral to the integrity of the pyramid, from the Premier League down to the National League”, a further indication of how little influence the FA actually wield above Step 3.
When push came to shove, the only Leagues that were led or dictated to, depending on your perspective, as to how to conclude the 19/20 season, were at Steps 3 to 7. Despite that fact, the FA persists with a National League System that groups Steps 1 to 4 together, when this crisis has shown that Steps 3 to 6 are far more aligned. A far harsher criticism of the governing body would also point to the fact that while the FA are prepared to intervene with certain Leagues over how to conclude their season, they were not prepared to take a lead at the outbreak of the pandemic, when the same Leagues were left with the responsibility to decide whether their fixtures should go ahead.
There is still time for us to learn lessons from this sorry saga, ominously we have no idea just how much time we might have. But the structure of the pyramid and its relationship with the FA have been shown to be fundamentally flawed and for the good of our National game, not to mention our grassroots game, the realities of administering professional and amateur football must be recognised, if football is to be safely navigated out of the aftermath of the Coronavirus.
Comments
Post a Comment