Official Respect - Can Football Learn From Rugby?

Arguably the most striking difference between the sports of football and rugby, apart from the shape of the ball, is the apparent respect the players of the oval-orb game have for the match officials. A decision by the French Rugby Federation has called into question the tactics used by football associations in dealing with on-pitch decent.

In a recent Top 14 match against Bordeaux Begles, the talismanic Italian number eight Sergio Parisse was sent off while paying for club-team Stade Francais for insulting a referee and initially banned from all competitions for 40 days, with 10 of those suspended.

On appeal his sentence was reduced to a 20 day ban and, most interestingly of all, he will also have to attend a refereeing course.

This allowed him to play for his country against England at the weekend, a match he clearly had a huge impact on, but compare his punishment to the non-existent deterrents for footballers who vigorously protest almost every decision going against them.

No fan wants the referee to get a decision wrong, particularly not when it goes against your team or adversely affects the outcome of a match and in the passionate arena of sport it can be hard to keep emotions under wraps.

Current Scotland manager Gordon Strachan once said on BBC Football Focus, when asked about this disparity, the advantage rugby players have is the physicality means any frustration can be got out of the players system much quicker than it can in football. His argument boiling down to the fact rugby players can tackle their way out of these situations.

While his point certainly has merit, it is hard to recall a time, even after a game, when a rugby match official was heavily criticised for their performance. Compare this to the almost weekly rants by managers and players in the Premiership and lower down the football leagues.

Are rugby officials simply wrong less of the time than they are in football, do instant replays mean fewer important decisions are given incorrectly or is it simply footballers acting like petulant teenagers?

Take a decision this weekend when well-established football referee Mark Clattenburg gave an injury time penalty to Norwich City against Southampton. The penalty, at best, was a soft decision, but it was saved by the South-coast team’s keeper the game ended 0-0.

The fact the decision ended up bearing no relation to the result did not stop the Saints players and manager, Mauricio Pochettino, mobbing Clattenburg at the final whistle to complain about the decision. This is certainly not a isolated incident and is just one of many examples from the weekend.

If we face facts it is unlikely it would be possible to instil the inherent respect rugby players have in footballers, but the Parisse incident and subsequent punishment should certainly be taken on board by football associations.

In a recent article The Guardian website chronicled the day at a football refereeing centre for sports writers, with the unsurprising conclusion being it is more difficult than it appears.

So why do the FA not force players and managers who consistently lambast refereeing decisions to go and try officiating for a day?

This would show them just how difficult it can be to make split second decisions, demonstrate the pressure officials are under and hopefully generate in them more respect.

Football players should be punished for descent as they are in every other sport. However, any punishment is pointless unless they learn something from it and unfortunately footballers do not respond to pointless match-bans or ludicrously small fines.

So while there may be a limit of what the players of each sport can learn from each, maybe the FA could learn something from rugby’s governing bodies in terms of handing out punishments.

Underestimating the Unemployed – IDS and the Back-to-Work Programme

Following the landmark decision by the Appeal Court last week the governments sector-based work academy programme is the latest Conservative policy to hit the metaphorical buffers, but what does this decision mean for the job seekers and what is the problem with the system?

It should be made clear right from the start the Appeal Court did not say the programme, which was criticised for being tantamount to slave labour, was illegal. The issue was about the lack of information being given to benefits claimants and the suggestion it was a mandatory requirement.

The programme itself works like this. Job seekers are placed into unpaid work, usually stacking shelves or other low-paid work, and in return receive government benefits. The idea is this gives them relevant experience, gets them into the habit of going to work and increases their chances of getting full-time paid employment.

However, right from the start the policy was fundamentally flawed, something which the recent court decision brought into the spotlight.

Cait Reilly, one of the claimants in the case last week, is a 24-year-old geology graduate from the University of Birmingham. Having left university she volunteered at a local museum, but was on benefits as she was unable to find full-time paid employment.

As part of the scheme she was told she had to go and work at a local Poundland store stacking shelves for no pay if she wished to continue claiming. This meant she had to give up her voluntary work and had less time to apply for paid work.

Regardless of your view of people who claim unemployment benefit it is hard to see any benefit for a well educated university graduate to get ‘work experience’ stacking shelves when it is clearly not what they are interested in or trained for.

The truly ironic thing about this is volunteering at a museum was actually better work experience for her and more likely to result in gainful long-term employment than the government scheme.

Long-term unemployment is a major problem in this country. There are far too many people leaving education with no qualifications who then spend years on unemployment benefits at the tax-payers’ expense.

It is these people who benefit from the sector-based work academy, not a university graduate.

When I finished training as a journalist at the height of the credit-crunch in 2009 I came out into one of the worst job markets in history and was forced to claim unemployment benefits and although this scheme did not exist at the time I suffered from many of the same problems.

Job Centre staff did not care about my qualifications, skills and experience and were only interested in getting me to apply for as many jobs as possible, almost all of which had no bearing on my qualifications or experiance.

At one point I was effectively ordered to apply for a temporary Christmas position in a retail store at a local shopping centre. I then had to explain to the advisor that, while I was willing to apply, there was no chance of me getting the job as it was the kind of position offered to 17-year-olds looking for work during the school holidays.

Thankfully I now have a great job working for a media company in London which I love and is well paid, but being asked to stack shelves would have, if anything, hindered my chances of this.

The experience of Ms Reilly and myself just goes to show the Job Centre is not fit for purpose when it comes to dealing with educated people who are unemployed.

To make matters worse over the weekend Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith had the audacity to criticise people “who think they’re too good” to stack supermarket shelves, then saying those involved in the programme were not unpaid as they were “paid” job seekers allowance.

The problem is Ms Reilly did not feel she was too good to stack shelves, it is just it is not a suitable work-

placement for somebody who is a university graduate.

Has this government completely given up on people who have aspirations to get into more gainful long-term employment, or does it honestly believe the privileged should be able to do what they want and the rest should go and work in Tesco?

Anybody taking more than a cursory glance at the policy can see how to get it to work.

Firstly look at the job seekers CV. What is their highest level of qualification and do they have any marketable skills or experience? If the answers are in the negative, or they are long-term unemployed then yes, getting them into any workplace is going to be beneficial.

Secondly, for people who have higher qualifications, for example, degrees, A-levels and the equivalents, look at their areas of specialisation and find out what can be done to help them into employment in their area of expertise, be it volunteering, internships or apprenticeships.

People stay in school and go to university so they can get better paid work, not so they can graduate and get a job in Poundland. It is not that they are too good for the job, it is that they have made the effort and are trying to get a better future for themselves and their children.

This in fact might be the first time in history a government has been against people aspiring to do better by staying in education.

Ms Reilly was not caught in the vicious circle of unemployment, she was just unlucky enough to graduate into an artificially uber-competitive job market.

There is nothing wrong with the sector-based work academy, it is just it has been implemented really badly by an organisation [Job Centre] who have no interest in actually helping people into relevant employment.

If this programme was aimed at the right people, people with no qualifications and the chronically unemployed, then it would be a great programme, but it should not be seen as a one size fits all solution to joblessness in this country, particularly not for skilled workers and graduates.

Auf Wiedersehen Pope – Benedict XVI Resignation Sets Precedent

The Catholic world is reeling following the shock resignation of Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the church and its 1 billion followers worldwide, but while a resignation of this nature is unprecedented is it likely to become the norm for future Roman Catholic leaders? 

It has never been impossible for a Pope to step-down from his position, but it is almost unheard of. The last to do so was Pope Gregory XII in 1415, who resigned due to a dispute over who was the true Pope.

The nature of their respective departing mean there are very few similarities to be drawn between Gregory and Benedict, but the 600-year gap between these two historic events says a lot about the Papacy.

Almost since the formation of the Vatican and the appointment of Papal leaders it has been accepted the position is a lifetime appointment, much like a monarchy, with the only previous deviation of Gregory being under extraordinary circumstances.

However, certain modern factors certainly need to be taken into consideration. Firstly people are living longer and medical care is much better. This means there is a much greater chance for a Pope to suffer from degenerative illnesses, such as dementia or Alzheimer’s, or even severe health problems such as cancer, where treatment will have a major impact on their working lives.

Secondly, the nature of the church and Papal leadership has changed. This is no longer a religious figurehead, but can more accurately be compared to the chief executive or managing director of a large multinational corporation.

