I don't have anything against Stephen Hart.
The man who has just been named Technical Director of the Canadian Soccer Association is a capable, long-serving servant of game, and I have no reason to question his capability to do whatever the organization expects of him.
He did a fine job as fill-in coach for the men's national team at last year's Gold Cup, where the team played exciting, effective attacking football before being shut down by a rancid offside call. There are a lot of Canada fans out there who feel Hart should still be coach, given new man Dale Mitchell's dreadful showing at last summer's Under-20 World Cup.
Given the CSA's dwindling budget, a thinking, experienced TD with deep experience of the dysfunctional political structure in which he'll have to operate is probably as good a choice as we could hope for.
None of what follows is criticism of Hart. Welcome aboard, lad. I wish you well.
But I remain utterly baffled at the CSA.
Ever since former president Colin Linford threw up his hands and quit in disgust last year, the Muddled Mansion on Metcalfe Street has rumbled with talk of reform. But reform is exactly what Linford was attempting. By all accounts, he went way too far for the board's liking. Real change wrecked on lip service, and I deeply fear it's been nothing but lip service ever since.
To anyone outside of the CSA, the answer seems obvious. Hire a new CEO, and let him design and implement the reforms.
Instead, the rudderless ship has sailed on without a captain. The very structure that so desperately needs to be detonated is now in charge of acquiring the dynamite. To everyone else in Canadian soccer, the conflict is obvious.
Hart's appointment is a necessary step, because most of the alleged reforms will be made on his watch. But the TD position has been vacant for almost two years. Why not let the new CEO hire his own technical director? If you're only just checking into the anti-CSA movement, welcome to our world.
For me, the question isn't how can the CSA resolve itself? It's how dare they try?
Gentlemen, you're not very good at this.
You need help. You've handcuffed yourself through your own lack of vision, and all you're doing now is forging handcuffs to slap on the wrists of your next leader.
Okay, maybe Linford did create his own demise. I don't know for sure either way. But you desperately need an inspired visionary of a leader, and you need to let him change the entire game, even though it certainly means that some – or all – of you are going to be let go.
If the CSA were a government, it would have fallen. If it were a publicly traded company, this board would have been routed in a shareholder revolt. Instead, the same people sail on in the same general direction, promising reform, but unable to accept that real reform is only possible once they give up the wheel.
I'm just getting word, as I write this, that the CSA's new “general secretary” will be announced next week. This is a restructured chief executive position, so who knows what actual powers he (or she) will (or won't) have. I don't yet know the lucky winner's name. Let's just say, the further he is from the reigning old boy's network, the more pleasantly surprised I'll be. If the current pattern holds, though, it's just going to be more of the same.
That would be bad – for everybody.
Sure, I want to give the CSA the benefit of the doubt. But right now, there's too much doubt – and nowhere near enough benefit.
Best of luck, Stephen Hart. You have my congratulations – and condolences.
Onward!
