The NFL Draft or FIFA transfer regulations... Which is the better model?

As I am off to the US next week to visit Boston and New York I thought I would blog about a topic relating to America.  I am going to discuss the pros and cons of the NFL draft versus the FIFA transfer regulations employed in association football (I will refer to the latter as soccer) as I am a huge fan of both sports and follow each rigorously.

Firstly the NFL draft.  All football players that have been out of high school for at least 3 years are eligible for the draft, virtually all are selected from college.  The draft last 7 rounds with the previous years performance of the 32 teams determining the order.  The team with the worst record picks first and the team that won the Super Bowl picks last.  The subsequent rounds follow a similar pattern.  The order of all rounds can be altered by trades however, negotiated either before or during the draft.  Teams trade for picks either higher or lower than their own, depending on a given strategy.  Teams can also trade for draft picks in future years.  During the season their are no transfers for money as such but instead teams may trade players for players or players for draft picks.  No money exchanges hands between teams.

FIFA transfer regulations used in soccer are massively different.  Players generally enter professional soccer at more varied ages than their US counterparts and tend to come from all over the world rather than one country.  And of course the major difference is that their are several accomplished leagues all over the world, in every continent on the planet, whereas the NFL is the only American football league that receives recognition.  Players can be transferred between any team for any amount of money, the current record stands at £80 million for Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo.  Players are generally transferred during specific 'windows' in the year, usually the off season and the turn of the year.

The NFL draft helps to maintain an 'equal' standard among teams in the league by awarding the lesser teams the chance to draft better players the following year.  It also stops teams with richer owners and more disposable money from being able to attract better quality players by adopting a salary cap, a capped amount of money that teams are allotted each year to sign rookies.  On the other hand, owners of soccer teams can offer vast amounts of money to other teams to sell players and attract those players with healthy contracts - that's not to say that American football players don't earn an astonishing amount of money.  Even the least talented players still earn vast amounts in contrast to soccer where players from the lowest leagues often hold down second jobs to support themselves financially.

I prefer the American model for several reasons.  It gives losing teams a chance to catch up after a bad year, it always brings in a number of young players each year - the majority of whom will have a college education, and unlike soccer, billionaires, like Sheikh Mansour cannot come in and go after the worlds best players with cash incentives.  Unfortunately, soccer will never be able mirror the draft model as the game is played across the world and individuals are signed by clubs at incredibly young ages.  However, I think it would provide great excitement if we could get to see which University graduate Alex Ferguson would draft, or who QPR would chose with the number one pick in the Premiership draft 2011.  I guess we will never know...

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Stereotyping... Can we help it? Or is it even wrong?

Wrong or right?  Does everyone do it?  Can we help it?

Stereotyping is defined as “...a fixed, over generalised belief about a particular group or class of people.”  My argument is that stereotyping is something which, although looked upon negatively by society, is a process that we all use in pretty much every social situation.  In order to be able to get on in life we must have some sort of system in place through which we can form a preliminary opinion of an individual before we actually engage with them.  Yet it is something that we are made to feel bad about.

We stereotype all the time.  From watching the opposition football team warming up on a Sunday afternoon, seeing a black guy with pink boots and thinking 'ooh he's going to be quick lads!' to seeing a white boy in Reebok classics, a Hackett polo and Burberry cap and thinking 'he definitely lives on a council estate'.  The 'appropriateness' of stereotyping first entered my mind when I was in a corner shop/convenience store and asked the Asian guy at the counter whether he knew the India cricket score.  Now was I wrong to ask him that, assuming that he'd know the answer because of his racial appearance?  I don't think I was.

Many reality television shows are currently creating/reinforcing certain geographical stereotypes.  By watching 'The Only Way Is Essex' you'd think that everyone from Essex had fake boobs, an overdose of fake tan, and the IQ of a 4 year old.  Likewise, 'Made in Chelsea' depicts all its residents as ditzy, rich twats who would bore your socks off if you were ever unfortunate enough to get into a 'conversation' with one of them.  I'm sure 'Geordie Shore' will likely continue the trend - no doubt all the characters will be loud mouths who get paralytic every night, get into fights, and sleep around - I'd put money on that and the show hasn't even aired yet!  However, any person with half a brain cell will realise that not everyone from these places speak, look, or behave in the same way as the characters but yes certain countries, cities and towns do produce particular traits - that can't be argued.

