Football Food For Thought / Frank Gregan / 18 November 2009 / 2

Frank Gregan sticks up for Sir Alex Ferguson in the wake of his fine and two-match suspension over his comments about Alan Wiley's fitness and considers the more general issue of fines in football.

Sir Alex Ferguson faced the wrath of the FA last week for the comments that he made about the fitness of referee Alan Wiley. In truth, the wrath turned out to be a rap - on the knuckles - a two match touchline ban and a ₤20,000 fine. The general assumption is that's probably the kind of loose change that Sir Alex has lying around in his petty cash draw and consequently insufficient punishment.

That was certainly the view of the boss of the union that represents referees, Prospect. Alan Leighton said "from our point of view it is disappointing. The FA had a chance to make a point and they flunked it."

There are a couple of things that go against the grain here. First up, justice shouldn't be means tested but under FA rules it is. If two players are involved in a training ground spat and the manager decides to discipline the pair of them, the fines will be relevant to their earnings with two weeks wages being the maximum punishment that can be meted out. The difference between an academy product who is a second year pro and a big earner at one of our top clubs is immense. Same offence - both guilty - but one gets fined 10 grand the other a whopping ₤300,000. That's barmy although I accept others may see it differently.

I've been charged as a manager by the FA (sadly on too many occassions) and always felt aggrieved that I was required to inform them of my salary prior to the hearing. Why? Surely the punishment should fit the crime and many would argue that a 20 grand fine is way over the top for making a comment about a referee.

It wasn't a personal attack. Sir Alex made a valid point that should have been investigated and responded to. Most footballers believe that referees are not fit because they judge them by their own high standards. Players think that in order to pass the referee's fitness test one needs a pulse and the ability to get around without crutches!

They're not right. The referees have to complete six forty metre sprints in 6.2 seconds with 90 seconds recovery time in between each sprint. The second part of the test is stamina, complete 150 metres in thirty seconds, walk 50 metres in 30 seconds which is the recovery time. That exercise is repeated 20 times without a break. So in total it is a 4km Fartlek run. Easy peasy for any professional footballer, quite a feat for a 49 year old referee.

These issues should be debated not tried in camera. Alan Wiley is not fit when compared to a Premier League footballer, he is very fit when compared to many 49 year old ex footballers! There are some that agree with Sir Alex and others that don't but please don't take away his freedom of speech just because the referee's union gets offended!

If despotic rule is the order of the day then why hasn't the head of the ref's union Alan Leighton been charged with bringing the game into disrepute? Who is he to pour scorn on the findings of the FA Commission and call into question the integrity of its members? Double standards and mountains and molehills spring to mind - let's move on!

United are at home to Everton in the late Saturday game. Both teams are not in the best of nick with Man Utd having taken only three out of the last possible nine league points and Everton having gone seven games in all competitions without a win before their victory last time out on the road at West Ham.

If Everton were injury free and firing on all cylinders there would be a temptation to back them at [10] but a point is always a great result at Old Trafford and the recommendation is to lay United at [1.43]. Let's just hope the post match topic of conversation is about the players and not the referee!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

(2)

1. James pacheco | 18 November 2009

   Nice article Frank but strongly disagree that the punishment should not be on a "pro rata" basis. If for example the punishment for two players (one an academy product another a senior pro as per your example)having a training ground spat was a flat £5000, that could be as much as two months wages for the former and just one week's ages for the latter. The younger player would learn from his mistake and probably never commit the offence again given how much that money meant to him, the senior pro would brush it off as little more than an irritant as that sum of money would mean nothing to him. Where's the logic in that? If anything, the pro rata fine system should be copied from football and used in other walks of life. Gordon Ramsey admitted on the TV programme Room 101 a few years ago that he happily picks up 3 or 4 parking fines a day because £500-£1000 is worth his while in terms of not having to drive around looking for spaces. I wonder if he'd think differently if it was 1% of his monthly earnings each time he did it.

2. Frank Gregan | 19 November 2009

   Valid point Jamie, well reasoned but as I said in text some people will see it differently. My take on it is that as far as justice is concerned all men should be treated equally. If pro rata is applied different consequences ensue which in this instance favour the poor. Turn that around and you have a disaster on your hands - One law for the rich and one for the poor!
   Gordon Ramsey has earned his corn and can choose how he elects to spend it although his actions speak volumes of the charachter of the man. I was once told about a Premier League footballer who lit his cigars with 50 quid notes - again draw your own conclusions about his charachter. Guess we just see this one differently but my closing point is no matter how you dress it up pro rata is a form of discrimination.

:

:

:

?

: