There’s nothing fair about Covid-19. At the time of writing this, there are over 250,000 cases of the virus, with over 10,000 deaths, with no signs of it slowing down (in Europe at least).
With these daunting figures in mind, any discussion regarding sport is trivial, yet, like the virus itself, one topic, in particular, does not show any signs of disappearing: what should happen to the current footballing season?
Solutions vary from declaring the season ‘null and void’, to postponing the season to a (much) later date, to playing the season behind closed doors – all (ironically) presented as a way of ensuring appropriate fairness. Unfortunately, trying to find fairness in such devastating circumstances is pointless. So, perhaps the only solution is seeking the least unfair outcome as possible.
‘How is it *fair* that Liverpool are declared Premier League winners despite only playing 29 games?’ ‘How is it *fair* that teams like Charlton be relegated despite not playing their allocated amount of games?’, scream hysterical fans desperate to take advantage of a horrible situation to prevent certain teams succeeding.
Unrest
Of course, such questions evoke credible responses such as: ‘How is it *fair* that Liverpool don’t win the league despite being 25 points clear in the result of a ‘null and void’ season?’ ‘How is it *fair* that teams like Coventry and Rotherham are denied the opportunity to replace Charlton in the Championship despite earning it over 35 games? Coventry City, a team who in the last eight years has suffered back-to-back relegations, administration and stadium unrest; there’s nothing fair about Coventry City being denied the third act of an uplifting story.
Furthermore, the argument demanding that footballers simply play behind closed doors implies that footballers are somehow immune to the disease, and can, therefore, forgo any need to self-isolate and disobey government bans on mass gatherings and train as normal. It’s dangerously ironic to suggest league seasons need to be completed in the pursuit of fairness while simultaneously expecting players and coaches to risk their lives and the lives of others around them to do it.
So, let’s postpone it, yes? Channel our inner Shaun of the Dead and wait for this horrific disease to blow over, and finish the season with as much normality as possible?
On March 12, Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty said he expects the peak of the outbreak to happen in roughly 10-14 weeks, that 95% of cases are likely to occur eight weeks before and after this peak. This takes us to late September/early October. Assuming, that games start at the earliest opportunity and two games are played a week to finish the season as quickly as possible, the season would still likely not end until the middle of November – just seven months before the already rescheduled Euros is expected to begin.
Break
Let’s assume teams are granted a two-week break before their respective seasons begin again, and a further two-week break before players join up with their national teams before the Euros, this gives them approximately six months to complete their league seasons, as well as the domestic cups, and the potential of continental competitions and international fixtures.
There’s a tendency fuelled out of jealousy to argue that footballers should be fit enough to play 17 games a week due to their high wages, but the truth is, forcing teams to play a potential of 50 games (or more) in 24 weeks borders on inhumane. The football league teams who already play twice a week would be expected to play three, maybe four games a week.
At least with a longer pre-season and break (allowed to them because their seasons ended much earlier), the idea of playing this amount of games becomes just slightly more plausible. Furthermore, I don’t profess to be a medical expert, but surely without a vaccine or a cure, the mass gatherings of upwards of 50,000 people in the London Stadium, for example, could exacerbate the virus.
So, where does all of this lead us? ‘Null and voiding’ the season would render the achievements of Liverpool, Leeds, and Coventry and a plethora of others futile. It would also simultaneously reward teams who have not earned it; Tottenham would be granted a Champions League place, Charlton would be secure of another season in the Championship despite struggling for the majority of the season.
Fairer
Postponing the season leads to an implausible amount of games being played in the next 24 months without an adequate break and another one not in sight, during what could still be a vaccine-less Covid-19 outbreak, and playing the remainder of the season behind closed doors risks the health of players, coaches, physios, doctors and many more. Yet, somehow these disparate arguments are being painted as a fairer alternative than simply having the season end now and counting the current standings as official.
Ending the season now and declaring it official is not a perfect solution, vulnerable teams will miss out gate receipts, season-ticket holders miss out on their right to watch their team, Charlton will be relegated, Millwall will miss out on a potential play-off place and West Ham would count themselves extremely lucky to retain their place in the Premier League.
However, ending the season now remains the least unfair solution.
