Lord Stevens Report was published yesterday afternoon, we all waited with baited breath (my mistake, it was lunch that stuck in my throat) for him to name and shame which he apparently has done to the Premier League and Football Association. We, the general footballing public, will never know who is supposed to have done what unless formal disciplinary action is taken against the clubs and individuals so named. Which is fundamentally wrong. I can understand the reticence with which the football authorities approach the subject for no-one likes to have the murky deeds of their industry exposed in public, especially one where the world’s eyes are focussed fairly and squarely on your every move. For the Premier League clubs, that is a case of “tough luck”. They made their bed when they got between the sheets with Sky and now they have to take whatever flak flies in their direction.

For the most part, it is widely accepted that a certain amount of “dubious deeds” take place in transfers. Indeed, most football supporters probably believe that in the majority of transfers, this is the norm as opposed to an irregular occurrence. Following on from Panorama’s, ahem, exposé earlier this year the tawdry world of Football Agents and Bungs once again came into the public’s gaze. Whilst the general feeling was that Panorama threw a lot of mud, very little of it stuck. Most of the managers accused directly or otherwise in the fallout have taken their revenge by refusing to talk to the BBC. Some of the backroom staff whose practices were subjected to internal investigations by their employers and cleared. The rulers of the game however, rightly chose to sidestep the furore in the printed press by not reacting until the Stevens Inquiry published their findings. That time is now and actions will speak louder than words in this case. But should we expect much action to be taken?

To date, only George Graham and Ronnie Fenton have been found guilty of participating in nefarious activities surroundin transfers and that was over a decade ago. It is possible that since then, no-one else has been daft enough to follow their well-trodden path but somewhat unlikely and in all honesty, something that is hard to believe. So why has football turned a blind eye to it? Probably due to a combination of factors, a mix of self-regulation and self-serving interests. That the Governing Body of the Premiership is made up of Chairmen is a hugely decisive reason; after all, they want the best players in their teams and probably accept that there have been some irregularities in obtaining their services. So long as their managers were delivering the goods for a reasonably exorbitant price, it does not bother them provided it is not risking the major shareholders investment.

The outcome is of little surprise. Actually that is not entirely true for I expected more than 5% of transfers to contain dubious ethics. To only have 17 out of 362 transfers requiring further scrutiny is an improvement on the public’s perception of the football industry and surely an improvement on the situation a decade or so ago. Why has this occurred? Partly through a backhanded benefit; an intrusive media in an industry known for backstabbing and petty jealousies feeds us continual streams of fodder that in the great scheme of things are trite and meaningless. However, it has no doubt been partially responsible for ensuring some cleanliness in transfer dealings. Or is it a case of individuals covering their tracks rather better than before? It is unlikely that football is the pristine white clean image that the ruling bodies desire it to be and we supporters deserve it to be. More likely though, is the sums of money being paid to managers to whom an extra £100k is not going to make a significant difference to their lives, certainly not worth ruining a career for if caught. Whilst that only in fairness applies to the upper echelons of the game, these are the individuals who can earn more through personal endorsements than any agent can tempt them with.

Back in the 1980’s, George Graham’s endorsement of Acquascutum clothing was obviously not enough to stave off dipping fingers into the till. Fast forward to today and I suspect that the commercial income from Jose Mourinho’s advertisments is probably rivalling his football salary. Why waste a career for a bung?

The one thing that strikes me about the ongoing investigation is the toothlessness of the FA when dealing with Agents. It has been widely suspected that they did not police this part of the industry well, or possibly even at all. The seventeen transfers are for the most part requiring further investigation because of a lack of information coming from the Agents. Why have the FA allowed it to get this far? The Premier League may have instigated the Stevens Inquiry but surely the FA could have handed out an order to the Agents to provide all information required or face suspension of their licences. If they operate outside of their jurisdiction, inform FIFA. Nothing would have focussed their minds more readily than an inability to operate commercially?

Overall, the Report delivered exactly what it said it would. There are murky goings on - several unnamed Premier League clubs have been reported for infractions of the rules through ignorance of the minutae of those regulations - and no doubt culprits will be bought to book. Whether it is the big fish or small fry remains to be seen.

Back tomorrow with thoughts on the way forward proposed by the Inquiry

Your response: