please log in to view this image Wonder if he actually thinks before he opens his mouth? If you can't read the quote he's written... âThe next young player who says he does not want to play for England should be ordered to ring the parents of a soldier who has died serving his country in Afghanistan, and tell them his reasons.â for the sun tomorrow.
Why what's wrong with that? Millions would give their right arm to put the 3 lions shirt on it sends out a good message to over paid footballers for the nation that brought the beautiful game...
Bollocks !! There is a massive difference between fighting in a war - a war in which you may not even believe in and running around a field kicking a football for vast sums of money and adulation The two cannot be compared in any way
There's loads bloody wrong with it. As Whit says, there is a massive difference between fighting a war and running around a field kicking a ball for stupid amounts of money.
Besides the fact that the article is more than a tad cheesy, I can't see anything wrong, either. It seems to me to be about pride in being asked to play for your country and then putting yourself out to do it. Yes, there is a direct comparison to representing your country in an armed conflict, but why not? It's far less daft than comparing it to a soldier running around a battlefield in a war he doesn't agree with - we don't have conscription, the door is always open, the system is really quite easy to get out of, it might cost you a few Bob is all. Perhaps all professional sportsmen/women should be required to opt in or out of being available for their national team; perhaps it should also be in the public domain. I wonder how many of those parents would want to speak someone who wouldn't put themself out for their country on a field of sport?
i totally understand the sentiment he is trying to achieve but there is no way on earth you can compare the two . A footballer should feel privileged to "serve" the country in the name of football . A soldier serving to justify their pay packet doesn't do it from a position of privilege.
Of course you can compare the two; there always has been and still is an element of the armed forces who serve from a sense of pride, the money element is probably inferior to what they would have earned in civvy street, indeed the money element is of no real consequence. I would be quite chilled about a player who opted out of an international career, but I would be very interested in the reason. Focussing on their club is not an excuse for me; those top English footballers who do this are piss-poor and should be ostracized by the supporters when it comes to them giving opinion on national games on the box or in the media.
Ahh Wrighty, a true and passionate Englishman. If only all of the England players had the same pride and joy at pulling those 3 lions on, and played with the same passion as he did. What he's said was clumsy, but I agree with the gist of it, and he's right. For any English player, playing for your country should be the highest honour and the aim of their careers.
It is irrelevant what nationality you are. Any sports person at the top of their game should find it as the ultimate achievement to represent your country. Unless of course, you are ashamed of your country due to be it being under a dictatorship.
Totally agree with what you say - just not the crazy bit about meeting dead soldiers families, though there has to be a bit of perspective
Obviously, but that's not his point is it? His point is it's wrong to turn down your country. Which is 100% true. Sure, The Sun have spruced it up a bit, made it front page but all Ian is trying to say that footballers shouldn't turn down their country because they "cant be bothered".
His point is the very difference people have highlighted on here - the huge gulf (pun not intended) in experiences highlights the ridiculousness of saying no to England football duty. He's saying that if some people are willing to go off to inhospitable desert and lug 60lb of kit around before getting blown up for their country, then no one in their right mind should turn down the chance to kick a ball somewhere while staying in a five-star hotel with massages on tap. He's not so much comparing the two as illustrating just how different they are. Fair enough if you ask me.
Spot on. Out of interest: I recall some time ago, when there was a similar rage against uninterested England players and accusations they were only turning up for the money, the players forfeit their appearance fee and the money went to charity. Does anyone know if that arrangement is still in place?
It is still in place, though I can't remember anyone saying they were only turning up for the money, against what they earn for the clubs, it's peanuts. The accusation is that they earn so much playing for their clubs, that they see their clubs as their priority, rather than playing for their country. Though personally, I don't buy the idea that players don't care about playing for England, I think they still see it as an honour and privilege.
I seem to remember the chant "you don't care, you've got a Ferrari" seemed to kick it all off on that occassion. My own thoughts are that they just aren't good enough at this level of football. Maybe I should stop thinking.
I really don't think it is, if football is a just a job to you (which it is for a number of footballers) and you are not 100% committed to playing for your country, then I think its right to step aside and let someone else who cares about international football to take your place. Also players turn their back on their country all the time, look at the number of English players that play for Ireland or Wales, by doing so they have made themselves unavailable to England for the rest of their careers.
