In Goal: Free Reduction
Years ago, the idea of the Public Authority for Sports reducing the number of sports offered by comprehensive clubs to just six, including the four main team sports, sparked a wave of protests. At that time, false slogans emerged about the mission of comprehensive clubs, the importance of hosting all sports, and the rejection of reducing the sports movement to a limited number of teams.
The irony is that some of the voices that condemned the project back then are now announcing their withdrawal from one sport here and hinting at their intention to withdraw from another there, as if they have decided to implement the old project themselves, without being forced by the Authority to do so! What is amusing and, at the same time, blatant, is that some are trying to market these withdrawals as a protest stance against a federation’s policies, or as a result of financial distress, or a desire to reorder priorities. However, the reality is less flattering. The withdrawal is not a heroic stance, but a written statement of surrender in administrative language, and an explicit admission that the board of directors of the club in question failed to manage the crisis, opting for the easiest solution: closing or disbanding the team rather than opening doors to solutions.
It is well known that those who run for leadership of a sports club are not applying for a seasonal job, but are stepping up to take responsibility, knowing in advance that it is fraught with obstacles. If the first crisis leads to withdrawal, what remains of the meaning of management? Have boards become elected to face challenges, or to document them in press releases? It is worth noting that the true loser is not the federation, but the player who trains throughout the season only to discover that his team has disappeared by administrative decision; the coach who built his project only to find himself out of competition; and the fans who are accustomed to seeing their club’s logo on the fields, not in apology statements.
Here, sports federations cannot be exempted from responsibility either. A federation that watches its clubs fall one after another, then contenting itself with adjusting the competition schedule or issuing a regulations document, resembles a doctor who merely checks the patient’s pulse after the heart has stopped, unable to declare the patient dead. What is required is genuine dialogue, mutual concessions, and solutions that preserve the clubs’ place in the competition, rather than simply seeing them off at the door.
As for the Public Authority for Sports, it is now called upon to do more than play the role of a spectator. It must open this file with transparency and pose an initial question, followed by others: Are these withdrawals due to genuine reasons that require addressing, or are they merely a facade hiding administrative weakness and poor planning? If a club cannot or does not wish to participate in the four main team sports that form the core of a comprehensive club, then the Authority and the state have the right to ask: What are the budgets spent on? Why does support continue at the same level? Why is public money wasted indiscriminately?
Clubs must not become institutions that excel at withdrawing more than they do at participating, nor should escaping a problem become an administrative achievement celebrated by those involved. Otherwise, perhaps next season we will need to introduce a new championship titled the “Premier Withdrawal League,” where the competition would be for the first club to raise the white flag before the opening whistle!
