There are growing calls for spectators who run on the pitch and assault players to be automatically banned for life from English stadia. And I couldn’t agree more.
In fact, I am quite staggered that invading the pitch and attacking a player does not already carry an automatic lifetime ban from every football ground in the world. I always assumed it did.
Let’s be honest, it must be absolutely terrifying for the player or players involved purely because they won’t know what level of idiot they are dealing with.
It might be someone who only wants to yell and scream to make a point, which is not harmful but still disturbing. But what if the spectator is looking to throw kicks and punches? Or, God forbid, is carrying some sort of weapon like a knife or piece of glass? As far I am aware there hasn’t ever been that sort of level of assault, at least in English football. But that’s not to say there isn’t the possibility of it happening at some point.
Thankfully, pitch invasions are not the most common occurrence in modern football, which is a relief when you consider that the fences holding back supporters were taken down several decades ago. But they do happen, like the recent incident in the match between Leicester City and Nottingham Forest when a supporter of the former ran onto the pitch to confront players from the latter. The man, Cameron Toner, has been charged by the police and given a ban for life by Leicester. But, as far I am aware, that won’t stop him going into other grounds. And it is that rule that needs changing.
The chairman of the Professional Footballer’s Association, John Mousinho, said last week that players simply don’t know if a pitch invader is ‘coming to take a selfie or is carrying a knife’. “I can’t see a reason for a fan to be allowed back into a football stadium if they come on the pitch and assault a player. It’s a conscious choice. The term has to be large enough for people to decide they are not going to do it,” he said.
Mousinho’s views are doubly important as not only is he head of the footballers’ union, he is also a player with Oxford United. And that means he can speak on the topic with a certain degree of authority.
I don’t think anybody at all would object if the law was changed to make these stadia bans automatic. And I don’t think the sport needs to wait for a genuine tragedy to happen before action is taken.
I don’t think the sport needs to wait for a genuine tragedy to happen before action is taken
A deterrent of sufficient magnitude might not stop every hot-headed idiot from getting overcome by the red mist. But if it manages to stop one who would otherwise be intent on causing serious harm, then it will have done its job.
A Messi ending at PSG?
Lionel Messi’s move to Paris Saint-Germain isn’t really working out, is it?
The Argentinian legend is in his first season with the French club, having spent his entire career before that with Barcelona, a place he didn’t really want to leave. But while he would probably deny it if you asked him, life outside of Spain is not really working out for him.
He missed a penalty in PSG’s Champions League clash with Real Madrid last week, and that prompted French newspaper L’Equipe to give him a rating of just 3 out of 10. Although that was pretty harsh, it is undeniable that he hasn’t been anything close to the top of his game since he swapped clubs.
In fact, I certainly wouldn’t be even slightly surprised if he ended up back in Spain next season.
Barca may be financially strapped right now but I suspect Messi may have reached a point in his life – with many millions in the bank and not many years of playing left – where turning out for a club he loves and where he is loved is more important than wages. And that means he could well be prepared to take a substantial pay cut – maybe even play for little more than a token salary – if it meant he could return to his spiritual home.
PSG, on the other hand, must be well aware they have a player on their hands who isn’t overly happy within himself and who is certainly not tearing up a league where his talent should shine supreme. And while they are not short of a euro or two, surely even they will realise that forking out huge amounts of money on wages for an underperforming player doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
Environmentalists on snow patrol
There seems to be a lot of fuss being made about the fact that the Winter Olympics in Beijing is relying almost entirely on artificial snow. And I can understand why this isn’t ideal, considering it has apparently taken 49 million gallons of water to keep the skiers skiing over the last couple of weeks.
But according to the organisers of the Games, they are doing everything they can to ensure there is little negative environmental impact, including using renewable energy to produce the snow and recycling the water.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know enough about this topic to have any sort of deeply held opinion in either direction. I can see why the environmentalists are concerned, especially as Beijing is notoriously short of water at the best of times.
And I can see why the organisers are confident in the measures they have taken as they appear to have done an awful lot to make these Games as environmentally friendly as possible.
But I do question one thing: why would the International Olympic Committee award the Games to a place where snow is scarce in the first place? That seems to me to be a bit of a breakdown in common sense…
Twitter: @maltablade