I am genuinely starting to believe there may be some sort of curse hanging over English national football teams when it comes to major tournaments.

We are all extremely used to the men failing on the biggest stages – it’s one of those things in life you take for granted, like income tax and death.

But this summer the disease appears to be spreading rapidly to everyone who dons the Three Lions in the name of football.

There have been four tournaments so far this summer and England have failed at all of them.

First the England under-17 team crashed out of their World Cup in Mexico, losing to the Argentines on penalties in the round of 16. Unfortunate, but at least it should soften the blow when the same thing happens to the same lads when they are playing for the full team.

Then the under-21s, under the guidance of Stuart Pearce, crashed out of European Championships in Denmark, this particular set of lads not even making it out of their group. So obviously, in true FA style, Pearce was rewarded for his failure with a new two-year contract.

Next up was the women, who lost to France on penalties in the quarter-finals of the Women’s World Cup. Although in itself that is par for the course for an England team, they did at least put a twist on this penalty defeat when none of the players on the pitch actually wanted to take one.

The latest and possibly most disturbing example of this curse however, comes in the fact thatit has apparently spread to machinery too.

This year, Britain (okay, it’s not England, but it’s close enough) took part in the Robot World Cup for the first time.

However, despite building a strong team and going to the tournament in Istanbul with high hopes, the four-strong squad of robotic Rooneys were eliminated in the group stage. The head coach blamed their defeat on the fact that there is no domestic competition in England, meaning they didn’t have chance to practise properly before they got there.

Then again, if they do start a domestic competition, you can pretty much guarantee that the next time the UK robots get knocked out of their world cup, the excuse will be that they were tired after playing too many games.

Supporting England – it’s all so beautifully predictable…

Spon-sore losers?

It’s not often I find myself sticking up for Manchester City. And to be quite honest, doing so makes me feel a tiny bit queasy. But I think the fuss being made about their new sponsorship deal with Etihad is inaccurate and unfair.

Several clubs are questioning City’s deal with the airline, which includes among other things, 10 years of shirt and ground sponsorship, claiming it has been deliberately over-inflated to give the club a way around Uefa’s financial fair play rules.

Those regulations are aimed at forcing clubs to live within their means by only allowing them to spend money they have generated themselves instead of cash pumped in by super-wealthy owners.

I was one of the first to suggest that one of the easiest ways to cheat the system would be for clubs to negotiate inflated sponsorship deals with organisations ‘close’ to their owners. This would be a relatively simple method for a club to generate extra ‘legitimate’ revenue and thus spend heavily without breaking the rules.

However, I simply don’t believe Manchester City would be as naive as to do this right now with Uefa, the media, and all Europe’s biggest clubs focusing so much attention on this very subject.

The figure being splashed around is £400 million for 10 years. But that includes ground naming, shirt sponsorship and a variety of other aspects of branding as well as some building projects. And Manchester City have denied that figure anyway, claiming it is less.

But even if it was an accurate figure would it be particularly expensive in modern day football? I mean we are talking about the airline’s name being splashed across just about everything Manchester City do and say.

Admittedly, for the City of a decade ago that would have been a ludicrous amount of money. But for the modern version, with Champions League football coming up and serious aspirations of winning the Premier League, is it that outlandish?

I have made no secret of my dislike for the new, improved, lemon-scented Manchester City ‘project’. But I think they are being attacked purely for who they are and who owns them.

Had Liverpool, Arsenal or Aston Villa, for example, announced a 10-year sponsorship deal worth that sort of money, I am pretty sure other chairmen would have been nodding in admiration while summoning their own marketing people for a quick clip round the ear.

But because we are talking about City, conspiracy theorists at clubs across the continent have gone into overdrive, including the likes of Arsene Wenger, who always enjoys sticking his oar in.

The deal is now being looked at by Uefa who has the unenviable job of deciding if it is a realistic package or if it has been bumped up to swell the City bank accounts.

Quite how they can decide that with any sort of legitimacy is beyond me though. Because surely it is up to Etihad to decide what they think the exposure is worth to them.

Of course, if Uefa happens to uncover anything untoward then I would be the first person calling for some serious action against Manchester City.

They have already distorted the playing field with their oceans of cash, and to then try to get money in through the back door would be unforgivable.

But I sincerely believe this just happens to be a big club managing to get a good deal from a rich sponsor.

Maybe I am being over generous towards them, but time will tell, I suppose.

Talking a load of Red Bull

When Ferrari ordered Felipe Massa to move over and allow Fernando Alonso through at last season’s German Grand Prix, the whole sport was up in arms at the idea of ‘team orders’ distorting a race.

At the time, opposing drivers and teams clamoured for Ferrari to be punished for such a despicable act. Which they subsequently were.

Chief among the critics was Red Bull boss Christian Horner, who said that sort of thing was “wrong for the sport” and would never have been done by his team.

“We let our drivers race,” was his emphatic declaration.

Roll on 12 months and the last few laps of the British Grand Prix, with Red Bull’s championship-leading driver Sebastian Vettel in second place struggling to hold off Red Bull’s other driver MarkWebber in third.

And then come the orders from the team for Webber to back off and hold his position.

“Maintain the gap”, were the actual words used.

Now I appreciate that Formula 1 rules have changed since then and team orders are no longer illegal. But what happened to morality, Mr Horner? Have ethics changed in the past 12 months too? Or are they merely flexible according to who is involved in the incident in question?

As it happened, Webber decided to ignore the orders anyway and continued to race his teammate – although he didn’t manage to overtake him in the remaining laps. Which was a ballsy move by Webber considering who pays his wages.

While, like the Horner of a year ago, I don’t particularly feel team orders are good for the sport, Ican sometime understand why they might be necessary. (Although not in this case considering Vettel’s huge championship lead).

What I am less understanding about is blatant hypocrisy. IfFerrari were so abhorrent for doing it last year, why should Red Bull be seen as any less repulsive for doing it this year?

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade