Tweet
I see that Holloway is upset that FIFA decides the rules of football, which all members of FIFA are obliged to comply with, including England:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...dball-18976856
FIFA is admittedly like EU. All members come together to decide the rules of the game. In the case of FIFA obviously for how the rules of football should be and in the case of EU how the rules of the common market should be, to ensure free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The alternative is a system where all countries decide its own rules and sort it out between themselves in a bilateral way when they play each other or when they trade with each other.
So if Holloway gets his way and FA can decide the rules of football in UK, the German FA in Germany, the French FA in France and so on, how should we do it when national teams or clubs in different nations play each other? Should we follow the rules of the host country? Or should there be one set of rules for domestic matches and another set of rules just applicable for international matches?
If each country had their own handball rules, offside rules, their own rules for penalties, for size of the pitch, for the width and height of the goal, for number of players and subs, for length of play, for suspensions, for you name it - wouldn't it be very complicated ones any international match took place? Could players and referees easily adapt to different sets of rules?
I know Holloway does not like that all members of FIFA come together to agree the rules, in which case England has to oblige even if they are in minority. But isn't this a case of giving up something to gain more?
Football is made up of hundreds of rules. The handball rule has always been a difficult one and it has constantly been changing and I think it is hard to please everyone. Same apply for some other rules - not at least Financial Fair Play. But should we give up the idea of some common rules for our game with all complications this would lead to for some sovereignty in the area of handball rules and some few other rules where we don't agree with all the other nations?
It seems to be extremely similar to the EU debate, with exactly the same dilemma of common vs. national rules as Holloway has pointed out. Should we agree rules with our 27 neighbors in the case of EU with the advantage of a common market or should we have the freedom to make our own trade rules, which would avoid the need of making international compromises that seems annoying every now and then, but with the advantage of a well functional market and friction-less trade. Actually, Holloway's statement is a bloody good simplification of the entire Brexit debate. If you think Brexit is a good idea you should agree with Holloway and support own footballing rules for Britain and other nations with no common body to decide them.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...dball-18976856
FIFA is admittedly like EU. All members come together to decide the rules of the game. In the case of FIFA obviously for how the rules of football should be and in the case of EU how the rules of the common market should be, to ensure free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The alternative is a system where all countries decide its own rules and sort it out between themselves in a bilateral way when they play each other or when they trade with each other.
So if Holloway gets his way and FA can decide the rules of football in UK, the German FA in Germany, the French FA in France and so on, how should we do it when national teams or clubs in different nations play each other? Should we follow the rules of the host country? Or should there be one set of rules for domestic matches and another set of rules just applicable for international matches?
If each country had their own handball rules, offside rules, their own rules for penalties, for size of the pitch, for the width and height of the goal, for number of players and subs, for length of play, for suspensions, for you name it - wouldn't it be very complicated ones any international match took place? Could players and referees easily adapt to different sets of rules?
I know Holloway does not like that all members of FIFA come together to agree the rules, in which case England has to oblige even if they are in minority. But isn't this a case of giving up something to gain more?
Football is made up of hundreds of rules. The handball rule has always been a difficult one and it has constantly been changing and I think it is hard to please everyone. Same apply for some other rules - not at least Financial Fair Play. But should we give up the idea of some common rules for our game with all complications this would lead to for some sovereignty in the area of handball rules and some few other rules where we don't agree with all the other nations?
It seems to be extremely similar to the EU debate, with exactly the same dilemma of common vs. national rules as Holloway has pointed out. Should we agree rules with our 27 neighbors in the case of EU with the advantage of a common market or should we have the freedom to make our own trade rules, which would avoid the need of making international compromises that seems annoying every now and then, but with the advantage of a well functional market and friction-less trade. Actually, Holloway's statement is a bloody good simplification of the entire Brexit debate. If you think Brexit is a good idea you should agree with Holloway and support own footballing rules for Britain and other nations with no common body to decide them.
Comment