da imperador bet： So many authorities, so many agendas. Football today is at the whim of so many different authoritative bodies that the work they do is arguably conflicting. Just take England for example. The top clubs have to deal with rules from the Premier League, the FA, UEFA and FIFA. It isn’t possible for clubs to adhere with full effect to all of the agendas set out in front of them. Furthermore the actions of some undermine the proposals of others. How can UEFA expect the European clubs to take them seriously on the implication of the financial fair play rules when there are never ending exposures of widespread corruption within FIFA? It may not be UEFA’s fault but ultimately if the top governing football body does not set an example how are people supposed to learn. FIFA has its own agenda, mainly the spread of football to nations that do not currently participate to any high level. However this goes against the idea of a meritocracy that UEFA is trying to introduce. FIFA giving the World Cup to Qatar is like saying that this year’s Champions League Final should be played in someone’s back garden in Luxembourg. The agendas don’t match. But what are we going to do about it?
da bet nacional： What this really comes down to is an argument that has plagued politics for years: central vs. local government. Which is the more effective way to govern?
[ad_pod id=’unruly-2′ align=’left’]
Centralised Government
So what are the benefits of organizing sport through a more centralised system? Firstly: clearer objectives. Not only that but a clearer prioritisation of objectives that clubs and countries must adhere to. Centralised government provides, in theory, better organisation by using the top minds to set out plans for the whole of football instead of letting lesser minds at lower levels determine how things are run.
If we put this in football terms it would be similar to taking away the powers of the FA and having a FIFA committee determining what the FA should be doing each year. The benefit of this is that, in theory, with more people to choose from FIFA should have more competent people working for it who have better strategies at hand. Certainly the FA is not the best-run organisation in the world and at times it definitely seems as though it could do with some help. Moreover, if the FA is not directly accountable to FIFA or UEFA then the rules they could be imposing might contradict measures imposed by other bodies. Also, with one higher organisation dictating the agenda for our country there wouldn’t be conflict between the FA and the Premier League.
Local Government
The benefits of local government, or localized football authorities, are that it is far easier for them to identify the problems at hand within the areas of governance. They should also, in theory, be more efficient with their resources as the amount of red tape involved is less than it would be if they had to report everything back to, and have their actions approved by, a higher body. Ultimately this is the deciding factor.
Football as a sport is too large to be governed by one singular institution. But that does not mean that our system does not need to be altered. There needs to be local authorities that are properly represented by both FIFA and UEFA. The local authorities need not be directly accountable to the higher bodies but they should have some input into the agendas of the more international organisations. There is no ‘either or’ argument for this debate in football just as there isn’t in politics. The lack of cohesion in the organisation of football is damaging for the game but inevitably a worldwide body would not have the ability to identify and address the problems that football faces in each country. The representation of each country in FIFA and UEFA is what needs to improve. Only then can we combine the necessary authority of a singular body with the local expertise of national organisations.
[gigya_comments]