Watching the Lionesses Grow

My wife and I are both fairly big football fans. She supports Leeds United, and I support Manchester United, which keeps things interesting in our house.

As well as following the men’s game, we’ve been watching women’s football for about years or so. Like a lot of women’s football fans, we mainly started by following England, and we’ve been lucky enough to see the Lionesses play a couple of times.

The game has come on massively since those earlier days. Back then, players like Karen Carney, Jill Scott, Faye White, Ellen White, Rachel Yankey and others were helping to build something that has grown into the game we see today.

At the time, it often seemed to be a game built around long passes, looking to exploit space between the lines, and shots taken from inside the penalty area. There was also, at least to my eyes, a noticeable difference in fitness levels compared with the modern game.

Then came 2012, which felt like a watershed moment for women’s football in England. The game began to develop quickly. More investment came in, standards rose, and for more players it became a full-time job rather than something they had to fit around the rest of their lives.

Today, it feels like a very different sport. There is far more tactical control, aggressive pressing, and a much greater emphasis on possession. The players are more athletic, the movement is more fluid, and the game feels quicker, sharper, more creative, and more powerful. You now see players striking the ball from much further out with real confidence.

It’s been brilliant to watch that growth over the years, and even better to feel that women’s football is no longer tucked away in the background. It is properly part of the football conversation now, and rightly so.

Come on Lionesses.

Blogging For Business Owners

If you run a small business, there’s a fair chance you’ve thought about blogging at some point. Maybe someone told you it would help with Google. Maybe you’ve seen competitors doing it. Or maybe you just know there are things you could explain better than anyone else in your industry.

And that’s really where blogging starts to make sense.

A good business blog isn’t just about throwing words onto a website and hoping search engines reward you. It’s a way to talk directly to your market, your prospects, and even your existing customers. It gives you space to explain what you do, answer common questions, share useful advice, show a bit of personality, and quietly remind people that you know your stuff.

Search engines do like fresh, useful content, of course. A regularly updated blog can help bring more pages into your website, create more opportunities to be found, and give people more reasons to spend time with you before they ever pick up the phone or send an enquiry.

But blogging for business owners has one big trap: it’s very easy to start without a plan.

You write one post, then another, then life gets busy. The blog sits there for six months, looking a bit abandoned, and suddenly something that was meant to help your business starts to make it look like nobody’s home.

That’s why it helps to keep things simple from the start. Before you begin, think about the type of content you actually want to write. What questions do customers ask you all the time? What do people misunderstand about your product or service? What advice could you give that would genuinely help someone make a better decision?

You don’t need to publish every day. For most small businesses, even 2 to 4 useful posts a month is a strong starting point. The important thing is consistency, not volume. It’s far better to write something useful once a fortnight than to blast out six thin posts in a week and then disappear.

It’s also worth thinking about how you’ll use the blog once it’s published. Will you share posts on social media? Link to them from email newsletters? Send them to customers when they ask a common question? A good blog post can do more than sit quietly on your website; it can become a helpful sales tool, a customer service shortcut, and a small proof point that you understand your market.

If writing doesn’t come naturally, that doesn’t mean blogging isn’t for you. Some business owners are full of good ideas but struggle to get them into shape. That’s where getting support from people who understand writing can help, whether that’s someone in-house, a freelancer, or a specialist service such as Yorkshire Writers.

The main thing is to stay focused. Know why you’re blogging, know who you’re writing for, and don’t turn it into a chore you secretly resent. Done properly, a business blog can build trust, improve visibility, and give your website a bit more life.

Start small, keep it useful, and give people a reason to come back.

What Football Should Steal From the NFL

I love football, or soccer if anyone from the USA ever reads this, and I love the NFL too. They’re very different sports, obviously. One is fluid, messy, emotional and often allergic to common sense. The other stops every 11 seconds so a committee of enormous men can discuss angles, coverage and whether someone’s knee brushed the turf.

But there are still a few things football could borrow from the NFL, and I don’t just mean cheerleaders, fireworks and calling every half-decent tackle a “defensive statement”. Some of the NFL’s systems are genuinely better than ours, especially around player safety, referee communication and competitive balance.

The big question is which ideas football should actually test, and which ones are lovely in theory but would have the Premier League’s lawyers quietly hiding under the table.

1. Independent concussion authority

This is the obvious one. Football has improved slightly with permanent concussion substitutes, but the on-pitch assessment still feels flawed. The player wants to stay on. The manager wants their best players available. The crowd wants the game moving. Even the team doctor, however professional they are, is still operating inside that club environment.

The NFL has independent neurotrauma consultants and spotters who can intervene. That’s the important bit. Someone outside the team has the authority to say, “No, this player needs assessing properly.” Football should copy that principle as closely as possible.

For me, this should be tested first. It’s not about entertainment, tradition, money or competitive advantage. It’s about basic duty of care. If a player has taken a heavy blow to the head, they shouldn’t be the one effectively deciding whether they’re fine to carry on. That decision should be removed from the player, the manager and the match situation completely.

2. Proper live referee explanations

This is another easy win. In the NFL, when a decision is reviewed or a penalty is called, the referee switches on a microphone and explains the ruling to the stadium and TV audience. It isn’t perfect, but at least everyone knows what has happened.

Football, by comparison, still has far too much awkward silence. Fans stand there staring at a big screen while VAR checks something for three minutes, with no clear idea what specific contact, handball, offside line, shirt pull or toenail is being examined.

The Premier League has started moving towards more communication, but it still needs to go further. We don’t need a full courtroom judgement from the referee, just a simple explanation: what was checked, what the decision is, and why. That alone would make VAR feel less like a mysterious bunker making football worse from a secret location.

3. A stronger set-piece foul rule

This is where I think football could borrow from the NFL’s “eyes on the ball” idea, although not in a direct copy-and-paste way because it simply wouldn't work.

In the NFL, defenders can get into trouble if they’re not playing the ball and are simply interfering with the receiver. Football has a similar problem at corners and free kicks. Too many defenders are not even pretending to look at the ball. They’re often facing the opposing player, grabbing shirts, pinning arms, blocking runs and wrestling them like they’re trying to win a pub car park fight.

Football doesn’t need to become completely non-contact (my missus will always tell you "it's a contact sport!"), because that would be dreadful. But it could enforce one simple idea more clearly: if a defender makes no genuine attempt to play the ball, they are looking directly into the opponents face and is clearly holding, dragging or blocking an opponent, it’s a foul.

The key word is consistency. Enforce it properly for the first six weeks of a season and players would adapt. They always do once they realise the referee is actually going to give it.

4. The “uncatchable ball” idea

This one is trickier, but I still think there’s something in it.

In the NFL, pass interference can’t be called if the ball is clearly uncatchable. Football could use a similar principle for some penalty decisions. Right now, you can get situations where an attacker is slightly tripped in the box, but the ball is flying miles over their head or heading harmlessly away from goal, or heading over the line with no chance of getting to it; technically it might be a foul, but it hasn’t really affected the play.

I’m not saying dangerous tackles should be ignored just because the ball has gone. That would be ridiculous. But for those soft penalties where there’s minimal contact and the player had no realistic chance of reaching the ball anyway, football needs a bit more common sense.

The problem is wording it. “Uncatchable” works in American football because the pass has a specific intended receiver and a clear flight path. In football, the ball is looser, messier and a little more chaotic. You’d need something like a “material impact” test, where the foul has to meaningfully affect the player’s ability to challenge for the ball.

It would need a trial first, probably in a cup competition or youth tournament, because otherwise VAR would find a way to turn it into another bloody weekly argument.

5. A hard spending cap

This is the one that sounds brilliant until you remember football is not a closed American league.

The NFL has a hard salary cap, meaning every team has the same maximum amount to spend on players. In theory, that creates a more level playing field. The Premier League’s current direction, with squad cost rules linked to club revenue, still favours the richest clubs. A club making £700m can spend much more than a club making £150m. That isn’t really equality, it’s just a tidier version of the same imbalance.

A hard cap in English football would be fascinating. Suddenly scouting, coaching and tactical intelligence would matter more than who has the deepest pockets. It would also stop the biggest clubs hoovering up talent simply because they can.

But the problems are huge. Promotion and relegation make it complicated. European competition makes it even harder. Then you’ve got Saudi Arabia, Spain, Germany, Italy and the wider global market. Unless UEFA or FIFA introduced something broader, the Premier League doing it alone could end up weakening itself.

