Alex Ferguson's dirty diversion drags Wiley's reputation into the gutter
The Manchester United manager is prepared to put Alan Wiley's professional reputation at risk just to stop people pointing out his keeper is hopeless
Not being a close personal friend of Sir Alex Ferguson, it is always an interesting experience to talk to those people who are; to hear their long and impassioned explanations of why the world has got him wrong.
Oh, the humanity of the man. The emotional intelligence. The countless acts of personal kindness. He hates the Tories! Surely, there is something to like about a rich and powerful man who has no time for the party of wealth and privilege? Surely there is something to admire in the fact that the most revered figure in the English game has never lost touch with his roots, making frequent, unpublicised journeys north to visit the Glasgow youth football club that nurtured him as a boy?
Well there certainly is, but if Ferguson's friends have no problem in separating the private person from the public figure, those who live outside the enchanted circle are not so lucky. They can only judge him by what he decides to reveal of himself and his thoughts, which brings us to the furore over his comments about Alan Wiley – the referee who had the audacity not to add sufficient injury time to Saturday's match at Old Trafford to accommodate United's desire to nick a 3-2 victory from the jaws of a 2-2 disappointment.
"I was disappointed with the referee," Ferguson said. "He [Wiley] was not fit enough for a game of that standard. The pace of the game demanded a referee who was fit. You see referees abroad who are as fit as butchers' dogs. We have some who are fit. He wasn't fit. He was taking 30 seconds to book a player. He was needing a rest. It was ridiculous."
As numerous commentators have pointed out over the past few days, this was classic Ferguson stuff – more of an act than anything else. His team had just been outfought and outplayed by a surprisingly strong Sunderland and rather than have that be the focus of the post-match discussions he chose instead to cause a rumpus about the referee. I believe the technical term is "diversionary tactic".
Having identified the United manager's motivation, many of the same commentators then decided to move on without considering the consequences of his actions, which are not insignificant. Thank heavens then for Johnny Giles, who, in an excellent column in Dublin's Evening Herald newspaper, pointed out that Ferguson's attack on Wiley was an attack on football itself. "Every time Ferguson lacerates a match official, he puts in a marker for the future and it seems to pay off. The minutes stretch to infinity at Old Trafford," Giles wrote.
He's right, of course. Every time Ferguson opens his mouth in such a fashion, hoping to gain an unfair advantage, he is damaging the game. That is bad enough, but of more serious interest – or at least it should be to Ferguson's friends – is the impact his words will have had on Wiley, who until now has lived a fairy innocuous professional life (at least by modern standards of refereeing controversies).
Now Wiley find himself to be the centre of attention. He's a referee, so presumably he should be able to withstand the scrutiny. But others in the same position have not, most infamously Anders Frisk, who retired from the game after being unfairly maligned – to put it mildly – by José Mourinho.
For Frisk, the tipping point was the death threats from fans and the sense that he would never again officiate a match without his integrity being questioned. Mercifully, Wiley hasn't been threatened by anyone, although his professional reputation has been questioned, and will be from now on. For this he has the first knight of football to thank: Sir Alex Ferguson, the man who thinks nothing of trying to ruin another man's career in the noble cause of not having people point out that his goalkeeper is hopeless.
So much for being humane and kind. So much for Fergie's friends, who cannot tell the difference between loyalty and sycophancy.
