1/22, 2006
Amy Lawrence, The Observer

He might have embarrassed his employers, he might get it all wrong at the World Cup. But that's no reason for the FA to sack Sven-Goran Eriksson – not unless they want to fill his pockets with gold. Denis Campbell reports

Forget 'Fariagate', Ulrika Jonsson and his dalliances with Manchester United and Chelsea. Ignore the way he has downgraded friendlies, England's abject defeat in Belfast and questions about his motivational powers after losing winnable quarter-finals in the World Cup and Euro 2004. And do not kid yourself that the embarrassment of the 'fake sheikh' episode will make any difference. Sven-Goran Eriksson is here to stay – unless the Football Association want to stump up £10 million.

Eriksson's regular lapses of judgment are irrelevant and even a humiliatingly early exit for an England team widely tipped as potential winners in Germany would make no difference. Poor results would not be reason enough for his sacking, at least not without a huge 'golden farewell'.
The price for terminating the Swede's contract before its scheduled finish just after Euro 2008 is £10m. The FA cannot escape that liability.

The argument advanced last week by Wigan's chairman, Dave Whelan, a strident critic of Eriksson, that he should be dismissed because his behaviour in unwittingly talking to the News of the World constituted 'gross misconduct', holds little water – even though there are powerful figures within the FA who would be sorely tempted to ditch him. Chief executive Brian Barwick and director of football development Sir Trevor Brooking are not among them.

Eriksson's indiscreet comments to 'fake sheikh' Mazher Mahmood included the view that David Beckham was frustrated at Real Madrid's lack of trophies and could be tempted home to England. He embarrassed Michael Owen by saying he had signed for Newcastle just for the money; said Rio Ferdinand was sometimes 'lazy'; that Chelsea had paid over the odds in forking out £24m for Shaun Wright-Phillips; that Wayne Rooney came from a poor family. Unwise remarks naively made, yes. But hardly earth-shattering revelations, and there has not been any comeback from the players.

Certainly not a sacking offence – and Eriksson is fighting back with a lawsuit against the News of the World for breach of confidence. The FA would only consider dismissing him if the England squad and public turned against him, as they might do if England flop in Germany. But it would still cost them more than they are likely to make from the tournament. While the team that wins the World Cup will take home £10.9m, and all the sponsorship and endorsement millions that would follow, a semi-final place is worth £5.48m and there is £4.8m for a last-16 exit. So, if the FA want to pay off Sven from the proceeds of the tournament, England will have to win it. Anything less and the Swede keeps his job.

As one FA veteran, who is very familiar with Eriksson's contract details, said: 'If the FA want him out after the World Cup, that would be a breach of contract by the FA. Sven would have two years left on his contract and they would have to pay him up, no doubt about that. In the absence of any cause to get rid of him, normal employment law would pertain.'

The FA's problem, he added, is that 'the FA don't have £10m to give Sven, and wouldn't want to give him that anyway, so he'd stay. If they don't want to pay him off, he stays, simple as that. He would be the one in charge of the decision about whether to steer England through the Euro 2008 qualifying campaign, not them.' England will discover their opponents for that task when the draw is made on Friday.

Any discussion of the coach's contract makes FA personnel twitchy. When asked to clarify the situation a spokesman would only say: 'Sven joined in January 2001, and initially until 2006. In February 2004 he signed an extended contract and it now runs until July 2008. Any other details are confidential.' Is his salary really £3m-a-year net, as he unwittingly told the News of the World? 'You wouldn't expect us to discuss the salary of one of our employees.'

Some FA personnel are more expansive. 'After the World Cup it could be mutually agreed that he goes. There are various considerations, especially financial ones,' said one source.

It is an open secret that the FA's top brass generally expect Germany to mark the end of Eriksson's time in charge. David Dein, Arsenal's vice-chairman and one of the FA's two vice-chairmen, was one of those involved in hiring the Swede and is a good friend of Eriksson. Asked yesterday if he felt betrayed by him in the 'fake sheikh' incident, Dein replied: 'He was appointed because of his ability as a football coach and he has actually done rather well as a football coach. Is he the right man to take England forward to the World Cup? If you asked the players they would say yes. It's the press who have him in their sights.'

Was there not a cumulative effect of all Eriksson's various controversies? Dein seemed implicitly to accept that the coach is now damaged goods. 'I agree with you. I see both sides of the argument. If given his time again, he'd have done things differently. Who hasn't made mistakes? Who wouldn't go through their life and think about if they should have done things differently. Was he indiscreet? Was he naïve? He would probably say yes to both.'

Sources close to Eriksson insisted last night that the coach was only persuaded to launch his legal action against the News of the World after being assured by his lawyers that it would not put demands on his time before Germany. 'It definitely won't distract him,' said an ally.

At Soho Square, thoughts have already turned, albeit speculatively, to who might replace Eriksson. All that is definite so far is that the FA are determined to appoint the highest quality successor, regardless of his nationality.

'Brian Barwick and Trevor Brooking would prefer to have an Englishman managing England, but only if he is better than the foreign coach who may also be a contender,' said a senior FA member of staff. 'They want the best candidate for the job.'

Always one to carefully weigh even his briefest utterance, the Swede's admission last Thursday that he would deserve to go if England did not at least make the last four this summer – made to an audience of BBC staff – could show that he, too, has caught the growing mood that the end of his era is near. 'If we fail in the World Cup, I have to pay the price, that's fair. If we don't get to the semi-finals, it's fair that I don't stay in the job.'

An unusually candid statement, but one which – 'I don't stay in the job' – did not make clear if, after an England exit before the semis, he would expect to be sacked or would resign as a matter of honour. Few expect the latter to happen. Not when there is £10m, or a proportion of it, to be banked for being fired or for a 'mutually agreed' departure.