Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
514-560)
Mr Roger Burden and Ms Kelly Simmons
29 March 2011
Chair: We are now going to turn our attention
to the national game. I welcome Roger Burden and Kelly Simmons.
Q514 Jim Sheridan:
Beneath the FA board, the policy responsibilities are divided
between, as I understand it, the national game board and the professional
game board. How successful has this division of responsibilities
been?
Roger Burden: I
think in the last four years it has been particularly successful.
I say the last four years because that is since the Lord Burns
review, when both the professional game and the national game
were given quite clear delegated authority about responsibilities—you
were discussing the PGB earlier—and with that authority
came the split of the surplus too, which we call the funding formula,
where it is 50:50 between us. So the relationships have been really
good the last four years. I have no issues at all. I am surprised
at some of the criticisms I have heard.
Q515 Jim Sheridan: From
whom?
Roger Burden: From
some of the people who have presented in front of you.
Q516 Jim Sheridan:
Kelly, do you wish to comment?
Kelly Simmons:
I think, from the executive side, the focus on working with a
board that is completely focused and committed to driving the
growth and development of the national game, and having a clear
strategy and a long-term budget and investment into that has really
paid dividends. I think you will see from our submission, some
of the results we have had in terms of growing the game, growing
and improving the quality of coaches and referees, investing in
facilities. The whole range of work we have done, I think, has
been very much because we have had that real focus and leadership
from people who are experts around the board, in the area of the
national game. I think it has been a good thing for the organisation.
Q517 Jim Sheridan:
Can you see any benefits in appointing FA executives or non-executives
to the national game board?
Roger Burden: To
the national game board? We have the general secretary comes in,
we have Jonathan Hall and we have Kelly coming in. They are not
members of the national game board, but they speak when they have
something to say. I have never thought that; 15 or 16 of us around
the table, I think that is more than enough.
Q518 Jim Sheridan:
What is the purpose of it, if they are coming to the national
game board?
Roger Burden: You
mean the national game and the national game board?
Jim Sheridan: What is
the purpose of Kelly coming into the meetings with the members?
Roger Burden: They
are the executives. It is just like any other board, really, where
the board is looking to the executive for the initiatives, and
we present what we think is the appropriate support and challenge
to the executives. They come with the budgets. They come with
ideas and reports against progress. We have quite a comprehensive
strategy with key indicators which we like to hit, and again,
that was mentioned this morning. It operates, I think, the way
you would expect a board to operate, with executives reporting
in.
Q519 Jim Sheridan:
On the criticisms that you think have been unjust, would you like
to give us a flavour of what the criticisms are that you do not
agree with?
Roger Burden: Yes.
I have heard--not followed every word of it, but I have heard--
that some members of the professional game board have been criticised
for being overbearing and some because they have vested interests
so are not putting the fair view to the board. I do not agree
with that. I do not see that. It surprises me that people are
surprised that the chairman of the Premier League is not a pussycat.
He is a resilient man; you would expect him to be that, but he
does not roll anybody over at the FA board. It has not been an
issue for us.
Q520 Chair: You
channel quite a lot of money down into grassroots football, primarily
through county FAs. We have had suggestions that the county FAs
are not entirely accountable for how that money is spent. Can
you say what audit procedure there is that you use to make sure
that the money goes to where it is supposed to?
Roger Burden: Yes,
I can give a couple of top level views and then Kelly can give
you some detail. Most of the money we give counties—and
it is something in the order of £10 million a year, I think—is
for salaries, development staff salaries, referee development,
child welfare officers, as well as a chief executive. Every county
needs them. So that is very easily auditable, because we only
give the money based on the payment of salaries. From the chairman
of the national game board's point of view, we do have an internal
auditor in the FA and he has been out to counties, reported back
to me and through to the national game board and Kelly with regard
to the controls that operate in the counties, and he has been
entirely satisfied. Frankly, it is not difficult, because it is
all based on salaries, if the people are not there, and they are
not earning the money, they do not get the grant.
Chair: It is not entirely
salaries.
Roger Burden: No,
it is not entirely salaries, the majority is salaries. There is
also some revenue funding, and Kelly can talk about that.
Kelly Simmons:
There is a blend. In terms of the national game budget, some goes
to the county football associations in terms of workforce, but
also revenue grants, which I will come on to. Obviously, there
is investment into the Football Foundation. There are league grants.
There are grants for clubs. There is the skills coaching, coach
development. There is a whole range of funding. So I would not
want it to be thought that it just goes into county football associations.
You know, they are our key delivery agency in delivering national
game strategy, and provide and oversee the administration and
development of 130,000 teams playing in 1,200 leagues across the
country every week of the year.
The national game strategy, really, sitting under
that are county football association strategies in line with that
national game strategy. To get that money, we assess their plans
and they have to set targets on how they are going to grow the
game, raise standards, increase coaches, grow referees, and so
on, so a range of key performance indicators. We track that through
a score card process every quarter. We have regional managers
that work with those county associations as partners and we are
tracking their plans and the return on the investment that we
are making in those counties, and working with them to share good
practice, to make sure that we get that money to work as well
as it possibly can.
