Formula for a fine mess

Formula One is the Amy Winehouse of the sporting world - never happy unless it is in a complete mess.

We have had rows over the points system, diffusers and numerous other bones of contention in the past few weeks, all of which have kept the sport in the spotlight for the wrong reasons.

But all those pale into insignificance in comparison to the current dispute, which is threatening not just to change the sport but to destroy it.

Formula One's governing body, the International Automobile Federation (FIA), wants to introduce a voluntary budget cap on teams from next season, allowing them to spend no more than £40 million a year. Teams that accept to work within those limits will, by way of reward, be allowed greater technical freedom.

But the big boys, led by Ferrari, are up in arms over the move which will, they claim, lead to a two-tier sport.

So incensed are they by the plans that they have promised to withdraw from the sport entirely if the scheme is not scrapped. And their stance is supported by Renault, Red Bull and Toyota.

The FIA's motives in introducing the budget cap are actually admirable. In an era of international belt-tightening they want to reduce the cost of running an F1 team, a move that would help attract new competitors to the sport.

The two sides in the dispute have been meeting over the past couple of days to try and resolve the issue.

But what I really don't understand is why the FIA insists on running F1 like some crackpot third world dictator.

If they had bothered to consult the teams before announcing the budget cap they would have avoided all this public dirty laundry washing which is surely not doing anyone's reputation much good.

By the time you read this the dispute could be over. The two sides may have ironed out their differences and everything could be all rosy down on the grid.

But you get the feeling it is only a matter of time before another issue raises its head and the sport's very existence is once again threatened.

I suppose that's what you get from having control freaks like Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosely in charge.

Harry shows his bottle

Harry Redknapp's decision to impose an alcohol ban at Spurs next season is understandable, especially in light of Ledley King's recent nightclub misdemeanor.

However, just because I understand his reasoning doesn't mean I agree with it.

Obviously, going out and drinking yourself silly is no way for a professional footballer to behave - especially during the season.

But a complete ban? I have a feeling that may come back to haunt Redknapp.

And the reason behind my thinking? Stress.

The average modern footballer is pampered, overpaid, pretentious and irritating. Of that there can be little doubt. But their job also comes with substantial amounts of pressure and a huge weight of expectation.

If the common man makes a mistake at work they try to rectify it, cover it up, or, in the case of the more devious, concoct elaborate plans to divert the blame on to someone else.

A footballer, however, has no such luxury. Every mistake they make is done in full view of the public. And not just ordinary public either, but that ficklest of humans - the football fan.

Every pass, tackle, save and shot is carried out in front of the very people who care the most about its quality. People for whom winning or losing is sometimes even more important than life or death.

If that was not enough to make you nervous about doing your job, there is the fact that your work is frequently carried out live on television. I don't know about you but I get irritated if a colleague looks over my shoulder while I am writing. Imagine what it must be like having 10 million people watching you 'perform'.

The final element in the stress of being a footballer is the media. Wherever you go, whatever you do, there is always a photographer waiting to jump out from behind a bush and catch you with your trousers down - quite literally in Nicklas Bendtner's case.

Now I am not one to stick up for footballers. For the most part I find them obnoxious and egocentric. But all the above adds up to what can only be described as working under seriously pressurised conditions.

And that leads me to believe that they need the occasional drink to help them let their hair down - especially important for the likes of Everton's Fellani who must get exhausted under the weight of that improbable mop of hair he carries around.

I'm not suggesting they should be allowed to drink until they fall over like Ashley Cole, King and Bendtner have done in recent weeks. Nor should it be something they do every day.

But surely, going out with their family and enjoying a few glasses of medicinal wine every now and then can only be a good thing for their overall mental state.

In the wake of Redknapp announcing his prohibition plans, one-time drinking professional Paul Gascoigne slammed the idea as being unfair and unrealistic. Then again, he may have been a little tipsy when he said that.

But his point remains valid. How are players going to let off steam if they can't down the occasional pint with their mates?

There is something else that needs taking into consideration too. By banning drinking in its entirety there is a very real chance the Spurs boss will only push the practice underground.

If you ban your child from ever touching sweets you can pretty much rest assured they will grasp at the first opportunity to consume them behind your back.

And, after all, what is the modern footballer other than a big kid who happens to be good at sport?

I appreciate that footballers have short careers which are normally over and done with by their early 30s. And I agree that during that time they have a duty to themselves and the people who pay their wages to remain in prime physical condition.

But a total ban on alcohol is not the way to do it. And I believe Redknapp, a man who looks like he enjoys the odd glass of sherry himself, will find out next season that the cons of his ban will end up outweighing the pros.

Reading between the lines

As resignations go, Steve Coppell's was inevitable.

Throughout his time at Reading, and indeed during his days with previous clubs like Crystal Palace and Manchester City, Coppell has always come across as a man who is not entirely comfortable with the role of manager.

Despite being good at the job, as his record at the Madejski shows, he always gave the impression he could walk out at any moment.

Quiet and unassuming, he frequently deflected questions about his future by saying he would wait and see what happened at the end of the season. And that was during successful times.

When the club went down from the Premiership on the final day of last season everybody thought he would depart then. He surprised everyone by sticking around to try and get his side back into the top flight.

And when he failed in that quest, losing this week's play-off semi-final to Burnley, his departure was secured.

As a player with Manchester United, Coppell was superb, and he would probably have gone on to become a true legend if his career hadn't been cruelly cut short by injury. As a manager he has proved to be equally silky in his approach to the game, making sure his teams play passing and attractive football.

Unfortunately, he had passed his sell-by date as far as Reading were concerned, admitting he had run out of fresh ideas.

His former club now find themselves in an awkward position. They only have one more year of parachute payments left and desperately need to get back into the big time at the next attempt.

If that fails, they could find themselves going the way of Norwich, Southampton and Charlton, three teams that were in the Premiership recently but will be playing League One football next season.

Reading not only need a good manager, they need one who can get results quickly. And those are pretty thin on the ground.

Your say

John de Gray writes:

"I have been an Arsenal supporter for the past 64 years, so of course I was disappointed with the outcome of Tuesday's match.

"I have seen replays of the Fletcher incident a number of times and I feel the referee was correct in sending him off because he pulled Fabregas back by his shoulders. As the incident took place in the penalty area the referee was justified in awarding a penalty to Arsenal and also in sending Fletcher off, as he was the last defender at the time.

"Ferguson is so used to referees going out of their way to help Manchester United he could only protest at the referee's decision.

"Regarding the Chelsea vs Barcelona match, in all my years I have never seen such atrocious refereeing. If Uefa were an honest organisation they would suspend the referee for life and order a replay. That would be, in my opinion the only fair decision."

Ronald Serge, Canada, writes:

"...Mr Calvert and other correspondents never mentioned that Barcelona played for almost half an hour with 10 men after one of their defenders was unjustly sent off. That is why perhaps they had only one shot (the winning one).

"Another reason was that although they had a one-man advantage, Chelsea defended en masse to preserve their lead.

"Although I am not denying any penalty claim, over the two matches played, Barca were the better side and deserve to play in the final against Manchester United."

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com