|
A book has appeared recently by
journalist David Boyle called The Tyranny of Numbers in which he calls into
doubt the modern obsession with reducing everything to an equation, a
mathematical formula or a neat row of statistics, creating the illusion of
understanding through quantification. Translated into modern football (itself
fascinated by statistics), and the direction it's taking, it means that the
most successful club is the richest one, the one who can afford the 'best'
players money can buy, has the best/biggest stadium, the best sponsoring deal
etc. Sounds perfectly logical n'est pas? Unfortunately this leaves out other
equally, some might say vitally important factors in success - such as health,
happiness (pride in one's work, job satisfaction), the feeling of belonging to
the 'family' of a club - mutual loyalty fuels collective success and
creates the freedom/security to enjoy
its fruits. The best clubs have always benefitted from the trust and team
spirit that comes from longevity/constancy (see Simon Kuper's article at http://www.onefootball.com
/index.phtml?page=fullstory&
newsid=73963
for an in depth look at the subject or a 2nd opinion on the subject is David Icke's at
http://www.football
365.com/content/features/icke
/fw_ike_523977.htm
Football365.com, and the indefinable factor that sets a magic
team apart from the rest is one that can't be reduced to a mundane equation.
Privacy and 'freedom' are often
compromised as players further their careers - they can already be sold when they have no
desire to leave a club, fall 'victim' to a change of coach, a club's financial
problems, change of chairman, behind the scenes politics and so on. The
commercial pressures as they multiply (and especially if the transfer system is
really broken are often accompanied by increasing
stress and decreasing attention to the human inside the shirt. The change from
sportsperson into commodity has its own downside and players can find themselves
hounded by the press on a sliding scale according to their
newsworthiness, notoriety, who they are married to, how much they earn and so
on. Hardly anything new and, as some players become more like stars than
sportsmen, this will only get worse - just as Michael Douglas and his Welsh wife
Catherine Zeta Jones 'expose' their private lives on their website in order to
provide an
'official' version of their 'reality' before the press, so do players with their
on-line diaries. As players get richer they expose themselves, as do other
wealthy and famous people, to 'kidnap-ability' (see the recent events which
caused Michael Reiziger to express
his fears on the subject after the attempted kidnapping of a teammate in Spain) to add to
the 'normal' threats and verbal abuse they endure from their 'fans' if they don't do well enough,
are the wrong colour, have left after 'loyal' service to join another club etc. To
a certain extent their privacy has already been 'kidnapped' by virtue of their
becoming 'famous'.
|
|
The meaning and value of
loyalty is certainly much misunderstood and easily confused with notions of
ownership - once a player belongs to a club and its fans he becomes practically
the same as property and he should beware going against the will of his 'masters'.
Football remains a very tribal sport where the 'primitive' idea of loyalty (to
the death) lives on in some hearts - often not allowing much room for enduring
respect when a favoured player (chooses to) moves on. All this is suffered
in the name of success and by some of the best known names in football. This
form of loyalty resembles that seen in gangs, the mafia and so on - more a
question of obedience than the (mutual) respect real loyalty implies. So it's
rather pathetic to read about 'fans' of the English national team (for example) booing players
in that eleven who come from the 'wrong' club. Loyalty is something which often goes
out the window when finances and politics come into the 'equation' of
decision-making - a player can be the workhorse who's got to go once his
usefulness expires and a club can be 'deserted' by a player who catches a
glimpse of greener (richer) pastures elsewhere. In today's football loyalty has
more to do with both 'parties' fulfilling the terms of a contract
than any romantic feelings of 'kinship'. In
professional terms, that is exactly how it should be - giving a fair day's work
for a fair day's pay based on the letter of the law. Any more romantic form of loyalty is dependent on the
emotional makeup of individual players and their clubs/trainers/fans etc. - the
one feels it more by nature than the other, and here actions speak much louder
than words (do they put their heart into their footballing on the pitch, do they
gain and retain the respect of trainers and fans?).
Where does that leave
the great transfer debate? It is reaching the point where the differences of
opinion between FIFA/UEFA and the European Commission become ever more
visible, the players' union FIFPro having pulled out of the negotiations, and
there is little sign of solidarity or indeed agreement among the factions
involved. In England Arsène Wenger has called for more club-voices (specifically
Alex Ferguson's) to be raised in protest against the potentially
far-reaching and damaging effects of the proposed changes. A contract should be
respected by both parties, everyone involved is an adult, knows what they are
getting into and has lawyers/advisers on hand, so what is the problem? David
Icke, writing at http://www.football365.com
/content/features/icke/fw_ike_498428.htm
says pretty much the same thing. In today's English Sunday newspaper The
Observer Ryan Giggs, backed by other top players, points out that FIFPro's
desire to push for a minimum of 3 months notice to end a contract would have
equally devastating consequences for players who find themselves injured and/or
no longer wanted by their clubs. The only people who would benefit from such
changes to the transfer system would be the 'stars', the rich few, whose wages
would skyrocket to compensate for the loss of transfer fees. The rest would
suffer the consequences such proposals would have for the already shaky
stability of the less-well-off clubs and footballing nations. Loyalty could
become a thing of the past and, without the 'glue' which binds a team and forms
the essence of what a club should represent, the 'heart' of football can only
suffer. Is this a price the sport can afford, is it one worth paying? This
debate is by no means over - it could be just beginning folks!
Copyright © 2000 [FootballNL].
All rights reserved.
|