Then on top of that, as Roger mentioned, there was
a board audit committee that has gone in and looked at that funding.
In terms of the workforce, there is a clear set of conditions,
how the counties must recruit, deploy and develop the workforce,
to make sure they are providing good service to develop the game.
I think there are a number of accountabilities in there.
Q521 Chair: If
there were allegations of inappropriate awards being made by a
county FA, who would investigate that?
Kelly Simmons:
Awards in which sense?
Chair: Grants being made.
Kelly Simmons:
Our money goes primarily into workforce and some programme money,
but the main grants would be through the Football Foundation.
The strength of the Football Foundation is you have a separate
body that is assessing the grants that are being worked up at
a local level to the county football associations and the partners.
In other words, if it was a Football Foundation grant, that would
go back into the Football Foundation in terms of query. If there
was a concern in terms of something the county was doing, that
would come back to the executive, and if there was a concern that
we could not fix, obviously, I would work with Roger and the board.
Q522 Damian Collins:
I want to talk about youth development. Why has it taken so long
to get the National Football Centre plan up and running, and with
a delivery date? It has been the longest gestation probably of
any public project in recent memory.
Roger Burden: Yes,
that is a good question. The very first board meeting I attended,
Howard Wilkinson presented for the National Football Centre. I
think that was probably nine years ago. And at the same meeting,
there was a meeting about Wembley too, so at a stroke the board
was being asked to look at something like £150 million, and
there is the answer. We did not have it. The National Football
Centre has been put off, not because any of us did not think it
was a good idea, purely on the basis of funding. When it eventually
came through and we were satisfied that we could fund it—and
the national game is putting £6 million into it, incidentally,
as is the professional game—we agreed as soon as we were
comfortable that we could pay for it.
Q523 Damian Collins:
Ian Watmore, I think, gave us the impression that he found the
National Football Centre lying dirty and tattered, in rags in
the gutter somewhere and picked it up and put it back on the agenda;
that it had been an unloved and forgotten part of the FA's programme.
Is that fair? Obviously, I do not suppose you will say that is
a fair description, but there seemed to be a lack of impetus for
quite a long time, and that was not just about money, but about
priorities.
Roger Burden: Yes,
I think the priorities thing is fair, but money is at the heart
of it, because, shortly before Ian joined us, we had reviews on
the National Football Centre and it just was not affordable. It
did tend to come up and down on the priorities, depending on a
certain amount of pressure from the then-chief executive, and
whether or not the chief executive of the day really felt that
this was a viable moment to put it forward.
Q524 Damian Collins:
I appreciate you said money was a part of it, but it was not just
money. What else was it that caused it to go up and down the list
of priorities?
Roger Burden: I
do not think the National Football Centre ever went out of favour
as an idea or concept. All of us were happy with it, but with
Wembley and the television money going down, we could not afford
it. It was as simple as that. At least in my view, we could not
afford it. I voted against it when we were asked for £40
million, because I did not think the FA had £40 million.
Q525 Damian Collins:
The reason I ask is that there has been criticism that we have
a problem of lack of qualified coaches, and the National Football
Centre plays a key role in that. We have less than 10% of the
level of fully qualified coaches that you might see in other comparable
European football countries. Why do you think that has happened,
and who is ultimately to blame for that?
Roger Burden: I
am not sure why it has happened and I do not know if anybody is
to blame for it. I think the important thing is now that we have
got to grips with it. The World Cup was a bit of a focus for us.
Kelly has various figures that she can give you. Coaching is a
whole game issue; it is not just national game. We are encouraging
all our teams now to have qualified coaches, at least at the first
level. All the children's teams is what we want, and we are really
starting from now, and I do not think there is any point in looking
back to see why we are where we are. The important thing is that
we are looking forward and Kelly can tell you some of the things
that we are doing.
Kelly Simmons:
Yes, we have been working really hard. We started from a very
low base. In 2000, when the FA did the first football development
strategy, less than 5% of those coaching grassroots football,
youth football, had any qualification whatsoever. We are now up
to 72% of all junior football—mini-soccer and junior football—is
FA chartered standard, which means that they have a minimum qualification.
We are just about to announce our 500th community club, multi-team
girls and boys, youth to adult, minimum level 2. We are working
hard on getting the Tesco skills programme out there so that children
get additional, top-up, age-appropriate specialist coaching. I
think you will see that in action later on. We are investing through
the national game board in regional coach development managers
who are working with improving the skills and knowledge of the
coaches working in the grassroots game. Regional 5 to 11 specialists
really focus on the new age-appropriate agenda in the philosophy
that the FA has published around coaching and working with young
players. We are putting a lot of effort and focus in. I think
we are starting from a very low base in terms of previous history.
Q526 Damian Collins:
Other witnesses have commented that in some ways what we are seeing
now is the coming to fruition of recommendations that were made
in the Lewis report five years ago. There has been criticism of
the FA with Lord Mawhinney, for example, on this point saying
this is an example of the failure of the governance structures
and the leadership of the FA, that these issues have been left
to drift for too long, and while the right thing is being done
now, it should have been done some years ago. Do you think that
is a fair comment?