So while I like the idea, I don’t think it’s the 1st thing football should test. It’s morally attractive, but structurally brutal.

6. A shared merchandise pot

This is probably the idea I like most emotionally, even if I know it’s one of the least likely to happen.

The NFL’s national revenue model is one of the reasons a team like Green Bay can still compete with teams from much bigger markets. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of around 100,000, yet the Packers remain one of the NFL’s great teams. That sort of thing is part of the NFL’s charm.

In the Premier League, broadcast money is split relatively evenly, but commercial revenue is still very much a free-for-all. Shirt sales, sponsorships, global partnerships, official noodle partners, official tyre partners, official mattress partners... the big clubs can turn their global reach into an enormous financial advantage.

A shared merchandise pot would change that. It would force the biggest clubs to subsidise the rest of the league and help close the gap. The romantic part of me loves that. The league is only interesting because all 20 clubs exist, so all 20 clubs should share more of the upside.

But let’s be honest, the Big Six would absolutely hate it. They’d probably try to copy the Dallas Cowboys model and carve themselves out of the collective agreement. Or they’d find some wonderfully slippery workaround where Manchester United’s third kit pyjamas, Liverpool dog beds, Arsenal golf towels and Chelsea-branded air fryers somehow don’t count as club merchandise.

You can almost hear the statement now:

“We fully support collective growth, but our international lifestyle and heritage apparel partnerships sit outside the domestic football merchandise framework.”

Which is a very expensive way of saying, “No, you can’t have our money.”

A more realistic version might be a central commercial levy. Clubs could keep most of their own merchandise income, but a small percentage of certain commercial categories could go into a fund for academy football, women’s teams, lower-league support or away ticket subsidies. It wouldn’t be as dramatic as a fully shared pot, but it might actually stand a chance.

So which ideas should football actually test?

If I had to rank them, I’d go like this:

1. Independent concussion authority – this should happen as soon as possible.
2. Live referee explanations – simple, sensible and long overdue.
3. Stricter set-piece holding rules – stop the wrestling and make defenders actually defend.
4. A material-impact penalty rule – worth testing, but it needs careful wording.
5. A hard spending cap – great in theory, very difficult in reality.
6. A shared merchandise pot – lovely football socialism, but the Big Six would barricade the doors.

The health of players and the enjoyment of the game have to come first. That sounds obvious, but football has a long history of treating obvious things as if they need 14 committees, three pilot schemes and a leaked report before anyone can act.

Independent concussion checks and better referee communication don’t require football to rip up its entire financial structure. They just require the people running the game to admit that the NFL, for all its flaws, has got a few things right.

The money stuff is harder. I’d love a Premier League where smaller clubs had more of a fighting chance, and where the richest teams couldn’t simply outspend everyone forever. But the realistic starting point is not a full NFL-style revolution. It’s player safety, clearer decisions, and a version of the game that doesn’t leave match-going fans completely in the dark.

Start there. Then we can come back for the Manchester United pyjamas and Chelsea air fryers.

David Beckham’s £19 Million World Cup Ad Takeover

I read a piece in iNews about David Beckham’s World Cup advertising takeover, and honestly, the whole thing feels absolutely absurd.

If you’re watching the World Cup in the UK, you get a fairly dignified broadcast. A bit of studio chat, some sensible punditry, the usual adverts, and then back to the football. But if you’re watching in North America, it sounds like you’re trapped inside a David Beckham simulator. Or fantasy. Or nightmare. I’m still not sure which.

Thanks to the American networks aggressively commercialising the tournament, especially around things like hydration breaks, Beckham is everywhere. Not just popping up now and again, either. Properly everywhere. According to the reports, he’s been involved in a string of World Cup campaigns worth around £19 million, fronting or appearing in ads for brands ranging from crisps and burgers to banks, beer, DIY stores and telecoms giants.

At some point, that stops being clever marketing and starts becoming genuinely absurd.

The crowning achievement has to be the Home Depot campaign, “Build It Like Beckham”, which appears to ask viewers to believe that a multi-millionaire global superstar, former England captain and co-owner of an MLS franchise spends his weekends wandering down a retail aisle looking for a five-gallon bucket of paint and a circular saw. Immediately after that, he can apparently reappear for Bank of America, giving off the calm, reliable energy of a man who definitely wants to talk to you about retail banking.

Nobody buys it, do they?

That’s the strange thing about this level of advertising. Beckham has become so recognisable, so safe, and so commercially polished that he almost doesn’t need to have any connection to the product at all. He doesn’t have to convince you he loves the burger, uses the phone network, banks with the bank, shops for power tools, or chooses his crisps based on deep personal conviction. He just has to appear, smile, nod at something, raise a glass, or look vaguely amused by whatever scripted nonsense is happening around him.

And to be fair, from a brand point of view, you can see the attraction. Active players carry risk. If Jude Bellingham, Lionel Messi, Lamine Yamal or any other current star has a bad tournament, gets injured, misses a penalty, or watches their team crash out early, the shine comes off them almost instantly. Beckham is completely insulated from the actual football. He doesn’t have to win a match. He doesn’t have to stay fit. He doesn’t even have to do punditry.

He just exists, beautifully lit, endlessly bankable, and permanently available.

That’s probably why advertisers love him. He’s football-adjacent without being vulnerable to football. He gives brands the World Cup glow without the inconvenience of results, form, tactics, injuries, VAR decisions or England doing England things. He’s not there to represent the tournament as much as float above it, smiling down from the corporate hospitality suite.

Still, seven campaigns around one tournament is wild. Lay’s had him playing with the idea of fans jumping on World Cup bandwagons. Adidas put him in a glossy football dreamscape alongside Messi, Bellingham, Lamine Yamal and Timothée Chalamet. McDonald’s had him in another big, highly visible campaign. Stella Artois used him for the ritual of fans gathering in bars. Home Depot leaned into the American backyard World Cup idea. Verizon and Vodafone covered the telecoms angle, depending where you were watching. Bank of America rounded it all off, because apparently even football needs a sensible current account.

None of this is a criticism of Beckham personally, really. He’s been doing this for decades, and he’s clearly very, very good at being David Beckham. In some ways, this is the natural end point of his post-football career. He was never just a footballer, even when he was playing. He was a brand before most footballers realised they were allowed to be brands.

But there’s something very funny about the 2026 World Cup being sold back to viewers through one man’s face, over and over again, until the actual football almost feels like the bit between the Beckham adverts.

Maybe that’s the modern World Cup now. Less a football tournament, more a global marketing platform with a ball occasionally rolling through it.

And somewhere in the middle of it all, David Beckham is smiling, probably holding a crisp, standing near a barbecue, thinking about banking, while pretending he’s just popped into Home Depot for a bit of timber.

VAR do your job

Football has always had its dark arts, but diving feels like it’s getting harder and harder to ignore. Some of it is subtle. Some of it is laughably obvious. A player feels the slightest touch, throws themselves to the floor, then rolls around like they’ve been hit by a van. The frustrating part is that everyone watching can often see exactly what’s happened within seconds, especially with slow-motion replays from five different angles.

That’s why I keep coming back to the same thought... VAR, do your job. If the technology exists to spend three minutes checking whether someone’s toenail was offside, then surely it can step in when a player has clearly tried to con the ref. Diving is cheating. Simple as that. Start handing out yellow cards retrospectively for obvious simulation and I honestly think a lot of it disappears within a season. Right now, there’s barely any downside to trying it, and that’s part of the problem.

England’s Best World Cup XI (2026)

Every tournament, England fans end up having the same argument.

Who exactly is our best team, our best 11 in 2026.

So as I smashed my Fastasy Premier League mini leagues again this season, I started thinking about how you’d actually build an England side if you stripped away reputation, nostalgia, social media hype, and all the endless “he’s world class” noise that follows certain players around (you know who you are).

Instead, I kept it simple.

Goals matter. Assists matter. Clean sheets matter too. Simple isn’t it for the best team.

For this little experiment, goals are worth 5 points, assists are worth 2, clean sheets are worth 5, and defenders or goalkeepers playing in teams that concede one goal or fewer per game get another 2 points.

Straight away, something interesting happens.

The side starts picking itself.

