RBSC

**Sir X** · March 18, 2009, 10:22 AM

Sir Alex Ferguson flouts his duties with boycott

Rafa is Class ! Sir Alex Ferguson flouts his duties with boycott</H1><H2 class="sub-heading padding-top-5 padding-bottom-15"></H2>

Matthew Syed

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}Receive our free Champions League special edition e-mail on Friday at 1pm

Sir Alex Ferguson has carried out so many boycotts down the years we should stop calling him Alex and start calling him Geoffrey instead. Sky Sports was the latest organisation to feel the frostiness of the Ferguson cold shoulder, the Manchester United manager refusing to take part in the customary post-match interview after Saturday's game against Liverpool, thus depriving more than a million subscribers a valued part of their viewing experience.
Why was Ferguson so miffed with the company that has bankrolled football (and helped to pay his salary) for the better part of two decades? Because Sky had scheduled the match on Saturday lunchtime, giving United less time to recover from their Wednesday-night exertions (Liverpool played the second leg of their Champions League first knockout round tie on Tuesday).
Never mind that the match was scheduled almost two months ago or that the timing had been requested by the police. Rational arguments (facts, as Rafael Benítez might call them) mean little to a man in a state of such advanced paranoia that he alleged in January that the entire Barclays Premier League fixture list had been part of an elaborate conspiracy against United.
The great mistake was in not confronting Ferguson earlier. By indulging his tendency to petulance and megalomania, the Premier League has only itself to blame for the shameful situation in which its most high-profile manager flouts his responsibilities to broadcasters and fans as a matter of course.
<H3 class=section-heading>Related Links

Foster forces his way into England frame

Call for FA Cup semi-final to be switched

It is not just Sky - News Corporation, parent company of The Times has a 39.1 per cent stake in BSkyB - of course. The BBC, which pays almost £60 million a year on behalf of licence-fee payers for Premier League highlights, has not had access to Ferguson since 2004, ever since it aired a BBC Three documentary about his dealings with his son Jason, a football agent at the time. It is understood that Ferguson's boycott of our national broadcaster will never be rescinded.
This is nothing less than scandalous, not least when you consider that United have a contractual obligation to put up a senior management figure for interview, as well as a moral responsibility to the millions of fans who tune in on Saturday and Sunday evenings hoping to hear the views of the single most important and knowledgeable person in English football.
In the absence of any noticeable condemnation from the very organisations that exist to rein in errant behaviour - not least the United board - is it any wonder that Ferguson is so dangerously out of control? That he runs United like his own personal fiefdom? That he has routinely snubbed post-match press conferences (another part of a manager's duties) for more than seven years? That he bawls out journalists who ask awkward questions as a matter of course? That he has banned so many scribes that his own press office finds it difficult to keep track of who's in and who's out?
Give it time and Ferguson will think nothing of banning opposition managers from Old Trafford on the ground that they dared suggest they might beat United.
Most sensible Manchester United fans agree that Ferguson's behaviour is less than reasonable, but they do so with a shrug of the shoulders and with the sentiment that this is a price English football must pay for having such a rare talent in its midst. But this simply will not do.
That Ferguson is one of the football's most brilliant managers does not excuse him from the duties that the majority of his counterparts discharge with such diligence and, quite often, humour and aplomb. If anything, his unique status gives him an elevated responsibility to the millions of fans whose cash is the lifeblood of our national sport.
Ferguson will change only if confronted. That is why Sky Sports should give him a taste of his own medicine by “boycotting” payment of United's share of the television rights income, estimated at a total of about £50 million. That is the only thing that might persuade the United board to bring into line a manager whose behaviour - and I choose my words carefully - shames English football.
RFU’s hassling of Haskell is threat to global pretensions
James Haskell has been placed under heavy pressure by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) to think again about playing his club rugby in France next season.
The London Wasps back-row forward, who has signed a pre-contract agreement with Stade Français, received a letter last week from Francis Baron, chief executive of the RFU, reminding him and his team-mates that any individual moving abroad would be putting their England places in jeopardy.
It is understood that England's unhappiness at Haskell's possible departure was one of the reasons why, having started the previous match away to Ireland, he was relegated to the replacements' bench for Sunday's RBS Six Nations Championship match against France at Twickenham.
Why is the RFU so eager to prevent departures abroad? Because the Guinness Premiership clubs have signed an agreement providing access to players for international duty - training camps, etc - over and above the limits set by the International Rugby Board (IRB). Seen in this context, the RFU's heavy-handedness may seem enlightened, but the reality is that it is nothing less than a crude and damaging piece of protectionism.
Why should English players be denied the chance to earn a living abroad without fear of losing their place in the England squad? Why should they not have the chance to test their skills away from home? And why should foreigners not get a chance to see the cream of English talent in the way that English fans witness many brilliant Europeans?
If the RFU believes that national teams should have enhanced access to players, the right way to have proceeded would have been to lobby the IRB to change the rules for all nations. By acting unilaterally, the RFU has not only damaged the financial interests of its players by artificially shrinking the size of the available market, it has also undermined the sport's pretensions as a serious global player.

