Kicking sexism out of sport

This article was written in response to the controversy surrounding the comments of Richard Keys and Andy Gray about match official Sian Massey. Rather than focusing on this single incident, though, I've taken a wider view, looking at the position of women in sport more generally, what has improved and what still needs to be done. First published here 30/01/11.

The storm surrounding the Sian Massey affair continues to rage. Andy Gray has been sacked by Sky Sports, while Richard Keys has resigned. This is not the place to discuss the details of the case, which have been thoroughly covered elsewhere. Instead, I will examine what this incident reveals about attitudes to women in football, and how this relates to the situation in other sports. In particular, I will be asking why sexist attitudes have endured longer in some sports than others, and what can be done to ensure that such attitudes are finally eradicated.

First, though, a word about the comments that have placed this issue firmly in the spotlight. As far as I am concerned, the issue here is not whether Keys and Gray intended their remarks to be broadcast, or whether they were speaking in a serious or a light-hearted manner. The fact is that two experienced and senior sports broadcasters felt that it was acceptable to question a female official’s right to be on the pitch, simply on the basis of her gender. The fact that these comments were made before the match had even started is especially disappointing.

Unfortunately, football is not the only sport in which such views still persist. When I interviewed Gavin Hastings OBE, ex-Scotland and British and Irish Lions captain, he had some very decided opinions on the role of women in rugby. In particular, he stated that women should not play fifteen-a-side rugby because it was “too technical” and “too difficult” for them to understand.

What is particularly concerning about both of these examples is that it was the mental capacity of women that was being questioned. In both cases, there was an assumption that women simply are not capable of grasping the complexities of the sport in question, and that therefore it would be better for all concerned if they just left it to the men.

Such an attitude would be unthinkable in other sports. In the vast majority of cases, the right of women to participate as players and officials, and their fitness to do so, is not questioned. So what is behind these more accepting attitudes? Put simply, equality of opportunity has allowed women to prove themselves on the same stage as their male counterparts, and this in turn has bred acceptance of their role.

Female athletes and tennis players, for example, are professionals just like the men, and both sexes can expect the same levels of funding and support. Meanwhile, female officials are active and respected in these sports and many others. Contrast this with the situation in rugby and football. While the England men’s rugby team is full of full-time professionals, the women’s team consists of individuals who fit two training sessions a day around full-time jobs. Meanwhile, Sian Massey is one of just three female officials currently working in professional football in England, two of whom have been subjected to sexist comments from high-profile individuals.

In some cases, inclusion in the Olympic Games is a major factor in changing attitudes and widening female participation. Such inclusion is only granted to sports that can demonstrate that they provide opportunities for members of both sexes. Thus, for example, attempts by rugby sevens to gain Olympic status sparked a drive to increase the participation of women. 2009 witnessed the inaugural Women’s Rugby Sevens World Cup, held alongside the men’s tournament in Dubai, in which the first female officials were appointed to the tournament panel.

There has also been progress in the fifteen-a-side game. On 21^st November 2009, the England women’s team played their fixture against New Zealand at Twickenham after the equivalent men’s match. This will be repeated on 13^th March this year for the men’s and women’s Six Nations fixtures against Scotland. Hosting the 2010 Women’s Rugby World Cup provided a huge boost to the game’s profile, with record numbers of participants and spectators involved. This tournament also saw ten female referees included in a panel of fourteen officials. Furthermore, on 18^th December 2010 Dana Teagarden became the first woman to referee a men’s international match. Such efforts have had a tangible effect on increasing participation, with women’s rugby now one of the fastest-growing sports in the country.

In football, too, there are signs of change on the horizon. A new Women’s Super League, the FAWSL, will be launched in April this year. Players will be paid by their clubs, and there will also be 20 FA-financed central contracts for England players, worth £16 000 a year. Overall, the FA is investing £3 million in the new league, which will feature eight teams, and a TV deal has been negotiated with ESPN. Hopefully, this will provide the publicity that women’s football so desperately needs. Equally important, it will make football a viable career path for women, at least for those at the top level of the game.