Not the most exciting England team. Not the most fashionable one either. But probably the one best built to survive international tournament football, which is often slow, tense, tactical, and decided by moments rather than domination.

The Formation

I’ve gone with a 4-3-3.

Not because it seems to be a trendy formation right now, but because it still gives the best balance between defensive shape and attacking threat. 

Also, the England squad don’t spend enough time together to play complicated systems properly, so you need a structure players either play in today or can understand very quickly.

Also a good 4-3-3 played well naturally shifts shape during matches as you gain possession then defend.

Without the ball it should become compact and difficult to break down, plenty of pressing. With the ball, we need our forwards out wide to stretch the pitch while the midfielders push up and support the attack in a coordinated layer rather than chaos.

Most importantly, it stops England trying to squeeze four number tens into the same side and hoping for magic. Like we have done before.

My Initial Team

GK: Jordan Pickford

People still seem strangely reluctant to give Pickford proper credit, but England’s defensive record with him is excellent.

I think he actually suits tournament football. He’s vocal, aggressive, quick off his line, and usually reliable when the pressure rises. He also has that slightly unhinged goalkeeper energy that great international keepers seem to possess.

You don’t always need the world’s best goalkeeper. Sometimes you just need one who consistently turns into a nightmare to beat in tournament football.

RB: Kyle Walker

I don't like the guy, and there are technically better right-backs available.

But Walker still gets in because recovery pace saves goals.

International football becomes dangerous when games stretch late on. One loose pass, one tired midfielder, one counter attack, and suddenly a centre-back is isolated. Walker cleans up situations most defenders simply cannot recover from.

His experience matters too. England sides in the past have sometimes looked mentally fragile in big moments. Walker rarely does, and he has that "hoof it out" mentality that I love on the back line.

CB: John Stones

I hate to admit it because I hate his style of play, but England still look calmer when Stones plays.

He carries the ball well, often reads danger early, and can (on good days) give the whole side composure. International football is full of nervous clearances and rushed decisions. Stones slows games down when England need control. For me though he still loves to play the with the ball at his feet too much.

He also suits a back four far more naturally than some of England’s other centre-back options.

CB: Marc Guéhi

Not flashy. Not constantly discussed. Just dependable.

Guéhi feels like one of those players managers quietly trust because he does the boring bits properly. His positioning is good, he stays calm under pressure, and he rarely turns matches into unnecessary drama.

That matters more in tournaments than people admit.

LB: Lewis Hall

This is probably my boldest selection, but I've already spoken to a few lads at work today and he'd be in their teams too.

Hall gives England something they often lack from deeper areas: genuine energy and width without becoming reckless. Modern full-backs have to contribute going forward now (like old fashioned wing-backs). Sitting deep for 90 minutes just invites pressure.

Hall also looks very comfortable receiving the ball in tight areas, which England badly need against compact sides that like to push.

DM: Declan Rice

Automatic selection here, I'm not a fan of Arsenal, but they are a solid unit.

Rice does the ugly work that allows other players to shine. He covers space quickly, protects the defence, wins second balls, and stops transitions before they become dangerous; he also likes to sometimes play an attacking role when his teams are in control, he's never reckless about it.

And while I hate agreeing with a friend of mine, you're right Owen, you notice players like Rice most when they’re missing.

CM: Jude Bellingham

Bellingham is the complete modern tournament midfielder.

He scores goals, creates chances, carries the ball through pressure, and seems completely unfazed by big occasions. There’s also a physical edge to him that England sides have sometimes lacked in midfield.

He already plays like somebody who believes he belongs at the highest level. That confidence spreads through teams.

CM: Cole Palmer

This was the hardest call, he's not had the best domestic season, but he's a player that likes to be noticed, so he's on the ball a lot, and hes got a decent distribution.

Palmer is there for goals, assists, and the big moments.

Palmer also has something slightly unusual for a young player. Nothing about him seems rushed. He plays at his own pace, even when matches become frantic around him.

That calmness feels very useful in knockout football.

RW: Bukayo Saka

Saka is probably England’s most complete attacking player right now.

He's a very reliable player. He has some intelligent movement with and without the ball. He's solid defensively when needed, and just consistent.

