This comment from littleDinosaurLuke prompts an interesting question. "I've often thought it strange that fans demand that players are as loyal as they are. Players should honour contracts if they are required to do so, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to play for another club whether it's for financial or personal or family reasons. It's a career, not a vocation." @littleDinosaurLuke Do you agree with LDL that football is just a career? I think it's more than that. Professional football is very much part of the entertainment business, yes we pay for it and 'consume' (horrible word) it but we are supporters and fans. We are fiercely loyal to 'our' club, very few football fans are not fully committed to just one club. Pro footballers are therefore more like rock stars than business men surely! LDL just happens to support the richest club in England so in his case the lack of loyalty is hardly an issue. For most of us it's always frustrating when our best players are tempted away by the lure of greater fame and even larger fortunes. It's human nature of course, most of us would behave the same in similar circumstances but should we not expect some loyalty? Perhaps it would be better if footballers were completely free agents. Football clubs were just venues that players agreed a seasonal contract with. That's how it ought to be in a true free market. At the moment the fact that clubs are still allowed to operate as slavers, buying and selling human flesh is archaic in the extreme when you think about it. Albeit that the 'slaves' are very rich indeed and pampered beyond belief, the same could be said of a polar bear in a zoo. It's much better off than it's free brethren but it's still not free.
Companies have non-compete clauses in their contracts all the time, Spurf. Transfers are essentially another company buying out that clause. I've heard the comparison with slavery before and it's always struck me as being rather offensive to slaves, frankly. Footballers have an incredibly good lifestyle and if they don't like it, then they can simply quit.
Not my major point PNP but to take up your reply. Non compete clauses are equally against free market principles. What's offensive to slaves is being slaves. The concept of being respectful to slaves is almost laughable if it wasn't so serious. Slaves need freedom not respect for being slaves.
I don't think that I mentioned anything about being respectful to slaves, did I? Not sure where that came from. A true free market simply doesn't exist and never will. I don't even think it's a desirable outcome. Footballers accept that they have certain responsibilities and ties when they sign their contracts. They're generally well-rewarded for those agreements and aren't massively restricted, either. To address the original point, players and clubs aren't in a normal economy. Everyone doesn't just follow the "best" club for their own economic or entertainment interests, so they all benefit from that. To expect them to understand that and show some loyalty themselves is quite fair, I think. The clubs and fans do tend to lack a little in that regard themselves though, at times. We want successful players, managers, etc. to stay, but are quick to want those who fail out the door. This Redknapp interview from the weekend shows a comedic example of it, in my opinion.
It's a tricky one this. The thing for me is that I can't really relate to footballers as people. Our lives are world's apart. I think in a nutshell money corrupts and that is the case here. I expect loyalty but I see it as impossible from someone who has no affinity with the club and is not in it for the love of the club. We as fans are...for us it's about the club. It's obvious to see for the players it's about financial gains. I don't even think they are bothered about trophies. It's just the nature of the beast that the richest clubs, offer the most in wages and make the largest transfer coups. That is bound to result in a good team, a competitive team, so they hide behind that reasoning as an excuse for their greed. I'm sure the players will argue that clubs are not loyal to them either..when it comes to letting players go or not giving them longer contracts etc etc. It is a career for them..and not an absolute passion like it is for the fans. Then again I don't know how much I blame them. If my lad managed to get a contract with Arsenal. Would I be wishing him success? Which inevitably means wishing success for Arsenal? Yes I would...id still be a Spurs fan...but my rivalry will have become diluted due to my loyalties to my family. As a pro I suppose you rarely get the chance to play for the team you support. Therefore you have to approach football in a business like way as a player. We fans expect loyalty, but I'm afraid football isn't a loyal game. There is a degree of loyalty we expect which is human nature......but I'm never optimistic about it being fulfilled. That's why we console ourselves with small mercies. For example, we think it's classy that an ex player refuses to celebrate a goal scored against his former team. Even a wave in the direction of the fans from an ex player. These are the kind of loyalties we have to console ourselves with.
Then I don't understand your 'offensive to slaves remark' I am not advocating a free market just using the accepted terms of the day to describe a situation.
It's a job. Does everyone move on to a different job as soon as a better paid one comes along? No they don't. I certainly don't. But I always investigate and I'm prepared to move. I look at the whole package, terms and conditions, where in the world, security, leave rota etc. I've worked in some dodgy places, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea the DRC but I've turned down work in Iraq and Nigeria, both paying more than double I'm on now. Why? because I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time. I want to be able to sleep at night. Then there are agents, or in my case agencies. They will try and sell you something **** just to make a crust for themselves. They make it sound like paradise. I doubt if football agents are any different. They don't care if their client sits on the bench every week so long as they are getting their cut. Lots of these kids are young and don't have the experience to make a balanced decision. When Crapchester United, Moneybagski or Real MadDog come along offering them the worldand more, some of these kids are like rabbits blinded by headlights. Ban Agents I say, Mum and Dad can probably offer better advice. As for loyality, if someone is brought up in the area supporting a club, then perhaps the fans can expect a bit of loyality, aka Slippy G with the mousers, or our own Judas C, although wasn't Slippy a Toffee when he was young?. And Judas was and still is just a C. Notwithstanding the above, why should one expect loyalty from Johnny Foreigner? It ain't going to happen. All that can be expected is that they give 100% while on the pay-role. If they don't, ship them out. The grass is not alway greener on the other side, let them go and find out for themselves. How many players have gone to Dynamo Getyerballsshotov, Locomotive Mustgohome or Shaktar Dontgothere before they figure that you can't go out at night without armed security? How many Russian whores can you screw before you take a nasty STD home to your wife? These are the kind of things that should be considered but aren't. Quality of life is everything. Football is big business, you don't see much loyalty from the likes of Levy, Abramovich, your average Sheik or trailer park owner, it's results or else. Why should we expect loyality from the players, or even the managers? The closest thing I can liken modern football to, is being a mercenary. Fighting for the highest bidder and if the **** really goes down, changing sides is not the end of the world. If you want to change it, bring back the maximum wage.
