Not a bark in regional football
By Fazeer Mohammed
Forget about aspiring to be Prime Minister, or even Executive President. If you want to know what real power feels like, try for a top position in football.
Whether on the international, regional or local scene, the sheer popularity of the game affords prominent administrators a degree of authority that makes them the envy of politicians anywhere in the world.
Supporters follow them loyally awaiting any scraps tossed in their direction, and critics-especially those directly involved in the sport at some level--are always fearful of jeopardising their own slice of the coconut bake if their observations are deemed to be too harsh.
Take for example the attempt by the Jamaican Football Federation to distance itself from the many adverse comments in the media in that island following the last-minute decision to change the format of the current Caribbean Football Union (CFU) Youth Cup halfway through the tournament.
Even if the rationale for the adjustment makes a bit of sense, only a blind loyalist will not see the very obvious problem of choosing to take such action when the event is already underway. Its very integrity is significantly compromised, and with few dissenting voices being heard, establishes a precedent which suggests that similar acts of convenience may be taken at future competitions.
To respond that the change makes it more competitive for teams still involved in qualifying for the regional finals, while the Jamaicans, as hosts and automatic qualifiers for that tournament, are now getting an opportunity to sharpen their game against tougher North and Central American opponents, completely misses the point. Would the tennis players preparing for the start of the US Open next Monday accept a provisional draw, allowing organisers to make adjustments later on so that there can be more competitive encounters and fewer one-sided affairs heading into the second week of the year's final Grand Slam event?
Or is this confirmation that the Youth Cup is really a vaille-que-vaille event, subject to the whims and fancies of organisers? Not for the first time, we are witnessing a classic case of the end justifying the means with an assortment of lemmings happy to go along with it for fear of incurring the wrath of their superiors.
Wednesday's news release from the CFU stated that JFF president Crenston Boxhill, having been notified of the intended change before it was made public, endorsed the amendment. It went even further to quote Boxhill as advising CFU and CONCACAF president Jack Warner that Jamaican coach David Hunte insists that he was misquoted in comments attributed to him criticising the decision to put his team in a second round grouping with Mexico, Canada and Panama.
I suppose it's useful for anyone involved in football in the region to keep a lot of space behind them. You never know when you will have to backtrack.
Yet another side to this issue concerns a lot of the criticism via the Jamaican media after the decision was made last Saturday to alter the structure of the second round. The Jamaica Observer newspaper quoted a number of individuals in the football fraternity there who were fiercely critical of the change, implying, among other things, that Warner was again using his considerable influence to smooth the way for hosts Trinidad and Tobago.
However none of the critics wanted to put their names on the record for fear of being victimised later on. In other words: "Wha' Jack and dem man doin' in Trini is madness, but doh say I say so!"
This is what real power is about boy, to have even your opponents fearful of going on record as saying anything even remotely critical. At least in political circles in these parts some people don't mind being referred to as a Rottweiler or a neemakharam as a consequence of questioning their leaders.
But in football, not a damn dog barks. In fact, if someone barks by mistake, the offending party quickly explains that it was really a meow so as not to offend the boss.
Do these critics who choose to remain nameless really have the interests of football at heart? No way. Their apparent concern is really just an offshoot from a fundamental selfishness. They are not happy with the way things are going and want change, yet are not prepared to be identified as saying so because it could jeopardise their own stake in the game, whether as coach, official, administrator or just general freeloader.
But nothing significant has ever been achieved without the boat being rocked or a few feathers ruffled. The sport of rugby was born in 1823 when a student named William Webb Ellis picked up the ball during a game of football at Rugby School in Northampton and ran with it. Professionals were ostracised by the tennis establishment until the sheer weight of numbers and the calibre of players in their ranks resulted in what is now known as the "Open" era from 1969. Many of the world's top cricketers were prepared to sacrifice their international careers for a better standard of living through Kerry Packer's World Series in the late 1970s.
Nobody is asking for anyone to be sacrificed on the altar of football over an age-group regional tournament. However if no-one appreciates the value of standing up and being counted, then all the closet critics should just sit down, shut up and leave the game to be run as it is right now.
They obviously like it so.