Maybe stereotypes only become a problem when they have serious negative connotations.  I don't mean assumptions like black people can't swim or white people can't run fast.  But there are other stereotypes, not without truth, that cause a real stir if suggested.  A black male youth is more likely to commit a crime than a young white youth.  FACT.  A terrorist is more likely to have roots in a Middle Eastern/Asian country.  FACT.    Men know the offside rule better than women.  FACT.  I haven't completed any studies on the above but I would challenge anyone to go out and prove them wrong.

Just briefly to look at the other side of stereotyping - there are also many stereotypes that are quite flattering to the targeted group.  Some examples - People from the north of England are very friendly, Italians are good cooks, Asian/Oriental people are good at maths.  So what is the problem with them as a whole if in general they are true?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that although stereotyping is deemed to be a practice we should steer away from, 'most' of the time there is actually some truth to them - the majority of traffic wardens are most likely of African descent, a large amount of manual labourers in the UK are Polish, nurses are more likely to be female - who can argue against these?  Sometimes a stereotype would more accurately be called a fact.  Of course there are stereotypes that aren't true - women are bad drivers or all gay men are camp are just two examples.  I think that the problem arises when people start actually acting on certain stereotypes - like crossing the road to avoid walking past a group of hooded youths or getting of the bus/train if there is a bearded Asian man with a back pack on - I admit to having done both of these in my lifetime so far and I am not proud of it.  Yes stereotypes often have statistical backing to them but that does not mean that a whole race or age group should be tarred with the same brush and subsequently discriminated against.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

The Anti-Gay bill in Uganda pushed off the agenda... A victory for humanity...

The Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda was thankfully pushed off the agenda today.

The bill, authored by MP David Bahati in October 2009 mandates the death penalty for 'serial offenders', those with HIV, and those who engage in sexual relations with minors.  This bill would actually only be a strengthening of the already horrific laws against homosexuality in Uganda - currently it is punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years.  I believe homosexuality is actually illegal in around 80 nations across the globe which is just unbelievable and impossible to digest.  The new bill would apply to Ugandans living outside of the country too, and also, anyone who is aware of an 'offender' and doesn't report it within 24 hours would be subject to up to 3 years in prison.

Some of the quotes I have read from Bahati are just astonishing.  When asked to withdraw the bill in 2010 he replied, "I will not withdraw it.  We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality).  The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on".  This type of reasoning is just sickening - to think that homosexuals are some sort of cult waiting out the school gates to tap up youths is just absurd.

The public policy in several African nations has also been severely influenced by certain American evangelicals who have added fuel to the fire by citing ridiculous statistics such as, "homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual" - these being published is horrendous enough, but the fact that people actually buy in to this bullshit is truly frightening and really makes you step back and understand the impact propaganda can have.

One of the the main campaigners, David Kato, who led the condemnation of the bill was unfortunately murdered in January of this year after being 'outed' in a newspaper for being gay.  "Police claim it had nothing to do with his sexuality" - do they really think we are that naive and stupid?  Three months before this a Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone, published an article claiming to 'out' 100 gay men, accompanied by the headline 'Hang Them' - honestly the more I read about this the sicker I feel.

Unfortunately the bill has not actually been thrown out yet, but it being pushed off the agenda, at least for the time being is a massive moral victory for all people around the world who value human rights, and in particular groups like Avaaz who compiled a petition, signed by 1.6 million people over the world, to help fight the bill - click here to sign the petition.

Having been lucky enough to have lived in London my whole life, I have certainly been sheltered from a number of global human rights issues.  Growing up in one of the most tolerant cities in the world has given me vast exposure to homosexuals and to me being gay is not unusual - this is something that Londoners can be extremely proud of.  But on a global scale, outside of the bubble that I live in, it is so devastating when you realise just how many people share these nauseating views.  The world would certainly be a better place if all these people were simply wiped off the face of the earth.  As far as I am concerned they have nothing constructive at all to offer humanity.  The only positive to be taken is that there are a far greater number of good people out there who, albeit aren't perfect, do not share the same heinous beliefs.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Why are we so scared of strangers...?

What is it about strangers that makes us shiver with fear?

Last night I attended a market research focus group.  The 8 of us were sat in a waiting room for at least 15 minutes before we were required to go in.  During that time not a single word was said from anyone - not one.  I sat there in disbelief - considering we were about to discuss our worldly views on shower gel together for the next 2 hours you'd think one of us could muster a few words - "Hi I'm Chris, how you doing?" - I don't mean small talk by the way (that is a pet hate of mine which I will blog about some time in the future) - just general chit chat.

This is just one example however - the situation that has caused me to expend the most energy locked in though is a situation that we have all found ourselves in...  You walk onto a train or a bus with quite a few people on and most of the seats are occupied - but then you spot a free set of 2 seats in isolation - you go for it!  It doesn't matter if the seats are right at the end of the carriage or isle, we will walk all the way down just to have seats to ourselves instead of sitting next to someone right in front of us.  Why? What are we so afraid of?  People even get up and move from sitting next to someone when a seat on it's own becomes available!  Why does it make people so uncomfortable to sit next to a stranger.  We do the same things when we sit on benches (among other things), sitting as far away from any other people sitting on the same bench.

Surely the sole reason cannot be because you want more space to stretch your legs?  I can understand why people would not always be in the mood to strike up a conversation with a randomer too - you might be stressed and tired for example.  But since when did we become a race of people that would go out of our way to avoid having to sit next to another human being?  Wouldn't the world be a better place if it was considered normal to strike up a conversation with a stranger?  I have actually had some extremely interesting and rewarding conversations on trains and the like - I once spoke with 4 men from Newcastle on their way to a Rugby League cup final in London for the duration of a 4 hour train journey - we shared stories, have a laugh, and it certainly made the time pass quicker.

It is as though we all have some degree of social anxiety disorder - some innate fear of certain social situations - that we are unable to feel at ease unless we are surrounded by people are familiar with.

I am not claiming that I start up a conversation every time I catch the bus, or that I am the guy who sits next to the only other person on an otherwise empty train - I often behave in the exact way that I have criticised.  My issue is WHY.  Why we do all do these things.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Electoral Reform... First Past The Post OR The Alternative Vote...?

First Past The Post (FPTP) or the Alternative Vote (AV) system?

That is the question that was answered by voters last night and the outcome of which will dictate the way future governments are elected.

Both systems elect one MP for each constituency, the difference is that in AV instead of marking an X on the ballot paper for the candidate you wish to represent you as you do in the current FPTP system you would rank the candidates 1, 2, 3, etc.  When it comes to the count, if no one candidate has more than 50% of the vote the 2nd choices are then tallied and added to the vote.  This continues until one candidate has a majority vote.  That is essentially the difference between the two systems.

Now which do I think is better?

The FPTP system has its advantages.  It is easy and cheap to administer, it is a system that the public are familiar with and it honours the one vote per person policy.  Advantages for the AV system on the other hand; all MPs would have the majority of their voters (in the 2010 elections 2/3s of MPs lacked majority support), it penalises extremist parties who would be unlikely to gain many second preferences, people can vote for whoever they choose with their first vote without fear of it being wasted, and it would also encourage parties to chase 2nd and 3rd votes and hopefully decrease the need for negative campaigning.

I think the ideal voting system would incorporate proportional representation (PR) in some way - the party that were voted in would in fact have the most votes overall rather than the most 'seats'.  This I believe is the fairest way of electing a government but the problem would be in deciding where MPs would be placed - a party may receive a certain percentage of the vote but that percentage may not be represented in seats gained which is of course crucial to getting legislation passed amongst other things.

Those in favour of FPTP argue that with AV we may end up with a candidate who did not receive the majority of the (1st) vote.  This is true, however the whole point of AV is that no one candidate will be voted in UNTIL they receive a majority, whether that includes 2nd, 3rd, or 4th votes too is determined by how we vote - in life we can't always have our first choice and have to be prepared to give alternative options.  The AV system was used in elections at my University, Loughborough, as it is in many other student unions, and in fact the Labour and Lib Dem party leader elections - and has to my knowledge always worked well.

Other arguments against AV include the high price that it will cost us to change the system - this is a fair argument but considering the amounts of money we spend on other significantly less important issues I think it is something we would just have to accept and deal with.  Some might also suggest that people might vote tactically with their 'lesser' votes (i.e. 2nd, 3rd, etc.), not voting for rival parties regardless - a Labour supporter voting for the conservatives only with their last vote to intentionally sabotage their chances for example.  On this issue I believe that the majority of voters would see sense and actually vote for the parties they believed would run the country most effectively - surely even the most ardent Labour supporter would accept that the Tories are better suited to govern that say the Green party.

I don't proclaim to be a political expert and I admit that my knowledge is not in any way extensive - however from what I have heard, read, and experienced I believe that AV is the fairest system currently available and hopefully other voters will have agreed when the results are revealed later today.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Bin Laden Dead... What happens now?

So... The most wanted man on the planet is dead.

The man was responsible for thousands upon thousands of innocent lives, men, women, and children.  He was the figure head of an sick extremism than swept through part of the islamic world.  Of course the news of his death has been met with much relief right across the world.  Much praise must be given to President Obama - who during a 2008 political debate promised "We will kill Bin Laden" - and of course the US special forces who managed to find and kill possibly the most elusive individual ever known.  In a way I'm glad that he was killed and not captured as being captured, prosecuted and either imprisoned or executed would increase a feeling of martyrdom amongst his followers.

We are however being asked to remain ever vigilant against the threat of terror. The Foreign Office has urged Britons overseas to "exercise caution in all public places and avoid demonstrations, large crowds of people and public events". This advise seems appropriate as Al-Qaeda will inevitably be plotting revenge and the results of which have the potential to be catastrophic.  It was only last week that classified files released from the WikiLeaks website revealed that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, warned that Al-Qaeda has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if Osama Bin Laden was captured or killed.  For the sake of world peace I sincerely hope that this was a smoke screen aimed at holding off the US special forces closing in on Bin Laden.  I cannot even fathom the results if it's true...

Regardless, whenever the head of a large organisation is 'no longer' there is always a replacement ready to step in and I doubt this will be any different.  That is not to say that Bin Laden's death will not have a profound affect on the hierarchy and psyche of the Al-Qaeda.  Looking at the bigger picture however, I really doubt that the events of today will loose Al-Qaeda many followers or weaken them much as a force.  It seems to me that today may turn out to be more of a symbolic victory than anything else.  Of course there is much that goes on behind the scenes that we know little about - the actual intelligence that led to his death for example.  I guess only time will tell how important today turns out to be...

One thing is for sure however, the worlds most feared man is dead and that fact alone should bring joy to the world.  Well done to all involved.  We are all eternally grateful...


Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Super-injunctions, Celebrities & Privacy... Who's in the right?

If you see someone you know, cheating on their partner would you go and tell the partner...?  You would have a moral dilemma and more times than not you probably wouldn’t – but whether you would or wouldn’t doesn’t actually matter.  Compare this to a celebrity who gets caught doing something they shouldn’t.  Is it our right to plaster this across the tabloids about people we don’t know?  Whereas with people we do know we may turn a blind eye?

This post is on the subject of super-injunctions - court orders preventing a given matter being discussed and on top of that, preventing the fact that the order even exists from being reported – essentially making it vanish into thin air.  This has been in the news recently because the Lib Dem MP John Hemming has threatened, using a certain parliamentary privilege, to oust certain individuals - which he has now done so (23rd May).  This has led to a wider debate about issues of privacy...

Personally, I don’t see how it is anyone’s business what these people do in their private lives.  Does the fact that a Premiership football player, now confirmed as Ryan Giggs has been having an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas impact our lives in anyway?  Not my life no.  Some may argue that due to their public status they gain certain advantages in life and should therefore be prepared to bear the brunt of the media if and when their misdemeanours are uncovered.  I would disagree with this argument...

However, on BBC News (April 26^th), Niri Shan, head of law firm Taylor Wessing made a great point.  If celebrities’ go out and share their private lives in magazines and on television then they are voluntarily inviting public opinion - they surely cannot expect their lives to all of a sudden be private when they decide.  But then part of me feels that in this age of technology, half the population are making their private lives public on a daily basis through the likes of twitter and facebook... So is there even a difference...?

There is also the issue that these super injunctions cost 50K – Yes 50 THOUSAND POUNDS!  Slapping on such a high price tag automatically makes them exclusively available to the wealthy.  The geeza down your local who gets caught by his wife’s best mate can’t exactly nip down to court and buy one!  Imogen Thomas couldn't afford to either so as a result became the sole target of a media onslaught for her part in the affair – yet the ‘other party’ has effectively got away scot free minus a week’s wages – surely that’s not right or fair?

It is not a secret that many people, male and female, have affairs - there is no argument there.  It is also true that certain people are aware of and tolerate their partner's affairs for reasons personal to them.  If a newspaper then becomes aware of the indiscretions and decides to stick them on the front page families can be torn apart unnecessarily in the name of 'news' when the non-offending partner was already fully aware and 'content' with the situation.

What do you think...?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...