THE future direction of Scotland's top league should be decided by the end of January. The ten clubs will meet this week to discuss the recent presentations delivered by the SPFL and Scottish Women's Football.
The latter held two meetings on Friday. The first, with the chief executives of Hearts and Hibernian among the attendees, was with the SWPL 1 clubs – and it was followed by another with the seven SWPL 2 clubs.
SWF chief executive Aileen Campbell said: “I outlined our proposals for new staff structures, increased staff capacity and a dedicated SWPL board to give clubs and players substantial voice and a real sway.
“SWF wants to take an inclusive approach to the SWPL, drawing on its own experiences and blending it with the knowledge of our clubs, the perspective of our players, the expertise of our partners, and guided by an independent and effective board chair.
“I have never seen my role, or that of SWF, as being solely about league administration or 90 minutes on the pitch. Women's football and the SWPL are much more important than that.
“Our aim is to develop, build upon, and sustain an ever-strengthening narrative to entice interest and resources into our game. I sincerely appreciated the attention of senior representatives from all Scotland's SWPL clubs and the positive way in which they engaged with our discussions.”
The proposals outlined by Campbell are not hugely different from those presented by her SPFL counterpart Neil Doncaster in the week before Christmas. Both are offering a subsidiary model which would include a dedicated board and extra administrative and commercial personnel.
In these circumstances it will come down to which organisation the clubs best trust to deliver the substantial extra income they need to sustain professional football. A cynic might suggest that neither the SPFL nor the SWF has an impressive track record when it comes to securing wholesome and lucrative sponsorship deals.
In an ideal world, and for all their faults, the Scottish FA would take over the running of the SWPL, using their commercial muscle to create an environment as close as financially possible to the one in England. Given the organisation's appalling treatment of women's football throughout the last century it's the least they could do, but – in true Scottish football fashion – the obvious solution is not on the table.
THE other issue arising from the governance talks is a growing disconnect between the SWPL 1 clubs and their second tier counterparts. It continues what has been an unfortunate season for the SWPL 2 clubs.
Their numbers were reduced from eight to seven when Forfar Farmington withdrew from SWPL competitions shortly after the start of the League Cup. Rather than leave SWPL 1 with nine clubs, Partick Thistle were promoted up to the top division.
Doncaster's presentation on behalf of the SPFL last month was to SWPL 1 clubs only, and, although SWF opted for a more inclusive approach on Friday, it appears that the top division clubs alone will decide where their future lies. At the time of writing this week's meeting involves only the top ten.
There had also, I believe, been discussions about expanding SWPL 1 to twelve teams next season should the SPFL model be preferred. While not completely off the table, there may have been a cooling-off towards that suggestion.
SO, if the ten SWPL 1 clubs do decide to map out their own future, are they likely to favour SWF or the SPFL?
From soundings, five are already pretty much in the SPFL camp. They are, in order of current league position, Rangers, Celtic, Motherwell, Hearts and Hamilton Accies.
Two others – Glasgow City and Partick Thistle – are likely to favour the new SWF model. (Contrary to popular opinion, Thistle's stance has nothing to do with their men's team being relegated by the SPFL in 2020; the board will go with what they think is the best option for their women's team.)
The three clubs believed to be open to persuasion are Hibernian, Aberdeen and Spartans. But even they are more likely to come down in favour of the SPFL option.
There is no doubt that SWF are passionate about the game they currently run, and they finally came up with concrete proposals on Friday. But it may be they will pay a heavy price for not having done so earlier, as seven of the ten clubs unsuccessfully asked for the information to be made available in October.
Instead, it was the SPFL who got in front of the clubs first – and that may prove pivotal.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel