Take part in a new Barefoot Q&A Video series. If you go barefoot more often than most people you are invited to join in.

A year ago I put together a video Q&A on my Youtube channel featuring a few members of a facebook offshoot of the Society for Barefoot Living.

For those of you who didn't see it or would like to see it again, it's here:

I'm now going to put together another one and this time I'm opening it up to any barefooter willing to join in. It'll be the same format as before - barefooters answering questions to their cameras and recording a bit of video of themselves in a barefoot activity of their choice which I'll edit together once I've received it all.

All you need to do to participate is video yourself answering the questions (try to keep the camera in landscape) and also some footage of you going about any activity you like (however extreme or mundane - as long as it's away from your own home) barefoot. Answer as many or as few as you like and feel free to add anything else you'd like to include.

If you'd prefer to speak in a language other than English that's fine. Just send me a transcript of what you're saying so I can add subtitles. If it's not French or Italian though I may need a bit of help translating it.

Here are the questions:

1) Tell us a bit about how you got into going barefoot, how long you've been doing it, and what you thought of the Q&A from last year.

2) How was the winter where you live? Did you enjoy it and are you looking forward to the summer? If you live in the Southern hemisphere swap summer and winter over.

3)What barefoot activities do you like to do the most?

4)What do you dislike doing barefoot but still do anyway?

5) Can you give an example of any barefoot difficulty you've recently overcome, and how you did it? Either a social or a physical one.

6) Is there something you haven't yet done barefoot that is a manageable short-term target for you?

7) How popular do you feel barefooting is becoming and do you foresee a time where you live when it might be common enough that no-one will be surprised by it any more?

8) Have you had any particularly unusual reactions or witty banter from people you encounter while barefoot?

9) What's your take on the story with Vibrams being found out over their false claims that their shoes are the same as going barefoot?

10) Is there anyone you would say who is an inspiration to you with respect to going barefoot in a society where so few people do.

Once you've recorded all the video footage you can get it to me via wetransfer, dropbox, google drive or any other method you prefer and I'll edit it all together as before.

Every barefooter is welcome to take part, so if you want to prod someone else you know, go ahead. All you need to do to be in it, is record your video and let me know you're doing it. Let's set a soft deadline for  11:59pm (BST) on Friday 4th July

If you don't already know how best to get in touch with me - find me on twitter under the name @saxbend - the same as my youtube channel.

Don't ever book with Eventim.

It is said that there are five stages of grief. There are just two stages of dealing with thieving ticket agents and they're pathetic excuse for customer service, especially if said thieving ticket agent is called Eventim.

The two stages are:

1) Getting very angry
2) Being rather flippant

The background of the whole thing is that I booked some tickets to see Pat Metheny at the Hammersmith Apollo in June. I booked them in March - a month ago. As well as paying for the tickets I paid over £20 in booking and postage fees. Rather excessive I thought but at least it should guarantee good service. Did it bollocks.

The tickets were confirmed as shipped a day or so after I bought them, but a week later I hadn't received them. I got in touch with Eventim who said that it I waited until 5 days before the event they'd arrange for me to collect them on the night. I pointed out how foolish it would be to cut it so fine given that things obviously had already gone wrong once. I asked them to send them out by recorded delivery instead. Failing that they could make them available for immediate collection at the venue and refund their fees.

I got an email back telling me what their policy was as if that was a genuine reason why they couldn't carry out a simple recovery operation for lost tickets as and when circumstances necessitated. So I phoned them up. After speaking to another policy-parroting zombie I was handed to a manager who first attempted to fob me off with the same nonsense about policy and then tried to suggest that it was there to prevent ticket fraud. The best I could get out of her was a promise to contact the venue and ask what they would allow the ticket agents to do.

Then I got this email.

It made me angry, so I sent this reply.

A week later I had calmed down a bit and resigned myself to having tried everything and just thought that I would have to put up with the stress and if the worst came to the worst and the four of us didn't get in I could always take legal action.

But then I got this reply.

What was the point in getting angry again? So I got very flippant. Having been reading a lot of David Thorne's email conversations (highly recommended!) this week possibly had some influence on what I wrote in response.

How has writing made English less standardised rather than more?

It's almost paradoxical that with the advent of the internet and a lot of text-based communication we're using writing more rather than less, and yet it's going against the historical linguistic trend that the rate of change of a language slows down when more things are written. The reason Ancient and Mordern Greek are so similar despite being changing for longer than it took Latin to turn into French, Italian, Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese (just for a start) is due to the extent to which things got written down. Or you could look at Hebrew where the difference is slightly greater, but the age gap is enormously bigger even compared to Greek. And yet the most change is coming about now when more writing takes place than ever.

I'd say it's probably because the writing is so cheap and quick that it's easier to write something out again (and only then if the reader insists it's necessary) than to make sure it's perfectly clear and intelligible. It's so easy to send written communication now that it's seen as trivial, and effortless so less pride is taken with it. The lazy defence of "well everyone can understand it can't they?" is wheeled out each time despite there being the obvious problem of one's laziness in their writing being a clear symptom of laziness in their thinking, meaning that any writing that's not done with great care is unlikely to contain any text composed in the mind with any great care.

We're already at the point where people are making cringe-inducing requests to translate Shakespeare into the language it's already written in; i.e. Modern English. How they can not see it's already in Modern English is ridiculous. We wouldn't be able to understand much of it at all if it weren't. It's not Chaucer, and even Chaucer can be understood with a small amount of preparation and effort. So many people who should know better (broadcasters, advertisers, newsreaders, film screenplay writers) are displaying complete ignorance of rarely used but very simple English concepts, like what "whom" actually means, (this is still in standard use and should be taught in primary school, or better yet by parents when teaching their children to speak in the first place) like what "thou" and "thee" are for (relating them to "I" and "me" - which is also how you explain what "whom" is for) and how "thou" and "you" differ in the same way as "tu" and vous" in French (alarmingly there are people who think that "thou" can be plural), and the outmoded present tense verb endings (thou makest, he speaketh)

Every time I hear an -eth where they should be an -est, or even worst on the end of a noun or adjective, coming from a film script, a part of me dies inside. Sure, in a thousand years it won't matter, but right now it does, because right now these words have meanings, and they mean things to people and if you get them wrong then you are saying something that has no meaning, or means something different from what you intend. Above all, you're also saying "I don't really care about you enough to make effort in my communication and thus I have a lot less respect for you than I ought to".

Don't Use Ticketbooth

I just wanted to get this up here in case people googling Ticketbooth to see whether or not it's a good idea to book Rugby Tickets (or any other tickets for that matter) through them. Please don't. You really don't want to take the risk. Plus they do not deserve any further business from anyone.

 I ordered 3 tickets for a six nations game this year about 3 and a half months before the date of the game. When tickets hadn't arrived under 2 weeks before the game I sent them an email to which they replied promptly saying they were tracking the tickets, and would refund my money if tickets didn't arrive in time. With a week to go before the game I had received no updates from them at all.

I sent another email pointing out the amount of trust I'd placed in them, allowing other opportunities to pass me by, and noting that despite failing to deliver on orders already placed they were still advertising tickets for sale for the game at almost twice the price (I had paid significantly more than face value to begin with). I pointed out that a mere refund of what I had paid would be a massive slap in the face after I had put my trust in Ticket Booth (and paid an additional booking fee which presumably was to ensure everything would be taken care of and nothing left to chance), and that by trusting them to find me the tickets I had effectively committed myself to not getting any, since at this stage the money I had spent would not be able to buy me any tickets from another seller, if I even could find one so close to the day of the game.