That is not to say that women’s football will now be able to “compete” with the men’s game, nor should it. What is needed is an opportunity for women’s football to be enjoyed on its own merits, as already exists in so many other sports. Hopefully, the FAWSL will go some way towards achieving this. Only when women’s sport is recognised and appreciated in its own right, and not as some kind of inferior imitation of men’s sport, can we move forward. It can only be hoped that comments like those of Keys and Gray will inspire a new generation of players, officials and fans to finally and definitively kick sexism out of sport.

Technology in sport: why football needs to catch up with the rest of the world

This is an article I wrote today about why football should follow other major sports that have introduced video technology. First published here 17/01/11.

Football’s powers that be need to realise what those in other sports have known for years – technology works.

After all, in just about every other major sport – rugby, cricket and tennis to name a few –officials use video technology to help them make important decisions.  In this area, it looks as though football has got a lot of catching up to do.

Firstly, we need to be clear what is at issue here. What we’re discussing is goal-line technology, specifically cameras on the goal line that would be used to help the officials decide whether or not the ball had crossed the line. Perhaps existing cameras could also be used to look for incidents in the build-up that would rule out a goal, much like the system currently in place in rugby.

In either case, it would be up to the referee to decide when to refer a decision to a television match official. The referee would also be able to instruct this official to look for any specific incidents in the build-up, such as a handball, that would make a goal invalid.

Leading the small minority opposing the introduction of this technology are the individuals in charge of FIFA. This is an organisation that supposedly governs the football world in the best interests of the game, and yet those at its head have failed to implement changes that almost everyone else agrees would benefit the sport.

In August last year, FIFA President Sepp Blatter announced that goal-line technology would be discussed at the International Football Association Board (IFAB) meeting in October. Once again, however, this has failed to produce any concrete results.

So, why has there still been no progress on this issue? To try to find out, let’s look at the objections that have been raised to the introduction of goal-line technology.

Firstly, we can examine the objection that is raised on the grounds of inclusiveness. It goes something like this: clubs below the top level would not be able to afford to introduce this technology, therefore it should not be introduced at all.

It is certainly true that a lot of clubs wouldn’t be able to implement these changes. However, to base an argument on these grounds ignores the fact that a two-tier system already exists in football. The financial disparity between Premiership and grassroots clubs is already so great that it’s hard to see what difference a couple of extra cameras will make.

We can now examine one of the most oft-repeated claims made by opponents of this change. This essentially says that introducing goal-line technology would in some way damage the spirit of the game, and ruin it as a spectacle for supporters.

To decide if this is true, we only need to look at the situation in other sports. Rugby, cricket and tennis have all brought in electronic review systems in recent years. In all of these cases, it would appear that the use of technology has added to, rather than detracted from, spectators’ enjoyment of their sport. In all of these cases, fans have embraced a change that they know will increase fairness and transparency in decision-making. I see no reason to believe that football fans will be any less accepting.

Finally we come to the assertion that mistakes by officials are part of what makes football so exciting. This excitement, so the argument goes, would be diminished through the introduction of technology, while the time it would take to refer a decision to a television referee would disrupt the flow of the game.

Well, I’m sure the Irish football fans who saw their team denied a place at the World Cup by Thierry Henry’s blatant handball were pretty ‘excited’ about it. The fact is, decisions like that are too important to be left to chance. And it’s hard to see how referrals would disrupt the flow of the game given that, by definition, the game stops when the ball is in the goal. Given that television companies have time to screen endless replays of every incident, it is hard to believe that referring the occasional decision to a television match official would be any more disruptive.

The fact that mistakes as serious as Henry’s handball, and Frank Lampard’s goal-that-wasn’t-except-that-it-clearly-was, are allowed to stand brings the game into disrepute. And failing to implement a system that would eliminate such errors is making football the laughing stock of the sporting world.