</H3>Oliver Kay replies: the final word on whether Ferguson was right to blame defeat on scheduling

Oliver Kay
On Monday, Oliver Kay asked whether Sir Alex Ferguson was right to blame Manchester United's 4-1 defeat by Liverpool on scheduling. The Scot refused to speak to Sky Sports after the game, in protest at the 12.45pm kick-off time, which he believes gave the Merseyside club an unfair advantage.
You had your say, now our Football Correspondent replies ...
Is it just me - or is this story inferring a lot from Ferguson's refusal to talk to Sky Sports?! As was reported, he didn't actually complain about the scheduling. He just put it down to a bad day for United. There are loads of reasons he perhaps didn't want to talk to Sky Sports, such as being pretty frustrated at the loss. The extra day probably does make a difference, but United did deserve to lose and I don't think Ferguson was looking to shift the blame. Oliver Baggaley
OK: You don't have to believe everything you read, but do you honestly think I or we would run a story like this without being sure of our facts? A few other newspapers had the same story. Do you really think this is a figment of my imagination? I agree that Ferguson "didn't actually complain about the scheduling". In fact, I said as much in the original article. Because he didn't make a fuss out of the issue, publicly at least, I don't think he can be accused of sour grapes or diversionary tactics. As far as I have been told, he would have snubbed Sky post-match win, lose or draw, but we will never know.
We are still waiting for Ferguson to give us his views on Manchester City's double win over United last season. He doesn't speak to the press when his team are beaten because he is a sore loser. And they call him a great role model … . United were beaten fair and square, Rooney's comments made him look a fool and Ronaldo's disinterest was obvious, Saturday proved what most of us believe: they are not that great. Mac

OK: I'm 99 per cent certain he did his usual TV interviews after the two City games last season, Mac. He never speaks to the (Gentlemen of the) Press after a league game – only Champions League games, when he is contractually obliged to – but he usually speaks to Sky and, for what it’s worth, MUTV. And while he might be a sore loser in a general sense, quite a few of us in the media believe he is actually more gracious in defeat than victory. Not every time certainly, but there are occasions (eg. at Arsenal earlier this season) when he is anything but a sore loser. I agree with you about Ronaldo’s performance. Very poor.
Once more, we have the sight of Alex Ferguson throwing his dummy out of the pram because his assortment of overpaid brats have been beaten by a superior team. These players, with their prodigious and obscenely inflated wages, should be fit enough to play two games in three or four days without their manager whimpering that it isn't fair. After all, Liverpool have had to do this in the past, as have many other teams. It's time that Ferguson grew up and accepted that it isn't his God-given right to win every match. Pashley
If I was getting paid what these sports people get paid and was as fit as them I could hardly hide behind this as an excuse. But it's not the players moaning, is it? It's misery Ferguson AGAIN. Pipster
Whenever United lose, Ferguson manages to find some reason the loss wasn't attributable to what you'd expect: the opposition outplaying United. Liverpool are the form team now and the title race is back on. Ferguson is trying to convince everyone that that isn't the case. Simon
OK: Again, in fairness to Fergie, he didn’t make this complaint publicly. In his post-match interviews didn’t draw a link between the kick-off time and the performance/result. From what I can gather, he viewed his silent protest as a private matter between him and Sky (as did they). I would agree that this constant boycotting or banning of certain media outlets is pretty unedifying and pretty childish, but, as a general point, I think others in the media would probably agree with me that at times he is more gracious in defeat than victory. Even if he was kidding himself on Saturday by claiming that United "were the better team", when the sheer number of mistakes and below-par performances offered irrefutable evidence to the contrary, he did make a point of saying that Liverpool "deserve the plaudits" and he did not attempt to blame the referee. It wasn’t the most magnanimous post-match interview I’ve ever heard from a beaten manager, but I’ve heard far worse.
Liverpool had a week to prepare for their CL game against Madrid as they didn't play in the FA Cup weekend. United and Madrid had three days each to prepare for their CL games. Then United had just two days’ rest before facing Liverpool, who in turn had three. No sour grapes, just the facts. Subba