 Their response did not even attempt to address my point. They merely refunded my money and half-heartedly offered to keep looking for tickets. Thanks to Ticket Booth I most likely will not be able to attend the game, despite making an order and paying for it immediately (it wasn't even as if they waited to receive tickets before taking my money) months in advance. The game is still a few days away at the time of writing but I do not have high hopes of being able to attend.

 I am considering approaching the Office for Trading Standards. There is a good chance that they decided to put the prices up and sell the tickets that should have been set aside for me to a more recent customer willing to pay a higher price. This is beyond bad service.

The FA, and how to solve a problem like John Terry.

I find it ironic that the FA are concerned about difficulties that arise
from a procedure taking far longer than it should. However I think
they're right to want to resolve this.





If I were the FA I'd just get on with their own investigation, examine all the evidence themselves and then make a decision on whether and how to punish him. They should be able to manage it within a couple of months, if they really want to. If they can't be bothered to do it properly, then the next best thing is just to suspend him until after his trial. Ok that does mean "innocent until proven guilty" issues, but only in regards to what he said, and as I'm about to explain, there's a lot more to the JT problem than that.






Also the legal side of this is tiny. Rightly or wrongly, it's not seen as a
massive crime and would only lead to a fine that Terry wouldn't notice.
It's only the football side of this that would affect him. It's the FA's
decision and verdict that really matters.




Personally, my view is that Terry's profile as a club and national
captain, role model, and well-supported person means, people will
copy him, follow him and want to be him. Anton Ferdinand didn't get
chants, death threats, hate mail and a bullet just because other people
are racist too. He got those things because other people who have
racist views also look up to Terry. Terry MUST take responsibility for
everything done in his name.





Just as Joey Barton was unwise to give Bradley Johnson his
opportunity, Terry should not have been shouting anything at Ferdinand
that might get him into trouble (and on that note, "blind c**t", while
not racist, is certainly not an acceptable thing to say when you're the
captain of a high profile football club and your national team, not that
it makes the slightest bit of sense that he would have said that to
anyone but the referee, nor that Terry's own statement
corroborates the idea that that's what he said).





Terry's also done very little to redeem himself on the leadership front.
He said in his initial statement a few things about being against racism,
but did he once speak out against the fans who were singing racist
chants in misguided support of him, or against those who were sending
stuff to Ferdinand in the post? Did he during all the handshake fuss
express any view that he was desperately trying to clear things up
with Ferdinand and make things as easy as possible for him? No, he just
kept quiet and let things happen, and by things, I mean racist things said
and done in support of him. He allowed them to continue because it
stroked his ego and because he didn't mind them being racist.








If people did racist things in an attempt to benefit me, I would not
shut up about it! That is why the FA should ban him from football
altogether. That is why he's racist. Not because of what he may or
may not have said, but because of what has come of it, allowed by
him to carry on in his name, from people who follow him. And let's not
forget the original incident took place on Kick It Out weekend, and he's
the England Captain. The FA also need to be sending a clear message to FIFA that they know what to do about racism, because if we're going to get it cleared up globally, we have to demonstrate that we know how to do it in our own country first. It goes way way beyond something said by one man to another and a £2500 fine. This is a football matter, much
more than a legal one, and an enormous one at that.

Do feel free to ask me why

(unless I happen to be with a friend who's heard me give the answer countless times - I may be happy to go through it as many times as necessary, but a few of them are probably tired of hearing it again and again). Yes, I'm referring to the question "Why aren't you wearing any shoes?". The answer is made up of loads of little straighforward component answers.

1. I really find it more comfortable in a lot of ways. My feet get hot. REALLY hot. So do my hands in fact, though no-one seems to wonder why I'm not wearing any gloves. Unless I can get fresh air circulating around them to carry the heat away they get very uncomfortable. They also sweat a lot, and if that sweat has to stay put then that can only lead to an unbearable smell. A simple strappy pair of sandles, or flipflops would leave the soles covered most of the time and the heat would build up. It wouldn't make much difference at all that the rest of the foot is exposed to air. My feet just don't work that way.