Roger Burden: I
think it probably is fair, because the figures prove that we do
not have enough coaches compared to competitor countries—I
will call them that—in Europe, in the competitions. I think
it is fair, but we are doing something about it. We have not just
started in this past year. National game has been encouraged by
Sir Trevor Brooking in investing in local coaches for some years
now, as Kelly has mentioned.
Kelly Simmons:
We are training about 45,000 coaches a year, so we have significant
numbers coming at the base. The focus will be that St George's
Park will be a major asset in making sure that more of those local
coaches can get to the top. It is not just the A licence and the
Pro licence, but specialising in working with young players, which
has been a real gap.
Q527 Paul Farrelly:
What percentage of the Football Association's total income is
spent on coaching and youth development?
Kelly Simmons:
Coaching, I believe, it is £8 million on coach education.
Youth development, through the PGB—it is not our own—I
believe £7 million goes through the Football League Trust
into centres of excellence and academies on the boys' side. On
the girls' side, it is between £2 million or £3 million
on the girls' centres of excellence, and about half a million
on the talent pathway for players with disabilities.
Q528 Paul Farrelly:
So, just under £20 million. How does that figure as a percentage?
I have not got the annual report accounts in front of me.
Roger Burden: Of
income, surplus, we are looking at £80 million. In terms
of surplus, we have a surplus of about £80 million, which
is split between national game board and professional game board,
but there is also other income coming into the FA, and we do not
have those figures in front of us. We only have our own figures.
Q529 Paul Farrelly:
I am just trying to get a feel, because you mentioned other countries,
how do we rank as a nation?
Kelly Simmons:
Significantly higher; I am on the UEFA grassroots panel and work
with a number of my equivalent colleagues across Europe in some
of the big countries, and the Football Association invests significantly
more in children's football, grassroots football and coaching.
Paul Farrelly: As a percentage
of its overall income?
Kelly Simmons:
I am sorry. I meant total. Yes, cash total, I meant.
Q530 Paul Farrelly:
That is apples and pears, is it not, depending on the country's
size? Can you give us a feeling, do you have a feeling for how
the FA ranks percentage-wise against Spain, France, Germany?
Kelly Simmons:
You would have to go back and look at their turnover and their
investment in coaching. My sense would be that we are pretty high,
I think, in terms of that, and that is over recent years: as the
FA's turnover has significantly increased, we have been able to
invest more back into the game. You have seen we have significant
numbers of coaches in level 1, level 2 starting to come through
that coaching pathway. I think now, with St George's Park and
with that focused effort, we will see us closing the gap on the
top level coaching qualifications.
In terms of the national game, we need a blend of
funding. We need to fund coaches. It is absolutely critical, but
we need facilities; we need referees; we need leagues and competitions;
we need clubs. It is one piece of the whole pie, if you like,
of football development we need to invest in. We are investing
in skills programmes, coach education, coach development, regional
coaching infrastructure. So there is a range of investment in
there that we are trying to move those coaches through.
Q531 Paul Farrelly:
If we can write to you afterwards, it would be useful.
Kelly Simmons:
Yes, of course.
Roger Burden: The
figures must be available. We just do not have them.
Q532 Paul Farrelly: This
is ultimately about sharing out money. Do you think there is more
the professional game could and should do, be it the Premiership
or the Football League, to help improve the coaching and youth
development, outside of their own academies? Is there a case to
be made, if it is not in their interest but in the national interest,
that they could contribute and should contribute more?
Roger Burden: You
mean financially?
Paul Farrelly: Yes.
Roger Burden: I
had not really thought that there was until I was listening to
the debate this morning. Personally, and from the national game
board's point of view, we have been very happy about the way the
money is split. They have been really supportive of the things
we have wanted to do with our money. Obviously, if there is more
money around, I would hope that they would see their way to help
the national game. Although I do not have any concerns or criticisms,
we always want more, and in the case of the national game , we
have a lot of mouths to feed in order to do what we want to do
and increase participation. But I do not have any concerns about
the level of support we are getting from the professional game.
Q533 Paul Farrelly:
Final question on this topic: we have been to Germany and taken
some evidence of their response to Euro 2000, their dismal performance,
and their youth development, which we saw coming through in South
Africa. We have learned from them that they have a contracting
system where the children at the age of 15 to 18 can be contracted,
which gives some protection for proper recompense, as against
the poaching that will inevitably happen. Do you think that current
arrangements between the Premier League and Football League clubs
and proposals for changes to the academy system are right, or
should there be anything else in place that protects the smaller
clubs and gives them better recompense?
Roger Burden: It
is not really our field, in terms of the smaller clubs, because
I know you are looking at the smaller Football League clubs, but
what I have seen recently with the way the Premier League and
the Football League have been talking to us and to our people,
I thought it was a step in the right direction. There is going
to be a change and you are probably already seeing some of that,
some of the arrangements.