It is perfectly reasonable to say this level of leadership in the age of 24-hour news is physically and emotionally impossible for someone who is suffering with the common afflictions of old-age.

An interesting comparison here can be made with US President Franklin Roosevelt who, like many Popes in Rome, died in office. Despite having been elected to the Whitehouse on numerous occasions and almost staggeringly high approval ratings the people were shocked when he passed away after a stoke.

Many asked why he had not told the general public about his rapidly diminishing health and this episode in American history led to the creation of the constitutional line of succession and the two-terms only policy. It is perfectly reasonable to argue the day-to-day rigors of being President are not comparable to what a Pope must endure, a common quote from Catholic leaders is the church thinks in centuries, not decades.

However, you must also consider Pope’s are already of an advanced age when they are elected. Benedict was already well into his 70s by the time he became Pope, compared to David Cameron who was just 43 when he became Prime Minister and Barack Obama who was elected President at 47.

In a democracy it would be almost impossible for a person over the retirement age to be elected to the highest office. In the corporate world older people may continue to be involved in the running of a major business, but this will take the form of a less-stressful board membership, while younger people are more directly involved in implementation and execution.

The issue remaining is politicians and business leaders are expected to step-down and retire, while it is accepted the Papacy is a life-long appointment, meaning there is more comparability with a monarch than a President.

In the UK it is incredibly rare for a King or Queen to abdicate and, although there are examples of it happening, the same can be said for all kingdoms across the world.

One of the biggest issues raised following Benedict’s resignation is his influence over who will be his successor, a problem never before faced by the Conclave of Cardinals. Similarly, whoever they choose will have to lead despite his predecessor still being alive, another conundrum never before faced by the church. 

The fact this is the first time a Pope has stepped-down for health reason is a complete paradigm shift and one which may become increasingly common for future generations. It could be argued Benedict’s lasting legacy will be Pope’s will no longer be expected to hold office until death and will allow for much younger people to take the reins of one of the largest organised groups in the world, but is this necessarily true.

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II was evidently unwell and frail during his final years at the Vatican, but this made his position arguably stronger as an elder statesman and as somebody able to lend both a theological and historical perspective. However, it must also be accepted John Paul was a beloved Pope and a very charismatic leader, characteristics which do not necessarily lend themselves as well to his successor. 

In the wake of Benedict’s announcement, many have suggested resignation may become the norm for future Pope’s and this is certainly not impossible and may in fact be beneficial for the church. However, realistically what Benedict has achieved is to open this door as a realistic exit strategy.

Yes, it is likely in the future a Pope resigning will be more common place, but there is certainly no reason to suggest it will become the norm. After all, those elected Pope see their selection as the choice of God, not of the Cardinals.

What this eventually comes down to is another example of the Catholic church modernising itself to be more in line with global democratic principles and the development of itself as a corporate entity, where an aging man can no longer be expected to look after both the spiritual health of its followers and maintain the complex organisation structure of a multinational organisation.

Has Benedict fundamentally changed the nature of the Papacy? Almost certainly yes. Will his successors similarly resign?

Almost, certainly no. It is impossible to say whether the next Pope will leave under similar circumstances, but what Benedict has done is remove an historical barrier allowing those following him to leave in this manner if they feel unable to execute the office.

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Bonus Season

Bonus season, the time of year when us mere mortals wish we had paid more attention in maths class and had become bankers instead of following our less financially rewarding path.

Every annum this causes controversy and this year it was kick-started by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announcing chief executive Stephen Hester would receive an additional £1 million.

With RBS being 82 percent state-owned this resulted in an even stronger backlash from the banks shareholders, better known as the general public.

However, this will only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg as every other financial institution, including fellow state owned bank Lloyds TSB, reveals its bonuses.

The problem is there are two arguments here, one for the state owned banks, such as RBS, and another for the others who were not bailed out by the tax payer. Let us start with the state owned banks.

Despite both the Labour administration, who bailed out RBS and Lloyds in the first place, and the current ConDem government saying the tax payer will not play an active role as a shareholder, is there not a moral responsibility?

Mr Hester, as has been noted several times in recent days, is the worst paid bank chief executive in the country and yet was still entitled to receive nearly £1 million as a bonus.