2. It's easier to walk in a lot of ways. Not wearing shoes allows all the wonderfully evolved bone and muscle structures in the feet to be fully exploited. As much energy as possible is conserved from one step to the next. I feel light on my feet and I feel able to walk much further and for longer time. Even more so that I don't have the mentally draining effect of heat build up. I also have some joint problems which as far as my doctor can tell are a combination of mild injuries to the structure in the past to my knees and ankles (ice-skating, hockey, rugby and an epileptic fit if you're wondering), and some kind of auto-immune condition that doesn't seem to be serious enough to merit medication. Going barefoot makes things an awful lot easier.

The conversation then usually goes towards listing all the potential negatives of going barefoot and asking what I do about those. They usually cover

1) sharp objects/broken glass
2) extreme temperatures
3)dirt and disgusting things to step in
4)being stared at and confronted by difficult people

The first three aren't as big a deal as you might think. Millions of years of human evolution has given us skin that is very good at adapting to the ground. People don't realise it because they spend so much time in shoes that their skin doesn't get the chance to do what it's supposed to. But what it's supposed to do is thicken and toughen so that it can handle pretty much anything. It's best not to dive straight into the deep end from the beginning, but using your eyes and common sense will make avoiding things you don't want to expose your feet to at first pretty easy. Eventually you'll find that you can walk right through broken glass, hot and cold weather, rough pavements etc. become less something uncomfortable and more something interesting of which your senses make you aware. It's like coming out of a dark environment into daylight. If you're not careful it'll blind you, but that doesn't make daylight inherently dangerous. You just have to give your eyes a chance to adapt to it first. Then you can enjoy it.

As for dirt and disgusting things, well skin is also pretty good at keeping what should be outside outside. It's waterproof. Nothing will just seep in. I admit I do have to shower every day, but then so do you. That's all it takes to get the dirt of my feet, and that includes things I may inadvertently step in from time to time, and I don't have to worry about them.

I'd say the latter item on the above list is the biggest barrier to going barefoot for two reasons. First of all it's the main reason fewer people go barefoot than would otherwise because they just don't believe it's socially accepted and so do not want to stand out. This of course is self-perpetuating - it takes people to say "I want to do this badly enough that I'm not worried", and enough of those people to go ahead and literally walk the walk for others to realise that it's not such a big issue and join in. Secondly getting past that hurdle doesn't make confrontational people go away. It's something that you have to keep dealing with and there are all sorts of people out there who are desperate to convince you that what you are doing is wrong (my own mother among them).

I'm lucky enough to live in a country that prides itself on people minding their own business. Over in the USA where most of the Society for Barefoot Living members can be found everyone seems to want to interfere and cause trouble to the point that people can't so much walk into a shop without shoes on without someone accusing them of attempting to set up a lawsuit or citing a bogus health and safety law. The SBL discussions are full of such accounts which is rather depressing reading and one of the reasons I wanted to get the following down (I'll be emailing it over to them as well) to show that at least not everywhere is like that. That said, I don't believe I have anything like enough followers to attract a lot of comments (or any for that matter), but I've seen so many people show their negativity online, commenting on other articles and blog posts. They think they know better about going barefoot than people who go barefoot. It's rather amusing, but at the same time the ignorance and arrogance in the world is pretty frightening, when the anonymity provided by the internet makes people feel free to spout whatever they like without thinking.


So anyway, it's approaching October - the time of the year when, on paper at least, things start cooling down as we head through Autumn towards Winter with the Summer well on its way. It's not too cold for me to go barefoot yet. Nowhere near. If I want to be really stubborn I'll go barefoot in the snow, and enjoy it, but that's another story. My point is that this would probably a good time to mark as the end of summer for the purpose of getting a few things down. In the last five months, May, June, July, August and September I've probably not had anything on my feet for more than a total of 24 hours. A few gigs and one or two job interviews and that's about it. In that time I've been to meetings, football matches, other gigs, a holiday abroad and been on plenty of trains and buses, in plenty of pubs and restaurants and pleasantly encountered next to no resistance, either physical or human. In fact what I'd really like to do is document all the acceptance and positive feedback I've had instead.