Paul Farrelly: I am not
talking from the point of view of your own niche but I am talking
to you as a representative of the governing body of the national
game .
Roger Burden: Yes,
okay. I am satisfied. I think it is right. I think the way the
programme for children coming through the game and the opportunities
that exist are right. That is one of the things we want to achieve.
We want to get children playing and we want to make sure they
have the skills coaching so that, if they are good enough, there
is an opportunity and we want to make sure they do have the opportunities
to get into the professional game if they are good enough and
they want to. I think those opportunities are there now.
Kelly Simmons:
The academies and centres of excellence for boys doesn't sit within
the national game. In terms of the youth review that Alex touched
on earlier, I see it as our role is absolutely vital in trying
to drive through and work with the Leagues and clubs to make the
changes that are required to make sure that all children have
the best introduction to football. We are looking at: at what
point do children stop playing mini-soccer and move into the adult
game; whether nine versus nine is a better transition; at what
point you bring in league tables to try to take away some of the
competitiveness and make sure that all children get to play and
try different positions, and it is the right kind of environment,
which Respect is really trying to drive, to make sure that the
environment on the sideline is good and conducive in terms of
player development.
I see that as being our role, alongside bringing
as many players into the game as possible, which I think we are
doing through the growth figures. We have had over 5,000 new teams
since we launched the strategy for children, so widening the base
and making sure that we continue to do that work around coach
education. Then we hand them on, obviously, into the academies,
the talented ones.
Q534 Dr Coffey:
I want to ask one supplementary question, Chair, on that particular
point before moving on to structure. Do you think the national
game was a bit slow in recognising that primary schools were no
longer particularly teaching football any more? School sports
dropped significantly in the 1980s.
Kelly Simmons:
It is very hard, isn't it? You look at the scale of primary schools
in this country and the resources that we would have had in the
FA several years ago to try to tackle that. We work very hard,
and have been working over a long term to make sure that, where
football is not played in primary schools, we have a healthy English
Schools FA that provides out of school competitions and we are
working very hard in terms of our junior club development. I think
we have made some great strides with that. I think we mentioned
earlier 72% of those clubs now reach our kitemark.
I think the biggest issue for football is not so
much that football is not played in primary schools; it is the
physical literacy of the children coming out of primary schools,
which I think affects all sport. It is really important that football
and the governing bodies work with the Government and with education
to try to address that. That is what the skills coaching programme
is that you will see later. It is not just about football skills;
it is about trying to improve children's movement and physical
literacy so that, when they come out of that sort of 11 age group
and pick their sport maybe that they want to specialise in, they
have the foundations. What we are finding, and I saw it when I
was coaching in schools, girls and boys just do not have that
movement and co-ordination to enjoy any sport and have a lifelong
love of it and be good at it. So I think physical literacy is
a bigger issue in that sense.
Q535 Dr Coffey:
Moving on to the FA structures, Mr Burden, why did national game
representatives oppose the full implementation of the Burns report?
I am not saying they were wrong to, but why did they do it?
Roger Burden: There
were issues in there that we were not comfortable with. There
was not much that we opposed. I think Lord Burns did suggest—
Q536 Dr Coffey:
Can you recall what you did oppose, specifically?
Roger Burden: Yes.
We did oppose the two independent directors. We were not convinced
that that was necessary, but we did support the idea of an independent
chairman. So it was a compromise internally. You may not be aware
but, as I think the chairman said, you do need a 75% majority
in Council in shareholders to get things through. It was our sense
that we would not get that through with two independent directors.
Colleagues were reluctant. At that time, the national game board
and the professional game board held equal votes within the main
board. We had six and the professional game board had six and
the chairman and chief executive did not have a vote, which puts
us in quite a good position, we would think. As corporate governance,
it is not a great position and that is why Lord Burns was encouraging
us to give the chairman a vote and give the chief executive a
vote. For corporate governance reasons, I happen to agree with
that.
So it seemed sensible that one of the ways we could
achieve what Lord Burns was after, which was to break this sort
of six-six position, was to have an independent chairman. That
seemed a sensible compromise, which as we went around the country
talking to colleagues we thought they would support, and it did
give us an independent chairman and it has given the chief executive,
general secretary now, a vote. The professional game board and
ourselves both gave up a member of the board, so we went down
to five each, and you have probably seen that, plus the two. I
think for corporate governance reasons that was a good thing to
do and I think that was a reasonable compromise.
Q537 Dr Coffey:
We heard from David Bernstein earlier that he thought he had a
good hearing. You are obviously a leading player in the national
game. Do you think you will see any further changes and if so
what would you like to see changed on the FA board and Council?
Roger Burden: My
experience of being on council for many years and working with
the committees is that they are, as you have heard, sensible football
people and they want to do what is best for the FA. So in the
board, when the chairman put the idea to us, I was one of the
ones that said, "You need to consult because, if the grounds
are good, and the signs are the grounds for this are good, then
Council and shareholders will go with you, but what they will
not do after just a few weeks in the post is suddenly switch to
something that they remember just four years ago only just got
through the shareholders. So we need to tread carefully."
