Rice mentioned in transfer reports, Arsenal criticised, and toxic politics in football.

• PSG owners hit by Iran attack: how will that affect PSG?
• Why Arsenal are doing so well, and Tottenham are doing so badly.

By Tony Attwood

Moving on, politicians getting involved in football can usually be guaranteed to give us a bit of a laugh as with Suella Braverman of Reform (a recently upsurging far-right political party in England) who was recently accused by the Guardian of “seeking to insert ‘toxic politics’ into English football.”   

I didn’t know it needed to be inserted but this notion came about because she apparently suggested that a third of coaches in professional football are from ethnic minorities.  The FA (according to the Telegraph) called the idea “utter woke nonsense.”    I thought it was already hard for people from minority groups to get into coaching, although we know it doesn’t appear to be difficult for footballers from different backgrounds to play for clubs.  But it could be argued that club boards (which are predominantly made up of white Anglo-Saxon males) might be biased on the grounds of management.  It seems to be worth investigation – but not just to see if it is true, but to see if it makes any difference.

After all, it has to be admitted that a fair proportion of boards are fairly incompetent, judging by the number of managers that they get through each year.   For  we are in the era in which Nottingham Forest just last month made the headlines by becoming the first ever club in the Premier League to employ four different managers in one season, beating the “three in a season” record previously held by the likes of Chelsea, Southampton, Watford, and Newcastle United.

That is interesting because it is the exact opposite of the approach that Arsenal take, only getting rid of managers when they prove to have lost their minds completely, as was the case with Unai Emery, who, having brought in  Gabriel Martinelli for a snip,  seemed to go completely beserk, spending  £72 on Nicolas Pepe.      Certainly, there was a time when the board of the FA was heavily criticised for being “overwhelmingly male and white,” but the diversity of players has never been seen as an issue.  So it is sad to see newspapers slipping back to the old days, calling an idea “utter woke nonsense” rather than setting out arguments for and against.  (Article continues below adverts).

Meanwhile, in other football political news, it is also reported that Everton are “exploring legal options over lack of sporting sanctions against Chelsea” which seems a good idea, while Manchester United are lobbying for a rebuilt Very Old Trafford to host the 2035 World Cup final, which seems a bad idea.  It is probably just a way of getting the FA and hence the taxpayer to pay for the building of their ground.

Meanwhile, anyone silly enough to fancy going to the USA to watch a World Cup match will find that under the ‘Visa Bond Pilot Program’ introduced by President Trump, citizens from outside the USA will have to pay a visa bond of over £10,000 for the pleasure of getting the stamp in their passport.   Details are not clear, but it may not apply to citizens of every country, although that notorious centre of revolution and violent disorder, Cape Verde, seems to be on the list.