In his Evening Post feature Ask David Downs, the Reading FC historian, recalled for a reader last week, the visit of a Ugandan National XI to Elm Park in 1956.
The unusual feature of the visit was that, like many African teams at the time, they played in bare feet. It's something that you are not likely to see these days, or probably ever again, because in the Laws of the Game, Law 4,
Players' Equipment, footwear is one of the five compulsory pieces of 'equipment' that players must wear.
It was, however, not until 1990 that playing in bare feet was banned. Footwear, boots or shoes, have always been permitted, but the law did not insist that they must be worn. However it did say that in all competitive matches, referees should not allow one or a few players to play without footwear 'when all other players were so equipped'.
The strange thing is that prior to 1990 when, to all intents and purposes, footwear was optional, if you chose to wear boots, you were then bound by a mountain of regulations.
If I related the whole of the restrictions on boots before 1990, it would fill this column. Mainly, of course, these regulations were about studs or bars worn on the sole of the boots. They listed what they could be made of and how they should be fitted to the sole. They restricted how far the studs or bars could protrude from the sole and the minimum diameter, which varied for the different materials used and the way of fixing. For example, moulded rubber studs could be narrower than independently mounted and replaceable ones. It even listed how many studs could be worn on each boot.
As soon as footwear was made compulsory, at a stroke all these restrictions were swept away. The law simply said, 'A player shall not wear anything that is dangerous to another player.' This, incidentally, has since been changed to 'A player must not use equipment or wear anything, which is dangerous to himself or another player'. This refers not only to footwear that risks injury but also to any type of jewellery, which has since become prevalent.
Many people of course are still unhappy about the removal of these regulations for boots. Manufacturers have taken the opportunity to produce studs of any size or shape and many believe that they have created
types which can cause injuries. In particular, as reported previously in these columns, there has been a campaign for the abolition of bladed studs and many professional clubs have imposed their own ban. The FA has been a little uneasy about all these claims and referees are instructed that they must inspect all boots before every game.
The irony is that, although footwear is now compulsory, many players in poorer countries in Africa, like Uganda, still have difficulty in being able to afford boots. The Referees' Association has a scheme where any referee in this country can donate boots and
referee's clothing to newly qualified referees in Zimbabwe because they cannot afford to kit themselves out.
For a number of years I worked on a voluntary basis for an organisation that encourages young people from the UK to spend time in Uganda working on community projects. One group from neighbouring counties raised money to erect a proper school in Lukotaime and then went out to help build it. One extra job they carried out while they were there was to flatten a field of termite hills and put up metal goal posts to give the school a football pitch. Before they left they played an impromptu match against the school children. As you may have already guessed, some of the children played in bare feet.
I know laws are meant to be complied with but I hope nobody stops them playing football until they can afford boots.
Dick
Sawdon Smith