Three thoughts from a football fan:
a) It has been coming;
b) but, the proposal is incoherent; and
c) the Govt's position is... interesting
THREAD 1/10
a) We reap what we sow. Football, at the top level, has long been governed by the relentless search for profit. Links with fans and communities have progressively been weakened. Stories like the @AFCWimbledon story are few and far between. 2/10
The big clubs are owned by millionaires, who want to maximise their profits. They want financial security, and hate risk/jeopardy.
Failing to qualify for the Champions League, or at a different level, relegation from the Premier League, spells financial disaster. 3/10
Why not try to secure their income streams? Why not have a league in which the biggest clubs play each other every year in front of huge global audiences? Other Leagues (eg the NFL in the US) are 'closed shops' - why should football not be more like that? 4/10
b) The incoherent part of the plan is not so much the creation of the Super League, but the coexistence of the Super League with domestic leagues (like the Premier League). 5/10
It may be that the Govt, the FA, the EPL, UEFA and FIFA will force the clubs to choose between the Super League and the rest of football - and there are interesting legal questions about they can do.
But, the plan seems to involve the continuation of domestic leagues. 6/10
Those leagues, and competition within them, will be badly damaged. The gulf between the 6 and the 14 will grow. Little will turn on final league position. There will be knock-on effects on team selection (the big clubs may have distinct SPL and EPL teams)... 7/10
...And knock-on effects on transfers (how can an aspiring footballer monetise his global brand if his club is not in the Super League?).
The playing field is far from level today... these proposals would unbalance it in an unprecedented way. 8/10
And c), the Govt is positioning itself on the side of the fan, pledging to do what it can to curb corporate excess.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which that sort of approach is carried over into other areas of policy. 9/10
Is this people v elite? Is it a sign of a move towards big Government? Or is it a little bit less principled and more opportunistic? I guess time will tell. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First, to have a pliant enquiry, and to feign that this issue is taken *very* seriously.
And, second, to seek to draw all politicians (and, better civil servants too) into the mire, and further reduce trust not in them, but in politics. 3/7
There are a growing number of people, on various sides, saying that remainers are to blame for *this* Brexit, because they refused to back Theresa May's Brexit deal, which would have avoided many of the GB/NI border problems.
One thing in particular perplexes me. 1/3
The curious thing is that I have seen very few people seek to level a similar charge at the Govt.
It is, after all, they who made changes to Theresa May's deal, they who insisted that the UK leave the customs union, and they who agreed the NI Protocol. 2/3
It is they who do not have an answer to the Irish border trilemma. If, as they do, you insist on regulatory autonomy, there has to be a border between the EU and the UK - the only question is where to put it. 3/3
Has anyone written anything about the financing of COVID testing?
I'm just reacting to the news stories about people having to pay for multiple tests if they go on holidays abroad. 1/4
We have had *a lot* of testing done so far - for going to school, for going to workplaces, if symptomatic, etc etc. All of that has been free (at least for those being tested). 2/4
So... my questions:
How does one distinguish between situations in which testing is free and not? Are we moving towards more paying for testing? What would the implications be of making all COVID testing free? 3/4
First, he could commit to the NI Protocol and explain the work that is ongoing, within the very limited confines of the TCA, to 'de-dramatise' the GB/NI border. Ideally he might even explain the Protocol, and the reasons why it was agreed. 2/4
Or second, he could respond to the real concerns of the Unionist community, and make promises, incompatible with the NI Protocol and the TCA, not to introduce 'unconstitutional' intrusions onto UK sovereignty. 3/4
One more go at the Irish border 'trilemma' (see @rdanielkelemen's Venn diagram) and Brexit.
The implications of the latest developments are very stark. Thread.
1/
While the UK and the EU were in the same regulatory space (single market and customs union) there was no need for significant border checks between the two. 2/
Then along came Brexit. Over the years since 2016, Brexiters' position has hardened. Sovereignty and regulatory freedom were prioritised. And so, solutions which would have 'solved' (or 'de-dramatised') the Irish border issue were rejected. 3/
Late last night, I had a dream that I was given access to the work which is being done, deep in the bowels of Downing St, for the Brexit inquiry. I only remember snippets, but here goes... THREAD. 1/8
The conclusions have already been written. Teams (led by a respected cross-party group of members of the House of Lords (Hoey, Stuart, Hannan and Moylan were mentioned)) are now seeking out the evidence. 2/
Brexit is a triumph. Global Britain has been reborn. Our sovereignty has been regained. We have regulatory autonomy and unfettered trade. The Govt has worked day and night to deliver on the people's priorities, and must be celebrated. 3/