Whatever the reasons are for sides wishing to compete in a particular form of regalia, should the wish to not wear shorts be stamped upon? As long as the competitors compete in their official team colours does it matter? Does wearing a head scarf that is tied tightly to the head, leaving no room for it to obstruct an opposing player’s view, really affect the game that much? It’s not as if they are wearing a clown’s outfit with giant boots and a nose that would completely disrupt the running of play.
If anything, the team wishing to wear tracksuit bottoms could be adversely affecting themselves, so it’s up to them – they’ll reap what they sow. But at the same time, FIFA, as unlikely as it sounds after the recent allegations that the British sports media have bestowed upon them, may want to see a fair playing field and have nothing that could, despite protests to the contrary, stop a side playing to their full potential i.e. the non-covering of legs for a game that requires lots of running. Most football purists, I imagine, will not even contemplate the thought of football’s ‘dress-code’ being changed for fear of it being turned into a ‘sissy’ sport. There should be a limit to what items of clothing one can participate football matches in, but shall we break with tradition and allow teams to wear items such as tracksuit bottoms, long lycra bottoms or even head scarf’s? It’s very much open to debate.
Other instances of kit rebellion
This is not the first case that an aspect of team clothing has caused problems for all concerned. India’s national football team qualified for the football World Cup for, as of now, the only time in their history. Although this was only due to the fact that three members of their qualifying group – Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines – dropped out, which left India being declared ‘winners’ of the group. At this time, the Indian national side played barefoot, but as this was against FIFA laws, they were prevented from entering the competition for refusing to wear football boots despite competing ‘bootless’ in the 1948 London Olympics two years earlier.
There have been a couple of instances when the Cameroonian national side and its football body have been held to ransom over their style of kit. In 2002, they unveiled a sleeveless shirt that FIFA were none too pleased about, which led to their sponsors Puma having to add a black sleeve to the vest after being threatened by football’s governing body.
Then in 2004, they, and again, Puma, introduced a one-piece kit whereby the shirts and shorts were stitched together. After being warned beforehand that wearing them in an international game would bring punishment, the Indomitable Lions wore them anyway and incurred a six-point deduction that would come into effect from when their 2006 World Cup qualifying campaign began.
The Cameroon Football Association were also handed an £86,000 fine by FIFA. This was revoked after Puma took Blatter and co to task and both party’s settled out-of-court. Cameroon also had six-points restored after the initial deduction.
There was rigorous debate in the season just gone regarding the ‘snoode’, a form of scarf that was beloved of many players during the winter months. The dispute is likely to be over now as players will be abstained from wearing one in official matches from 1st July 2011.
Give me your thoughts.
Feel free to leave me any comments on here and/or on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or YouTube:
https://www.facebook.com/rickymurraywriter, rickymurraywriter.tumblr.com, www.youtube.com/rickymurraymusic
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
To have a peak at the top SEVEN available FREE TRANSFERS this summer, click here.