The FA’s decision to appoint Thomas Tuchel as the new England manager is so, so sad.
But before I go into more detail, let’s get one thing clear: my dismay at this move has nothing to do with the man himself. In fact, I think he’ll do a pretty good job with the England team.
He is a quality coach with a good track record and there is a very decent chance he has the drive and tactical acumen needed to find the final piece of the trophy-winning jigsaw.
But the problem is simple: he isn’t English.
In my mind, the manager of a national team, any national team, should be from the same country as his players. It should be compulsory, one of the rules of the game, a point that isn’t even up for discussion.
That’s not me being xenophobic or subliminally racist, just realistic. Because by allowing countries – especially major footballing nations – to appoint overseas managers, we are just making it an extension of domestic football.
And that is another nail in the coffin of the international game.
This should be about one country’s best taking on another country’s best. If that best isn’t good enough, then so be it. Do something about the lack of resources at your disposal to ensure you do have the best players and coaches if you want to win something.
And that leads me to another point. What does this appointment say about English managers? The FA has spent hundreds of millions on St George’s Park with the precise objective of producing better players and better coaches.
If they are, a decade later, still resorting to appointing foreign coaches, then they have quite obviously failed in their primary mission of nurturing and developing English football. On that basis, why should we trust this collection of muppets to make important appointments?
I admit that choosing an English manager at this stage would not have been easy. There isn’t a long list to choose from. But it’s a viscous circle of lack of opportunities and lack of respect. And the FA had a big chance here to break that circle.
As it is now, if Tuchel goes on to the next World Cup, that will be enough for most people to turn a blind eye to his nationality.
But even then, this situation wouldn’t sit very comfortably with me and the millions of others who believe international football should be your best versus their best.
Battle for control of football
Last week, Europe’s football clubs, backed by the players union, filed a case with the European Commission claiming that FIFA was abusing its dominance.
They are essentially arguing that world football’s governing body is taking decisions for their own benefit without taking into consideration the needs of the players and the clubs.
Too many games are being played, and doing things like expanding the Club World Cup and holding it in the summer were not fair on the teams or players involved.
At face value you may say they have a point. Next summer, some players will literally go from their normal league season to international games to Club World Cup without anything resembling a proper break.
However, there are always two sides to every story, and the other one is pretty compelling as well.
In their defence, UEFA and FIFA were very quick to point out the hypocrisy of the clubs who never turn down an opportunity to make money.
“Those leagues apparently prefer a calendar filled with friendlies and summer tours, often involving extensive global travel,” FIFA said.
And they have a point. Let’s not forget that the second last season ended, Newcastle United and Tottenham Hotspur jumped on planes to Australia to play a friendly match there.
That’s hardly the sort of thing you would do if you were realistically concerned that your players were tired and playing too much football.
Ultimately this is a battle between the clubs on one side and FIFA on the other, for control of the game. The European clubs want it, FIFA currently has it, and it will be up to the Commission to decide if that should change.
The players, meanwhile, are caught in the middle of a power struggle that is seeing the physical demands on them growing by the season.
Their union may have opted to support the clubs in this dispute, but that is possibly a bit naïve, because I don’t think either side genuinely has the players’ best interests at heart.
Sooner or later that penny will drop. And industrial action will follow, forcing everyone to take a step back and sort out this unsustainable situation in a sensible manner.
Putting a price on 38 trophies
A lot of people have been kicking up a fuss about Sir Alex Ferguson being asked to step down as club ambassador by Manchester United.
Since retiring as manager just over a decade ago, the 82-year-old Scotsman has been working for the club in a few figurehead roles, pocketing a couple of million a year for spreading the United word around the world.
Now, as part of the club’s drive to cut costs, that will stop at the end of the season.
It’s easy to see why so many people are mortified by the decision. Sir Alex won a staggering 38 trophies for the club, a figure unlikely to be matched for the rest of eternity. And that should have earned him the right to spend the rest of his life walking the halls of Old Trafford naked, if that’s what he wanted to do.
As Eric Cantona so eloquently put it in a tweet: “Sir Alex Ferguson should be able to do anything he wants at the club till the day he dies. Such a lack of respect. It’s totally scandalous. Sir Alex Ferguson will be my boss forever. And I throw them all in a bag of shit.”
I think that says it all.
Meanwhile, an interesting quirk I came across: When Kobbie Mainoo withdrew from the England squad last week it meant it was the first time since 1976 that a Three Lions squad has assembled without a single Manchester United player involved.
What does that tell us about the English team? Not very much. It’s not like there is a shortage of quality players for England to choose from. What does it tell us about the current situation at United? Quite probably a lot more...
E-mail: James.calvert@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade