The key points we will be putting to the Football Regulator on Day 1

 

 

• The battle lines are drawn, but the Premier League has the winning hand.
• ManC case against League leaves League free to make two minor amendments

By Tony Attwood

It is being said in political circles that the bill to introduce the Football Regulator into English law will be introduced next month.  

Unfortunately, it seems that what the politicians who will vote it through probably don’t know is that a five-point plan for reform has already been drawn up by a couple of activists who are fighting one specific case involving a young player who was injured for life, allegedly because he was played by his club (one of the top clubs in the country) even though he was injured.   

Now as his parents are trying to make a claim against the club, it appears that the medical records for the lad have “gone missing” and it has since been confirmed that there is no regulation saying that a duplicate copy of medical records should be filed with an external authority (such as the League, the FA or better still a “young footballers’ medical registry”).  That is an appalling omission.

The proposals which have already been drawn up and put forward to interested parties cover a range of points – and what is so utterly amazing about this case is that these points are still unregulated in the English game, where clubs recruit children to train and play with them in the junior teams.

That clubs do this is obviously a good thing – it encourages fitness and enthusiasm, two things missing from a lot of people in our society.  But that by itself does not mean that regulation is not needed.

The points that have been put forward start with the issue mentioned here so often before: there must be a third party that gets and keeps copies kept of medical records of junior players.  “Losing” medical records should be punishable by expulsion from the league.   Indeed that is so bleedingly obvious I still find it extraordinary that it still hasn’t been done. Not filing duplicate records, and losing records should be a criminal offence.

Second it is clear that clubs outside the big cities are dependent on good relations with the media to get good publicity.  So the local media can be encouraged to step aside from a story suggesting that youth players at the local club are not being treated properly.   The independent regulator needs to recognise this, alongside the fact that in many cases the dominant local solicitor in a town is also likely to be the club’s solicitor, so parents seeking damages from a local club can find themselves isolated both by the local firms of solicitors and the local media refusing to take on any story that casts the local club in a bad light.

Third, the starting point should always be that professional football in England is riddled with systems and structures that exist for the sole purpose of stopping bad news from getting out.  The enquiry into the Crewe case revealed that, and then identified problems at Chelsea, Aston Villa, Newcastle United, Southampton, Peterborough, Manchester City, and Stoke City.  Undoubtedly was the tip of the iceberg – the Celtic Boys Club case is a perfect example.

Next, a starting point should always be that young players will lie about injuries in order to to stay with the club – and to keep playing.   There is then a temptation for clubs simply to take young players at their word and not investigate possible injuries, using perhaps the “he’ll grow out of it” excuse.  Because there is no shortage of young players who want to be with a professional club, there’s always another youngster to choose, when one is left injured for life.

Children have no medical knowledge and so can’t imagine that the club is not telling them the truth when they are told to play on.  And the club knows there are thousands more children waiting for a chance.

Finally, it is a sad fact that local police are often very close to the club, as their “liaison” over crowd safety.   Of course it is helpful if the local police have a close relationship with the club so that they can advise on crowd control etc.   But when there is something amiss within the club (again Crewe in England and Celtic Boys Clubs in Scotland are obvious examples – especially in the latter case as Celtic FC argued that Celtic Boys Club was a separate entity from Celtic FC and thus they had no liability) the closeness of the police to the club can be a problem.

The Labour Party manifesto announced that “We will reform football governance to protect football clubs across our communities and to give fans a greater say in the way they are run,”

But this message has been re-imagined as is shown by the Guardian statement  that “The English Football League has been a consistent supporter of regulation, pointing to the financial risks faced by many of its clubs.”  Of course that is a point, but the well-being and safety of children is far more important than preserving the good name of clubs, no matter what.

How regulation is handled in relation to protecting children is going to be a key point in this legislation and when the Regulator comes along we’ll certainly be telling her/him where s/he needs to be looking.