ABUSES IN SOCCER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 631, 6 April 1929, Page 11

ABUSES IN SOCCER

The following interesting comment on English Soccer is made by “Vedette” in the “London Sporting and Dramatic News”: “When the verdict went against Sir Henry Norris in his libel action against the Football Association, the best interests of Soccer football were being served. As it is, the game is not as healthy as it might be. But Yet the governing body undermined—and the end of everything would be a matter of weeks only. Nevertheless, the charges brought against Henry Norris, as he said himself, are known to be happening all the time. For every illegality brought to light by the vigilance of the F.A., half a ciozen escape detection. “The transfer system is, of course, one of the roots of the trouble. So long as a great player, able to draw thousands of pounds into a club’s coffers, and well aware of his own financial value, can be put up for public auction, abuses are bound to occur. It is only human for him to be sorely tempted to accept private offers in excess of a transfer fee or benefit. His career is short, at the best. He must capitalise his name while it fills the public eye. “Then there is the case of the amateur. or rather sliamateur. who signs -on with a wealthy club, making it a condition of his services that the club finds him a job. His wages from this source, together with his expenses, may amount to more than the maximum allowed by the rules for professionals. This naturally excites the jealousy of the latter, since the amateur is not subjected to such severe discipline. He enjoys, moreover, a social status that may be spurious, but is nevertheless real. But the professional sides are not the only offenders. “An examination of the accounts of some of the amateur clubs might some interesting facts to light. Expenses are too often dispensed with splendid generosity. I remember two men comparing notes about a club each had played for over a short period. One denied any knowledge of abuse. H© had never received a penny more than was strictly due to him for expenses. ‘Did you ever ask for more?’ inquired the other. The reply was in the negative. ‘Exactly,’ said the first, meaningly.”