Agree with the bailout or not, the tax payers of the UK are not just the majority shareholder in RBS, but given the option would be in total control, in an absolutely unbeatable position at an annual general meeting.

So while numerous RBS share holders are unemployed, unable to find work and struggling to make ends meet, the top dogs get more in a single year’s bonus than many will earn in a lifetime.

There have been many on the radical left who believe the RBS board should be paid in line with civil servant salaries.

Now while this may seem like a popular idea it is of cause ridiculous to suggest a bank executive should be paid £28,000 a year.

Not only would nobody be interested in taking the job, but the bank would struggle commercially, shares would become worthless and the public would never get their money back when the shares were eventually sold.

It is in the public interest to ensure RBS and Lloyds become successful again, assuming George Osborne does not take leave of his fiscally responsible mind and sell the shares at a loss.

What many would like to know is who in their right mind at RBS thought this was a good idea. It is about time the bailed out banks realised they are state owned and acted in a responsible way to their shareholders as they would normally do.

Instead, how about this for an alternative bonus plan for RBS. All the money to be paid out this year to all employees is not given to the employees, but to the government and is used to pay off the deficit.

Admittedly a couple of million quid is not going to make a huge difference, but is probably enough to buy a significant proportion of Greece at current market value.

At this point a round of applause is required for Mr Hester. He did the ethically and morally right thing by turning down the bonus, an action requiring a lot of guts from a man with the least enviable job in the financial services sector.

Now for the more difficult question of banker’s bonuses in general.

Although it looks as if the government is going to introduce legislation on the banks, many want to know why it has taken so long.

Let us begin with a little house keeping and some home truths. The recession was NOT caused by the budget deficit as the Tory’s would have people believed.

The UK owing so much money did not help and removed the safety net, but the initial problem was caused by the banks. Secondly, this government became electable as it had abandoned its conservative roots and became a caring party for the people.

Following the financial crash the people were livid with the financial services sector and wanted reform, but every government around the world has refused to tackle the problem.

Occupy Wall Street, Occupy London and others have been protesting for several months and battled court orders from various organisations for calling attention to something the people want.

This is understandably difficult. The banking sector is privately run and political parties of every stripe do not like interfering in the private sector, not to mention most political parties get themselves elected by cosying up to money bags in the city.

The fact governments do not like interfering in the private sector is in fact a reason why state owned banks like RBS are given such a loose reign when it comes to salary acquisition and bonuses.

It is also important to remember before the credit crunch the reason people complained about banker’s bonuses was motivated by envy, because everybody else was lucky if the boss gave them a bottle of cheap vino at Christmas.

The point here is despite a majority of the global population wanting regulation on bank practices and bonuses, the people are not being listened to.

Why should we be experiencing unprecedented public service and public sector jobs cuts, not to mention rising unemployment, repossessions and rising inflation, when the culprits for this have not been punished?

Not one banker has been put on trial for causing the financial crash, not one employee of a ratings agency has been called to account about the grading sub prime mortgages as safe and not one regulator has been punished for letting this situation get out of hand.

In fact the closest we have come to it is the rather British punishment of stripping the formally Sir Fred ‘The Shred’ Goodwin of is knighthood, embarrassing for him, but an action with little or no consequence.

Even this has been criticised for being a hysterical reaction aimed at a man who was only a tiny fraction of the problem.

Curbing bonuses, and excessive risk taking, requires a global solution. One country cannot make a difference here. If the UK turned around tomorrow and said no more bonuses and the splitting of commercial and investment banking operations, by Friday all financial institutions will have left the country.

It is time for premiers of every country to stop messing about and wasting the people time and actually punish these people for what the rest of us are enduring.

This is a hard decision, but almost every elected leader uses the phrase ‘will not duck the difficult decisions’, or something similar, at some point during a campaign.

To paraphrase the great Theodore Roosevelt nothing worth doing is ever easy, or, if you prefer you philosophy closer to home, as Irishman George Bernhard Shaw said ‘Nothing is worth doing unless the consequences may be serious’.

Should not all leaders take from these to legendary figures and realise fixing banking practices and bonuses is not going to be a walk in the park, but is something worth doing and worth doing well.

Perhaps they should take note of the rest of Teddy Roosevelt’s quotation. ‘I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well’.

Voters want action on the issues of the day, not laissez-faire.