I was coming back late one Sunday night from my dad's birthday dinner in a restaurant up in Cambridge. I'd got the train to Tottenham Hale and planned to go home using the London Overground to avoid Zone 1 and save myself a bit of money on the fare. I ended up sharing the last train from Gospel Oak to Willesden Junction with a young lady from Chicago who was over in London to study, by chance at the University where I'd done my degree and had asked for directions to get home given that the tubes were about to stop running. My bare feet came up in the conversation, as they often do - like a personal special case of Godwin's law almost - and I answered a lot of the usual questions. Her response to most aspects were "that's so funny" - Americans will have to help me understand the subtle nuances of her use of the word 'funny' because I don't think she just meant outright strange, but she certainly didn't mean risible or entertaining either. Perhaps just good old unusual. She told me about the NS3 (No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service - I've always wanted to go into a place displaying such a sign and say "How can you be serving that lady and this gentlemen when there's a sign outside forbidding service?!) signs, and I mentioned that we just don't have them here. And it made me think that those signs were what stopped people going barefoot in the states more than anything else, while here it's generally a fear of attracting unwanted attention for evading what appears to be a social norm.

I've been barefoot to football matches at several grounds now, those being Loftus Road (of course), Deepdale, Vicarage Road, Goodison Park and Craven Cottage. Goodison Park was this August - my first ever visit there. I went up on the club coach, the driver was perplexed and kept asking me loads of questions and I don't think my answers ever really shook his disbelief, but seeing me go through the whole day and journey without any shoes said it all to him instead. While I blog about QPR often enough I'll not include any kind of match report except to say it was a fantastic day out (Rangers won 1-0 by the way). But I just want to give an honourable mention to the stewards at Everton. While queuing up for the turnstile to go in, one of them pulled me aside. I raised my arms expecting to be searched, but instead I was just asked why I wasn't wearing any shoes. I gave the straightforward "I prefer not to wear them" reply. My interrogator was puzzled but his colleague butted in at that point saying "Oh yeah, some people are like that. It's fine." He then said to me, "just so you know, First Aid's available inside, to the right hand side." That's what I like about football. One of the last bastions of "We do not accept liability for injury or theft". I can get on with my life my way, and any problems are mine.

I had a similar encounter with Easyjet on the way to Spain for a week's holiday on the Costa Del Sol. I went through security and my passport and boarding pass had fallen out of my jacket pocket so I nearly left them behind at the other side and had to go and grab them. When reunited with my essential documents a lady asked if I needed to retrieve my shoes as well. I just said "No" and moved on. People can be puzzled. They don't quite know how to deal with me sometimes, but they know I'm not a threat so they don't interfere. It's a shame people don't work like that in the USA. I then went and boarded the plane (no, it wasn't that simple, I just missed out the 90 minute wait in the departure lounge because it's of no interest ;-) ). While taking my seat a stewardess spoke to me about the dangers of going barefoot on a plane and was desperate to make it clear to me that they would not be liable for any injury. She was being a bit over the top - I said to her the aircraft is much safer than a lot of places I regularly go barefoot - but I also had to say to her I'm much happier to have the freedom and accept responsibility for myself.

So I was able to enjoy a week in Spain barefoot - I made a point of not taking any shoes at all with me. I did hit a USA type barrier in one supermarket. I hadn't noticed before going in, but there was a sign on the window, with diagrams to make it clear to non-spanish speakers. We were about 3/4 of the way through the shopping we needed when someone from security decided to tell me I couldn't be in the shop. I don't really have enough Spanish to have a full conversation so I gave up and waited outside. A bit disappointing but it was a unique defeat.

