³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 14 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000

Official Report 285KB pdf

---

National Football Stadium (Mike Tyson)

The next item is a response to the letter that we sent to the Scottish Football Association following the committee debate about the Mike Tyson fight. Do members have any questions or comments?

I am very disappointed by the tone of the reply. It was rather dismissive of the serious questions asked by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I have a few comments on the letter. In the second paragraph, the SFA tries to make clear that the management of the national stadium is undertaken by a subsidiary company, Hampden Park Ltd. That is the point—it is a subsidiary of the SFA, not a separate company. The SFA has some moral obligation in respect of that subsidiary company.

In the third paragraph, David Taylor refers to the other good causes that the association espouses. I do not think that espousing other good causes prevents one from espousing the cause of violence against women and zero tolerance of such violence.

The final paragraph says:

"The concerns of certain sections of the community . . . were certainly considered prior to any decision".

Given the decision that was made, I would like to ask whose concerns were considered and how much consideration they were given. Overall, the tenor of the letter was not helpful to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I hear what you are saying—I would ask the same questions myself. My response will be unsatisfactory—in that I am not prepared to answer the questions—because I have difficulties with the SFA's response too. If you wish to take those questions further, members of the SFA are the people to ask.

Are there any further questions before we return to how we will handle this?

The letter is not surprising. The second paragraph is simply an explanation of how the system is set up for the management of Hampden Park. The point that the SFA appears to be making is that it was part of the negotiations with the Scottish Executive that it should set up a subsidiary company. That is what it has done. The company entered into negotiations and agreed to the contract for the Mike Tyson fight. It makes it clear that there are no plans for the decision to be reconsidered. It is implicit in that paragraph that the SFA accepts that. In the last line, it tells us:

"A report to this effect has been made to the Office Bearers of the Association."

It says no more. One could ask for clarification, but it is clear that the officers of the SFA accept the booking.

Moving to the third paragraph, I do not think that it matters one jot what the SFA does to espouse good causes. In mentioning what it does for good causes, it is merely responding to what it feels is an allegation that it does very little or no work in that regard. Whether one feels that what it does is enough or matters in relation to the Mike Tyson issue is neither here nor there. The SFA feels that it needs to respond to the letter that was sent to it.

The final paragraph indicates that the SFA has taken the commercial decision that it was free to take. As I said at the committee meeting when we discussed the letter that might be sent to it, by allowing Mike Tyson to box—although I think that that is a mistake—it now has the ability to allow Hampden to be used. It has exercised its commercial judgment. It does not surprise me that that will be its defence; it was always going to be its defence. If we choose to go back to it on that, we will end up getting nowhere.

Like Brian Monteith and Fiona McLeod, I am disappointed—although, like Brian, perhaps not that surprised—that we have received this letter. For me, the most important point is in the last sentence. It is unfortunate that political and public authorities think fit to grant Mike Tyson a licence, but that does not mean that the SFA is absolved of its public or moral duty. It runs a national stadium; it should run it in the national interest.

I am disappointed, but I think that we should not pursue the matter now. We will have a chance to question the SFA at a later stage. We will not get anywhere at the moment if we enter into a protracted correspondence.

Although I do not seek to disagree with Ken Macintosh, I should point out that the SFA's difficulty with taking a view about the national interest is that the organisation does not feel placed to judge that interest. One might argue that the SFA is perhaps absolving itself by saying that such a judgment should be up to the public authorities. However, I compare the SFA's decision with Celtic plc's decision, which, as a private company, represents no one but itself and does not have to think of the national interest: it chose not to allow Mike Tyson to fight at Parkhead.

The SFA is not abrogating its responsibility; it probably expects politicians or Westminster politicians to decide what is in the national interest.

The overwhelming view of the Scottish Parliament was that the fight should not go ahead at Hampden. As that constitutes a national view, we would expect the SFA to take notice of it. However, the organisation has taken its decision on the basis of the fact that Mike Tyson was given a visa and allowed into the country, and that the British Boxing Board of Control has allowed him to take part in boxing matches. The decision has been taken on a commercial basis, without any moral judgment.

As Brian Monteith pointed out, another private organisation took such moral aspects into account. Although it was within the SFA's ability to do the same, it has not done so. I do not think that we can take the matter any further at this stage; the SFA has taken its decision and nothing we can do will change that situation. It should be placed on record that I regret the SFA's decision. Is it acceptable to members that we do not take the matter any further?

Members indicated agreement.

Perhaps we should also draw the SFA's attention to the committee's views.

I am sure that we can send the organisation a copy of our views.