Football has no right to call out 'fascist' Di Canio

In his (really very good) 2005 autobiography, Paolo Di Canio refers to Benito Mussolini as a "deeply misunderstood" individual, during a chapter in which he reveals a "fascination" with the former Italian dictator.

Such a political standpoint does not sit well in the football world. Oh, unless you're managing outside the Premier League of course.

Di Canio's reign in the lower leagues with Swindon Town was met with almost universal delight by the UK media; his hot-headed press conferences generated no end of column inches and every opportunity to stick him on camera was seized. He was even given a column on the BBC, which has conveniently disappeared since his appointment as Sunderland boss this week.

So why were a man's clearly right-wing sentiments so plainly ignored? Because it actually doesn't matter if Paolo Di Canio likes Benito Mussolini. It actually doesn't.

Footballers have killed people, KILLED people, and been allowed to continue with their careers. The owners of many clubs have earned unspeakable wealth through what occasionally comes close to terrorist activity. We employ the openly sexist, homophobic and even racist - players who have targeted and attacked Asian men continue to enjoy fine careers, and if a group of fans throw a banana at a black player, our governing body will fine him for walking from the field of play.

And we're supposed to find time to worry about a man who is concerned about the number of Muslims in Italy.

Nobody likes to see somebody achieve prominence while harbouring what are seen to be politically incorrect views. But the sanctimonious hand-wringing over this issue is just as displeasing, it borders on the abhorrent.

As a football manager, the role is quite simple: win at all costs. You are not a governor of the game, you don't make the rules and your personal character need only be called into question if it affects the players. 

What matters is success on the field, and what nobody appears prepared to discuss is that Di Canio has absolutely no experience of management at this level. His management style, documented brilliantly in this recent article, can also be seen as a huge de-stabiliser, particularly at this stage in a season when his new club are a single point from relegation. 

Have Sunderland made a mistake then? Yes probably, but not for the reason's you're hearing.

Paolo Di Canio does not appear a very nice man. He might even be a cunt. But people in football are rarely anything but. 

Why Sepp Blatter is Wrong to Question the Penalty Shootout

The year is 1968. Competing in their first ever Olympic Games, Israel have held the comparative might of Bulgaria to a 1-1 draw, after scoring a last minute equaliser. As this quarter final drew to a close, the momentum was very much with the underdogs, and the prospect of a medal was starting to look very real.

But that’s when the football stopped. At the 90 minute mark, the names of both teams were placed into a bowl. The name ‘Bulgaria’ was drawn. Boom. Bulgaria go through. See ya Israel, better luck next time.

So it came to be that pensioner Yosef Dagan first proposed the idea of a penalty shootout to FIFA. Like many others, he couldn’t believe his team had been eliminated in such a random way. He wanted a fairer way to resolve such matches.

Dagan’s voice was heard, and the penalty shootout was adopted in 1970. It has to date provided the nerve-shredding conclusion to some truly thrilling matches (2005 Champions League), as well as some utterly dreadful ones (1994 World Cup final). But the beauty of the shootout is that, while being largely unpredictable, it rewards the team that can best work a psychological edge, keep its nerve and, crucially, show the sharpest shooting from twelve yards. On the coaching and playing side, there is a huge amount of skill involved.

The penalty shootout is not, as some would call it, a lottery. The better players tend to prevail, which is why England lose so many. Since the dawn of the game, the victor is the one that takes its chances, and you can’t say much fairer than that. That is what penalties are all about.

Chelsea deserved to win the Champions League last week for precisely this reason. The shootout was simply the manifestation of the mindsets that had set in during the match. Bayern no longer believed they could win, whereas Chelsea believed they could.

In much the same way, it was Zambia’s firm belief in their destiny that saw them prevail in their glorious Africa Cup of Nations triumph. It’s never been a nice way to lose, but you can’t deny that penalties separate the weak from the strong, those prepared to win at all costs versus those who shrink in the face of such pressure. Isn’t that what football has always been about?

