Earlier this week, following the announcement that the Premier League would see the 2019/20 season finished, clubs were given the opportunity by FIFA to vote on scrapping VAR for the rest of the season. Keeping officials in the confined ‘VAR Hub’ at Stockley Park for two hours at a time may not be the most logical steps to take in the current climate. VAR also requires meticulous camera monitoring and an increased set-up process pre-match.
The season needs to be completed as quickly and as safely as possible, and it was recognised that VAR protocol may be putting more people at risk for a longer period of time. Yet, the Premier League “wants to keep it. Clubs believe the integrity of the competition would be compromised if VAR was not used for the entire season.”
Fair, right? Despite VAR’s difficulties, it has been used throughout the season, so to maintain consistency, it should be used for the remainder of it. However, it is the word “integrity” - which has been tossed about so much during the past few months - which caught our attention.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, integrity is “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.” In the context of COVID-19 and ‘Project Restart’, it seems to be used to mean consistency or fairness. Retaining the use of VAR to maintain “integrity” will ensure consistency and fairness over the course of this disjointed season. Proposals to play some games at neutral venues were met with the same response too: “They argue playing games at neutral venues behind closed doors would compromise the integrity of the competition.”
However, last month a majority of bottom half teams voiced a desire to scrap relegation – regardless of the method by which the season would be finished. Integrity? If the season was to be finished with VAR, and without neutral venues, then why would relegation compromise integrity? It would be more consistent to ensure that relegation will occur.
The season needs to be completed as quickly and as safely as possible, and it was recognised that VAR protocol may be putting more people at risk for a longer period of time. Yet, the Premier League “wants to keep it. Clubs believe the integrity of the competition would be compromised if VAR was not used for the entire season.”
Fair, right? Despite VAR’s difficulties, it has been used throughout the season, so to maintain consistency, it should be used for the remainder of it. However, it is the word “integrity” - which has been tossed about so much during the past few months - which caught our attention.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, integrity is “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.” In the context of COVID-19 and ‘Project Restart’, it seems to be used to mean consistency or fairness. Retaining the use of VAR to maintain “integrity” will ensure consistency and fairness over the course of this disjointed season. Proposals to play some games at neutral venues were met with the same response too: “They argue playing games at neutral venues behind closed doors would compromise the integrity of the competition.”
However, last month a majority of bottom half teams voiced a desire to scrap relegation – regardless of the method by which the season would be finished. Integrity? If the season was to be finished with VAR, and without neutral venues, then why would relegation compromise integrity? It would be more consistent to ensure that relegation will occur.
A goal scored by Leondro Trossard in August of last year was chalked off by VAR. Both teams involved - Brighton and West Ham - expressed a desire to retain VAR's usage for the remainder of the season, but wished to see relegation scrapped.
The consistently inconsistent use of the word ‘integrity’ across Premier League clubs and below has highlighted only one thing. Whatever the case may be – from substitutions to relegations – self-interest determines all. Ultimately, ‘integrity’ has now become a synonym for self-interest and has only served to disrupt and create obstacles for the return of football and ‘Project Restart’.
No matter what division the footballing spotlight has been shining on, the issue of relegation has been the most divisive and contentious obstacle that ‘Project Restart’ has had to overcome. Leagues have been split entirely. On one hand, those facing the threat of relegation and the financial troubles that accompany it have spoken out in protest over ‘unlawful’ and ‘unfair’ relegations. Alternatively, those clubs who would avoid relegation (although may not be safe as the season restarts) have been equally as vocal in their appeal for relegations to go ahead as normal while football does not. Both sides of the debate, however, have one common thread throughout – every argument is based on the principle of ‘sporting integrity’.
With news this week confirming the provisional restart dates for the Premier League and Championship, Barnsley have been the latest club to voice their concerns over relegations going ahead. Writing to the EFL, Barnsley argued that unbalanced squads (due to contract issues) and the loss of home advantage that home crowds provide will damage the sporting integrity of the competition irrevocably. Moreover, they are pleading for a “one-time parachute payment” to offset the financial turmoil of a possible relegation to League One.