So, where does all of this leave FIFA? For many, it will surely only confirm their conception of a group of individuals completely divorced from the realities of the sport they govern. FIFA has the chance to rid itself of this image, and it has the duty to at least consider changes that have such widespread support in the footballing world. Zurich, are you listening?

A culture of cheating: how should officials deal with rule-breaking in rugby?

This is in article I wrote today about the culture of cheating that pervades professional rugby, and about what officials can, or should, be doing about it. First published here 07/01/11.

Rugby players have always tried to get away with as much as they can. That’s just part of the way the game works – players try to bend the rules, and it’s the referee’s job to keep them in line.

Recently, though, it seems like players have been able to get away with more and more. Whether it’s scrum halves feeding the ball into the second row, hookers throwing it in crooked at the line out or half the team being offside from the kickoff, rule-breaking seems increasingly easy to get away with.

And that’s without getting started on infringements at the breakdown. Here, rule-breaking isn’t just accepted, it seems to be positively encouraged. Anyone who’s ever watched the exploits of a certain Mr McCaw will know how often we see cheating praised as “great back row play”.

The culture around the game is one in which any play, legal or illegal, that gains a player’s team an advantage sees them showered with praise. In the professional era, where results can make or break careers, this is hardly surprising. In an environment where winning is everything, it’s understandable that players and coaches are prepared to do whatever it takes to secure victory.

So, everybody cheats. All the infringements I’ve mentioned are now ubiquitous in the professional game. But if every team cheats to about an equal degree, then doesn’t all the cheating just cancel itself out?

And if this is the case, where does it leave referees? What can, or indeed should, they do to combat a culture that shrugs its shoulders and accepts cheating as an inevitable facet of the professional game?

Perhaps it’s time for a healthy dose of pragmatism. When everybody’s breaking the same rules, to about the same degree, maybe it’s time to accept that trying to enforce those rules no longer serves any useful purpose. Surely consistent non-enforcement would be fairer than the situation we have now, and more realistic than expecting referees to spot every infraction.

More than this, though, clamping down on misdemeanours that players are used to getting away with will just make the game even more stop-start and disjointed than it already is. With scrums already eating up so much time and leading to so many free kicks and penalties, surely adding yet more offences to the list can’t be the answer.

We’ve now reached the stage where cheating seems to be accepted, and expected, by all those associated with professional rugby. Perhaps it’s time we all stopped complaining, gave these rules up for lost and moved on. Surely that’s better than compromising the quality of rugby we get to watch week in week out.

So, is it worth turning a blind eye for the sake of the game?

No, it isn’t. Because turning a blind eye is the way to destroy the game, not save it. It’s simple psychology – the more you let people get away with, the more they’ll try to get away with. Just think about spoilt children. Or footballers.

And once you start letting things go, it’s a slippery slope. Yes, clamping down on all these infringements will cause problems in the short term. Players will complain, and fans probably will too. And yes, referees are still going to miss the odd offence. But they can, and should, do more to stamp out the complacency that currently pervades the professional game.

It is the responsibility of officials to make it clear where the boundaries are, and to punish players who overstep those boundaries. That is the only way they can effectively protect the integrity of the sport they serve.

An evening with Gavin Hastings

This is a record of an interview I conducted with Gavin Hastings, and of a talk he gave at the Cambridge Union. The interview, the talk and writing up the article all happened in the same evening which certainly added to the excitement! He had plenty to say for himself, some of it not exactly PC - read on to find out more...

Gavin Hastings, ex-Scotland and Lions captain and OBE (which he jokes stands for “Old Bastard from Edinburgh”) is widely considered one of the greatest rugby players of all time. ­This week, proudly sporting his Hawks Club tie, he came to the Cambridge Union to address members of the university where he spent two years.