He rarely disappears from matches completely, which is surprisingly rare for attacking players, especially at international level.

I suppose in one word, he's trustworthy.

ST: Harry Kane

I really wish he wasn't, but I think he's still England’s best striker my a mile.

He gets himself into excellent positions and the goals keep coming, he has a excellent passing range which causes problems for defenders dropping too deep.

There are quicker forwards available. But better finishers? Strikers that are pretty decent at set-pieces and hardly misses penalties ... probably not.

LW: Anthony Gordon

International football desperately needs runners, and boy can this lad run.

Too many technically gifted teams become slow because everyone wants the ball into feet (yes Liverpool and Spurs, I'm looking at you).  Gordon stretches defences constantly, he runs beyond defenders, attacks space aggressively, and forces teams backwards.

All this creates room for Kane, Bellingham, and Palmer to operate centrally.

You can see it in defenders, there's something slightly irritating about playing against him.

So that's it

The interesting thing about building a side by simply scoring players is how quickly the balance started to show.

The best international football rarely goes to the prettiest side, it normally goes to the team that stays organised, survives difficult moments, and has enough quality to punish mistakes when they come along.

This England side feels closer to that than some of the wildly attacking versions people keep trying to build on paper every summer.

Update: Tuchel’s Starting XI

The wait is over, as I write this we are 60 minutes from kick-off against Croatia, and things have now got interesting.

Thomas Tuchel’s starting England XI is now out for the Croatia game, and it’s closer to my thinking than I actually expected.

England are set up in a 4-2-3-1:

Pickford; James, Stones, Konsa, O’Reilly; Anderson, Rice; Madueke, Bellingham, Gordon; Kane.

That isn’t exactly my 4-3-3, but it’s not a million miles away either.

The main difference is the midfield. I had Rice holding with Bellingham and Palmer either side. Tuchel has gone safer, using Rice and Anderson as a double pivot, then pushing Bellingham into the number 10 role behind Kane which is a good move and one I bet Bellingham will relish.

Croatia are still the sort of side that can punish loose midfield spacing. They’ve got experience, rhythm, and they like to hold up play and pass with uber deliberacy (is that a word?) that makes games feel slower than they really are. So Tuchel has clearly prioritised control before chaos (the right move).

The Saka situation also explains Madueke on the right. If Saka is being managed because of the Achilles problem, Madueke gives England direct running without asking Saka to push through a game he might not be fully ready for.

Gordon starting on the left is pleasing from the point of view of my original selection. I wanted that runner in the front three. England need someone who stretches the pitch and gives Kane, Bellingham and Rice more room to play, Gordon will do that. Plus Gordon can play in the middle too.

Konsa coming in also fits my defensive reliability idea, he's not who I would have picked, but I guess he’s a quick defender who just plays sensible football and doesn't shout 'look at me' (yes I'm looking at you Stones).

So, while I’d still have picked Palmer in my own version, Tuchel’s team does follow the same broad idea:

Keep the structure strong. Protect the middle. Use direct wide players. Let Bellingham play close to Kane.

It’s not the most romantic England XI, but World Cups are rarely won by romance.

They’re usually won by teams that stay compact, make fewer mistakes, and have enough quality in the final third to punish the one or two openings that actually arrive.

I heard an interview with Kane a couple of days ago where he said that the fans like to see England play attractive football, I don’t give a shit Harry, I want a team that will win, not one that will put on a theatre performance. Nothing wrong with winning ugly.

Prediction Corner

Just for fun, I’m going to keep track of some world cup predictions during the tournament.

Knock out is the score after 90 minutes.

My wife wanted to be part of this too, so here are our game predications with the actual results. No pressure, obviously. Apart from the entire internet being able to check later. Oh yeah, and I let ChatGPT predict the results too.

Match	Mine	Wife	ChatGPT	Actual Result
England v Croatia	2-1 England	2-0 England	2-1 England	4-2 England
England v Ghana	3-1 England	3-1 England	3-1 England	0-0
Panama v England	3-1 England	4-0 England	2-0 England	2-0 England
England v DR Congo	3-1 England	2-0 England	2-0 England	2-1 England
Mexico v England	1-1	1-0 England	2-1 England	3-2 England
England v Norway	2-1 England		2-1 England	?