Hull City, who haven’t won a league fixture since the 1st January (1-0 away to Sheffield Wednesday), have also been completely opposed to the Championship restarting. Under the veil of health and safety concerns, Hull’s vice-chairman Ehab Allam has said that without a guarantee of all fixtures being played, the EFL are effectively asking Championship clubs to play “pass the parcel” in regard to promotion and relegation. Currently sitting 21st in the Championship and just two points above the drop zone, it feels as if Hull’s concerns over integrity are simply a guise to hide their true fear – the prospect of imminent relegation.
Much has been made of the Premier League’s efforts to get back underway, with Brighton and Watford having both offered relentless criticisms of relegations and ‘Project Restart’ altogether. Watford argued that the league would “offer no resemblance to the one that was started” in a statement regarding neutral venues – a sentiment reinforced by Brighton. As things stand, Watford and Brighton would both avoid relegation to England’s second tier, but neither are anywhere close to mathematically securing Premier League football for next season. Watford – 17th on goal difference – and Brighton – just two points above the drop zone – have been opposed to the Premier League restarting since the first murmurings of ‘Project Restart’. If the league were to continue, both clubs’ survival hopes would come into question with the inevitably unpredictable nature of a relegation dogfight.
No matter what division the footballing spotlight has been shining on, the issue of relegation has been the most divisive and contentious obstacle that ‘Project Restart’ has had to overcome. Leagues have been split entirely. On one hand, those facing the threat of relegation and the financial troubles that accompany it have spoken out in protest over ‘unlawful’ and ‘unfair’ relegations. Alternatively, those clubs who would avoid relegation (although may not be safe as the season restarts) have been equally as vocal in their appeal for relegations to go ahead as normal while football does not. Both sides of the debate, however, have one common thread throughout – every argument is based on the principle of ‘sporting integrity’.
With news this week confirming the provisional restart dates for the Premier League and Championship, Barnsley have been the latest club to voice their concerns over relegations going ahead. Writing to the EFL, Barnsley argued that unbalanced squads (due to contract issues) and the loss of home advantage that home crowds provide will damage the sporting integrity of the competition irrevocably. Moreover, they are pleading for a “one-time parachute payment” to offset the financial turmoil of a possible relegation to League One.
Hull City, who haven’t won a league fixture since the 1st January (1-0 away to Sheffield Wednesday), have also been completely opposed to the Championship restarting. Under the veil of health and safety concerns, Hull’s vice-chairman Ehab Allam has said that without a guarantee of all fixtures being played, the EFL are effectively asking Championship clubs to play “pass the parcel” in regard to promotion and relegation. Currently sitting 21st in the Championship and just two points above the drop zone, it feels as if Hull’s concerns over integrity are simply a guise to hide their true fear – the prospect of imminent relegation.
Much has been made of the Premier League’s efforts to get back underway, with Brighton and Watford having both offered relentless criticisms of relegations and ‘Project Restart’ altogether. Watford argued that the league would “offer no resemblance to the one that was started” in a statement regarding neutral venues – a sentiment reinforced by Brighton. As things stand, Watford and Brighton would both avoid relegation to England’s second tier, but neither are anywhere close to mathematically securing Premier League football for next season. Watford – 17th on goal difference – and Brighton – just two points above the drop zone – have been opposed to the Premier League restarting since the first murmurings of ‘Project Restart’. If the league were to continue, both clubs’ survival hopes would come into question with the inevitably unpredictable nature of a relegation dogfight.
Barnsley said they that would refuse to accept relegation, but that if it did go ahead, a one-time parachute payment should be made to those who go down. The club gave a wealth of reasons as to why the season should not continue, and all were grouped under the umbrella of 'integrity'.
Integrity is a mask; self-interest is the reality. It is becoming increasingly clear that clubs up and down the country are concerned only with their own statuses. No club wants to be relegated, and fear of relegation is part and parcel of league football. Whilst this may be no ordinary season, it is as important as ever – if not more so – for this part of the game to be maintained. So, as clubs continue to throw the term ‘integrity’ about with no regard to what it actually entails, it is important to remember the self-serving nature of football and to look beyond comments and analyse why clubs can hold polar opposite views both supposedly in the name of ‘integrity’.