You heard the chairman say that is exactly what he wants to do.
There is no doubt in my mind, if a strong case for more independent
directors is made, Council and shareholders will support it.
Q538 Dr Coffey:
Will you be supporting it?
Roger Burden: If
the case is made, yes.
Dr Coffey: So you are
not convinced yet?
Roger Burden: No.
Q539 Dr Coffey:
The Committee has already heard from Lord Burns, Lord Triesman
and others that national game representatives are conservative
and have acted as a brake on structural reform. Are there any
changes you would like to see to the FA Council to try and not
necessarily be quite so conservative but open to new ideas, perhaps
term limits, not almost have a place for life? I know you have
to be elected, but there is no limit to how many times you can
be re-elected to Council.
Roger Burden: That
is true. We do have an age limit, though, and I supported that.
That was challenged. There is an age limit now; you have to retire
from council at 75. You have to come off the board at 70, which
I think is good corporate governance. So there is an age limit;
it is not a place for life. Interestingly, there is a position,
after you have served the FA for 21 years, you become a life member.
Only at the January council we were successful in establishing
that even life members have to retire at 75, so there is no longer
a place for life. Some are already on there and they can go beyond
75, but for the vast majority of us we will be kicked off at 75,
even if we are elected every year. My own position is that I represent
Gloucestershire on the Council; I have to be elected within Gloucestershire
every year and all of us from the national game have to stand
for re-election to the board every three years, which again I
think follows good governance policy.
Q540 Dr Coffey:
So you would not want to see any changes to perhaps trying to
encourage fresh blood in at the highest levels of our game?
Roger Burden: It
is really difficult. Part of Lord Burns' report, which we did
support, was that we should be more open in Council and make sure
people were properly representative: we increased the women's
representation, we introduced a referees' representative, players,
managers and there is a disability representative. So we did become
more open and there are over 100 of us and I would need to be
convinced that that is not enough, that we need more. I do not
think we need any more in Council.
Q541 Dr Coffey:
You were acting chairman for about seven months.
Roger Burden: Nine
months.
Dr Coffey: Nine months,
sorry. There is something in the papers today about a report you
wrote when the inquiry started off, which was working together
with the Premier League and the Football League for a co-ordinated
response to kill off the nonsense about infighting that politicians
and the media seem keen to invent. I was a little surprised by
that, only because the Committee has not come to that view. It
is people who have worked with the national council, like Lord
Triesman and others, who very strongly suggest that there are
internal tensions. So why do you think it was sensible to put
your thoughts in writing?
Roger Burden: Because
I do not see that in the boardroom. Some of the disputes that
we have heard from Lord Triesman, and I think Ian too mentioned
it, I have not seen in the boardroom.
Q542 Dr Coffey:
Have you seen them in the corridors outside the boardroom?
Roger Burden: Yes,
but what is wrong with that? Ian is a good example where he resigned
in frustration and others have been accused of disagreeing with
him, but the place to bring these presentations, chief executive,
is in the boardroom. He put up his 100-day idea, and I liked nearly
all of it--not all of it, but nearly all of it. I am sure we would
have made 80% or 90% of it, but he resigned so we did not have
a chance to have that challenge in the boardroom. If some of my
colleagues in the professional game may not have not been supportive
of it, I would have heard their arguments. I liked what Ian put
but we never had that opportunity, and Lord Triesman may have
been in the same position where outside the boardroom he had some
disagreements. He should have brought them inside the boardroom
and there he may have found he got some support.
Q543 Jim Sheridan:
Could I ask you basically what you see as the main challenges
facing the English national game? As a Scot, I am keen to find
out what those challenges are and see how best we can make them
even more challenging.
Roger Burden: Thank
you very much. Kelly has touched on them. We are here to increase
participation in football. We want to see as many people playing
football and going to watch football as we can, preferably playing
because then, if they are today's player, they might be tomorrow's
administrator or tomorrow's referee, like me. I was a failed player
so I went into refereeing and administration. What we want to
do is give everybody that opportunity to participate. That is
our challenge.
Within that, of course, you then have the challenges
that Kelly has touched on in terms of making sure we have good
facilities, making sure that children in particular have a safe
environment in which they can play, and "safe" means
they have properly checked and trained people looking after them.
It is our belief, as we have said that, if they do get properly
coached by coaches that have been trained, it will improve their
skills and they will enjoy it. They may not go on to be elite
players, but hopefully they will play football until their maybe
late 30s, maybe even 40s now with veterans league. I was sitting
at the back and I heard somebody was playing football. I could
only suspect it was veterans league football, but forgive me.
Jim Sheridan: What made
you think that?
Roger Burden: It
is really once you are in your early 30s, you are into the veterans
league.
Jim Sheridan: And they
don't have any agents either.
