Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Who are the FA?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I suppose that this could go into Sport but this is more of a debate really.

The thought came up while I was reading about Rooney's poor performance at the World Cup but him being rewarded by a 5 year, £36 million deal with Manchester United.

Who are the FA exactly? Who are the answerable to?

What gives them the power/right to decide, in our name, whether the country considers the national team of less importance than the Premiership?

Do the public have any recourse to challenge their decisions? And, if not, is this right? Are the fee-paying public completely powerless? At least with the government, one can try and vote them out at election time.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    they banned women's football on their grounds in 1921 *strokes chin*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only in 1921? You wonder what took them so long...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hopefully they'll ban men's football next.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    The thought came up while I was reading about Rooney's poor performance at the World Cup but him being rewarded by a 5 year, £36 million deal with Manchester United.

    Who are the FA exactly? Who are the answerable to?

    Why are you having thoughts like that ?

    What has the FA got to do with a private contractual arrangement between two parties ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Hopefully they'll ban men's football next.

    Based on the World Cup it appears that they have
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    chuckle
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    I suppose that this could go into Sport but this is more of a debate really.

    The thought came up while I was reading about Rooney's poor performance at the World Cup but him being rewarded by a 5 year, £36 million deal with Manchester United.

    Who are the FA exactly? Who are the answerable to?

    What gives them the power/right to decide, in our name, whether the country considers the national team of less importance than the Premiership?

    Do the public have any recourse to challenge their decisions? And, if not, is this right? Are the fee-paying public completely powerless? At least with the government, one can try and vote them out at election time.

    The FA is a business, it has never been answerable to the public, nor should it be.

    The power that fans have is the fact that they are "fee-paying". If people cared about the game they'd have stopped going years ago in protest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why are you having thoughts like that ?

    What has the FA got to do with a private contractual arrangement between two parties ?

    I'm thinking more in terms as to why the national team is dictated by a 'private' company; not so much about Rooney's payments itself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    The FA is a business, it has never been answerable to the public, nor should it be.

    So do you think that a 'private' company should dictate who does and who doesn't play for our national team? It seems a bit weird to me.

    Is the FA on the stock exchange? Is it answerable to shareholders?

    (I'm asking because I don't know)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it isn't. I can't remember who the boards is but I think they are often chairmen of league teams.

    Personally I don't think that it should be like that but I also don't think fans should be running the game either. IME they are no more knowledgable about the game than the FA are.

    ETA, according to Wiki this is the Board of Directors:
    * Chairman: Roger Burden
    * Vice-Chairman: Barry Bright (Kent FA) †
    * General Secretary: Alex Horne
    * Other Members:
    o Dave Henson †
    o Michael Game (Essex FA) †
    o Phil Gartside (Bolton Wanderers Chairman) ‡
    o David Gill (Manchester United Chief Executive) ‡
    o Roger Burden (Gloucestershire FA) †
    o Sir Dave Richards (Premier League Chairman) ‡
    o John Ward (Hampshire FA) †
    o David Sheepshanks (Ipswich Town Non-Executive Director) *
    o Neil Doncaster (Scottish Football League Chief Executive) *[9]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    No it isn't. I can't remember who the boards is but I think they are often chairmen of league teams.

    Ah ok. Thanks MOK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's a national team, but not sanctioned by the government.

    The England (and Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales teams, as the other UK FIFA teams) team simply is the FA's representative team in FIFA tournaments. The FA always was a private institution. It's like saying the public should hold the right to dictate how Tesco or HSBC is run.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That wouldn't be particularly unusual. Barcelona are a profit-making company that is fan-owned, and all German football clubs are required to be at least 51% fan-owned too (which may go some way to explaining why their ticket prices are much lower and their attendances are higher). I'm not sure how their national FA is structured though, but I don't see why it would be particularly unreasonable for the FA to be owned by members. But whether that would be compatible with the system the FA have already created is another question. I know the Bundesliga is similar to the Premier League in that it's operated by a separate organisation, but still under a certain degree of control from the national FA.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    So do you think that a 'private' company should dictate who does and who doesn't play for our national team? It seems a bit weird to me.

    Is the FA on the stock exchange? Is it answerable to shareholders?

    (I'm asking because I don't know)

    The FA runs the England team.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That wouldn't be particularly unusual. Barcelona are a profit-making company that is fan-owned, and all German football clubs are required to be at least 51% fan-owned too

    Not quite.

    Bundesliga rules stipulate that no one person, or organisation is allowed to own more than 49% of any one club, thus giving them control of the club. This is so no-one in Germany "does an Abramovich".

    Furthermore, sugar daddies in this country are aided partly bt the stock exchange rules, which state that if anyone gains more than a 30% stake in any FTSE or AIM-traded company, they must make a formal bid for the rest of the shares.

    However, the one massive advantage that the Bundesliga has is that at the end of every season, each club has to apply for a licence for the following year, granted only when the German Football Federation (DBF) have scrutinised their accounts and are satisfied there is no threat of insolvency.

    There's an excellent article in the Mail (steady) about this:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1074354/Solvent-Bundesliga-clubs-example-debt-ridden-Premier-League-counterparts.html

    Despite the fact that it's a great idea and makes sense for everyone, if the FA ever adopt something similar, I'm a banana.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    The thought came up while I was reading about Rooney's poor performance at the World Cup but him being rewarded by a 5 year, £36 million deal with Manchester United.
    This alone, I would think, confirms them to be utterly useless cunts.

    Rooney's performance during the World Cup, in case the FA didn't notice, was shit. We were told he was the best thing since sliced bread and that he would score a gazillion goals during the World Cup and take England to glory once more. In the end, he performed more like a biscuit that had been dunked in some hot tea - he just fell to pieces.

    He should be dropped from the England team entirely and made to earn his place there once more, not given a fucking prize for his mediocrity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Erm... it's United rewarding him.

    Not sure if you noticed but he had a pretty good season for them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    This alone, I would think, confirms them to be utterly useless cunts.

    Rooney's performance during the World Cup, in case the FA didn't notice, was shit. We were told he was the best thing since sliced bread and that he would score a gazillion goals during the World Cup and take England to glory once more. In the end, he performed more like a biscuit that had been dunked in some hot tea - he just fell to pieces.

    He should be dropped from the England team entirely and made to earn his place there once more, not given a fucking prize for his mediocrity.

    he is England's best strijer.

    Besides, international call-ups are largely about reputation over form. Heskey was called up, despite never really being a consistent scorer. Well, I for one never rated him.

    And also, as has been said, it is a private contract between United and Rooney. In that sense then, United can offer Rooney what they want, he is their employee.
Sign In or Register to comment.