BIG SAM AND THE BBC SCAM

The Stirrer's Blog for Tuesday

20-09-2006

Bolton Wanderers' Dudley-born football manager Sam Allardyce is feeling the full floodlight glare of publicity after allegations that he takes “bungs” - but would it really matter if he had?

The essence of the claim made by three agents on last night's “Panorama” is this; that a back-hander to Big Sam doesn't go amiss when a player is transferred from one club to another.

Allardyce himself denies the allegations and says that he's guilty of no wrong-doing, but here's the rub.

In the modern game, all kinds of people stand to benefit when a footballer moves; the player himself, the agent who takes a cut, and the directors whose share prices and dividends will depend on the profitability of their business.

Why shouldn't “the boss” get a slice of the action too?

In fact at some clubs it's not unknown for managers to have a contractual stake in the sale of players; identifying and developing talent is part of the job, so some kind of reward for selling it on could be seen as a fair reward.

There is, of course a possible conflict of interest, here; a manager might be persuaded to sell a star player, not in the interests of his team but to line his own pockets.

But any managerfoolish enough to do that on a regular basis would be cutting his nose to spite his face, as poor results and a swift dismissal would surely follow.

In any case,this is not the allegation thatbeingmade against Allardyce and the other managers named in last night's programme.

Rather, what we have is a vague but moralistic hue and cry raised by a programme desperate for publicity.

Panorama has been under pressure for years by the BBC to deliver bigger audiences and serve a more populist agenda.

In this case they've achieved it - but at what price?

Is there any difference between their entrapment of agents and other football folk by going undercover than the News of the World's use of the fake sheik Mahzer Mahmood?

Not on the face of it.

And doesloose talk in pursuit of an imagined deal actually amount to “proof” of wrong-doing simply because it's caught on camera - or is it simply ammunition for a smear campaign?

All in all, what has the programme's12 month investigation actually achieved?

Well lots of headlines, certainly, and an FA enquiry too, but precious little in the way of hard evidence.

Don't get me wrong; football certainly needs far more rigorous regulation than is currently provided by our woefully weak FA and Premier League.

The BBC's flagship current affairs programme is also an entirely appropriate vehicle to check whether our national sport is properly run.

But we remain to be convinced that this investigation has delivered all it promised; and whether that promise was worth keeping anyway.