Kelly Simmons:
I think we are really clear what the challenges are because one
of the strengths, I believe, of the national game strategy is
that, before we produced it, we had a major research and consultation
into the national game, involving over 20,000 stakeholders: players,
coaches, referees. They were clear what the challenges are for
them and where they wanted the FA to invest its money to tackle
some of those challenges. Behaviour came out very strongly. The
Respect campaign was a response to that. 40% of those this year
surveyed believe that Respect so far has improved their experience
of the game. We know that 2.5 million people, despite 7 million
playing, still want to play the game, either play more or play,
and we have been working very hard to create both junior football
and the 5,000 teams I mentioned earlier that we have grown since
the launch of the strategy.
On the point you touched on earlier with Alex, it
is about trying to create more flexible football for adults and
tap into the changing lifestyles and the way people want to consume
their football and responding to that with the new partnership
with Mars and the work that we are trying to do with Sport England
to turn that round. Facilities is a big one, obviously, and we
can never have enough resources to tackle the demand on pitches
and facilities. But since the strategy, working in partnership
with the foundation and other partners, we have invested over
£200 million into new or improved facilities.
So we know those are the kinds of challenges that
we are working really hard to address and we feel we have made
some inroads. Obviously, there is a lot more to do. We are just
out now on the extension of the national game strategy to 2015.
There is a survey online currently at the moment. Over 10,000
people involved in the game have done it, so we will be getting
a really clear steer about how we have performed, how they think
we have improved what they have set out and they have asked us
to do, and where they think the priorities are going forward.
Q544 Jim Sheridan:
Finally, you seem to indicate that you have a good working, constructive
relationship with the professional game, but just on the question
of resources and powers, hypothetically, if that relationship
was not there, do you have the relative powers and resources that
you would need?
Roger Burden: Powers,
yes, because the split of cash is in the articles. We have heard
that, haven't we, with the 50:50 split of cash? That gives us
the power. We have 50% of the surplus and the authority is delegated
from the board to the national game board. Obviously, we have
to report up to the main board. If our professional game colleagues
wanted to be difficult they could protest at the main board. They
haven't done but, if they did, there are only five of them and
there are five of us and we then have the chairman and the general
secretary. Heaven forbid it would come to that. It never has,
but I do think we have the power. Do we have the resources? It
comes back to the money.
Q545 Jim Sheridan:
Has it never happened then? Even out in the corridors of power
it has never happened?
Roger Burden: No,
not between us and the professional game. They have always been
incredibly supportive. Kelly was telling me at her level it is
the same.
Kelly Simmons:
The board unanimously supported the national game strategy and
the investment into it. I came along to the board and presented,
along with support from Roger, and there was complete support
for the strategy. We have worked very closely with the Premier
League through the Football Foundation, where I think they are
shortly due to announce they have invested in projects totalling
nearly £1 billion. So that is the kind of relationship we
have with the Government and the Premier League. At local level,
there is some fantastic work going on between the county associations
and Premier League and Football League clubs and they have been
working on driving the Football for All agenda. We have just recently
announced that through the work we have done with the clubs there
are over 1,000 teams of people with a disability. The new women's
super league, semi-pro league launching in April, five of those
clubs are supported by their men's Premier League club. So I think
there are good relationships all the way through.
Q546 Damian Collins:
I wanted to go back to the Burns report and the issue of the two
independent directors. From what you said in response to my colleagues,
it sounds like the Council considered that having two independent
directors on the board, your fear was they would be more likely
to side with the professional game. If that is people's view,
four years may have elapsed, but it is a numbers game. On Mr Sheridan's
question of power and control, those numbers will not change and
I do not believe it will be eloquent words that will convince
you to change your position. It sounds like you want to cut a
deal with the chairman of the FA if he wants to get his change
through.
Roger Burden: No,
you misunderstood me. I understand about independent directors.
I am non-executive director of the FA, as are nine other people.
It is quite a lot of non-executive directors. There is a lot of
challenge within the boardroom and we have an independent chairman
with the experience of the professional game, and indeed grassroots.
So there is an excellent mix there.
This was the first time this had happened when this
had been offered to us and previously we were six-all. There was
concern that somebody who was independent of the game may find
himself easily seduced by the professional game. He would much
rather accept an invitation to go to watch Arsenal than he would
to come down to the King George V in Cheltenham. So there was
this concern and I think we have overcome that slightly. I think
a lot of that has gone, and Lord Triesman helped that because
Lord Triesman had a grassroots background. There was a concern
about what true independence means. I think we all can see the
strengths of true independence bringing some real external thinking
to a board. Every board benefits from that, but that is where
our concerns were four years ago: would he remain independent
for long?
Q547 Damian Collins:
Are people still concerned at how easily independent members of
the board may be seduced by the odd corporate freebie?
Roger Burden: No,
I am talking four or five years ago. The new idea of "Can
we have two independent directors?" is a relatively new idea
again, because we thought we were doing okay.
Q548 Damian Collins:
So your concern is that the independent directors might mean that
the professional game ends up having more of a say is not found
any more?
Roger Burden: No
longer, no, that is no longer the case and personally I do not
have that concern now. I have met a lot of people who I think
are certainly of the stature that they would not allow themselves
to be seduced. I think that was an unfounded concern that we did
have four or five years ago, which I do not believe will sit out
there now.