I had one other quasi-confrontation on the last day though, just after buying a ticket on the Costa Del Sol railway at Malaga Central. Once I explained in broken Spanish I was barefoot for medical reasons (not strictly true, but it does help with my joint problems, though of course I'd have been barefoot anyway) and whipped out my disabled person's railcard, which I just happen to have because of epilepsy, Señor Seguridad suddenly became all apologetic and backed off.

Incidentally I'd normally feel rather hesitant to play the disabled card (quite literally in this case), but as it happens, one of my knee injuries, made less of a burden by going barefoot, came about during an epileptic seizure, so there is at least some connection there. Plus, it was on the way to the airport at the end of a fantastic week in Spain, made all the more enjoyable by not taking any footwear with me at all, and I wasn't going to let anything mar it at the last minute. Not to mention that while I may have blundered my way through a more substantial dialogue in French or Italian, it just wasn't going to happen in Spanish and I just wanted to get the other side of the ticket barrier with my girlfriend so we could head home.

It appears the weather followed us back to London and I'm certainly enjoying it this week. Meeting up with some other London barefooters on Saturday and hoping it'll last at least a few more days. But then I get to enjoy it just as much when it cools down, and maybe some snow in the winter which is great for surprising the general public among other things. I've come to be amused by looks of surprise on other people's faces now instead of feeling ashamed or nervous because I know what I'm doing is perfectly ok and hope to desensitise everyone else until it's as common as a tattoo or piercing.

Let's Overhaul Football PROPERLY

I've been thinking about what Man City are playing at (and let's face it, they may be the worst offenders but they're not the first and they can only pave the way for more). Also been thinking of everything being wrong with FIFA, and to a lesser extent the FA. And the way the Premier League bully the Football League and all the problems that go with inflated wages, price hikes, the control that broadcasters have over the game.







On my mind is more or less everything that makes us wish we could revert to how things were in 1991 (I bet there are plenty of Wimbledon fans nodding in agreement at that one, though my fellow Rs may resent my wishing away New Year's day 1992 - maybe we could call it compensation to Manchester United for the sacrifice they'd be making towards a level playing field).




And I've come up with some changes that I'd implement if I were in charge and always got my way. They're not realistic since there's far too much vested interest for any of them to happen. But were they to happen I believe the game would be far better for everyone (well everyone who has the right to benefit from football).




It's very much centred around fan power, cutting out the financial idiocy and the corruption it spawns and making sure that no club has to struggle to exist over an amount of money equivalent to the weekly wage of a player another club in the same country.




So here are the 11 changes (yep, just half time in an England friendly). They're pretty severe, and hence unrealistic but they're all to serve the purpose of fixing football from a fan's point of view.


1) Total amount each club can spend per transfer window is £20m 


2) Maximum transfer fee a club can spend on any individual player is £10m 



There's simply no need to be spending large amounts of money on transfer fees. If you have more money than another club, within reason, fine go ahead and use it to outbid your rivals for a particular player. But do so at the cost of not being able to sign other players the same window. I've heard so many complaints of clubs who play in Europe saying they play too many games. Their proposed solution is to have fewer games in the league by making the top division even smaller (the Premiership is too small as it is if you ask me which is a big factor in the lack of competition compared to each of the Football League divisions). They've got it the wrong way around. They want to boast about winning a double or a treble and call it a massive achievement. But they don't want to have to work hard for it by playing all those extra games. You can't have it both ways. The alternative is to have bigger squads, and you do that by spending £20m on six players instead of just one. Allow them to register a different 25-man squad for Europe compared to the Premier League with players allowed to be included in both if the manager so wishes and the problem is solved without interfering with everyone else's season.


3) Wages to follow a strict structure based on the number of years you have been at each club. The structure is the same for every club in each division, with a 25% increase from one division to the next. Every time a player signs for a new club he slips down to the bottom of the pay scale and starts again. For example: In the premier league each player starts on £2000 per week, and their salary increases by £1000 per week with each successive season spent at the same club. 




