Loyalty might seem to be an unarguably honorable trait, but like most examples of moral behavior, it turns out to be a relative concept. There is loyalty to good people and causes, and loyalty to
bad people and causes. And it may not always be easy to work out which are the good guys, and which the bad. Actually, it's never
easy, because they're changing all the time.
Loyalty, you see, can be taken too far. But at what point, I wonder, does honorable allegiance to an idea or a person turn into pig-headed pursuit of a lost cause?
What I have in mind
here is the ongoing attempt by soccer's bigwigs -- I mean primarily FIFA, but UEFA have now joined the proceedings -- to convince the non-soccer world that the sport of soccer is not a business, but a
sport. Further, that there is such a vast difference between the two activities, that soccer should be granted exemption from the laws that apply to businesses.
The laws in question are
those of the European Union, laws that are designed to ensure fair practice in business transactions, and to outlaw -- as far as possible -- discrimination of various types.
For some time
now FIFA -- led with increasing desperation by its President Sepp Blatter -- has been trying to breach these EU laws, because they allow the very thing that FIFA wants to ban, or at least to limit:
the indiscriminate signing of foreign players by club teams.
OK, so these laws apply only in Europe. But that's more than enough, for Europe is the center of world soccer, it's where all
the world's best players end up. In effect, if FIFA's regulations break down in Europe, then they break down everywhere else.
The heart of the matter is the EU law that permits free
movement of labor. Any worker from any EU country is allowed -- has the right
-- to seek employment in any other EU country. He cannot be barred from a job on the basis of his nationality.
That's one of the laws that you have to obey if you want to run a business in Europe. And soccer players are classified as workers.
FIFA does not want its European clubs (which includes
all of the world's richest and strongest) to be bound by this law. Reason: the law is seen as a threat to soccer's national teams -- the very teams, without which, there would be no World Cup. And the
World Cup is FIFA's big event, the money-spinner that finances all the other activities.
Blatter has been insisting for years now that soccer should be exempt from the EU laws as a
"special case." He has asked, is still asking, that soccer should not be viewed as a business. He has met, so far, with an icily cold response from the EU, which has said, and which continues to say,
that soccer is indeed a business and it must obey the law, like everyone else.
Blatter has his plan, the famous "6+5," meaning that all clubs must field a minimum of six home nationals,
and no more than five foreigners. This is something that the EU has said, quite clearly, it will not countenance. But Blatter persists. In May he got overwhelming backing for the scheme from FIFA's
congress (the vote was 155-5) ... and on Friday it was again presented to the EU. And, yet again, the EU made it clear that it was a non-starter. The rejection was sugar-coated, for sure, it talked
about encouraging "the teams of professional clubs in each country to develop the presence of athletes capable of qualifying for national teams, in compliance with EU law ..." But it was still a No.
The "6+5" is a reasonable solution. The problem is that it can only be made to work if soccer manages to get its exemption from EU commercial laws -- at which point "6+5" becomes totally
Certainly soccer as played by 95 percent of its players, as organized by 95 percent of its clubs, and so on, throughout the world, is hardly a business. A recreation,
peopled by volunteers and unpaid players. But the top pro level -- the level which is directly concerned with all this maneuvering, the level that employs and pays, handsomely, the players who compose
the national teams ... are we seriously expected to believe that is not a business? Does FIFA, does Blatter, really expect the worldly EU politicians, confronted with billionaire owners and
millionaire players and multi-million dollar transfer deals and super-budget global marketing campaigns, to not
recognize big business when it sees it?
The idea is unreal, born
of a president and an organization that has lost touch with the real world. FIFA has an ostensibly sensible regulation that forbids "political interference" in the sport. In fact, it is another
example of unreality, leading FIFA into head-on collisions with national governments in which FIFA seeks to dictate terms! The most recent example came last month when the Polish government removed
the chief officers of the Polish soccer federation, alleging they were corrupt. FIFA, backed by UEFA, stepped in and told the Polish government it had no right to do that (in its own country, no
less!) And that Poland would be suspended from international soccer unless the officers were reinstated.
A compromise was arranged, but the assumption of super-national power by FIFA and
UEFA is quite breathtaking: "We cannot allow sports administrators to be replaced the following day by politicians at the whim of a government," said UEFA's William Galleried.
wants to keep politics out of sport, it might offer the quid pro quo that FIFA will stay out of politics. And that it will stop trying to float the delusion that soccer is not a business. Anyway, is
that delusion really necessary? Is there any solid proof that allowing clubs total freedom in signing foreign players has any damaging effect on national teams?
Consider two countries
whose clubs are bristling with foreign players, Italy and Spain. The current world and European champions. Nothing there to suggest the free movement of players -- whatever may be its other drawbacks
-- weakens national teams.