Official Report 667KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is an evidence-taking session with the Scottish Football Association. I welcome to the meeting Ian Maxwell, the organisations’ chief executive.
We will move straight to questions. I call Sandesh Gulhane.
Thank you, convener, and I should first declare an interest as a former club doctor for Queen’s Park Football Club.
I want to start with transparency, if I may. Look: all fans, regardless of whom they support, think that there is a conspiracy against their club. That is just the way of it. However, with the introduction of video assistant referees—or VAR—there seems to be huge uncertainty about what is happening. Fans in the stadium do not know what is going on, and those watching at home are never overly sure of what is happening, what counts and what does not count. Obviously, I have to be very careful, given that my party leader is a referee, but, for the average fan, there does not seem to be transparency in the game when it comes to decision making and the way that the game is going. How would you respond to that?
I would not agree that it is a transparency point; I think that it is an education point involving educating supporters about VAR and how it works. VAR is still in its infancy in Scotland; this is only the second season that we have had it. The Scottish FA sits on the International Football Association Board, which is responsible for the laws of the game, and at a meeting last month, we talked about how we can improve the interaction between supporters in the stadium and supporters at home in terms of VAR and any decisions that are made. I fully appreciate that there is nothing worse than sitting in a stadium and being unaware of what is being checked or why.
Until recently, there was no opportunity under the laws for decisions to be broadcast in stadiums. However, such an approach was recently trialled by FIFA in the club world cup. In that trial, which can be rolled out to any competition that wants to put it in place, match officials were linked to the public address system and could speak to what the decision had been and why it had been made. For example, if checks were made and there were a change of decision to a penalty, because of a handball, they would announce, “VAR check—penalty decision because of handball”, and that would give the supporters in the stadium more of an understanding of what was happening. After all, football is a spectator sport, and the last thing that you need is for those in the stadium not to know what is going on. That uncertainty does not help anybody. It is therefore more of a point of process than a transparency point.
You say that it is an education point. In England, you can see the decisions being discussed with a referee, but you do not get the same in Scotland. Is that something that the SFA is actively stopping or is it just—
It is not something that we are actively stopping; it is more something that we have not started yet. It is worth remembering that VAR has been in place in England for seven years now, and they are having problems with it from the point of view of decisions. Arguably, they have had more problems with it than anybody—certainly a lot more than we have had.
We are on a journey with VAR with regard to transparency, understanding, efficiency of decision making and all of those things. It is something that is under review, but we are not quite there yet in terms of the journey that Scottish football is on. It is a big step to take. I can understand why it has been done in England, but as I have said, they have been doing it for a lot longer and the match officials are more experienced. It is something that we will continue to monitor.
Turning to regulation, I am sure that you know the research that has been carried out by the University of Edinburgh. According to that, only 12.9 per cent of supporters believe that the SFA does a good job for the Scottish game and 11.1 per cent believe that the current governance structure in the Scottish game is sustainable. How do you respond to those figures?
Anybody in any sort of governance role knows how difficult it is. Everybody has an opinion; everybody feels that they can do it better; and everybody thinks that things should be different. From a Scottish FA perspective, we think that the governance in the game is robust.
That is an interesting statistic that you have pointed out. Our statistics are based on a UEFA study, which highlights the fact that there is a real misunderstanding about what the Scottish Football Association does as an organisation. Of those who understand what the organisation does, about 80 per cent feel that we are doing a good job. There is an educational piece of work for us to do to ensure that football supporters know what we do as an association, what we are about and the difference that we make to communities—
Forgive me, Ian, but how long has the SFA been around?
We have been around for 150 years—you were at the anniversary.
10:45
Indeed.
So, in 150 years, the SFA has not let people know what its function is.
We have let people know what its function is. Football fans concentrate on their team and what is happening on the pitch. There is less awareness of, and desire to understand, what a football association does. Since football began, there has been a narrative that referees get decisions wrong and all the things that we all talk about regularly.
We want to talk about the good work that the association does, the huge amount of work that our clubs do, the impact that we have on communities and the way that football can save and transform lives. That is the message that we need to spread as an association. Today, it would be great to talk about that and how we can help the committee and the Government to move forward on all those areas.
Yes, absolutely. My colleagues will certainly come to those topics.
Recently, we saw a very sad case in England, when one of the Luton Town Football Club players had a cardiac event on the pitch. We have seen such events on multiple occasions. What does the SFA have in place to ensure that we try to prevent those things from happening but also to reassure people that, if something were to happen here in Scotland, we have robust processes in place?
Scottish Professional Football League players have a cardiograph—I cannot remember the technical term, but I can find out and write back to you. However, medical checks are carried out when players are signed, and I think that those are done every three years. Those check for heart irregularities or anything like that. Obviously, players undergo very strict medicals when they sign for any football club. Let me take that question away. I will come back to you with the detail on the provisions that we have in place, but medical checks are done from a health perspective to make sure that the players are fit.
Thank you. We would really appreciate that information.
A massive 96.2 per cent of people felt that independent regulation would be a positive step for Scottish football. There are other figures on that that are up in the 90s. That view is overwhelming on the part of supporters because you are right that everyone concentrates on their club. Therefore, from your point of view, why should we not look at implementing independent regulation?
The idea of an independent regulator down south has had a high profile. That was born out of four different incidents. One was the potential breakaway for the European super league and the fact that English Premier League clubs were being courted for that; another one was the financial failings of clubs down south that had gone into administration, with Bury, Derby County, Macclesfield Town and a number of other clubs facing issues; one was the impact of Covid on football clubs and their ability to withstand that financial pressure, given the extreme financial pressure that football was under generally; and one was the changes that club owners had made, with, for example, Hull City and Cardiff City changing club badges and colours and making decisions that they had not engaged with their supporters on. None of those elements is relevant for Scotland.
The idea of an independent regulator is a difficult issue. Geographically, we are next to the biggest footballing superpower in the world—the English Premier League. People think that, because something happens in England, it should happen in Scotland. They think that only because we are next door. In Scotland, we have had nothing like any of those four issues that I just outlined. Our governance procedures are robust. Everybody has a different view and everybody thinks that it could be better. Anyone in any sort of governance role knows how difficult governing is, in any shape or form.
The review in England was led by an independent MP. There was engagement with every stakeholder in English football. One thousand hours of evidence were taken; it was a thorough and robust approach. The fan-led review that was published in Scotland was written by one supporters’ association that did not even engage with the other supporters’ associations in Scotland. It was very much the view of a couple of individuals about what was appropriate for Scottish football. We do not see that in the same way.
The idea of an independent regulator has had little coverage, there has been little clamour for it and little interest in the media. That tells you that, although we can improve, and always look to do so, the process in Scotland is fit for purpose.
Sandesh Gulhane touched on VAR. How many female VAR officials are there?
I can double check that and come back to you. I am not sure. I do not think that we have any female category 1 referees in Scotland at this time, but it is definitely a key area for us. With the growth and development of the women’s game, we want more female players, and we want more female coaches and referees. We are working hard—
We will come on to some of that later on as we develop themes.
Project Brave was implemented around six years ago, refreshing a previous strategy. Does the SFA plan to undertake an evaluation of the successes, failures and perceptions of project brave?
That is constantly being evaluated. We should stop talking about project brave, because it was a project at a specific time; it was the name given to the changes that were made to the youth development system, and we now have club academy Scotland and the player development pathway. The approach is constantly being assessed, changed and tweaked. Player development is obviously a key area for the SFA, because we want better Scottish players, and we want the Scottish players that we are developing to be as good as they can be. Clubs want to develop the best players possible.
What work is being done to support smaller teams to ensure that they can nurture local talent and give young people a positive place to play? I raise that because, in the past few years, some smaller clubs—Livingston Football Club and Greenock Morton Football Club were just two of them—decided to scrap their youth systems altogether because of some of the criteria behind Project Brave. What is being done to ensure that those clubs get the support that they need?
The club academy Scotland programme is tiered to allow every club in Scotland to find its place in that landscape. We have an elite tier, and it goes right down to advanced youth and community. Livingston, interestingly, is now part of club academy Scotland.
Whether youth development is a key priority for clubs is a club decision; it is not for us to force clubs to develop players. The club needs to want to do it and have the resources available to do it, but the club academy structure allows clubs at every level to find their place in the club academy landscape.
Who makes the decision on where those clubs come into that structure?
That would be for the club to decide. The club could determine which level it wanted to apply for, and it would go through the process with us. Provided that it meets the criteria, there is no reason to think that it would not be accepted at whichever level it wanted to enter.
Tess White joins us remotely.
Do JD performance schools effectively prepare children for a life outside football, should they be released from their academies?
Obviously, the kids are being educated as part of that school experience. It is, in effect, the standard school experience but with football aligned to it, so that they get more opportunity to participate in football and enhance their footballing ability. It is not a question whether the JD performance schools prepare them for life after that. They are being prepared because they go through the standard school curriculum, as any other child does.
Can you outline what support systems are in place to safeguard mental health and wellbeing?
Our child wellbeing and protection team engages regularly with the kids who participate in the JD performance schools. When they go back to their clubs, they can engage with the child wellbeing and protection officers at their clubs. All SFA member clubs have a designated child wellbeing and protection officer. I can come back to you with further detail on exactly what provisions are in place, but we are very aware that mental health is a challenge across society at the moment. We are doing as much as we can to help kids, players and anybody in the football family who needs such support.
I am aware that the SPFL Trust runs mental health training for all SPFL clubs, but there is a view that more needs to be done. Do you monitor how many people a year go through that mental health training?
I am not sure. It is an SPFL Trust programme, but I can find out the detail about it.
As you said, being aware of mental health and able to provide support is absolutely a concern. I do not think that anyone is doing enough, which is not a comment about football but about society. It is a big issue and we must all work together to make improvements and to help those who need it.
Performance is really important and is a high priority, but 99 per cent of players do not become professionals. What evidence is there that the SFA’s 2019 wellbeing and protection strategy has been a success and that children’s wellbeing and safety are being prioritised?
We recently commissioned the Children’s Parliament to undertake a study of participants in youth football. I will send you a copy of the results, which were overwhelmingly positive. More than 90 per cent of those who play football feel better when they do it, enjoy the feeling of being part of a team and like the physical exercise that they get from football. A number of the statistics that came out of that study show that the strategy is working and that our projects are effective. This is a developing area and we will never stop working in child protection and children’s wellbeing. I will send more information in due course.
That is great.
I have a final question. There is evidence that children’s health and safety are at risk in the grass-roots football environment and that the situation has been like that since football began. What new approaches is the SFA exploring in order to eradicate the culture of shouting and bullying that children can be exposed to by both coaches and parents?
That is a great question. The study by the Children’s Parliament asked participants if they felt safe playing football. What was interesting was that the overwhelming fear was of injury, rather than about the other types of safety that you asked about. Children were more concerned about being injured than about anything else. They feel safe and feel that they have a trusted adult in the coaching staff whom they know they can speak to.
Can you remind me what the second part of your question was?
It was about shouting. You said that children are more afraid of injury, but as many as 23 per cent of respondents to a survey that we have worried about adults shouting at them and making them cry. A quote from that survey says:
“Nobody checks on the adults.”
I am sorry that I forgot the second part of your question. That is a very good point. You are absolutely right: one key piece of feedback from our survey was that kids love playing football but hate it when their parents shout at them, at the referee or at each other.
We are doing a piece of work with the affiliated national associations—the Scottish Youth Football Association, Scottish Women’s Football and the Scottish Amateur Football Association—to understand how we can have an impact on parental behaviour. That is absolutely a challenge in Scotland, but it is also a challenge across the world. One of the main areas of focus for the International Football Association Board over the next 12 months will be to produce a plan to help football deal with those cultural issues, which are a big challenge.
Anyone who has recently stood at the side of a youth game will know that the atmosphere can very quickly become toxic. We are trying to encourage young people to play football and to enjoy themselves, so that is not the right setting for such behaviour. Given the scope and scale of football, that is a big area and a difficult problem to solve, but we are absolutely willing to do that and are working with the affiliated associations to understand how best we can have an impact, because we need to deal with that.
I have one final comment. I know what it is like to stand on a football pitch and hear people shouting. Is there any consequence management? Do you follow up with people who constantly bully and shout?
That would be done by the affiliated associations, so the SYFA or the SWF would get involved. It is not as stringent as it could be. The difficulty is that football happens in public parks, so you do not know if the person at the side of the pitch is a parent, a carer or someone who is watching the game. Understanding that landscape is an important part of formalising our plans to deal with that behaviour, which we really want to eradicate from football.
11:00
In April 2017, during the previous parliamentary session, the then Health and Sport Committee undertook an inquiry into child protection in sport, during which it heard evidence from the SFA and the Scottish Youth Football Association. The committee’s report was critical of the SFA. It said:
“We consider the SFA has been asleep on the job and continuingly complacent in this area”
of child protection and looking after children’s welfare. How has the relationship between the SFA and the SYFA progressed since 2017, when dealing with children’s wellbeing and protection? Has the SFA adopted a more hands-on approach?
Absolutely. The relationship has grown immeasurably. I came into post in 2018, so I can talk only about what has happened since then. We have very stringent protocols in place for the checks that coaches must do for their coaching qualifications as well as for the protecting vulnerable groups scheme. Coaches need to have a PVG check before they can take part in any coaching. From my understanding and recollection, a big part of the problem in 2017 was that the PVG operation was not being handled appropriately. That is now all monitored via our football administration system, so that we can monitor whether coaches are appropriately checked.
There is on-going communication with the SYFA, SWF and all the other constituents of football that have children playing for them. The Scottish FA issued a board directive in 2016 that requires affiliate national associations to comply with four or five different criteria for the checks and balances that need to be in place. There is on-going dialogue: we sit on a non-professional game board that meets every quarter, the SYFA is along the corridor at Hampden, and there is regular dialogue between our child wellbeing and protection leads and the individual child wellbeing and protection leads at each of the affiliate national associations. There has been a huge shift. A significant number of people in Scottish football are now working full time on child protection and wellbeing to make sure that the processes are correct across the game.
Have all SFA board members completed child protection training?
Yes.
Does that also apply to the Scottish Youth Football Association? Previously, those board members had not, which came up as an issue.
I can talk only about the Scottish FA board. We have done that training and we do it on a regular basis. I will come back to you about the SYFA.
It would be helpful to know that.
Another issue, which was also raised by the previous children’s commissioner, was about children, particularly boys, signing for clubs on schoolboy forms or whatever, which had an impact on children’s ability to play for other clubs. Can you update the committee on where the SFA is on that issue?