I caught up with him to find out about his best memories of student days and his illustrious career, as well as his views on some of the most pressing issues facing the game he so obviously loves.

His fondness for Cambridge was immediately obvious. He described his time here as “the best two years of my life”. Having studied Land Economics at Paisley College of Technology, he came down to Cambridge to complete the second and third years of a Land Economy degree. ­

The picture he painted of being hugely excited, but at the same time in awe of his new surroundings, is one that any fresher could empathise with. It was when he arrived at Grange Road for his first rugby training session, he said, that he knew he’d made what he described as “the best decision of my life”.

Selected for the Varsity match in 1984, he was part of the Cambridge side that demolished Oxford 33-6 to record a fifth successive victory.

His performance was impressive enough to see him made captain for the following year. Unfortunately, the Light Blues couldn’t go on to record a record sixth consecutive win, losing 7-6 in a tight game. Defeat taught Hastings valuable lessons, however, that he said have “carried me through for the rest of my life.”

So how important is the Varsity match today? Here he was unequivocal that “for students, it remains as important as it has always been.” He acknowledged that its status in the calendar isn’t what it once was, but firmly believed that Oxford and Cambridge can still be “a very good breeding ground” for the stars of the future.

This, he believed, is only enhanced by the presence of international players within the squad, who can help young players to “understand what it takes to become a player of international standing.”

After his talk, he was asked how sport at Cambridge should be funded to ensure it continues to produce talented players. He expressed the hope that university sport in the UK will become “as big as it is in America”, while also suggesting that well-known alumni should play a greater role in financing sports programmes.

“We have to latch onto these people”, he stated, adding that “I would like nothing more than to write a big fat cheque”. Of course, “at this point in my career it’s not possible”.

Shortly after his Varsity disappointment, Hastings won his first cap for Scotland in the Five Nations tournament in February 1986. Here he played alongside his brother Scott, who he described as “as much a friend as a brother”. ­ This proved to be the start of a ten-year international career that saw him win 61 caps for his country and score a record number of points for Scotland, a record that would not be surpassed until Chris Patterson broke it in 2008.

But what was his best moment? “From a very personal point of view”, he replied, “captaining the side that won in Paris for the first time in 26 years was my single proudest moment in a Scotland jersey”.

Hastings was to go on to wear not just the blue of Scotland but also the red of the British and Irish Lions. Having played in all three Tests in Australia in 1989, he was chosen to captain the side that toured New Zealand in 1993. Despite describing this as “the most challenging situation that I’d ever been put in”, he believed he was the right man for the job.

Few jobs can be more challenging than that of trying to pull together a disparate group of players from different countries and lead them to possibly the most fiercely competitive rugby nation on Earth. On the subject of captaincy, he soon learnt that “I wasn’t going to get on well with everybody”, and that worrying about this would have adversely affected his concentration. “I did a lot of growing up on that tour”, he reflected, showing the intense strain that players find themselves under in such situations.

At this point in the interview, he paused to consider the qualities a Lion needs. Mental toughness, he claimed, should be high on the list of requirements. “Some people aren’t mentally tough enough to cope”, he stated, also suggesting that in many cases the 35 players that make the grade at the start of a tour may no longer feature in the top choices by the end.

Given the pressure on these players, who did he think would be chosen to coach them on the 2013 tour? “I’ll be very surprised if the next Lions coach is not coaching an international team”, he replied, going on to add that “Andy Robinson will probably be in the frame”.

Asked during his talk whether he thought the Lions stood a realistic chance against the Southern Hemisphere teams, he replied that “It’s going to be incredibly difficult”. So how could we give them the best chance? His answer was simple: “We need to shorten the season to give players’ bodies a chance to recover”.

On this note, he also told me during our interview that he was worried about what shape players like Jonny Wilkinson, who have only ever played the game during the professional era, would be in fifteen years after their retirement.

Shortening the season wasn’t the only radical change he suggested to the professional game. Asked about the impact of professionalism on the game, he answered that while there have been huge improvements at the highest level, below that rugby has “lost its soul”. He lamented the loss of the rugby-watching culture he grew up with, and stated that much of the tradition and fun had “all but gone”.

His answer? For professionals, increase the size of the pitch to bring back the free-flowing game characteristic of the amateur era. And for everyone, make rugby a summer sport to increase enjoyment and get more young people involved.

He was optimistic about the impact of the 2012 London Olympics and the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games, hoping that these will help sport to “become a bigger part of people’s lives”.

When asked during his talk about the global spread of rugby, he was confident that “Seven-a-side rugby is going to be the catalyst for spreading the game around the world”. He cited the ease of playing and understanding this form of the game as reasons why sevens players will become the “superstars” of rugby in a few years’ time.

However, Hastings also saw sevens serving another purpose. Asked by an audience member about the role of women in the sport, he replied that he was “not convinced that rugby is the best thing that women could do”. He went on to state that for him, watching women’s rugby was “not quite as exciting as watching the men’s game”.

His most controversial comments came when he stated that “­The sport for women is rugby sevens”. And the reason he gave why sevens is the sport that will broaden the game’s appeal across national and gender divides? “Fifteen-a-side is too technical for a lot of countries and a lot of women”. I think it’s fair to say that a significant proportion of the university population would disagree.

So, how to sum up my evening with Gavin Hastings? Well, he certainly proved he wasn’t afraid of controversy. His revelations were frequently surprising, often entertaining and sometimes downright scandalous. One thing’s for certain – he certainly left us with plenty to talk about.

A winning mentality: why British tennis players should look to Spain for inspiration

Another TCS article. This was written as a companion to an article about the current 'golden age' of Spanish sport, hence all the Spain references! I think it still works as a stand-alone piece - the main point about the state of British tennis is certainly still valid. First published 28/10/10.

Kazakhstan. Not exactly a tennis powerhouse, you would imagine. And yet this country has three times as many men in the top 100 as Britain. Three, to be precise.

It’s much the same story in the women’s game. Russia is unsurprisingly ahead on numbers, producing  17 of the current top 100 women. Even somewhere like Romania, that giant of the game, can manage ­five. And what about Britain? How many of the top 100 women can we lay claim to? Yep, you guessed it – one.

So why don’t British players perform better? And what can be done to make sure they do?

Put simply, British players just aren’t very good at winning. Sounds pretty obvious, I know, but bear with me – what I mean is that Brits just aren’t as good as other players at coping with the high-pressure environment of professional tennis. It’s what I’ll call here a “winning mentality”, and it’s something that a lot of British players don’t seem to have. 

It isn’t lack of funding. British players aren’t exactly short of training facilities. Indeed, the LTA provides a £40 million state-of-the-art centre at Roehampton. Britain’s elite players also receive some of the most generous funding in the world, including £15 000 in travel expenses and around £16 000 in coaching, sports science and other bene­fits. Clearly, lack of ­ financial support isn’t the problem.

Neither is it lack of talent. Some of the current British senior players were among the world’s best as juniors, with Jamie Baker (current British number four and world number 293) reaching number six in the world junior rankings.

But all too often this doesn’t translate into success at a senior level. Somewhere along the line, something in the coaching setup must go wrong. So how can we put it right? To ­find out, we need to turn our attention to a country that no-one can accuse of lacking a winning mentality – Spain.

Spain have more men in the top 100 than any other nation, with a total of 14, half of whom are in the top 25. Of these seven, ­ five attended specialist tennis academies as children, including world number seven Fernando Verdasco who left school at 11 to move to an academy in Barcelona.

Of course, there are always exceptions – at 14 Rafael Nadal had his funding cut after his family refused to send him to Barcelona to continue his training. But then, not everyone’s lucky enough to have an uncle who’s not only an ex-pro, but happy to coach them for free.

