Double standards - where's the justice?

A little belated, I know, but I'm on holiday...

Joey Barton has been handed a 12 match ban for his behaviour in QPR's game against Manchester City. In that game, there was an "altercation" with Carlos Tevez, leading to the QPR captain being sent off. After being shown the red, he then kicked out at Sergio Aguero, and then looked like he wanted to take on Vincent Kompany and Mario Balotelli.

His fellow professionals (some now ex-professionals) have questioned the length of the ban. Surprisingly, some have said that the action taken is too harsh.

Whether or not the ban is harsh, had Barton been in the stands instead of on the pitch, the treatment would have been very different. 

At the very least, he would have been ejected from the stadium. His details would have been taken down, and it is likely that the club would have given him a three match ban from entering the stadium, or if he was an away supporter, his details passed on to his own club, who could then ban him from attending home games for the same length of time.

It's likely that the ejection would follow an arrest, however, either for the violent behaviour, or for a public order offence at the very least. The fan could then be facing the courts, and a potential prison sentence.

Following this, the fan would then be subject to a Football Banning Order, which doesn't just prevent them from entering a football stadium, but from being within a designated area for a designated time period before and after a game. An FBO can last for a minimum of 3 years, up to 10 years, if the fan is sent to prison.

On top of that, fans subjected to an FBO are required to surrender their passports if there is a major tournament, or if their club is involved in playing football outside of the UK. If they wish to travel abroad, say for a holiday, then they need to ask the police for permission.

If Barton remains a QPR player, and especially if he keeps the captaincy, I would expect him to serve his ban from the sidelines, physically at the games, to lend his team mates his support. There is nothing preventing him from entering a football stadium during his ban.

His actions, which would be seen as criminal had he been a fan, have not been treated proportionately. In that respect, and like so many other professional footballers over the years, his conduct has been dealt with in-house, and without the intervention of the criminal law.

Given that he is supposed to be representing his club, and that his behaviour is seen by millions, should the fact that he is a man in a privileged position, earning a lot of money, mean that he is treated outside of the law? If players are supposed to be role models, then should they not be treated in the same way as fans, to set an example?

Football Banning Orders & the Back Door

Football Banning Orders (FBO) are serious business. They don't just prevent those convicted of football related offences from attending matches. They include a requirement to report to a police station with your details, including your passport details. You are not allowed to leave the country without permission if there's a match or tournament taking place. Anyone subjected to an FBO who wants to go on holiday during the Euros, for example, will need to ask the police for permission, and if it's not granted, appeal to their local magistrates. Making an FBO therefore has a huge effect on the civil liberties of convicted football supporters.

The purpose behind an FBO is preventative; it's there to stop future disorder, and is therefore subject to a two stage test. Pass both, and you're banned. Firstly, it has to be a specified offence contained within a Schedule in the Football Supporters Act 1989.

If it meets that criteria, then the judge has to be satisfied that the FBO would prevent further disorder.

This may seem wooly, but it gives judges the scope to exercise some common sense, and apply FBOs only where they are applicable (see Boggild v Ors v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1928).

FBOs are not a means of punishing offenders. They will already be punished in their sentences, after all.

However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Doyle & Ors v R [2012] EWCA 995, has highlighted an anomaly in the provisions. At the end of the judgment, Hughes LJ pointed out that;

"If non-custodial sentences had been passed, then conditions could have been attached to either community orders or suspended sentences, and the conditions would then no doubt also have served as effective punishment (at paragraph 27)."

Whilst conditions can be attached to an FBO giving specific restrictions, the court must find that the criteria for making an FBO are met before these can be given. If they are not, the offender is sentenced to a custodial sentence, and that is the end of the matter.

However, if the conditions are not met where the offence does not cross the custody threshold, or the judge finds it appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence, the court can impose conditions that have the effect of restricting the civil liberties as part of their punishment, even if the offence does not meet the criteria for an FBO.

This can lead to serious restrictions on the movement of supporters who have been convicted of minor offences that may not be connected with a football match itself, but were committed at or around the time of a game.

How can it be right that those guilty of a minor offence be subjected to Draconian measures just because they are a football fan, when those who commit more serious offences are not subject to such restrictions?

Do other member of society have their civil liberties interfered with as much as football fans? Whilst it is possible to prevent someone who commits an affray, for example, from entering a town centre on a Friday night, it would be interesting to see just how many revellers are subjected to such conditions compared to those who are subject to FBOs or other such restrictions as football fans.