I am not aware of the circumstances that you have outlined regarding registration and do not remember that happening. Again, that predates me. I have not heard anything from any football constituents indicating that that is a problem.
At the time, we were dealing with a couple of matters to do with when FIFA training compensation was due. We have changed our rules and regulations to ensure that it is due only at the point at which the player signs their first professional contract, which is in line with FIFA regulations and the committee’s recommendation.
There was a question about registration periods. There was a 30-month registration period that the club was effectively in control of from a youth player’s perspective. That has recently been changed, to start from next summer because we have moved from a summer season to a more traditional season, which is a bit of a technicality. Players in the elite level of club academy Scotland who are aged 15 and upwards will sign a two-year registration agreement, which will be agreed between the player, their parents and the club. That is a much more joined-up approach, as the club cannot control the player’s registration unilaterally. An agreement will be signed at the same time by the player, the parents and the club, which is an improvement.
It is really helpful to get that update.
When I asked about VAR, you said that there were no category 1 female referees. Are there any category 2 female referees?
I would need to double check.
It would be really helpful if you could do that.
Good morning, Ian, and thanks for being with us. I want to ask you about fan representation and voice, and then accessibility of matches.
Gate receipts represent 43 per cent of total football income in Scotland. My understanding is that that is quite unusual among the UEFA countries—it is the highest.
Yes.
The Scottish Football Alliance believes that the representation of supporters’ voices and fans in decision making does not reflect how crucial supporters are to the survival of our game. Would the SFA be open to including a fan representative on the board?
Fan representation is obviously important across the game. Fans want to be heard, and they should be heard at clubs. There are varying governance models in clubs. Some are fully supporter owned and supporter run; some have a hybrid model, with a board and some supporter engagement; and some are not quite there yet. It is ultimately for a club—
To be clear, I understand the different structures in clubs in Scotland, but I am asking about the SFA board specifically. Would the SFA be open to having fan representation on the board?
Our board structure at the moment is two representatives from the professional game, one from the non-professional game, three office bearers and two independent non-executive members. I argue that the independent non-execs are football supporters. They obviously have an involvement in football and an engagement with football and want to be part of the board structure, so I argue that we have an element of supporter engagement on the board.
Further to that, the Scottish Football Alliance recommends that Scottish football season ticket holders be allowed to vote for the president of the SFA. The alliance argues—forgive me, but this is quoting directly—that that would replace the
“antiquated and undemocratic process of ‘procession to office’ and ‘blazer procession’”
with a fair voting structure. How do you respond to that?
This is a suit jacket that I am wearing, not a blazer.
The president is elected by the membership of the association, and it feels like a fairly standard and structured operational process for the members of an organisation to elect the president and vice-president. There are opportunities for fan-owned clubs to put forward a representative of their club for the position of president. That person can come from across the football family and people can be put forward by any of the membership. From a structural perspective, it feels like it makes sense for the membership to determine who the president and vice-president are.
Putting that slightly pejorative language aside—it is a very nice suit jacket, though—can you see the benefit in opening up the process? We talk about the value of supporters and trust in the SFA. Opening up that process to make it more democratic could be beneficial for the game.
There needs to be an understanding of football, though. Anybody who comes in as a president or vice-president of a football association needs to have some sort of understanding of football. There is no better place for that to come from than the membership. We have got—
That is not how democracy works. Everyone gets a vote and they decide who will represent them. There is no test.
I am sorry, but I do not get the point.
The Scottish Football Alliance suggests that all season ticket holders could vote for the president. I do not know the details of how those elections would be held, but I presume that qualified individuals with experience would put themselves forward, and then there would be some sort of voting process.
Taking a step back, my point is that clubs have the opportunity to put forward whoever they want. Season ticket holders at a club could decide to put forward someone from their club, so they would in effect have a say in that. Trying to get Scottish football as a whole to agree on anything is a near impossible task, so whether you could do it—
We manage elections in other contexts, so I do not think that it would be beyond the Scottish public to vote for the president, although I hear what you are saying. In principle, are you not for more fan involvement?
Fan involvement is absolutely key in football. I was at a club that was very engaged with supporters. Football fans want to be heard within their club structure and they want a voice in how their club is run and its operation. We need to be careful, because fans are very emotional—they are fanatics by definition, and they make emotional decisions when running football clubs. However, they need to have a voice, and they need to be heard and understood, and it is absolutely right that they are given that opportunity.
I do not think that the point is necessarily that fans want to run the SFA; it is maybe that they want more accountability and a say in who the executive is. Could you see the benefit of that?
I have set out our position. Fans have the opportunity, through their clubs, to put forward whoever they feel would make the most sense from a club perspective. We have a structure that is voted on by the membership and has been in place for a considerable time.
Given Viaplay’s recent announcement that it is going to end its involvement in UK sport coverage in early 2024, how realistic is it to expect that the SFA will take the opportunity to make future television coverage of the men’s national team free to air?