So is this the solution – should promising young British players be packed off to Spanish academies? Well, it certainly seems to have worked for one Brit who has been notably absent from this discussion so far. In 2002, a 15-year-old Andy Murray left Scotland and moved to Barcelona, where he trained at the Sánchez-Casal Academy.

But this isn’t a sacri­fice that many parents would be willing or able to make. So what if institutions like these existed closer to home, so that players could enjoy their advantages without having to travel thousands of miles?

Having juniors training together and playing against each other regularly, rather than separately with their own coaches as now, could help to foster that competitive instinct, that winning mentality, that is so crucial when they make the step up to senior level.

Centralised, co-ordinated training like this could also help to create the culture of success that is currently so sadly lacking. Success is catching, but so is mediocrity, and it’s the latter that is currently prevalent in the British ranks. To reverse this trend, it’s clear that a serious shake-up of the current system is needed.

Sending young players to academies would essentially mean expecting them to behave like professionals. Isn’t this unfair? Shouldn’t they have a few years to enjoy their sport before they have to think about playing professionally?

Unfortunately the harsh truth is that tennis, like all professional sports, is a young person’s game. Most players turn pro between the ages of 16 and 18, and the early 30s is a typical retirement age. So in fact childhood years, and particularly the teens, are crucial in laying the foundations for future success.

Maybe academies aren’t the answer. But the current system clearly isn’t working, so perhaps looking to countries like Spain that are enjoying so much success is Britain’s best hope of sharing it.

A Premiership to be proud of: why the English league is up there with the best of them

This is another article I wrote for TCS - it's from October so apologies for any parts that are now out of date! First published 14/10/10.

With the Heineken Cup kicking off over the weekend, predictions are inevitably flying around about how English clubs will fare. But this competition isn’t just about picking a winner – it’s also a chance to compare the general standard of teams and leagues throughout Europe.

In the past England hasn’t come out of this well, with Premiership teams often accused of adopting a negative, defensive style. But there’s a chance that might be about to change. If the past few weeks are anything to go by, this season’s Premiership is set to be one of the most open and exciting in years. And if that’s true, maybe at last we can be proud of our Premiership.

First things first – after the débacle of the ELVs, isn’t it nice to be able to talk about some rule changes that have actually worked? Even the grumpiest of grumpy old men (i.e. the commentators) agree that the new directives relating to the breakdown area have led to a more open, more attacking style of rugby. Surely this can only be good for the game, and especially for the spectators. Given the choice between watching Saracens at the start of last season and London Irish at the start of this, I know which one I’d pick, and I’m pretty sure most neutrals would agree.

Of course, there are those who argue that these changes are biased towards teams who already played this way. Certainly London Irish might have struggled to reach the top of the table under the old rules. But then again, couldn’t that be because the old rules were biased towards teams who adopted a more negative approach?

Now, teams can’t just rely on the power of their defences to carry them to victory. Quicker ball at the breakdown gives defences less time to get set, and creates more gaps for attacking teams to exploit. It also provides an incentive to run the ball rather than crash it up through the forwards, since players aren’t faced with a solid wall of defenders. This has benefited Irish especially, whose back line has looked in scintillating form so far.

The Exiles’ flying start has certainly been one of the stories of the season so far. And it seems that being allowed to play their own game in the Premiership is also reaping rewards in Europe. The Exiles’ win over Munster at the weekend can only have strengthened their Heineken Cup credentials, especially against a team with so much experience in the competition.

Not that I’m suggesting English clubs will find it easy – that was demonstrated when Leicester struggled to beat Treviso and Saracens lost to Clermont. It’s likely that English fortunes will be, as always, mixed. Hopefully, though, we can at least look forward to some more entertaining performances along the way.

It’s not just Irish, though, that have started this season on a high. Before the season kicked off, the Exeter Chiefs were most people’s favourites for relegation. However, the newly-promoted side have been showing how much can be achieved by a team that’s prepared to throw the ball around. This positive approach helped them to a shock win against Gloucester, and came close to upsetting champions Leicester.

