The English FA Are Silently Ruining the EPL for Everyone

Overreaction?

No, I don't think so, not anymore.

The latest thing to set me off has been the four-match ban for Vincent Kompany for his reckless, two-footed challenge that dared to cleanly win the football from the ever-expanding and über-foliating Wayne Rooney.  The temerity, the cheek—straight red. 

Once the FA had watched Match of the Day later that night, they saw the tackle themselves and decided that it was so bad—so incredibly bad—that Kompany must not be allowed near a football pitch in this country for four games.

Is anyone else a little bit tired of this? 

We see horrific challenges every week in the EPL; some do get punished, but many don't.  Many are even seen on live TV and replayed five times with commentators and pundits all passing comment on how awful the challenges are—yet the FA will commonly do nothing. 

Will someone please ask why that is?  Will you not ask why that is?

Yohan Cabaye almost broke Jay Spearing's leg the other day, yet gets no punishment.  The challenge was made with intent to harm, or threaten to harm, and we can all see that.  We can all spot a dangerous tackle and we can all spot when a player is a fraction late, but it's even easier to see a horrible, reckless challenge that is made with intent to harm. 

What possible grounds can the FA have to not ban players for this retrospectively? 

There has always been a way for the FA to squirm out of big decisions; they refuse to revisit an incident once it has been "dealt with" by a referee on the field.  Why?  Who made that rule? 

Why can the FA hide behind this rule, like it was imposed on them?  They introduced it—what nonsense. 

Start using video evidence to go back over refereeing decisions after games, and make it a public event.  Sky will broadcast anything these days, so why not put together a programme where referees go back over the game with a pundit and explain their actions?  They can then add things in their report that they missed the first time. 

We all get things wrong, but ignoring it or lying about not seeing it is not acceptable.

The Rooney red card for England was utterly lamentable.  They appeal the red card and it is reduced, but 99 percent of other teams appeal an FA decision and get nothing reduced.

Who are the FA?  How do they work?  Why is the governing body of one of the most high-profile leagues in the world cloaked in this ridiculous blanket of conceit and secrecy about their decisions? 

Calming Down

There comes a time when enough is enough.  Football is a wonderful game; it lights up the lives of millions of people every day, but it also has the power to ruin people's lives! 

How often have you felt down after a bad result for your team?  We can all accept that there has to be disappointment in the life of a football fan, but there should seldom be injustice. 

Not now, not in the digital age.

We can record and review every football match in all four leagues in England.  We can reverse bad refereeing decisions, and we can also bring cheats, divers and bullies to justice.

The FA knows all this and they resist it, and you have to start asking why.

What possible benefits can the FA get from holding all the power, all the decision-making ability, but to keep that process cloaked in darkness?  They can bring the process out into the light anytime they want. 

They can talk to us more, they can instruct referees to stop acting like FBI agents after the game, and they can start being helpful as opposed to this menacing hindrance to the advancement of the game.

Who are these people? 

Chairman David Bernstein, let me guess:  a distinguished career in the business sector and then suddenly he's considered the best candidate to advance football in this country? 

Yep.  And that guess came before the Google search.  He was Chairman of Manchester City for five years as well. 

The other glaring issue is that we have the Chairman of Manchester United sitting on the Board of Directors of the FA.  Does that not bother some of you? 

Another Director is John Ward from the Hampshire FA, which is laughable because I know it's supposed to be a fair way of making decisions—one vote per director—but do you really think that Mr Ward has the same say as the Chairman of Manchester United or the Premier League Chairman, Dave Richards?

It's like putting together a local radio Board of Directors and having old Mollie from down the road sit opposite Justin Bieber and Simon Cowell.  There's only ever going to be one loser if Bieber and Mollie disagree on something.

I'm not saying there is or isn't skulduggery at the FA, but is it too much to ask to remove any reasonable doubt?  Do they think how any of this looks? 

It's like Denis Smith being on the panel to convict Luis Suarez—just a moronic choice of a panel member—because he is very good friends with Alex Ferguson and has close ties with his son Darren Ferguson, even making him captain of his Wrexham team. 

I'm not implying anything, just pointing out how insane and ill-thought that decision was.

I could go on and on, decision after decision, and I'm betting the FA don't think twice about taking John Terry to the Euros despite his racism charge, just to put the icing on the cake.