OK: I agree. That didn’t stop Rafa Benitez getting widely mocked for listing a series of similar facts a few months ago, but, yes, you’re right. Generally, squeezing a lot of games into a short space of time is a price you have to pay for being successful. United’s previous Premier League defeat, at Arsenal on November 8, also came two-and-a-half days after an away game in the Champions League, albeit in Glasgow. Then go back to September, for the league defeat at Anfield, and it was three days after an international date, in which England’s players (none from Liverpool, but Brown, Ferdinand and Rooney from United) got back from Croatia in the very early hours.
If you look at the FACTS, there is clear evidence that playing in midweek, particularly in such a high-intensity competition such as the Champions League, takes a lot out of a team’s performance in their next game. For example, Liverpool’s 2-0 defeat at Middlesbrough came three days after an away game against Real Madrid in the Champions League.

Managers sometimes claim that they are getting a particularly raw deal in this departments, but I would say that, given that everyone thinks the fixture list is against them, it is probably swings and roundabouts. In my opinion, given that neither team had matches this midweek, the game should have been moved to the Sunday – if both teams were happy to do so, of course. But, as many of you note, Tottenham, Manchester City etc routinely have to play on Sunday afternoons having played Uefa Cup matches on Thursday nights, often in further-flung destinations than those in the Champions League, which takes us on to Michael.

Spurs were made to play away at Chelsea on a Saturday lunchtime having played in Seville on the Thursday night, giving them less than 24 hours in the country after their return. No one batted an eyelid. I wish these Champions League teams would stop moaning. Michael

OK: Actually, in fairness to him, I remember Ferguson speaking upon on Tottenham’s behalf about the unfairness of fixture. Depending on how cynical you are, you may or may not infer that he was talking out of self-interest, given that United were competing with Chelsea for the title at the time.

The media have made this season very easy for Man United. They made them look so special that teams don't turn up against them. Since they lost to Arsenal in November, only Derby, West Ham and Newcastle have actually tried to win games against them. The others just roll over while everyone crows. The teams that have gone at them have given them tough games. Derby County did beat them in a semi-final. I would expect Fulham and Everton to do more than roll over and smile at the cameras after capitulating. Ole Gunner

OK: Can this really be the media’s fault? I’m not any kind of apologist for the media – certain things in certain newspapers and on the television drive me potty – but this is a very strange argument. No doubt the media will be held responsible if United win every game between now and the end of the season, having invited a backlash by criticizing their performance on Saturday. Clearly it’s a conspiracy because we all know everyone in the media loves United/Liverpool/Arsenal/West Ham etc, etc, etc. Yawn.

Did any of these so-called writers see the game? Did they see the blatant cheating by Liverpool? Why are they allowed to get away with paying off referees and then intimidating them when they don't get their way? Why wasn't Reina sent off when fouling for the penalty? It should have been a straight red, yet not even a card was shown.

Watch the Torres "goal" again. The foul came when Torres came up behind Vidic, kicked at waist-height (a foul already) and then pushed him to the ground as he went on. The referee should have given a United free kick. Torres should have been booked for wrestling Vidic to the ground in the penalty area.

The Gerrard "penalty". Gerrard was already diving before Evra got near him. He should have been booked for diving and a free kick given to United.

The Vidic "sending off": Did you see how the Liverpool players surrounded the referee, intimidating him? If we had done that, the media would be in uproar. Instead we hear nothing. The wrong decision was predictably given (as we know the referee was bought). Gerrard had pushed Vidic and dived, and so should have got his 2nd yellow for diving and been sent off. In reality, Gerrard and Reina should have been sent off (and suspended for the next 3 games).
This was a fixed result that will please the FA, Uefa, the media and Sky, to rekindle the phantom of a title race, but it is already over, we have already won, and this fluke result will mean Sir Alex will re-focus the team to win every remaining game as we march on to our historic quintuple that will cement our place in the history books as the greatest team to have ever played the game. iWorshipTheDevil
OK: Are you for real? My suspicion is that you’re actually a Liverpool or Manchester City fan trying to give United fans a bad name. Of your numerous gripes about refereeing decisions, only one carries even a hint of accuracy.

I agree, having reviewed the incident a dozen times, that Gerrard “looked for” the challenge of Evra for the penalty. As it transpired, he did not need to do that because Evra, mistiming his tackle in pure desperation, took both of Gerrard’s legs away. To use your rationale – the one that you apply to Liverpool players but not United’s – Evra should have been sent off. The rest of your arguments are straw-clutching of the most desperate variety.