The nuance to the situation is that Viaplay is under contract with UEFA until 2028 for men’s national team rights. That has not changed. We have not heard that it will not be the broadcaster from that point. I understand that Viaplay is going through a process and potentially looking to offload some of its rights.
I would frame the question differently. It is not on the SFA to ensure that the games are free to air. It is on the free-to-air broadcasters to ensure that that is the case. Anybody can bid for our national team rights. We do not control the process, which is centralised through UEFA. Ultimately, it comes down to value and finance.
We receive money from the UEFA centralised deal. We use that money to do the good work that we do across the country. As long as those financial terms are met, anybody can show our games. I would love the games to be on free-to-air TV, but it ultimately comes down to whether the free-to-air broadcasters can commit the required finance. It is for the committee to have the conversation about how we ensure that that happens. It would be great for us and for the game.
It is down to me how to frame questions. You can answer them in whatever way you wish.
Are there other avenues of revenue that the SFA could explore to make up that funding?
We are constantly considering avenues of additional revenue. Ultimately, the vast majority of the income that we bring in goes back out to the clubs or to do the excellent work that Scottish football does across the community, as an association and as clubs. We want to drive that as much as we can.
We fully appreciate that, later today, we have what is widely regarded as the most difficult budget since devolution. Cuts will be included in that, but we should be talking about the ability that sport has to transform lives and make a significant impact across the country. Anything that would diminish our ability to do that does not make sense to the association. We are absolutely focused on driving additional revenue to ensure that we can continue to do the good work that we do.
I acknowledge that there are wider issues involved, but what can the SFA do to help to ensure that our national team sport is free to view? I can afford to go to football games. Not everyone can. We talk about the benefits of sport. Everyone around this table absolutely understands those. They include watching and being part of sport. What can the SFA do to help to ensure that football is accessible and free, particularly to young boys and girls who want to watch their national team?
We regularly engage with the BBC in particular. It has the Scottish cup rights at the moment. The rights for future years will go out for offer soon. We are engaging with the BBC to ensure that it is across that and can do as much as it can to secure as many of those games as possible.
The challenge is that, as with all 55 national associations under UEFA, the international rights are centralised through UEFA’s process. It is for the BBC to have a conversation with UEFA about how that looks. We can be involved in those discussions but, ultimately, under the terms of the agreement, UEFA will decide what that looks like.
It is for any free-to-air broadcaster to have a conversation with UEFA. Provided that the value is right, there is no reason why the matches cannot be on free-to-air TV in future.
You have repeatedly mentioned how sport can change lives. I completely agree. There has been a bit of focus on men’s football, so I will turn to women’s football. It is a huge growth market. It is a huge growth game. More than half of our population are women and potentially want to be involved in it. What is the SFA doing not only to promote the women’s game but to make it more robust and get more money in to continue its growth?
It is absolutely a key area for us. We have 22,000 registered female players across the country, which is the highest number that we have ever had. That number continues to grow. Clubs are committing more and more resource to their women’s teams at an elite professional level and at a grass-roots level.
More women’s recreational teams are popping up across the country. There is a real demand for that. Thinking about the growth of the game, the challenge is around facilities. We have 160,000 registered players and we think that close to one million people are engaged in football, whether that is playing it for recreation at a grass-roots level, volunteering at clubs, coaching at clubs, or dropping the kids off at the weekend. A huge amount of the population is engaged in football.
11:15Although we are seeing a growth in participation numbers, we are seeing a decrease in facilities. Those two things do not make sense. More and more girls and women want to play football, but the only let that they can get is 9 o’clock on a Friday night, because that is all that is available. Historically, lets have been taken up by other parts of the game.
There is a real drive from the SFA to see what we can do to improve the facilities and to increase the facility provision around the country. I would love to spend some time talking to the committee about the impact that we can have, the impact that football has, and the impact that sport can have. Recently, every time I pick up a newspaper, it has articles about potential swimming pool closures and hockey pitches that people cannot get access to. How do we provide solutions for the Government?
As I said, we have got a really difficult budget coming up. There are financial pressure across the board. In times like this, we need to make sure that the money is being spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. Sport can play a huge part from a preventative perspective in terms of healthcare spend. We are focusing on dealing with people when they are unwell and have already got diabetes or heart issues, but we need to think about what we can do to spend preventatively to get people active as early as possible. That would stop a certain amount of money being spent on health, because the return on investment from investing at the front end is hugely disproportionate.
I agree with all of that, but if it does not come across in response to questions from other members, it would be great if you could write to us with specific things that you are doing to grow the women’s game. That would be fantastic.
Absolutely.
Just to piggyback off one of Ruth Maguire’s questions, given the SFA’s large take from tickets, do you believe that greater consideration should be given to the voice of fans over broadcaster demands, particularly on issues such as fixture scheduling, which is something that we have seen issues with in recent years?
