Protection

I was talking to a friend recently about the ECB (the England and Wales Cricket Board rather than the European Central Bank) and its increasingly erratic behaviour since selling the TV rights for domestic Test matches to Sky. In case anyone doesn't remember, the domestic Tests were considered to be among the 'crown jewels' of sport that were supposed to always be available on free-to-air terrestrial television, most of which were (and still are) 'protected' by law. The domestic Tests were left out of the legislation because the government at the time believed it had an 'understanding' with the ECB that they would not simply flog the crown jewels to the highest bidder at the first opportunity. Needless to say, as soon as Rupert Murdoch came along and waved a fat cheque under their noses the ECB had trouble remembering the exact terms of their 'understanding' with government lock, stock and proverbial. In the ECB's defence, it is difficult to know the exact terms of an unwritten (and probably largely unspoken) agreement and so difficult to comply with them*. This is perhaps a prime illustration of why we have legislation in the first place: it allows people to know exactly the terms upon which they may conduct their affairs. After all, when someone offers to increase your income tenfold, as long as it's legal, you'd be an idiot to say no. 

Of course for a domestic sports governing body, it's easy to define what is legal and what is not. For a extra-national sports governing body it is so much harder. The UK press have been unusually coherent lately in their response to the allegations of corruption at FIFA, unanimously calling for the resignation of Sepp Blatter because he can't have been in charge of the world governing body of football for so long and not have noticed that it was rotten to the core. In Mr Blatter's defence, I would ask by whose measure was he supposed to judge? FIFA is in a fairly unique situation: initially by consensus and now just because, it has a monopoly over the money gained from the world's most lucrative international sporting competition, whilst also being the sole body responsible for regulating that same sport. In the world of football it has immense power and access to immense wealth. The people in charge of the organisation exist in a world where they make the laws, so "as long as it's legal..." takes on a whole new meaning. The lifestyles that they lead disassociate them entirely from what most of us would call reality, so is it any wonder they assume that they are outside of the laws of mere countries. As far as they were concerned, no one had set out the terms upon which they should conduct their affairs. 

As international cricket begins to get a taste of the financial success that football has enjoyed for some time, it appears to be heading in the same direction. I am not for a minute suggesting that the ECB is in any way corrupt (the ICC has got that one covered), but their detachment from what the rest of us call reality - more interest in the pomp and circumstance than the tedious drudgery of organising a coherent domestic schedule or even a coherent national team strategy - has become increasingly apparent as the television money has poured in. I'm not convinced the correlation is entirely coincidental. FIFA should stand as a warning of what happens when you make no distinction between regulation and revenue. 

Of course those in the positions of power in such organisations always say that it is simply sour grapes that makes the rest of us cry foul. This is not entirely unlike those who say that placing restrictions on the power of giant multinational corporations to pollute our lands or exploit the poor is simply the politics of envy. I find it striking that the right wing press that has been calling for Sepp Blatter's head so vociferously over the last few days will now turn their attention back to making sure the 'anti-business' lobby is not allowed to do anything that might stop the banks from wrecking our economy all over again. There is a certain type of business that reasoned, sensible regulation is anti: it is the business of cronyism and lining your pockets, the business of creating a little bubble of obscene wealth around yourself, regardless of the number of peoples' pension savings you trash or how many die building your stadia. People who call for greater deregulation are almost always those who stand to profit from it, and they are rarely the majority. It's easy to call for less red tape and bureaucracy as no one actually likes them, but checks an balances exist for a reason and we should be wary of the motives of those who call for their removal. After all, the list of things covered by "as long as it's legal..." gets longer and longer to less law you have. 

*although seriously, how hard is it to remember "don't sell the Tests"?