Q549 Damian Collins:
From what you said, it sounds like if colleagues share your views
then Mr Bernstein may be successful in getting his two independent
directors?
Roger Burden: Yes,
I think the Chair has to put the case to colleagues; it is a strong
case. It is not a strong case to say, "Everybody else will
go away and they will be quiet if we do two independent directors",
or I suspect that is possibly the case. We will have less criticism.
It is one case, but I would like to understand the way the board
would be strengthened by independent directors and my colleagues.
What are the reasons, what will they bring to us? I know some
of the answers incidentally.
Q550 Damian Collins:
What do you think they are?
Roger Burden: I
think they can bring specialist skills that we do not have on
the board, but I think that the chief executive of Manchester
United brings particular skills to us that an independent director
cannot bring, so we have to be careful that we have the right
mix.
Q551 Paul Farrelly: Mr
Burden, you have been involved in running building societies?
Roger Burden: Only
one.
Paul Farrelly: The picture
that we have had painted to us by a number of people and I think
you have rather reinforced today is that there are five professionals
from Gloucester on the board who have all the money. Then there
are five well-meaning people from Cheltenham who are on the board;
they do not like to rock the boat because they are rather grateful
for the money they are given. A day or so before every board meeting,
the five blokes from Gloucester all meet up to decide that what
goes on in Gloucester has nothing to do with the people from Cheltenham
and certainly nothing to do with that chairman and chief executive
who come from neither. The well-meaning people from Cheltenham
do not disagree with that. That is not a recipe, is it, for a
successful, agile, responsive organisation like a building society
that needs to move with the times?
Roger Burden: No,
it's not what I said.
Paul Farrelly: That is
the picture that has been created.
Roger Burden: I'm
sorry you got that impression, but it is not what I said. I was
trying to respond to why we got stuck four or five years ago and
I definitely did say that is not the view today, we have moved
on. I think if you look at the board and the debate and board
agendas—I do not know if we are going to get a chance to
see that—I think anyway it's a properly run constituted
board where it has the right degree of challenge, where we do
not all vote en bloc, and I think that is the way boards should
be. I'm sorry you got that impression but it's not what I said.
Q552 Alan Keen: Is Cheltenham
& Gloucester still a mutual?
Roger Burden: No,
no, no, C&G was bought by Lloyds Bank some 10 or 12 years
ago. I cannot remember when. I was there. I was at C&G. It
is nothing to do with me now; I'm out of C&G. I retired.
Q553 Alan Keen: Was it
a mutual before that?
Roger Burden: Yes,
it was a mutual, yes.
Q554 Alan Keen: Would
you agree that mutuals have been more responsible through the
economic crisis than the—
Chair: Alan, I think that
we can refrain from—
Roger Burden: I
am happy to talk about that outside.
Alan Keen: No, it is to
do with supporters' ownership.
Roger Burden: I
am not going to answer it, Chair, because I am a director of a
mutual building society today. It is not Cheltenham & Gloucester
but it wouldn't be right for me to answer it. I'm happy to have
a quiet word over a cup of coffee, but not here.
Jim Sheridan: Out in the
corridor.
Roger Burden: Why
not, yes.
Q555 Alan Keen: It was
to do with supporters' ownership, of course, but can I move on.
You mentioned veterans' football; I understand that Germany has
veterans' football organised at quite a high age-level. Can I
ask you why it has never been looked at by the FA because there
are two benefits from veterans' football: one is the obvious health
one, but the other is less easily recognised by people. Veterans
have money to spare compared with younger people and, if you get
veterans organised to play they get them into the clubs themselves,
the grassroots clubs, they can give a lot to it whereas at the
moment they are probably sitting in front of the telly watching
football. Why has the FA not been involved in organising veterans
football?
Kerry Simmons:
It has in the sense that we invest in the county FAs to develop
football right across from mini-soccer through to adult football.
They have targets for adult male as well as adult female. The
male ones have been challenging, as we've seen a decline in 11-a-side
which we've halted now and a big growth in 5-a-side, for the reasons
we touched on earlier. A couple of focus areas that a number of
counties have done is to look at vets' football and local vets'
leagues and keep people active in the game, but there is a balanced
work programme so a big focus for us at the moment is drop-out
at the younger age. As with all sports we are losing a large number
of players in that sort of 14 to 16 age band. We're trying to
bring children into the game, make sure they don't drop out, provide
them with the right range of flexible opportunities to play as
an adult, be it 11-a-side, small-sided or the Just Play type of
concept we talked about earlier and keep them in.
It is right, we could do more in terms of veterans'
football, but certainly a lot of counties and leagues have done
a lot to keep people in the game and put over 35 leagues in place.
Roger Burden: My
own county started a veterans' league this season from seeing
the same guys playing unaffiliated football. Our development manager
went out there and spoke to people and we have a league and now
we've double-figure teams in it; it's a few hundred chaps playing
football and I think it's growing.
Alan Keen: After the kids
have gone to bed, you would have to use the small pitches, still
play with large balls but smaller pitches, if you don't mind.
