The FA created the wrong impression over the Doncaster Belles case

Could Greg Dyke change it?

It came as little surprise to hear that the Doncaster Belles’ appeal against enforced relegation from the top flight of English women’s football was not upheld. I wrote about the case last month, and the story has been taken up elsewhere, attracting more attention than the women’s game has had for some time.

The case appears to starkly illustrate all that is wrong with modern football – a successful club with strong community roots relegated because its commercial model didn’t pass muster, in favour of a new team established by moneybags Manchester City. That’s certainly a view shared by the Doncaster fanzine site Popular Stand, which has detailed the affair with articulate rage. The full story is a little more complicated, and involves considering the wisdom and necessity of the licencing system that underpins the whole affair, and the way the Football Association operates.

It is worth reading the full appeals panel ruling, not simply for the detail of why the appeal was rejected but also for the manner of the rejection. The bottom line appears to be that all the clubs who applied for licences for the new FA Women’s Super League 1 agreed to a set of terms and conditions that included the stipulation that “The FA will be free to exercise its discretion in licensing clubs as it sees fit…” You can, I suspect, see where this is going. The appeals panel found that as there was nothing wrong with the way the FA exercised its discretion, “The appeal therefore fails at that preliminary hurdle.”

When I talked about the case with a contact who has long experience of the workings of English football this week, I was told I needed to understand that the FA approaches situations such as this “from the mindset of civil servants – they are technocrats”. I know, too, that there is considerable irritation about the bashing the FA has taken over this, particularly as the possibility of a legal challenge from the Belles means the FA cannot make further comment. The FA genuinely believes its plans for the women’s game will create a sustainable and robust model for a game that has endured too many false starts. But that is not the perception it has created.

Georgina Turner, a sports journalist and respected voice on the women’s game, told me: “I find it very difficult to shake off the feeling that the decision to accommodate Manchester City Ladies in the very top division was made before – and thus forced – the decision to relegate one of the existing top-flight clubs. That in itself, even if it is only a perception, looks bad for the FA, and they have made only a weak attempt to alter that perception.”

Dr Carrie Dunn, a sports sociologist and long-time follower of the women’s game, told me: “The FA suddenly deciding to advise Belles on commercial and marketing issues seems a bit rich. Belles have been running at the top level for twice as long as the FA have taken an active interest in women's football.

“The FA has received a lot of criticism in recent years for its failure to impose an appropriate fit and proper person test in the men's league. To start to take what amount to sanctions now against well-run and successful women's teams seems ludicrous.”

Like Turner, Dunn takes issue with one of the reasons the FA cites for not granting the Belles a licence – the fact that the team is third in line to use its Keepmoat Stadium ground, behind Doncaster Rovers men’s team and the town’s rugby league side. She calls the objection “ridiculous”, pointing out that Notts County Ladies (a club itself at the centre of controversy after Lincoln were renamed and moved out of Lincoln) would be in the same situation next season, and that “Arsenal rank behind Boreham Wood and Watford Reserves at Meadow Park”.

Part of the FA’s case rests on the fact that a licence system has operated in English women’s football, leading to a closed league with no promotion or relegation, since 2011. The Belles benefited from that, having finished second from bottom twice, and again accepted the system by agreeing to apply for a new licence for the new structure. So the ‘pure sporting’ traditions many critics hark back to have not applied for a while.

It’s also true that Bristol Academy is seen as a model club but is not awash with cash, so the new system is not all about money. And that criticising Manchester City for funding and taking an interest in its women’s team – unlike most top clubs – is a little unfair. In short, there is a very strong technocratic case to be made for the licencing system and the decisions taken to enforce it.

But the trouble with the technocratic approach is that it underplays context. As Dunn says: “My colleagues across Europe have been astonished to hear about the FA's new structure for women's football, pointing out that this kind of demotion on non-footballing grounds is entirely contrary to the spirit of sporting competition. They were also amazed to find out that the FA is now implicitly backing franchising, what with Lincoln's relocation - a structure that is historically completely alien to English football.”

And, says Turner: “Fans feel more and more remote from the machinations of football, but the women’s game had managed to preserve at least a sense of decency. Since this decision came alongside permission to move Lincoln Ladies to Nottingham… it is little wonder that some fans are starting to question the good these changes are doing to the sport.”

So is the licencing system a mistake? Dunn reckons “it's a little early to dismiss it completely as a mistake but there needs to be some flexibility to examine individual cases to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of the law is applied.” It’s that nuance thing again.

The FA seems a little bewildered by the criticism, unaware that, as Dunn puts it “it's almost as if they're saying, ‘Well, you complained when we did nothing for women's football; now we're doing something, so you should be grateful’.” Popular Stand puts it more strongly, saying: “The FA has decided what is good for the game, and it doesn’t matter what you, or I, or thousands of people with first-hand experience of the sport think.”

No doubt the FA would strongly refute this assertion. But is it really inconceivable that wider consultation could have resulted in a system that would not lead to widespread criticism even from the Belles’ rival clubs, or one that would not reduce a team’s league campaign to an irrelevancy after just one match – the limbo the Belles currently find themselves in? At the moment it is, at best, unclear whether success in women’s football is to be defined by sporting achievement alone or by a combination of factors including robustness of business plan and ability to satisfy TV scheduling requirements. And that’s a perception the FA is responsible for creating.

The greatest danger, and I may surprise regular readers here, is of fuelling the growing belief that business is antithetical to sport. Each needs the other for it to be successful, but more and more fans see business as the enemy, rather than something which can be harnessed. And that’s because they are not being properly consulted and involved.

A visionary FA chief would make it their priority to address this disconnect. Someone more meritocratic than the average football bureaucrat, sympathetic to a range of perspectives on the game, and well-versed in the art of politics, may be able to do so successfully. As luck would have it, the chairman of the FA from 13 July is Greg Dyke.

Carly Hunt of Doncaster Belles does battle with Kristy Moore of Fulham Ladies. Photograph: Getty Images.

Martin Cloake is a writer and editor based in London. You can follow him on Twitter at @MartinCloake.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here