- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
So what else is new? This is built-in to every monolithic institution and always has been. It's exacerbated by the untrammelled pursuit of green (and I'm not talking soylent) that they think is the foundation for all their work, from FA level right up to FIFA.Thats not a daft suggestion, but I’d strongly argue that having 2 teams reduce 2 games to 60 minutes (from 90) would do far more damage to the integrity of the competition than asking a team to call on its U23s to fulfill a single fixture. Everything that is happening in football in its response to the pandemic just smacks of a complete vacuum of leadership where no governing body has the balls to accept and publicly acknowledge that something has to give.
Anyone with an ounce of sense in the brainbox knows, and has known for years, that the way the sport is currently structured is ultimately unsustainable. The only attempt to try and inject at least some semblance of a stabilising factor, FFP, started off weak, was left gapingly open to abuse, and at the very first attempt to enforce it, got shredded faster than a wet paper bag in a typhoon. That was down to the football framework not understanding how slow they really are - another characteristic of monolithic structures.
The whole football structure is too big, too centralised and too focused on money. However, the pandemic won't bring about its end. Individual clubs will suffer perhaps, but not the overall framework. The collapse of the current structure will take time. But it will happen and the very thing you've mentioned above will be a key contributing cause.