Sorry, Chair.
Roger Burden: I
do see it as a growing area of football, you're right.
Q556 Chair: Can I ask
you a final question, Mr Burden? As you said, you were acting
chairman of the FA for a time and you contemplated applying to—
Roger Burden: I
did apply.
Chair: One of the reasons
you gave for withdrawing your application was that you said that
liaison with FIFA was an important part of the job and you weren't
prepared to deal with people that you did not trust. Would you
like just to expand on that?
Roger Burden: Yes,
it all came from the World Cup bid where the day I walked out
of Wembley, having accepted the role as acting chairman, I received
a call from one of the World Cup teams to ask me if I would go
to South Africa and support some of the work they were doing during
the World Cup, which I did, and I put off my holiday to go. I
went twice to South Africa because the World Cup bid team wanted
me to and I shook hands with important people, in FIFA and others,
as I was asked to do. I met several of the FIFA executive committee,
both in this country and in Switzerland. I treated them with respect
which I thought they deserved and I felt they were treating me
with respect. I think they were taking me for a fool but, at the
time, I thought they were treating me with respect and I was happy
to do all that for the English bid. Then of course on the day
we were faced with coming second; it did not concern me, I thought
the Russian bid was a good one; they were always a good competitor,
I've got no issue with them winning. It was the way we lost that
I have the issue with and we came a very poor fourth with only
one vote on top of our own representative, as I expect the Committee
is well aware.
It was against that background, as I saw it. First
of all, the background in which our bid was recognised as being
the best by most objective judgements—indeed, some of FIFA's
own judgments—and they set down the criteria on which judgments
were made. In our group we were at the top, level top. Yet, we
only got one vote. It felt to me as though they were not being
fair and they were not being objective and we had put a lot of
resource into this; not just money, people, and I'll talk about
those. That was one thing. I thought, "Well, who are these
people, that they've put us through this and then they've just
gone and done something else?" I did not like that and I
did not like the fact that they had promised—I think we
were up to five, it might have been six, but certainly five—Prince
William that they would support us and they did not. We only got
one of those; I think most of them subsequently rang our chief
executive to say that they were the one that voted for us. If
we had hung on a bit longer we might even have won the vote by
the end of that week. But that's not what I'm used to. These are
people at the top of the game with whom, as I recognised in my
letter, I understand the FA has to have a relationship with them
and I wasn't prepared to do that.
I've worked with people that I'm not sure whether
I can trust—we have all done that in life and business—but
this was the governing body. This was an important set of people.
I just could not see myself at having to negotiate with them,
having to agree with them and then walking away saying, "Well,
their word just is not worth it; I don't know if we've got a deal
or not." It is something that I'm not used to; I wasn't prepared
to put up with; and I thought it was best if I stood down rather
than refuse to meet them or be rude and sarcastic, which I can
do. I'm quite good at that. That wouldn't be right for the chairman
of the Football Association and I withdrew. I had applied and
I had a first interview but I did not attend it; I withdrew before
I got to the first interview but those are my reasons and I've
not regretted it.
Q557 Chair: You say that
you think that our bid at least deserved that second place and
that we had pledges from considerably more than the one person
who did eventually vote for it with us. Why do you think that
those others did not support us?
Roger Burden: I
genuinely do not know. On the objective assessment, I would have
expected substantial support and on the personal commitment I
would have expected at least five and I have absolutely no idea
what criteria those who voted used because it was not what they
set down. I just do not know.
Q558 Chair: You must
have thought about this.
Roger Burden: Yes,
I have and I have my own views and they are personal ones and
I think, if I understand, you will have heard stories. I've heard
stories. All I know is that they didn't follow their criteria.
I mentioned the people. I attended what we hoped would be the
celebration party, which turned out to be the wake, working with
the World Cup bid team, which was not just the two or three that
most people see; there's a lot of staff on the World Cup bid team,
who had given a year to two years of their lives because they
believed that the England bid was going to be the best and they
believed that the criteria that they had been asked to follow
would be followed by those voting. That was an emotional moment,
to see those people having to deal with the fact that we only
got one vote also brought that failure home to me. I find it difficult
to explain what was in the minds of the people who voted.
Q559 Chair: Without naming
individuals, you've said you had your own views, would you like
to expand as to what those are?
Roger Burden: No,
no, I would not. Those views are clearly that, for some reason,
they chose not to follow the criteria and I genuinely do not know
why they did that. This is not a Russia thing, because we knew
Russia had a good bid for all the right reasons. But to get fewer
votes than Holland was confusing and, indeed, Holland got fewer
votes when they went on; that some were just voting to keep us
out, by the look of it. It did not say anything about that in
the book. There is no point in me in giving you my view. All I
know is what I've told you, that we had the best bid, by most
measures, and some members committed to the prince that they would
support us and it did not happen.
Q560 Jim Sheridan: Did
those corridor meetings not work?
Roger Burden: Some
did I expect. There must have been some meetings in the corridors
by some that got more votes than us that worked.
Chair: I think that is
all we have. Thank you very much both of you.
| 
