In years to come, the festive period of 2016 will be remembered as the Christmas when a miracle really did happen.
Sam Allardyce, Jurgen Klopp and Arsene Wenger not only put their usual tribal differences to one side to find common ground with one another, they also settled on a common enemy.
Elite managers against fixture compilers isn’t quite Fathers 4 Justice and it’s unlikely that Klopp and Wenger will be climbing Premier League headquarters dressed as Batman and Robin any time soon, but they have established themselves as the leading campaigners against teams having too many games in too few days.
“In 20 years it is the most uneven Christmas period I’ve seen,” Wenger said. “The difference in rest period is unbelievable in terms of all the teams. Honestly, I don’t really know if the Premier League masters the fixtures. It’s more we have sold the rights to TV for a lot of money so we have to accept TV chooses the games. But some teams have more luck than others.”
Despite having recent experience of what it feels like to lose a job, Allardyce claimed that was the price that the Premier League’s fixture compiler should pay.
“I don’t know who does the fixtures but he needs sacking really,” the Crystal Palace manager said. “Swansea played yesterday, have 24 hours on us. They’re such big games with so much at stake, you want a fair crack at it, and it’s unfair when you’re playing [Sunday] and Tuesday night.”
TV demands are having a big effect on the fixture pile-up
For his part, Klopp had been ahead of the game, getting his retaliation in early having discovered two months ago that Liverpool would have to play twice in less than 48 hours during the festive period. “Now I have seen the fixtures I am not too happy,” he said in mid-October. “We have less than 48 hours between our game against Man City on December 31st and in Sunderland on January 2nd.
“Forty-eight hours is an interesting idea but less than 48 hours I cannot believe. I learn more and more about this league and maybe I have to ask someone if we can ask if there will be another time for us at Sunderland. Everyone is asking, ‘Why is England not too successful in big tournaments?’ Ask what other big countries are doing at this time of year and they have their legs on the sofa and are watching English football.”
Suffice to say, all of the arguments put forward by each of the three managers and everyone else who said similar are not without merit. It is now widely accepted that a lack of rest in between games increases the risk of fatigue, injury and error-strewn football. It is also recognised, although not sufficiently to prompt urgent change, that the lack of a winter break does not enhance England’s chances of being successful in tournament football (although the impact is not as strong as some claim given the international make-up of the Premier League).
It should also be acknowledged that there were winners and losers in the festive fixture lottery with Chelsea being one of the main beneficiaries with their three games spread over a 10-day period between December 26th and January 4th.
Liverpool, by contrast, played three times in just seven days, from December 27th to January 2nd. Arsenal were given three games in eight days, as were Crystal Palace. Other clubs suffered to a lesser or greater extent as the quick repetition of games turned the fixture calendar into a slog.
What should be said is that none of this is a conspiracy designed to favour one club over another. If Chelsea have benefited it is mainly as a result of the demands of live television rather than any underhand attempt to give them an unfair advantage.
That may be the end result – and Chelsea certainly wouldn’t have wanted to swap their festive fixture list for Liverpool’s – but it isn’t the motive and it is for that reason that those managers who quite rightly rail against such unfairness need to consider who is most responsible for it. If they do that, they may well come to the conclusion that the answer lies within their own boardrooms.
Every time a lucrative new television deal is negotiated, Premier League owners, chairmen and chief executives have it within their gift to demand that a clearly defined criteria for fixtures is built into any deal.
Clearly, that would not be in the best interests of Sky, BT and whichever broadcasters purchase the rights because they want to be able to screen as many games as possible at times that will maximise viewing figures.
That is only to be expected, even if there are those of us who wish they were more interested in the greater good, but what is less understandable is why clubs are so willing to give up so much of what is in their own best interests just to suit their paymasters.
It goes without saying that their pursuit of riches makes everything else secondary and with the most recent TV rights deal being worth a record £5.14 billion no-one could question that the Premier League and its clubs are hugely successful when it comes to maximising their financial potential. But doing so comes at a price and in this case it costs them the right to complain when broadcasters place undue demands on certain clubs which, in turn, makes the playing field uneven.
It also results in a lack of sympathy for managers and players whose salaries have been swollen considerably by the riches that continue to flow into the game from the very same TV companies whose influence results in the very same managers and players feeling aggrieved.
While they enjoy the benefits of being on football’s gravy train, those who finance it are having to dig deep to pay to attend a burst of matches over a short period at one of the most expensive times of year. Supporters also don’t have the luxury of being able to travel to away games by private jet.
Again, though, the existence of an ongoing legitimate grievance about the way fans are treated by the Premier League and by TV companies does not negate the complaints made by managers like Wenger, Allardyce and Klopp. It just means they should look a bit closer to home when injustice strikes.
Like those who follow their clubs, their lives could be made a lot easier if the powers that be took greater heed of the issues that trouble them, instead of perpetually prioritising money over sport and the people who participate in it and who pay to watch it.
