Playing by the rules

This week we interrupt the credit crunch series to consider something topical namely the Premier league rules and the effect that they have. This is in the context of the games this Sunday. Anyone who follows football will know that Sunday is a critical day because those results will determine which teams are going to be relegated with West Brom.

Just to set the scene properly, at present Sunderland have a points total of 36 and a goal difference of -19, Hull have a points total of 35 and a goal difference of -24, Newcastle have a points total of 34 and a goal difference of -18 and Middlesbrough have a points total of 32 and a goal difference of -28. Middlesbrough and Newcastle thus presently occupy the relegation places. Sunderland play at home to Chelsea (who if they thump Sunderland by a whopping margin can, if Liverpool lose at home to Spurs, still take second place and hence avoid a qualifying tie for a Champions League and thus their season starting earlier than it needs to: this might not seem significant but if they are hoping to challenge for all trophies next season they will not want to lengthen the season, particularly when some footballers will be looking forward to the World Cup at the end of it). Hull play at home to Manchester United, who are already champions, and have the Champions League Final against Barcelona three days later. Newcastle play away at Aston Villa, a strong side presently faltering, and Middlesbrough play away at West Ham. Depending upon Everton's result (they have a tricky away game at Fulham) Villa could overtake them and go into fifth place assuming they win and Everton lose. Whilst they would want to be fifth rather than sixth, this will not affect obtaining a European place and so whilst it is something to play for, it is not very much. West Ham could move up or down a place depending on other results, but again (apart from the additional payment each club makes for a place higher in the league) are not playing for very much. Whilst those clubs will no doubt want to go out in front of home fans with a win, there is not as much riding on the game for them.

It is already clear that Sir Alex Ferguson does not intend to play his normal starting 11 (although of course that starting 11 has varied considerably during the season) against Hull. It has been suggested that officials from the clubs potentially affected, namely Sunderland, Newcastle and Middlesbrough, have had discussions about potential complaints to the Premier league and/or legal action if United's actions cause damage to one of them. Relegation from the Premier league is widely regarded as a £50,000,000 plus disaster. It will be apparent that United result could have an impact in a number of ways. If for example Hull were to draw with United and Chelsea were to give Sunderland a six goal thumping, then if Newcastle won Sunderland would go down. If Newcastle lost, and Hull lost (but let us say only by a goal when it is suggested that otherwise Manchester United would have put a number of goals past them) if Middlesbrough win that could be the difference for them between survival and relegation (assuming Newcastle lose). If Newcastle got a draw then if Hull lost they would stay up, so they have an interest in the outcome. Obviously if Hull Sunderland and Newcastle all win and Middlesbrough fail to win there is no difference. One can see however that for each of the clubs in differing ways (depending on the other results) the result and the score between Hull and United can have an enormous impact.

I should declare an interest before commencing in that I am a United fan and a very big Ferguson fan. (I am frequently bemused by how it only seems to take a couple of poor games for sections of the fans to suggest that he doesn't know what he's doing: I remember the arguments during the "you can't win anything with kids" season when they in fact went on to win the double, when I was pointing out to some of the fans at the start of the season that the youngsters he was bringing through, Beckham, Scholes, the Nevilles, Butt - Giggs was already established - needed to be given a first-team run and he was right to move on certain senior players. At that time a commonly held view was that he had lost his marbles, a view of course proved entirely wrong by events.). I do not think however that affects my construction of the situation, but readers may have a different view!

The key is the Premier league rule which states "In every league match each participating club should field a full strength team.". No doubt the basis of any action by another club would be either on a contractual basis (the clubs effectively contract together by the rules to abide by the rules and failure to comply with the rules is a breach against the other parties) or on the basis of negligence (saying in the circumstances Manchester United owe a duty of care to them to feel a full strength team). There are a number of potential issues which would arise in respect of any such purported claim but that would be the gist of it.

I think however the key here he is "full strength team". That is not the same as "best 11 players". We now live in the era of squad rotation. Teams are changed during the season to accommodate European matches. I have not heard it suggested during those instances that a cause of action arises. (Although the points on the last day of the season are in fact decisive, in reality they are no more decisive than points acquired at any other time). Although it can be said that at the end of the season there is more reason to suspect that a team has nothing to play for, that can also be the position during the season for a mid-table team that was doing well in Europe. However I think that full strength team is very different from saying that all of the best players should be played.

If you have a squad of internationals and top players I find it very difficult to see how one could suggest that playing those players made it not a full strength team. I can understand if a group of untested players were played but this is different. If they are part of the first-team squad the idea is that they are played as a proper first team.

Even apart from the difficulties of establishing breach of duty, I think there would also be fundamental problems on causation (although for reasons that are too complicated to develop here there may also be an argument on what is known as "loss of chance"). Let us say that Manchester United played their so-called first choice 11. All those players know that the result does not matter to Manchester United. All those players know that going into a hard challenge on a tackle or overextending themselves (Hamstring? Twisted knee?) could rule them out of the game in Rome. Think about if you are one of those players. How much effort would you be putting into a game that meant nothing to you and could conceivably stop you from playing in one of the biggest games of your life? Would you be willing to go flat out, knowing that you might be too tired to cope with Barcelona in three days? I think it obvious that playing the so-called first 11 would actually be likely to mean that Hull were more likely to win rather than less.

Instead what Sir Alex plans to do is play those players who need the match fitness and those players who are effectively playing for a place on the bench against Barcelona. Those players might play in the final, but will not be playing 90 minutes (or 120 minutes as the case may be) and so will have a very different perspective. Those players have a real incentive to perform. Those players are far more likely to play their hearts out and to win, and possibly win comfortably, than players who would rather be somewhere else. Being on the bench will give you a winning medal if United win. Being on the bench means that you might get on the pitch, and become a hero at one end or the other. (True it is that it might mean that you also become a villain, but if you have not got the nerve to play in the big games then you have no right being in top-flight football in the first place). As it happens, the players he is playing not only constitute a full strength team, but in fact constitute a team that is far more likely to beat Hull than would the team that is likely to play on Wednesday. Indeed United having already won the league may count against Hull. If United only needed one more point, they were likely to defend and just counter on the break. Hull might have found it much easier to get a point in those circumstances. As it is they will be faced with a team of internationals each trying to show he is worthy of a potential role in as glamorous a European final as it is possible to imagine. Things might not work out that way, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. In my view the other teams have no proper complaint or valid cause of action against Manchester United. (I appreciate the cynics will be quoting Mandy Rice Davies and saying "well he would say that, wouldn't he?"!).