What do you mean by “given the ... take”?
Given the amount that supporters spend on tickets and on going to matches and so on, should their wants and their convenience in relation to scheduling of matches not be given priority over broadcaster demands? People have had issues with getting to and from matches because of matches being changed due to broadcaster demands.
Unfortunately, that is the reality that we live in. Sport across the world has changed. Traditional kick-off times are no longer a thing. The National Football League has recently agreed to take eight matches outside of America and play them in other parts of the world. An element of the issue is what has been traditional. I understand the question, but the reality is that football and sport are completely different now. A huge amount of money comes into the game from broadcasters.
Do you not think that it would show a basic level of respect for fans to ensure that they can make it to a game by public transport, or that it is not played at an inconvenient time, or that the time is not suddenly changed because of a broadcaster demand to a time that would negatively impact them? Fans are not going to return to games if they do not feel that they are also respected by the SFA. When we talk about funding and given that the take is so high from ticket sales, should it be a basic principle that fans are respected in such decisions?
Ultimately, we have to find a balance.
Is that a no?
No, it is not a “no”. Significant revenue comes in from ticket sales and matches and a bigger revenue comes in from broadcasters. As I said, that income comes into the Scottish Football Association and goes out to help do the good that we do across the country. We want to keep driving that.
National team matches under UEFA are part of a week of football, so UEFA tells us when the games are—we do not have any say in when those games are scheduled. As I said, the traditional 3 o’clock Saturday kick-off at that elite level of football no longer happens regularly. The English Premier League has just announced a £6.7 billion TV deal with a thousand more games that are going to be shown. They are going to be shown at all times of the day and night; some will be shown together and some will be shown on their own. That is just the world that we live in. The way that people consume sport has changed. The younger audience in particular are not interested in sitting down at 3 o’clock on a Saturday and watching a game. The world has changed.
Why should the broadcasters be prioritised if people are consuming it in different ways? Why should we not prioritise the fans who are going to the games rather than the ones who are watching online, if people can watch on catch-up and in various other ways?
It is about finding the balance—that is the reality. It is about finding the balance between people who want to come and watch football and the broadcast element. As one of your colleagues touched on, we have the highest number of supporters per capita in Europe going through the turnstiles on a regular basis and that is a big part of Scottish football. However, we also need to be cognisant of the broadcast element and the partnership element, because they drive significant revenue into the games that lets clubs go and do the good work that they do across communities and to help improve lives. We need to find the balance of all those things together.
Okay. Thanks, convener.
I will pick up on Gillian Mackay’s line of questioning. Was it income from broadcasters that led to the decision to change the time of the Scottish cup final?
There was a broadcast element to that decision, and there was also the fact that the Football Association cup was scheduled for the same time and so was the UEFA Women’s Champions League final. There was communication between us and the committee on that. The Scottish cup final is a showpiece event, so we wanted to give it its own space. We wanted to have it at a point when people across the UK could sit down and watch it and not be distracted by other events. As I said, we wrote to the committee at the time; a bit of communication went back and forward between us.
There certainly was communication between us, and there was certainly a lot of disquiet from the fans, as Gillian Mackay was referencing. Are you saying that income from broadcasters was an element influencing that decision?
There are a number of factors that go into a kick-off time. Broadcaster preference is one—
I am looking for a simple yes or no here. Was income from broadcasters one of the drivers?
It was part of our decision—yes.
We move to Tess White.
I have one final question. We recently conducted an extensive inquiry into female participation in sport and physical activity. Have you reviewed that report and discussed it with your board?
The report has been reviewed by the senior team at the Scottish FA. It has not gone to the board yet.
The growth in female participation is absolutely key and fundamental to everything that we are trying to do as an association. Driving the female game forward, as one of your colleagues touched on, is such a huge growth area. It makes such a difference to individuals. It is absolutely right that we are doing as much as we can in that space.
That partly answers my question, which was more about the inquiry than about football. However, because football is so important in Scotland, it provides a way to build on the work. The reason why I mention the inquiry is to ask you if you can be a champion for its findings, so that it does not get left on a shelf. Thank you.
I am interested in some of the points that you have made around the balance between grass-roots community sport, with football as part of that, and the national team and the drive to get quality in that team.
First, on community space, I know from what we have read that you have an influence on it and you meet with stakeholders about it. Where are we at the moment in terms of having good quality space for people to play ordinary games of football?
In simple terms, we do not have enough. As I touched on, the increase in participants has been significant. The decline in facilities has also been significant, and very little finance has gone into upgrading football pitches or even pavilions and spaces, particularly for the girls and women who want to come and play games. Football changing areas are not adequate for that any more.
We are very focused as an association on what we can do to drive that. We got some funding from the UK Government’s levelling up fund and some from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have had £18 million in funding, and by the end of 2024, we will have distributed all of it through partner funding and turned it into more or less double. We are using that money to improve and develop facilities across the country.
Making sure that we continue to do that has to be a key area for Government and for everybody on the committee, because, from a preventative spend perspective, the facts are undeniable. We are in Edinburgh, so let us take Spartans as an example. There are 1,700 footballers in that club. That produces a healthcare benefit of £1.8 million over the lifetime of those footballers, because it is reducing diabetes, heart disease and obesity and it is helping to impact on mental health issues.
There are social benefits that come from a reduction in crime as a result of the diversionary activity that happens. There is also economic value through people paying for pitch lets and buying petrol to get to and from training. The economic impact that grass-roots football has in the country is worth over €1.2 billion annually; that is huge, and €700 million of that is in benefits to the health service. The numbers are in euros because it is a UEFA study.
That goes back to my earlier point, which is that there is absolutely no doubt that investment in sport and investment in football—because we are the biggest sport in the country by a distance—will positively impact on the health and wellbeing of the vast majority of individuals across the country.
The question is how football can help the Government to make that impact happen and bring it to life. Times are tough and finances are tight for everybody, so we need to ensure that we maximise revenue and that we are getting as much out of it as we possibly can. There is no doubt that football can play a huge part, and we are here to try and help. We want to be the vehicle for improvements and changes across the country, because they are so important.
Do you have a strategy to try and work with stakeholders? I think that everybody here would agree with your point that having those facilities is important for preventative health impacts, but have you started to pull together a strategy for that? Who might be able to work together to improve grass-roots clubs?
We are pulling that together at the moment. Historically, looking at facilities has always been a local authority issue. We have concerned ourselves with getting participants on the pitch, and it has been up to others—through cashback programmes and other such things—to worry about facilities.
Obviously, the landscape has changed, so the association has put more of an onus on itself. Although it is a multistakeholder problem, football needs to play its part in the solution and we have asked what we can do. For example, every penny that we make from the Euros in 2024 will go into a facilities fund that will help us put facilities across the country. We are very committed to doing as much as we can.
Unfortunately, that will not touch the sides; there needs to be much more involvement and engagement. We have been speaking to the Scottish Government about that. Tomorrow, I have a meeting with Michael Matheson and Marie Todd to talk about a long-term strategic partnership that tries to pull together all the different strands of the benefits that sport can bring in a long-term sustainable way, rather than in the piecemeal, year-on-year process that we have at the moment. The association is doing as much as it can.
We need to think about how we generate investment in the game. Part of that investment needs to come from the Government and from local authorities. I get that there are challenges with the finance, but given that we can prove that the bang for your buck that will come from investing in football is so significant, it is not something that we can ignore. We need to keep pushing. Any support that the committee and individuals round the table can give us to help plug us into the right departments in Government, or to external funders that would be happy to see investment into facilities going back into local communities, would be very welcome.
I appreciate the drive that you have put into that. I hope that the committee will get a chance to find out what developments there are, particularly if you are working with the Government.
Given the time, I will move on to ask about the national team. We have had some papers saying that there is a hope to develop a very top-end training complex. How far ahead are you with that, and given some of the discussions we have had, I would like to know whether that will involve only the men’s game, or whether it will involve the women’s game? Who will be able to use that facility?
You are referring to comments that Steve Clarke made about a training facility. We are very much considering that. Facilities are a problem at every level of football—whether at the elite end of the game or down in the grass-roots game. Understanding the facilities issues across the country is an on-going piece of work, but our priority is facilities for the grass-roots game, because without that we do not have enough places for the people who want to play football to do so. That can be said about sport more generally, and it will have a negative impact on the country, so it has to be our focus.
Good morning, Ian. You talked a little bit about growing the game for women and you have taken a couple of questions on that already. I am interested in how we can support growing the game, especially when dealing with sexism.
The Children’s Parliament report for the Scottish Football Association is titled “Getting It Right for Every Child in Football.” The report quotes a girl who says:
“As a girl playing in what is seen as a boys sport it can be really hard and lots of sexism still exists especially from parents.”
Another girl says:
“There is lots of sexism from boys towards girls playing football making me not want to participate in school PE class games as I have been purposely targeted by boys and hurt because they don’t think girls should play.”
What is the Scottish Football Association doing to tackle sexism in football?
11:30
That is a good point. The situation is not perfect—I will not sit here and say that it is—but we are working hard. Real education is required across the game.
You quoted a young child saying that they are unhappy with those types of comments coming from parents: it is unacceptable. We are doing an educational piece with participants in particular—we have more control over them because they are in a club environment and we can engage with them regularly and make them understand what is right and what is wrong.
A lot of what manifests itself at football matches is actually part of a societal problem. When we think about unacceptable conduct and things that happen at matches that nobody wants to see, a lot of those things are societal issues that tend to show up at football matches. There is an educational piece required for a wider group. It is not necessarily a problem for football on its own to fix, but we have programmes, such as “Show racism the red card”, to address that. We go into all our clubs and deliver programmes and training to players across the game.
