Matt Dickinson in The Times comes to Wembley's defence...
I thought rebuilding Wembley Stadium was a good idea at the time. I still thought so as I walked up beneath its spaghetti arch alongside seven men and a disinterested dog to watch England versus Norway.
I will probably still think it’s a good idea when it is a dusty bowl that has bankrupted the FA and hosts only Take That reunion gigs involving a bald Robbie Williams and a decrepit Gary Barlow in 2049.
I like the idea of a national stadium and I certainly did not like the notion of losing one by turning Wembley into a hypermarket, although plenty of others still seem open to the thought of this historic sporting site becoming a Primark.
It is not only the England team who are under fresh criticism this week, but Wembley Stadium, which is seen as part of the problem. Too big, too expensive, too damned London.
The odd thing is that many of those who have volunteered their complaints would regard themselves as defenders of football’s heritage. And what would be worse vandalism than removing English football from a site that, for almost 100 years, has hosted the national team, the FA Cup Final and a whole lot more besides.
The sparse crowd for the match against Norway has raised renewed calls for taking England around the grounds, a break from Wembley, but you cannot have your cake and your Sir Norman Foster arch.
You cannot sell ten-year debentures at Wembley (try paying for a new stadium in the world’s most expensive city without them) and then say that, actually, we might remove some of those matches for which individuals and companies have already shelled out thousands of pounds.
Playing around the country can have its upsides, especially if it means fewer seats to fill when San Marino are the opposition, but it cannot happen for practical, financial reasons and, in any case, this is all a sideshow (like demanding that players sing the anthem) to the serious debates to be had around the national team, such as finding defensive midfield players and creating more chances. Does anyone seriously believe that a short-lived burst of enthusiasm in Southampton or Birmingham would have made England versus Norway an occasion to savour if it still finished an unconvincing 1-0?
A mediocre England are mediocre wherever they play (there is proof aplenty of that).
As for reconnecting with the fans, that comes from playing constructively, whether the game is staged in Brent or the Amazon.
For the England squad, Wembley is their home and it is their job to make it feel like one. That is not a problem to be shied away from, but a challenge. They must set their sights on filling it, on making the fans come alive.
Interest in the national team has always fluctuated (England’s opening game of the 1966 World Cup finals against Uruguay was a touts’ worst nightmare, with thousands of empty seats), but lay on a purposeful side and the fans will always return. The problem lies in a team, not a building.
The argument is put forward that Wembley itself is a barrier to a successful national side because it is draining the game of funds. It is true that there has been a steep annual cost since the FA became a construction company as well as a governing body.
The FA’s plan was that Wembley would help to fund the game, but the point when the organisation could be sitting on a big asset, and not fretting over mortgage payments, may be more than a decade away given justified concerns over the renewals of the 17,500 debenture seats by 2017.
That is a concern, yet it does not hold that England would have much better footballers if only all that money had not been spent on concrete. It should be perfectly possible to build a new stadium and apply ourselves intelligently to improved coaching standards.
More money is not always the cure. The FA’s most pressing problem is not increasing its income, but spending what it has far more wisely when barely £50 million of a £300 million turnover goes to grassroots football and just as much, ludicrously, to professional clubs.
Anyone who thinks a lack of money is the greatest barrier to English technique has not been following closely enough.
I like the idea of a national stadium because it provides a unique stage for our footballers to aspire to. Also, because I want London to be the best city in the world in every sense, including sport, which is the case convincingly argued by Simon Inglis in his new book, Played in London. Wembley is one of the cornerstones and, having successfully staged the Champions League final twice in four years, the FA is hopeful of hosting the climactic games of Euro 2020.
Laying on sports events is something we are very good at.
Of course, we also want an England team to be proud of, who can reach the later stages on home soil, and one aspiration should encourage the other, the staging of a tournament fuelling the dreams and ambitions of fans and players. Wembley has that special allure.
It is worth reminding ourselves of that, especially on those nights when the England team are at a low ebb and there are rows of empty seats. Some described it as an ugly sight at a sparse Wembley, but it was still infinitely preferable to the alternatives, such as a housing estate and a supermarket.