Football's Future

With great pride, my football club has today announced that it has been awarded the prestigious "Football League Family Excellence Award for the season that has just finished. No doubt, various staff members are happily slapping each other on the back, and congratulating themselves on another fantastic achievement from a season that saw inconsistent mediocrity on the pitch itself. Given the time, effort, and, no doubt, money involved in finding out what the modern footballing family wants, to be acknowledged for it must, well, be just reward. Or something like that.

Football has come a long way from the days where fans turned up and expected nothing more than a decent performance from their side, if the clubs are to be believed. Football is now big business. We are no longer fans, but customers. There are huge markets to be tapped into, fans who have never been to games, with pockets full of cash to spend on the match day experience They happily watch Premier League football on the TV, yet they sit within the catchment areas of those clubs that may not be "lucky" enough to play in England's top division. The trick is, how to get them in through the turnstiles.

As a footy fan, logic dictates that the way to get bums on seats is to produce a successful team. Give the fans exciting football, and the fans who no longer go will return. Job's a good un!

The clubs themselves, and certainly my club, see families as the future. Get them in when they're young, they'll never want to leave. The problem is, the fans of the future are only appreciated to a point. Then they're left to burden the cost of holding ticket prices in the family areas, to encourage the fans of the future, and then stop going.

So the cycle will continue...

Clubs are turning family areas into multi-entertainment complexes. Does your child get bored watching the game? No worries, take them out the back to get their faces painted, or a balloon sculpture. I've heard talk of games areas, and kiosks serving food aimed at young children. At the King Power stadium, you can even access the Fanstore during the game. Yes, that's right. You've paid to watch a football match, but you can take advantage of the lack of queues by purchasing your club merchandise in the 58th minute of the game. These measures aren't aimed at fans who want to watch their teams. It's aimed at getting in people who seem to want more for their money; an "experience". Surely for a football supporter, it's results on the pitch that matter, not the availability of Fruit Shoots. If it's cold, and my team is performing badly, I stay in the stands hoping for a miraculous turnaround. I may harbour thoughts of going back to the pub, but I don't go anywhere. The thought, "I know, I'll go and see if they have any new scarf designs in the club shop" has never, ever entered my head. Not once.

What the clubs are failing to address, or refusing maybe, is that families change. Parents split up, or they lose their jobs. They may relocate somewhere too far away to justify travel. Most importantly, children grow up, and no longer want a Wacky Warehouse experience at the football. 

Rather than asking families what would entice them into a football stadium, clubs need to be asking why fans are not returning.

From reading various social networking sites and forums, and by talking with fellow fans, the most disaffected group are the 16 to 25 year olds. This is the young blood the clubs have been looking for. They are also the potential parents of the fans of the future, yet clubs are happy to alienate them by turning football into an experience, whilst at the same time taking away everything that they enjoy about the game. 

At the same time, this group are expected to accept some of the biggest price increases between categories. Bearing in mind many will still be students, and those who work will not be on huge salaries, it's easy to see why price alone is keeping these fans away. Take, for example, someone moving from the Under 18 category to Under 22. Last season, a season ticket would have cost £130 throughout the stadium, if renewed early, and £140 thereafter. Next season, they (or their parents) will need to find £265 to £430, if renewed early, almost doubling in price for the cheapest seats, which are limited in number. If they renew after the deadline, prices range from £305 to £495. How is this encouraging supporters to remain part of the fan base? That's without the arguments over atmosphere (or lack of) that young adults prefer.

As a cynic, it would seem that the authorities and the clubs themselves are promoting family friendly initiatives with the aim of alienating those supporters who are seen as potential troublemakers. For two adults taking two under 8s to see Leicester City, the cheapest cost is £820 for the season. This is a huge financial commitment, considering the current economic climate. 

Is football guilty of socially cleansing the game? 

Clearly pricing levels like this are aimed at the more affluent supporter, not those on lower incomes. Football, and the hooliganism associated with it, are seen as a working class problem. The middle classes wouldn't indulge in such behaviour, of course.

There are also the cost implications. Groups of young adults need to be policed. Apparently. They cannot be controlled as easily, and are guilty of heinous crimes such as persistent standing, consuming alcohol, and shouting naughty words. Young, middle class families do not do this. They are happy to sit in identikit stadia, and to dance along to goal music. If grounds can be filled with nice people, police costs can be reduced, and maybe fewer stewards, sorry, customer relation officers would be needed. As the traditional atmosphere is being eroded, lifelong fans feel excluded. Clubs are implicitly saying "we don't want your sort here anymore".