We are working with numerous partners to ensure that there is education to help participants in particular to know what is right and what is wrong. Alongside that, there is the parental aspect. How we educate parents is—as I touched on earlier—a far bigger challenge, but we are committed to trying to make an impact in that regard.
The report that I mentioned talks about
“sex and sexism, disability and discrimination, race and racism, and rurality and exclusion.”
Before I come to the topic of sectarianism, does further work need to be done on inclusivity more widely?
Inclusivity is a big driver for us. We were the first national association in the world to implement a para-football association, which takes all versions of para-football and gives anybody in the country, regardless of the challenges that they face, the opportunity to take part in the game. That includes power-chair football and amputee football, and there is a mental health league. We are broadening out the game as far as we possibly can to ensure that anybody who wants to play can play, because inclusivity is a big driver for us.
Football is our national sport, and we want as many people as possible to be able to play. There is a para ANA—affiliated national association—that meets regularly and is driving opportunities in specific areas for people who cannot play “traditional” football. That is very much a focus for us.
My final question is about sectarianism.
Bigotry, sectarianism and racism remain key issues in Scottish football, and are often fuelled by footballing rivalries. The “Scottish Football Supporters Survey” notes that 89 per cent of supporters “witnessed” and 41 per cent were “subjected to” sectarianism. In addition, 56 per cent of supporters “witnessed” and 4 per cent were “subjected to” racism. The percentages for racism seem to be lower than the figures for sectarianism. What is being done to look at the issue of sectarianism in Scottish football?
Again, that is part of our wider work. I mentioned our “Show racism the red card” campaign. We have a “Show racism the red card” day across the game, when clubs engage with spectators and there are programme adverts and educational pieces and programmes to raise awareness of the issues.
As I touched on, there are things that happen at football matches, and matches become a microcosm of society. What we are seeing is not specific to football—such incidents do not happen only at football games. They happen across wider society, and it will take a multistakeholder approach to make an impact on all those elements.
Education is key, as I touched on. Clubs do a huge amount of work on education and input for players, telling them about racism and sectarianism and what is right and wrong in all those areas. However, there is also a wider population piece, and we need to understand how football plays its part in dealing with that. Unfortunately, it cannot do that on its own, as there is a wider societal issue in Scotland that it will take a lot more than football to fix, but we are happy to play our part in that.
And we will monitor the numbers and the data to see those percentages for sectarianism and racism reduce.
Absolutely—that has to be the aim.
I just want to pick up on some of my earlier questions, particularly with regard to female referees. When I look through your website, the first picture that I see on every landing page that I go to, right down to category 6 referees, is of a man. On the “Become a Referee” page, where you are obviously trying to recruit people, three of the four pictures are of males. When I click on the referee kit shop, I find that all of the clothing appears to be for males and in male sizes. How is the SFA using its website to actively promote female referees, when, as a woman, I see that sort of thing and it seems to me that women are not wanted?
I will take back that feedback. I should say that we have had female-only referee coaching courses, and we have done a lot of work to encourage females in every aspect of football, whether it be to participate or whatever. With our female-only coaching courses, we have tried to encourage females to come and do that sort of thing in a female-only environment, because the feedback that we had was that females were more inclined and more willing to participate if the environment was female only. We have done that from a coaching perspective and from a refereeing perspective, too, but I will take back your feedback about the website and we will review that internally. In general, female participation across every area of football is absolutely a key driver for us, because we see the opportunities there.
I certainly appreciate that you are doing that with regard to playing, but officiating seems to be for men only. Even when you click on to the Referees Association, which there is a link to on your website, you see that it is all men. I actively encourage you to go and have a look at your website, if, indeed, the SFA is trying to recruit more female officials.
Sandesh Gulhane, did you have a further supplementary on this?
Yes. I want to ask specifically about what the SFA is doing to increase diversity in refereeing. We have heard from the convener about female referees, but we need to see wider society being represented, too. What specifically is the SFA doing to actively recruit people from diverse ethnic backgrounds?
I can get back to you on the specifics, because there are programmes in place. Obviously, when we talk about inclusivity, diversity will be a key part of that. We want the Scottish FA and Scottish football to be representative of the communities and the society in which we live, so it is a key area and opportunity for us. We want to get as much engagement as possible, but I can write back to you with details of our plans from a diversity perspective.
Is there is equivalent diversity in the SFA, too?
In terms of the organisation?
Yes.
We are on a journey, from a diversity perspective. There is no doubt about that. It is something that we are working hard on. We have a number of human resources plans in place. We have recently signed up to the Merky programme; I do not know whether you are aware of that, but it happens through Adidas and looks at employing individuals from diverse backgrounds. We will continue to strive in that area.
Could you write to us about that, too?
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr Maxwell.
Our next meeting will be after the new year, on 16 January, when we will take evidence on the Scottish budget for 2024-25 from the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, and I take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy and restful festive period.
That concludes the public part of our meeting today.
11:38 Meeting continued in private until 12:16.