Flying by 777

It's good governance and fit-and-proper person time again. In the saga that just won't go away, Richard Scudamore, Chief Executive of the Premier League, has defended the League's governance record by alerting people to an increase in the number of their rules from 322 in 1999, to 777 in 2009. Despite this proliferation of rules, the British government's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, remains concerned about: "football's relationship with money". Expect therefore to see further developments and revisions around the Football Association's 'Fit and Proper Person Test', and other such initiatives. The PL must surely be doing enough to address concerns about governance and ownership, isn't it? After all, a more than doubling in the number of regulatory measures has to signal intent and progress on the PL's part, doesn't it? And why is this such a major issue for the current government when progress seems to have been made by the PL? There's also the issue raised in a much earlier posting on this blog: what is it about football that makes people respond so strongly in their comments about governance? For instance, cricket's Alan Stanford scandal still looms large on the sporting horizon, yet few people are making as big a deal about it as they are some far less serious matters in English football. Or is this being naive and simplistic? Are there significant and very different problems in football than there are in cricket? Why is it that we need to get to grips with governance issues in football more than we do in cricket? Is there an historically accumulated legacy of bad practice in football that needs to be overcome? Alternatively, let's consider the issues in a different way: exactly what are the similarities and differences between Allan Stanford and former Manchester City owner, Thaksin Shinawatra?