The Mafia of the Mediocre

MANY of you reading this post will be aware the above heading is a tart description of our friends who are Freemasons - in this instance, I am using it to refer to my fourth estate colleagues in England's football-writing fraternity.

There are some Fleet Street giants (ok Fleet Street is no longer the street of ink, but I use it as a generic term for writers for primarily English newspapers) for whom I have a lot of time: my old muckers Kevin McCarra at the Guardian and Jonathan Northcroft at the Sunday Times; God, or Hugh McIlvanney as he prefers to be known, at the same paper, Jim Lawton at the Independent. The late Ian Wooldridge at the Mail was almost as good as the blessed Ian "Dan" Archer, and Frank Keating, who sits alongside McIlvanney in the pantheon of those still living whom we love, I admire - while sadly departed heroes Wooldridge, Archer and Bob Crampsey are in the front row of the Great Press Box in the Sky.

The greats - Wooldridge, McIlvanney, Keating, Lawton and Crampsey could entertain about any sport, it is difficult to find writers who stick to football who are not eventually sucked into the mediocrity which so characterises the national game.

The late John Reason, rugby correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph was the English writer the Scots hated most. Indeed, earlier this season I heard a former president of the SRU refer to him in terms and using so-many four-letter words, I was left in no doubts as to the dislike there. I'd love to have seen Reason write a report on Bannockburn: it would probably have been hailed as a great English victory.

Some of today's English football writers, with their adherence to the credo: "There is no other football but the (English) Premiership" could well give old unReasonable a run for his money.

One of these is Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail. This morning he penned a, for him, very well-structured piece, arguing that La Liga in Spain might well be becoming like the SPL - dominated by two clubs: Real Madrid and Barcelona, just as the Old Firm rule the roost up here. Mr Samuel argues that the greater democracy of the (English) Premier League is a better thing.

This of course overlooks the fact that the EPL is just as great a monopoly as the Spanish and Scottish organisations. The EPL began in 1992, there have been 18 seasons, with just four clubs winning - Manchester United have 11 wins, Arsenal and Chelsea three each and Blackburn Rovers one.

In the same 18 seasons of La Liga; Barcelona have won eight titles, Real Madrid six, Valencia two and Deportiva La Coruna and Atletico Madrid one each.

In the same 18 seasons the SPL count has been 11 wins to 7 in Rangers' favour, so, in the period since the EPL was formed and football began (if you believe our English neighbours), the most-successful clubs over the three leagues have been Manchester United and Rangers; then, in descending order of success - Barcelona, Celtic, Real Madrid, Arsenal and Chelsea, Valencia, Blackburn Rovers/Deportiva La Coruna/Atletico Madrid.

You cannot make a case for greater equality in the EPL out of those figures. If you look at other major European Leagues, such as Serie A in Italy, the German Bundesliga, the Dutch Eredivisie or Ligue 1 in France, you find the EPL, if more egalitarian than our own two-clubs dominant SPL, less so than other leagues.

Since 1992-93, also of course the first season of the Champions League, we've had just two winners of the SPL, four of the EPL, five of La Liga, Serie A and the Eredivisie, six Bundesliga winners and eight winners of Ligue 1.

Football at the top is increasingly becoming a game for big rich boys. There might be more money awash in the EPL, but while all clubs therein are big, a select few are bigger than others.

If Old Firm dominance has been bad for Scottish football, and Barcelona and Real Madrid has been bad for La Liga - why haven't our Fleet Street friends realised the dominance of one huge club, Manchester United and two very big clubs - Arsenal and Chelsea has been bad for English football?

Since the Champions League kicked off, Spain and Italy have each won it five times, England three times, Germany twice and France, Portugal and Holland once each. In the same period, Germany, France, Greece and Spain have won the European (Nations) Championship once each and Italy, France and Spain have won the World Cup once each, Italy and France have each been in another final and Germany in two finals.

What has the super-egalitarian EPL done for England internationally? Has the "Golden Generation" of Beckham, Scholes, Lampard, Terry, Gerrard etc actually won anything?

The Old Firm dominates up here, because they have and will still have money when no other clubs have. I think the same holds good elsewhere in Europe. The worrying thing for England is - the likes of Juventus in Italy and PSV in Holland are bank-rolled by big international manufacturing companies. A lot of the other bigger clubs across the continent are funded by "old money" or well-established local interests; Barcelona is the "national team" of Catalonia and also benefits from the Spanish membership system for instance.

The FA has allowed control of English football to fall into the hands of often foreign benefactors of currently big clubs and is beholden to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation for publicity and the TV money.

In Scotland, we will guddle through, we always do. What will happen to England when the TV bubble bursts and the new money gets bored with football and moves elsewhere?

Don't make wrong assumptions too-soon Mr Samuel - you will be left with egg on your face. And that will not look good at the next monthly meeting of football writing's Mafia of the Mediocre.