On the Ball 8 - Team GB at the 2012 London Olympics? A Definite Maybe
Picture the scene, a bright summer’s day at Wembley in August 2012. A Great Britain Olympic team is celebrating yet another gold medal at the hugely successful London Olympic Games.
Whilst the players charge the field as the whistle blows signalling a Team GB victory (players and supporters celebrating with thick Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish accents alike) it becomes clear that it could have all gone so differently had the various FA’s making up the UK and Ireland not reached a consensus in allowing a Great British squad.
Rewind to 2008 and focus shifts to the continuing debate as to whether a Great British team should be assembled to compete in the 2012 Olympics. As importantly is the conundrum of who that team should consist of.
The Football Association (FA) is in the vast minority at present as the only one of the four national associations in favour of entering a Great British team in the 2012 Olympics. The Scottish FA (SFA), the FA of Wales (FAW), and Northern Ireland’s Irish Football Association (IFA) are all strongly opposed to the idea (the Opposing Associations) on national identity, political and organisational grounds.
The Opposing Associations are wary of losing their separate international identity. All four of the home nations were guaranteed separate status at the FIFA congress in 1946. The SFA, FAW and IFA are concerned that agreeing to be part of a "Team GB" football team would be the first step onto a slippery slope that would lead to FIFA seeking to remove the independence of each FA. This would ultimately unite the four into a Great British football association, responsible for football throughout the UK and Ireland which for obvious reasons the Opposing Associations would be against.
Linked into this issue are the political ramifications of membership of the International Football Association Board (IFAB). The IFAB is the law making body which presides over the laws of the professional game worldwide. There are 8 seats on the board, and at present four of these are held by the four home associations, with the other four being divided amongst the rest of FIFA's member nations. The Opposing Associations are worried that any attempts to join forces with the other home nations will dilute any argument for maintaining their positions on the IFAB. Certainly, anything that is seen as a threat to the current status quo would be opposed. The rationale being that a Great British team would lessen the justification for the four associations holding such powerful positions within the IFAB. There is a fear that the Opposing Associations seats on the IFAB could consequently be under threat and allocated to other FIFA nations.
For their part, FIFA has recently, and categorically, stated that a Great British team would not prejudice the current separate associations, nor their representation on the IFAB committee. These comments first emanated from Sepp Blatter, to which the Scottish FA retorted that as Mr Blatter would not be the President forever, that his assurances could not be ultimately relied upon. Indeed, David Collins the Welsh football chief remained unmoved stating that it -
"…makes very little difference to our stance. The FIFA president Sepp Blatter made that statement when London were awarded the 2012. But it is up to the FIFA congress, comprising its 200-odd member countries, who take that decision.”
His point being that it is the FIFA congress that makes the democratic decisions for the future of world football and national associations cannot conclusively rely on certain individuals in order to ensure each Opposing Associations continuing existence.
Mr Blatter had previously somewhat muddied the waters surrounding the debate by stating
“The best solution for London (in 2012) is that only the English team play. That's the best solution. To make a combined team is not a good idea."
Since then, Scottish secretary Jim Murphy has been in discussions with Jerome Valcke, the general secretary of FIFA in order to seek concrete assurances over the construction of a GB international team and it ultimately playing in the 2012 London Olympics. Murphy stated that Valcke "confirmed that [the] FIFA…the executive will agree that this one-off under-23 tournament could take place and it will not jeopardise the status of any of the home nations and I think that's very welcome news."
One now has to consider how much additional assurance each Opposing Association will need in order to free themselves from the trench warfare and entrenched positions that have been dug. Rhetoric from Peter Rees the President of the FAW maintaining "it will be a cold day in hell before any Wales player plays for a Team GB at the Olympics" suggests it may be a long and bumpy road ahead!
From an organisational perspective, there is also the tricky debate over player burnout and the extra burden placed upon players selected for the GB squad. Questions would certainly need to be asked of how the Premier League season would be organised to take account of Euro 2012 followed almost immediately by the Olympics. With the debacle of player release for the 2008 Olympics still fresh in peoples’ minds, managers, throughout Europe and especially in the Premier League, would presumably hold strong views on their players having little, if any break, during the traditional summer holiday period.
Notwithstanding these challenges, there is certainly considerable public support in England at least for the idea. A recent poll in the Guardian newspaper revealed that approximately 70% of respondents were in favour of a combined GB team being entered in 2012. This contrasts with the Opposing Associations and specifically Welsh FA secretary general David Collins who asserted that Welsh fans are against the idea " …the Football Association of Wales with its sister associations of Scotland and Northern Ireland have been of one voice. And I believe we have the support of all football fans in Wales." Though as pointed out to this author (by a few of his Scottish contemporaries!), with England making up 84% of the population of the UK a polling rating of 70% in favour is perhaps not as impressive as it first sounds.
In stating that each Opposing Association’s status could be under threat as a result of entering a team, it would be difficult to backtrack from this deep-rooted position in subsequently accepting a joint team. Pointing out the issue and its pitfalls only hardens the Opposing Associations stance to a Great British Team. David Cameron, the Tory leader, has suggested a play off between all the Associations with the winning team being entered into the 2012 Olympics as Great Britain’s representatives. Whilst it would seem that there is a relative degree of English popular support, official opposition to the question of “Team GB” it appears will run and run.
In hopeful anticipation of a Great British team, here is the humble football lawyers guide to who could make the eleven if the wrangling over a Great British team is resolved. Under the current rules there is the ability to have three over age players being permitted in the team playing a 3-5-2 formation. Mine has two and are marked with an asterisk.
Craig Gordon* (Scotland & Sunderland)
Jonathan Evans (N. Ireland & Manchester United), Jack Hobbs (England & Liverpool), Chris Gunter (Wales & Tottenham)
Theo Walcott (Arsenal & England), Aaron Ramsey (Wales & Arsenal), Gareth Bale (Wales & Tottenham), Scott Sinclair (England & Chelsea), Jack Wilshere (England & Arsenal)
Wayne Rooney* (England & Man Utd), Daniel Sturridge (England & Man City)
By Daniel Geey and Henry Marshall
About our Editor
Daniel Geey is a solicitor in the Competition and EU Regulatory Groupat
FFW. Daniel has a keen interest in sports law and has experience
indealing with English Premier League Rules and broadcasting revenues.
Hehas written various articles which have included competition
issuesrelating to the Premier League's television deal as well as
papers onEuropean football broadcasting rights, club ownership,
takeover codeissues as they
relate to football clubs and copyright issues regarding football broadcasts.
Daniel Geey
e. daniel.geey@ffw.com
About FFW
The FFW Sports Group has, over the past six years, establisheditself as
one of the leading providers of legal advice to the sportsindustry. The
Group acts for sports bodies and regulators, marketingagencies,
sponsors, sports brand owners, broadcasters and professionalclubs. Our
expertise in sports sector ranges from advising onregulatory and
disciplinary issues to advice on TV and media rights,sponsorship and
sports marketing, the acquisition and funding of sportsbusiness, brand
protection, betting and gaming, merchandising,ticketing, endorsement,
litigation and stadia development. Thispublication is provided for
information purposes only and is not asubstitute for detailed advice on
specific transactions and should notbe taken as providing legal advice
on any of the topics discussed, norshould it be taken as creating a
solicitor-client relationship betweenthe reader and Field Fisher
Waterhouse LLP.
this is subject always to the terms and conditions applicable to theparticular website(s). Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP is not responsiblefor the content or operation of
third party websites.
© COPYRIGHT 2007 FOOTBALL AID