This is why, when Sepp Blatter says that the penalty shootout is not in keeping with the spirit of the game, he is so very, very wrong. If nothing else, there is no better alternative way to settle a match. Referring to previous examples, there are some football matches that could be played forever, without finding a winner, and the idea of replays cheats those fans that came to the initial final expecting to see a result.

Granted, if you are able to hit the crossbar from the halfway line, or recite the closing act of Othello, in such a high-pressure situation, you probably deserve the trophy. But the team in the better mindset would still find a way through, just in more ludicrous circumstances.

Yosef Dagan couldn’t stand to see all of his team’s hard work undone by a decision totally beyond their control. FIFA will doubtless spend millions on research, looking for a new and exciting way to mess with a perfect system, only to prove him right all over again.

The Hodge Podge England Squad

The announcement of the England squad for a major tournament is always a big talking point. But this time round, it doesn't feel like it matters all that much.

England's opening game of the tournament will be manager Roy Hodgson's third as national team coach. Even by this country's standards, he is likely to still be in a period of grace. This is helped by the fact that the 2010 World Cup was so dreadful from and England perspective, and nobody expects this team to pull up any trees in Poland and Ukraine.

The pressure, therefore, is very much off, and in my view, this should be reflected in the squad choice that is made tomorrow.

Every two years (luck permitting) we are beset with articles about the 'difficult choices' that a manager must face when picking his squad. This year, it is no different. Can you really leave out a suspended Wayne Rooney? A probably racist John Terry? An unfit Rio Ferdinand? The answer this time is simple. Yes, you can.

In the build up to this squad announcement, Hodgson has emerged as the supreme pragmatist, likely to pick a solid, slightly conservative squad based on who is fit and most readily available. Not form. Why take a risk on the big names when you have a chance at looking at an emerging talent? He isn't looking to rock the boat, but have a good steady tournament and, I dare say, play some nice football.

For those reasons, I've picked what I feel to be Hodgson's ideal 23 man squad. It's a team able to adapt to a number of different styles (4-2-3-1 being the optimum), attack with pace when necessary, but also sit back and keep the ball against the more technically gifted sides.

Here goes:

Goalkeepers: Joe Hart; Robert Green; John Ruddy

Norwich keeper given the edge by virtue of there being nobody else available whatsoever.

Defenders: Micah Richards; Kyle Walker; Phil Jones; Gary Cahill; Joleon Lescott; Phil Jagielka; Ashley Cole; Leighton Baines

No racial conflicts, plenty of pace, bit of dead ball ability in there too. Lovely.

Midfielders: Scott Parker; Gareth Barry; Frank Lampard; Steven Gerrard; Theo Walcott; Ashley Young; Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain; Joe Cole

Many pundits have forgotten about Joe Cole, but he's been a key part of a Lille side that played in the Champions League and made a late charge for the French title. Not a quick winger any more, but in Rooney's absence, he is a great option to play just in behind a central striker. Oxlade-Chamberlain brings something special to the squad, the fear factor. It's him or Lennon, but I just feel the Tottenham man's delivery is going to be a permanent barrier between himself and true international quality.


If Scott Parker were to be injured, the most sensible replacement, were he to accept it, is Paul Scholes.

Forwards: Danny Welbeck; Jermain Defoe; Andy Carroll; Grant Holt

Like I say, no Rooney. Deal with it. Grant Holt gets in ahead of the likes of Sturridge, Zamora and Crouch due to his ability to win, keep, and use the ball well. Andy Carroll, for all his criticism, has the attributes to be a success for England if we do revert to a more direct approach. And let's face it, with our players, we may need to take that option if we're to get very far.

A proper team of the year

The PFA released its team of the year tonight. As always, it seems to have ignored the players who actually had good seasons, in favour of those who merely fulfilled their reputations.

I decided to change that. Your comments welcome.

Rubbish PFA team of the year:
Hart; Walker, Kompany, Coloccini, Baines; Parker, Toure, Silva, Bale; Rooney, Van Persie

Much more accurate team of the year:
Vorm; Richards, Williams, Kompany, Clichy; Tiote, Toure, Dempsey, Bale; Van Persie, Rooney