All fans want to feel that their club wants them, not just the football virgins, and their young offspring. Football clubs should remember this, just in case the football bubble bursts.

When the FA Cup sold out...

FA Cup Final Day used to be a bit special. Coverage would start in the morning, interrupting the usual Saturday morning Tiswas viewing (or Multi-coloured Swap Shop, if Mother was at home...) to show the teams arriving at hotels for their pre-match meals, or interviews with fans making their way to Wembley, and the ones who couldn't get tickets who had organised parties in their local pubs for the occasion. 

Saturday lunchtime, we would opt to eat our ham, egg, and chips with Saint and Greavsie rather than Grandstand. But we would always choose the BBC coverage for the game itself.

My Nana would stop everything she was doing to watch the fans singing "Abide With Me"; it was her favourite part of Cup Final Day. The adults would settle down with beer, us kids had pop and crisps. 

It might be nostalgia, but it all seemed so much more exciting back then.

It's been a few years since I got excited about the FA Cup Final. I'll watch it, but I'm not really bothered. Why? Here are my reasons:

• Constant TV coverage

Back "in the day", televised games were rare. If a game was on the TV, it was novel, and something to take advantage of. The Sound of Music on BBC1? I'm sorry Mother, but it's the Central Match Live!!

Now, if you want to, you can watch football every day of the week. Even if there is no football actually being played, there'll be a match replayed for our televisual enjoyment. But that's the problem, it's no longer an enjoyment. I may be in a minority here, but as much as I love football, you can have too much of a good thing. I'm bored of it.

• Hype

Linked to the constant stream of footy available to watch, is the idea that the next game to be broadcast is "THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE SEASON. EVER. IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME. SINCE BEFORE FOOTBALL WAS INVENTED". 

The constant bigging up of games to attract TV audiences (and sponsors) serves to dilute the importance of matches. When a genuine BIG game comes along, it doesn't feel special any more. It's on a par with a fixture between two mid-table Premier League teams. How am I supposed to gee myself up for the Cup Final now?

• Subservience to the Premier League

The Premier League is worth a lot of money. Consequently, football outside of it doesn't really exist, or it's seen as bit of a novelty, to be paraded about as some token gesture. After all, the only games that really matter outside of the Premier League that are of any interest involve teams that are trying to reach the Premier League. The rest is something that happens.

The FA Cup Final was the season finale. Today's Final will be played on a day where the only division that has finished it's normal season is the Championship. It's no longer the showpiece that it was.

Even worse, it's due to kick off at 5.15pm, and not in its traditional 3pm slot. No doubt, this is to accommodate fans who will be watching their own team playing.

It feels as though the Cup Final has been relegated to some insignificant slot in the season, and has consequently lost its importance.

Further, winning the FA Cup isn't seen as an honour in the way that it used to be. It's a way of guaranteeing European football, and increasing the winning club's revenue. The romance of the Cup has died. Rather than being a dream to win the FA cup, it's now part of the job.

• Selling out to corporate hospitality

The FA Cup was never the "Fans' Final"; that was the League Cup. FA Cup Final tickets have always been distributed far wider than the two finalists, and have been a bone of contention since I can remember.

The new Wembley stadium has far more corporate hospitality; this is the new cash cow, football as entertainment. This has reduced the number of tickets available to be shared out, and fewer fans of the teams involved will have the chance to watch a Cup Final in person. This is before the cost of the tickets is taken into account.

Of course, the FA has to some how pay for the cost of building the new Wembley stadium. As a cynic, it's the only reason I can see for the semi-finals being played there, and not at a neutral venue, as in the old days. Surely the Liverpool and Everton fans would have been happier to have played their semi at Old Trafford, and not Wembley? It certainly would have been more affordable to those fans than having to travel down to London?

Having only the Final at Wembley also makes the event more special. Where's the magic of a trip to Wembley if you've already seen your team win the semi final there?

Clearly, the new stadium has its corporate customers, who pay huge sums of money for the privilege of using the facilities. These would not be available, certainly not in the numbers the FA appear to want, at a club football ground. This would cut the revenue made from the semi-final. Rather than thinking of the fans, it appears to this fan that the FA is more concerned with how much money it can make from the event.

Today's FA Cup Final shows the FA's intentions clearly. Protect the Premier League, which is the real money maker, and devalue the FA Cup in the process. It's only a matter of time before the Cup Final is nothing more than a token competition, taken as seriously as the Charity Shield at the start of the football season. Top teams already field understrength sides for the League Cup, how long before they do the same with the FA Cup?

This is why I cannot muster any enthusiasm.