It's obvious to everyone now that football players are simply payed too much. Stupid amounts of money are coming in from broadcasters and from rich owners and stupid amounts of money are going straight on fancy cars and multiple houses that simply aren't needed.

4) The TV money covers far much more than this so should be automatically distributed across the 92 clubs to ensure everyone can afford to follow this wage structure right down to the bottom of league 2. 


5) Ticket prices to be capped in line with the limits on expenditure. The extra TV money to be directed to subsidising ticket prices and improving training, youth and stadium facilities. 


6) Domestic matches always to take precedence over European games. No more moving playoff finals away from Wembley or having FA Cup Finals on league matchdays. 






7) All FA, UEFA and FIFA, and League governors required to have supported a club and attended games for a minimum of 10 years before being appointed evidenced by club database records and references from other loyal supporters, or alternatively be an ex-professional from a league covered by that body. Also required to attend six non-top flight games in at least 3 different divisions per season. 


8) If fans ever feel stitched up in any way, they have a right to take the matter to the appropriate body for an immediate hearing upon achieving 5000 signatures, that avoids the risk of the club being charged with bringing the game into disrepute, unless the complaint is about the actions of club itself. 


9) Any actions or law changes from FIFA, UEFA, FA etc. must first be approved by a majority vote across all clubs that would be affected. Each club's individual vote must be based upon the result of polling its fans. Yes or No. 


Football is run by non-football people. People who don't know what it's like to spend a fortune they've just about scraped together to follow their team everywhere and continue building up to their next big disappointment as the saying goes. Seriously, what did Sepp Blatter ever do to merit his current position as the combined Thatcher and Murdoch of football?



10) Revert European competitions and internationals to how they were structured in the 70s and 80s. Resize the English divisions to 23 teams each with similarly even distribution across other countries' leagues.




As things are with so few midweek games in the Premier League and international breaks going on all the top players stay match sharp through internationals and midweek european games giving them even more of an advantage over the other teams. It's madness. The UEFA competitions have too much influence over the domestic game, as do the internationals. Bring back the old style European Cup and Cup Winners Cup.



In England, maybe Premier League teams shouldn't enter the Football League Cup. It's the Football League cup after all. Premier League teams can save on fixtures and concentrate on the league until January, fitting in a few extra midweek games there, and then be able to take the FA Cup seriously. Meanwhile Football League Clubs have a chance to have a real taste of European football through the Cup Winners Cup.




Cut down international friendlies except on international matchdays for teams who are the odd ones out in their qualification groups. Make an international cap a rare thing to be proud of, and at the same time, make the focus on playing for your club week in week out. This also should reduce the problem managers face when they risk losing players to injury over frequent international games of questionable importance and the consequential problem of managers responding by discouraging their players from playing internationals, making a mockery of international matches.

11) Copy the Rugby Union model of refereeing games.




Microphones on referees so all conversations between referees and players are overheard by broadcasters and monitoring officials will get to the bottom of the issue of how much respect is being shown by players towards officials and vice versa. It will also allow fans, coaching staff broadcasters and other officials to clearly follow the reasoning of officials behind all of their decisions and understand clearly what the referee did and didn't observe.




The use of video replays when, and only when, the referee requests it to assist him in making the correct decision can only be good for the game. It doesn't need to be perfect. It doesn't need to be broadcast quality and if a video replay doesn't help then the referee can revert to his discretion, but the higher profile (and the more important therefore) the match, the more coverage there will be, so the big decisions will always have the best chance of support for the officials. This is the only technology needed. "Special Goal-line Technology" whatever that may be, which supposedly is prohibitively expensive for too many clubs to be practicable is really not needed.




Players other than the captain may not approach or communicate with the referee unless called. It's perfectly simple and would save far more currently wasted time than would be lost by the use of video replays to aid difficult decisions.







So there you have it. What I'd do if by some miracle I suddenly had godlike powers over world football.