In a week when the Football Association’s suitability to govern has again been questioned, its good to learn that the august body’s quest for a new chief executive is down to the final three.
Longer suffering readers may remember that the role became vacant when Mark Pallios resigned in the wake of Fariagate, a ‘sex scandal’ that kept the nation amused and bemused for a week or so but has since been forgotten.
Last week’s withdrawal of Trevor Birch, former CEO of Chelsea, Everton and Leeds United, and the man thought by many outsiders to be the best man for the job.
On the face of it, it’s an attractive, high-profile job. The FA is a £200million business operating in what can loosely be classed as the entertainment sector. But it is also uniquely political and pressurised because, as we have pointed out before, such is the nation’s fascination with football that the FA has no shareholders but probably more stakeholders than any other British business.
Brian Barwick, head of ITV sport, has emerged as favourite for the post but we were fascinated to learn that one of his rivals, Richard Bowker, built his business reputation as head of the UK’s Strategic Rail Authority.
Were he to draw on his experience in that role to re-shape the FA, we would certainly find that things would change.
For those outside the UK it may be a little difficult to understand the hate-hate relationship that many Britons have with the country’s railways. Once it was a much disliked nationalised system, characterised by under-investment, strikes, delays and lack of investment.
Today it is a much disliked private enterprise system in which many entrepreneurs have invested hugely in services. However, it is a hugely complex and fragmented system in which the track is owned and operated by one bunch, the trains by another and the stations by another. The whole thing is held loosely in place by a bunch of contracts that at least ensure the lawyers do well.
Were Bowker to get the job, perhaps the FA could similarly be divided up into semi-autonomous profit focused units, all of which would simply blame each other every time there was a cock-up.
Following the rail pattern, the England’s team travel would be the responsibility of one authority while the kit would fall under the jurisdiction of another. Catering would, of course, be another. Each of these services to the team would be provided by the best/lowest tender.
Accordingly, the national team would – if fortunate – arrive at the city it was due to play in to be fed Pringles and reconstituted Kenco Coffee from a trolley pushed by a surly, self-employed former crack dealer, only to find that the kit hadn’t arrived because of leaves on the line at Paddock Wood.
Bernie Ecclestone’s F1 series may be under threat - or at least the threat of a threat - from the manufacturers under the GPWC umbrella, but he is still out there building for the future.
This week he told the South African media that he will do everything he can to bring a Grand Prix to their country.
That is excellent news for South Africa which has been a model in its focus on the benefits of hosting major sports events. The country has hosted both Cricket World Cup and Rugby World Cup and this is entirely in line with the South African focus on taking major events to the country, in part to change perceptions in Europe and elsewhere.
Now South Africans are preparing to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup and, given the expertise built up over the years, there’s no reason to suspect it will be anything other than a superbly organised tournament at all levels.
Major sports events are important to South Africa for a number of reasons. Naturally there are economic benefits associated with the revenues generated by the events and associated tourism. And television coverage afforded these events ensures the best possible global shop window for the country’s important tourism industry.
There is also a case for saying that the ability to stage these mega events helps differentiate South Africa in the eyes of the rest of the world and, in particular, the commercial and investment community. Not for nothing are these sports ventures so readily supported by commercial and industrial giants, such as South African Breweries and Anglo-American Corporation.
Critically, it is a way of ensuring that the world economic community sees the country as separate from the rest of sub Saharan Africa, which has been portrayed as a basket case.
South Africa has more than its fair share of problems – crime, unemployment and Aids among them. But it is a new nation, determined to tackle those problems and its leaders see hosting sports events as a means of creating the sense of nationhood and unity which will make that task more achievable.
The five cities bidding to host the 2012 Olympic games have just 10 days to submit their bid books to the IOC.
Consequently these are testing times and we devour each an every announcement for signs of significance.
This week we learned that the French government has pledged 2.5billion euros to fund the Olympic Games. Government support is a pre-requisite for staging the Games so the announcement will be welcomed in the corridors of power in Lausanne. But with other governments likely to make similar statements it is unlikely to provide the ultimate advantage.
Each city has its chance to charm and impress IOC representatives when they are visited in the Spring. The IOC visitors are able to more or less determine their own itineraries but will be guests at certain formal functions.
We understand that London will roll out HM The Queen and the Prime Minister, and entertain their VIP guests with an evening of music by Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Could this be the advantage that Paris was seeking but money alone could not buy?