“For many reasons it is a good thing for players’ safety and health, but I am one of the people who believe we started the season with one set of rules….if we change this one, what other rules may we change before we get to the start of the season?” David Moyes’ reaction to the increased number of substitutes to five instead of three is an example of a manager in the bottom six expressing concerns over the ‘integrity’ of the 2019/20 Premier League season. Karren Brady (West Ham vice-chairman) has been a controversial figure in ‘Project Restart’ and after early claims to ‘null and void’ the campaign, she has decided to change her tune. Brady is now insistent on the importance of finishing the season to “uphold the integrity of the game.”
The problem that many have with West Ham’s stance on changing substitution laws and completing the season is their persistence to discuss taking relegation off the table. How can that be consistent with the message of integrity? The Athletic broke an article in late May with West Ham at the forefront of asking for no relegation because of ‘imbalance’ in the fixture list. It is unfair to solely blame for West Ham for their dissent at Premier League proposals, and as many know the attitudes of West Ham widely reflect those in the bottom six of the Premier League table.
In fact, in the Premier League meeting on June 4 (during which three substitutes were agreed to be extended to five and the number of players on the bench extended from seven to nine) Bournemouth were opposed to both proposals like West Ham. Bournemouth who lie 18th in the last relegation place, believe that this fundamental change in the number of substitutions and players on the bench will benefit the top clubs because of their bigger squads. Bottom of the league Norwich also agreed with this stance given the size of their squad in comparison to bigger clubs and to support their viewpoint turned to that buzzword again- ‘integrity.’
“For many reasons it is a good thing for players’ safety and health, but I am one of the people who believe we started the season with one set of rules….if we change this one, what other rules may we change before we get to the start of the season?” David Moyes’ reaction to the increased number of substitutes to five instead of three is an example of a manager in the bottom six expressing concerns over the ‘integrity’ of the 2019/20 Premier League season. Karren Brady (West Ham vice-chairman) has been a controversial figure in ‘Project Restart’ and after early claims to ‘null and void’ the campaign, she has decided to change her tune. Brady is now insistent on the importance of finishing the season to “uphold the integrity of the game.”
The problem that many have with West Ham’s stance on changing substitution laws and completing the season is their persistence to discuss taking relegation off the table. How can that be consistent with the message of integrity? The Athletic broke an article in late May with West Ham at the forefront of asking for no relegation because of ‘imbalance’ in the fixture list. It is unfair to solely blame for West Ham for their dissent at Premier League proposals, and as many know the attitudes of West Ham widely reflect those in the bottom six of the Premier League table.
In fact, in the Premier League meeting on June 4 (during which three substitutes were agreed to be extended to five and the number of players on the bench extended from seven to nine) Bournemouth were opposed to both proposals like West Ham. Bournemouth who lie 18th in the last relegation place, believe that this fundamental change in the number of substitutions and players on the bench will benefit the top clubs because of their bigger squads. Bottom of the league Norwich also agreed with this stance given the size of their squad in comparison to bigger clubs and to support their viewpoint turned to that buzzword again- ‘integrity.’
Pictured here speaking last November, Brady has been very outspoken with regards to 'Project Restart', and hasn't been afraid to change her opinions too.
Amid all these different arguments concerning ‘integrity’, Watford’s Troy Deeney, who has staunchly criticised the process of ‘Project Restart’, believes that the ‘integrity’ of the competition has already been lost. In an interview with CNN, Deeney stated: ‘I believe that when it comes to the integrity of this season anyway, its already gone.’ Perhaps the bottom six clubs are using the lost ‘integrity’ to protect their Premier League status by constantly trying to remove the threat of relegation. Fundamentally, their argument is that the integrity of the competition is long gone, so why should the principle of relegation remain? However, as already mentioned, they are insistent on maintaining rules that were already there in the name of integrity, contradicting their overall argument. Self-interest is of course, at the forefront of all their proposals.
Ultimately rule changes are inevitable in the middle of a global pandemic and a three-month hiatus from professional football. However, the bottom six’s contradictory stance of integrity shown particularly by West Ham, Bournemouth and Norwich highlights one thing. Integrity is clearly not their main interest, and instead it is their own self-serving agendas in a time of financial uncertainty.
Ultimately rule changes are inevitable in the middle of a global pandemic and a three-month hiatus from professional football. However, the bottom six’s contradictory stance of integrity shown particularly by West Ham, Bournemouth and Norwich highlights one thing. Integrity is clearly not their main interest, and instead it is their own self-serving agendas in a time of financial uncertainty.
Written by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back