With Liverpool and Manchester United players dominating England's starting XI, is it right the home team play every single home game in the capital, asks Iain Anderson?
I was watching the England Montenegro game the other night when a recurring thought struck me.
Why on earth was the game being played at Wembley?
Of the starting eleven, four were London based, the rest were based in either Liverpool or Manchester.
Is it only people who live in the capital who have any right to watch the national team live?
The same question is raised whenever two Northern teams contest the FA Cup semi-finals and their fans are dragged down to London for no obvious reason other than greedy Southerners making money.
Contrast this with Spain. The best national team in the world played a World Cup qualifier on the small island of Mallorca, giving their Mallorcan supporters the opportunity to see them play. Surely, from a financial viewpoint, this game would have been better played in Madrid. Maybe it's not all about money and the capital shoving it up the provinces. Maybe this is just an English thing.
London is very lucky that football supporters will follow their team come what may. People from the North generally don't like London with it's penchant for charging the earth for everything from a match ticket to an ice cream, but they will make their way there anyway.
When Wembley ceased to exist for an all too short period, the national team played games around the country. This was very successful, filling grounds in Manchester and Newcastle and resulted in England qualifying for a major tournament.
As per usual, as soon as Wembley reappeared, everything else was forgotten in the rush to return to fleecing the great English football fan in as many ways possible, and repaying the Wembley outlay.
The sooner football is returned to the country in general, the better.
image: © philosophy football