From top to bottom, the Premiership is more competitive than it’s been in years, and that can only help to push the standard even higher.

So what could all this mean for the national team? Don’t worry, this isn’t one of those starry-eyed ‘England can win the World Cup’ moments. It remains to be seen whether the promising glimpses shown against Australia are any more than one in a long series of false dawns. But for those England players who haven’t felt the lure of French clubs, getting used to playing a more expansive style of rugby can only be a good thing.

Hopefully, playing this way regularly in the Premiership will give them the confidence to play this way at an international level. I’m not making any predictions about the Autumn Internationals, or about the Heineken Cup. All I will say is that when it comes to domestic leagues, the Premiership is up there with the very best.

'Strap it up and carry on': the culture of playing injured

This was the first article I wrote for 'The Cambridge Student', a university newspaper of which I was joint Sports Editor at the time. First published 07/10/10.

Anyone who’s ever played sport knows how it feels – you pick up a knock, but you don’t want to come off, so you play through it. And it doesn’t just apply on the pitch. How many of us can honestly say that we followed the doctor’s advice to the letter, and weren’t even a little bit tempted to come back from injury earlier than we should?

This attitude can be summed up by a phrase I heard countless times during my two years of university sport – ‘just strap it up and carry on’. It’s no surprise that this trend is also prevalent among professional sportsmen and women – after all, sport is in a very real way their life. But there comes a point when every player has to accept that they’re not fit to carry on. Doesn’t there?

Let me explain. On 5th September I sat in front of my TV watching Leicester take on Northampton in the Aviva Premiership. Midway through the second half, Leicester prop Marcos Ayerza stood up from the bottom of a ruck, clearly concussed. As he staggered across the pitch, clearly with no idea of where he was or what was going on, the commentators heaped praise on his “bravery” and “dedication” for staying on the field . 

Surely I can’t be the only one who sees a problem here. We all admire players who shrug off  a knock for the good of their team. But this was an individual who, by staying on the pitch while clearly un­fit to play, was endangering himself and those around him. At times like this doesn’t common sense have to intervene, and the safety of players have to be protected, even from their own “dedication”?

This problem doesn’t begin and end with players, or with rugby. It is part of a prevailing culture in professional sport that values players more highly if they’re prepared to put themselves at risk, and that doesn’t regard injury as a legitimate excuse for non-participation. Can it be right that, even in a case like Ayerza’s, physios have no power to make a player leave the field? Or that players would rather be injected with cortisone than admit they’re in too much pain to play?

And fans are guilty too. After the 2006 World Cup, the decision to play an un­fit Wayne Rooney was widely criticised. But how much more criticism would there have been had Rooney not gone to the tournament at all, and his lack of ­ fitness been given as the reason? The same attitude can be seen week in, week out in the Premiership – fans expect to see their favourite players on the pitch, managers want their stars in the game, and players are keen to oblige.

Perhaps the most poignant example of this trend comes from athletics. In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, 110m hurdler Liu Xiang was the host nation’s only real hope for athletics gold. Despite rumours of an injury, organisers insisted he would be ­fit to compete. In his heat, Liu visibly limped onto the track, only to pull out at the start of the race. The injury he was carrying would in fact rule him out for the next 13 months. The day after these dramatic events, Liu made a public apology to the Chinese media. The fact that he felt compelled to do so shows how ­firmly the culture of ‘strap it up and carry on’ has taken hold.

It’s easy to see why this trend has become so prevalent. Managers and coaches demand total commitment, fans demand to see stars giving it their all, and players don’t want to be left on the sidelines. But in this professional era, with schedules becoming increasingly gruelling and matches involving ever greater physical punishment, attitudes to injury need to become more professional too. Sport already takes enough of a physical and emotional toll. Players, and those responsible for their welfare, shouldn’t be making it worse.