Even the legitimate point you raise about Liverpool’s players "surrounding the referee" over the Vidic red card is negated by your failure to mention that United’s players (Vidic, Ferdinand, Ronaldo) were doing the same in an attempt to influence his decision. So that’s a second yellow card and a red card for Ferdinand too if you want it. I know a 4-1 home defeat by Liverpool can’t be easy to take, but, seriously, get over it.

Missing: Cristiano Ronaldo has not been seen since 12:45 on Saturday March 14, he was last seen walking onto the pitch at Old Trafford and has not been seen since. Some say he has performed one of his classic “disappearing acts” as he has done before in big games. If anyone has seen him, please let us know. Metropolitan Police
OK: I think you should pass this case on to your colleagues at the Greater Manchester Police, who will tell you that this is nothing untoward. Mr Ronaldo has frequently disappeared over the course of this season, but, whenever attention is drawn to his disappearance, he tends to pop up with a goal or two. No doubt he will do again over the coming weeks. Fabio Aurelio played him superbly on Saturday, but Ronaldo has produced nothing like the same performance level this season as he has in the previous two.

Fergie’s cracking up. Paul

OK: I don’t believe that one for minute. But by all your means ask yourself what kind of reaction there would have been if Rafa Benitez, after a 4-1 home defeat by United, had claimed that Liverpool were the better team and then refused to speak to Sky. Benitez only has to substitute a tiring Fernando Torres for the “cracking up” chants and headlines to start. As more than one person has observed, he was certainly cracking up over the weekend. With laughter.
Thanks, as always, for all your replies. A special mention once again to iworshipthedevil, whose post has set a new level for paranoid, one-eyed analysis. As I said earlier, I don’t think that Ferguson’s refusal to speak to Sky was about bitterness or sour grapes. After all, he took the defeat a good deal more graciously than our devil-worshipping friend.

in Liverpool, Manchester United, Oliver Kay,

Sir Alex Ferguson's ungraciousness leaves him a step away from greatness

Graham Spiers
I don't think we need to read too much of Freud to understand what was going on in the mind of Sir Alex Ferguson following his team's 4-1 loss to Liverpool at Old Trafford on Saturday. In his sullen refusal to speak to the media after that defeat - including his beloved Sky TV - Ferguson only confirmed what a rank bad loser he is at times.
There are many indicators of greatness in football management and the Manchester United boss has ticked most of them over the years. But one of those boxes - denoting graciousness in defeat - has very often remained empty.
Ferguson's churlish behaviour at the weekend was all the more notable given his willingness to openly taunt Liverpool's Rafael Benitez in the build-up to Saturday's game. In saying that he would "need to read more of Freud" to understand some of the recent comments by the Liverpool manager was Ferguson's own way of faintly humiliating Benitez in public.

Well, at Old Trafford on Saturday, here was Benitez not so faintly humiliating Ferguson, and where it mattered most - on the pitch. And if the imperious Ferguson feels he can dole it out quite a bit, shouldn't he also just occasionally be able to take it? The word on this last Saturday was, apparently not.
Indeed, Ferguson's initial silence on the loss to Liverpool and then his mumblings about the unfair nature of Saturday's lunchtime kick-off served only to make his embittered state more obvious. The Scot's main charge was that his United team had been unfairly disadvantaged because, having played Inter Milan at Old Trafford three days earlier, Liverpool were given the upper hand, having played their Champions League fixture against Real Madrid on the Tuesday.
I must admit, I have always been mystified by this Wednesday-Saturday conspiracy theory among certain managers. Those of us who love football - and that includes Ferguson - grew up on a routine of big European nights on Wednesdays, followed by league business three days later. It has been a staple diet of football and Ferguson has known it for nearly 30 years, since his early Continental forays with Aberdeen.
Yet at some point in the early-to-mid 1990s managers began to grumble about this three-day pressure on their players. "It's very unfair," some started to claim, especially if playing more humble opponents who hadn't experienced a midweek European match, "my players are exhausted." And this, despite sports science and rest and recuperation being more advanced and knowledgeable than ever.
Liverpool may have had a very slight advantage over United but it seems a flimsy line to peddle. With Ferguson, in truth, it smacked of a sore, bitter loser after Saturday's defeat. How big of him it would have been - a real measure of his humanity - had he come out and, instead of simpering, congratulated or even acknowledged Liverpool and Benitez on their remarkable win.
Graciousness in defeat is one of the hallmarks of greatness in football - embodied in such men as Pele and Sir Bobby Charlton - but it is something that appears to have eluded the Manchester United manager.

RBSC

Announcement

Who is the Master of Mind games ?

Who is the Master of Mind games ?

Comment