Great post deedub I can't argue with your description that from my perspective sadly describes the modern world in all too graphic detail. Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing springs to mind as the current world disease. There are signs that this standard that has ruled the world for the last 35 years or so is coming to an end. Values are being questioned in a way that will ultimately change them again. I think you have highlighted very well how football just reflects the world we live in. BlatterWorld!
Football is a career, no different to any other. 1. However the "customer base" has a "brand loyalty" that is very tribal, and not necessarily based on the quality of the "end product" . 2. And people change clients/employers regularly. Such is life. However the manner of your leaving is very important. So for #1, the supporters do often desire (whether justified or not) the players to make a similar kind of connection to the club that they have, beyond merely being an employee or a "supplier of services" . And for #2, look no further than the difference in Teddy and Berbatoss departing for Man Utd. <go figure>
Teddy recently said he regrets leaving it so late to join Man Utd and urged Kane not to make the same mistake. So for me he's just as bad as Berba.
It's a balance, isn't it? There are times when clubs deserve to be shown more loyalty from players and times when clubs should show more loyalty to players. As fans we're always going to have higher expectations of players but I think there are times players really need to take more responsibility themselves. Modric was a great example, he was a year in to a 6 year deal. If you're going to take the payrise that you inevitably get with a new contract then you have to accept that you're not going to be able to up and leave whenever you want. If Modric had got a bad injury the club wouldn't have been able to ditch him because they feel like it.
The idea of total freedom of contract would spell the end for professional football below a certain level. Transfer fees redistribute money to a limited extent and thereby reward those lower league clubs who are able to spot and develop talent. Would Dele Alli and Jamie Vardy have reached their current level without being professional at a lower league standard earlier in their careers? We'll never know but it is less likely in my view unless lower league clubs were given a slice of the take from TV. I can't see many Oligarchs, Oil Dictators, US business imperialists, etc being up for that. As for players, there are good and bad. For every Judas (or three) there's a Ledley. For every Berbatov there's an Ossie and a Ricky and Erik the Viking who love the club and its fans. Soldado may have had a professional nightmare but he got the club and genuinely loved the fans for our support. Paul Robinson loves Spurs despite not having grown up near the club or staying here for his entire career. Last time he played at The Lane he was subbed off with an injury but he threw his gloves into the crowd and applauded us as he went off. Aaron didn't celebrate on Sunday. It's not all bad.
If you think the current system is 'slavery' cast your mind back - those of you old enough - to 50+ years ago. There was a maximum wage, players frequently left football, or were just dumped on the scrap heap and had to go back to whatever work they could find. If you were badly injured and couldn't play football, tough! You're on your own! Slavery is a ridiculous comparison, IMO. Slaves are not exactly given a choice, a fabulous wage, or a finite contract. Nobody forces a player to sign a contract. If you're too thick to understand what you're signing, get somebody to explain it to you in terms you can understand. A vocation is a calling. The difference between a vocation and a career is in the way a person feels about their chosen work. A vocation is something that you love doing and are lucky enough to get paid for doing. Basically, it's your life. A career is something you follow as it presents you with your best opportunity to provide for yourself and your family.
Maybe we've got this upside down? Who is tied to a club for life and earns nothing out of football? In fact, they contribute £millions to businesses that have enormous incomes already and are happy to exploit those individuals without end. I'm not sure if we're slaves or junkies desperate for the next fix but financially I'd rather be a player or an owner or a broadcaster...
"Teddy recently said he regrets leaving it so late to join Man Utd and urged Kane not to make the same mistake." That is very sage advice from Teddy. I don't suppose he mentioned IF/WHEN Man Utd will AGAIN be at the level that Kane may be faced with such a decision.
I can see that my comment about slavers is getting in the way (for some people) of the real debate here about player loyalty. In hindsight I would have left that comment off because it is diverting the debate away from the central point made by littleDinosaurLuke in the first place. The slave issue is more political and perhaps more suitable to bring up when we discuss the next Scottish Referendum It's up to you of course if you wish to discuss the slave issue, for me it was just a throw away remark to look at the players situation in another way. In a football context the loyalty factor is of more interest IMO.
As one of my ex colleagues in NYC said to the boss when he went to resign and was asked where his loyalty was, 'If you want loyalty, buy a ****ing dog! ". The players are nothing but assets or commodities to the clubs, to be traded or disposed of at the club's discretion. The players and their pimps know this and act accordingly. Loyalty can never be a one way street. If you show none, expect none. The vast majority of clubs show none!.....
Has anybody mentioned the importance of bringing players through the youth system? When it works with players like Kane, Mason, Benteleb they must feel some loyalty to the club that nurtured them and turned them into professionals surely? More so than a Modric who clearly saw Spurs as a step up in a career path. I think Bale showed loyalty but in the end the offer was too great to ignore and apparently Real said it was now or never. Bullshit! but to a young man pretty compelling when it's the worlds biggest football club.
