Advertisement

Whistleblower Allardyce has been persecuted for challenging football’s status quo

Whistleblowers have a tortured history across the world, and really, we don’t have to cast our net wide to see if we can find examples of them being harangued and mistreated in Britain. Similarly, as this is a football blog, it’s worth remembering the fates of whistleblowers in football. The intersection, then, of those willing to speak out against injustices in football, in Britain, is a rich ground to investigate. Sam Allardyce is the latest victim of this particularly British disease, to go after those who want to improve the quality of the game, and highlight the problems within it. He has lost his job, and his income of £3 million pounds a year. It is worth considering just what his crimes really were, and also to consider the fate of those who have laid the groundwork for his openness and honesty.

According to the so-called ‘Telegraph’ newspaper, Allardyce has brought the sport, the FA and his specific job into disrepute. The allegations and pressure resulted in him leaving his post by mutual consent yesterday, but this is a palpably unfair situation. What, exactly, did he do wrong? Let’s examine it point by point.

First, he described the methods by which third-party ownership exists by another name, and the means by which the ban can be negotiated to allow the practice to continue. Call me a cynic, but it appeared to me not that Allardyce was suggesting that this was his advice as to support the practice and allowing it to flourish off-grid. No, he was clearly letting this supposed firm know that FIFA and UEFA had not yet gone far enough to abolish the abusive practice, by quickly and easily highlighting its many flaws. As he had threatened to sue the BBC in the past over allegations of corruption and dodgy dealing with agents, it is clear that this is a man with nothing to hide. So confident was he in his innocence that he did not even need to actually let his lawyers bring the case to court. I think that says it all on that matter.

Next, we come to his no-nonsense plain speaking about the FA and its financial worries. It is a truth universally acknowledged that the rebuilding of Wembley came at an exorbitant cost, and the sheer weight of the debt has led to compromises and weaknesses for the England team. For less exciting matches, they have had to play in a half-empty stadium, instead of benefiting from selling out regional stadiums, and giving the chance to those outside London to watch the national team. As well as that, they’ve had to use the stadium for gigs, meaning the pitch has suffered at times. Given Allardyce’s obvious acumen when dealing with the financial arrangements of third-party ownership, surely it makes sense for him to discuss how the FA can negotiate the debt the move incurred - to think it impolitic to say otherwise is to stand up for the closed-door, secretive nature of the existing FA.

And lastly, regarding Allardyce, is his decision to criticise both Roy Hodgson and the England players who were at the World Cup. He criticised Hodgson’s lack of authority in taking advice from Gary Neville, his assistant, and also mentioned the psychological problems that the England players appeared to suffer while on international duty. Now, Hodgson was rightly criticised for being weak and uninspiring. The players, too, do not perform when they are representing their country - it is about time somebody spoke out and acknowledged the problem. Allardyce was attacked for being careless with his words, but let’s consider how Jose Mourinho would be treated for doing the same. It would have been described as mind games, as laying down a marker that requires improvement, just as he has over the last month as Manchester United have stumbled. It brought a demolition of the champions Leicester City at the weekend. So, if criticising the players and the previous boss, while talking to a firm who are trying to sponsor you for about 10% of your annual salary, as you sit in front of a pint of wine, just days into your reign as England manager, is not a Mourinho-like psychological masterstroke, then what is it, exactly? Allardyce is right - if he were called Allardici, not Allardyce, he would be managing Real Madrid by now.

Allardyce is not the biggest name to suffer for the crime of trying to improve the situation around him, though. Perhaps the most egregious punishment was that of Sepp Blatter and his friends and colleagues at FIFA. As they tried to bring football to the less famous parts of the world, such as Qatar and Russia, they were cynically accused of doing so only on the back of backhanders and dodgy kickbacks. They were said to be unconcerned by the impracticalities and various oppressions at work in these countries, or the chances of a working infrastructure being ready. Michel Platini was sold out at the same time as a man as moral as Pep Guardiola did the same - bringing football to the UAE.

But, of course, getting sacked for challenging the status quo is inevitable in football. George Graham was cast out from Arsenal for exposing the culture of bungs. Nigel Pearson essentially lost his job at Leicester because he was as mad as hell with the mainstream media, and wasn’t going to take it anymore. Phil Brown lost his job for breaking down the rigid, staid rules of philosophy and spiritualism at Hull City. Allardyce is just another victim of the elites bringing down those who want to make football more accessible. He won’t be the last.