It is quite interesting to see that the Carlos Tevez affair is still ongoing and will continue to boil over until the Argentinean’s exit from Manchester City is finalised. Tevez, who allegedly refused to come on as a substitute in last week’s Champions League tie against Bayern Munich received much criticism for his actions from journalists, managers and ex-professionals. Anyone who has followed the career of the striker will be aware of his peripatetic drifting across the English Premier League from West Ham, where his goals saved them from relegation; to Manchester United , where he won trophies at home and abroad and finally Man City, where he earns an estimated £250,000 a week.
Many commentators have pointed to the analysis of former Scotland and Liverpool player Graeme Souness and now Sky pundit for his remarks. Souness said: (You can see them here)
“Why would a player not want to go on and help his teammates? How selfish can you get? Because you didn't start: how petulant can you be?
“You chase him as far as you can from Manchester tomorrow, because he is one bad apple and that can spread. He's a disgrace to football. Your man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with modern footballers. He epitomises what that man thinks."
I think the most interesting turn of phrase that Souness uses is ‘man on the street’. The ‘man on the street’ is what we perceive as the same social and economic background where most players came from, what we may deem as working class – the same grouping as the majority of fans. Yet football has moved on in so many different ways. The abolition of the wage cap in 1961 allowed footballers to earn much more money than previously, the revenue generated by television and consequentially global marketing made clubs and ultimately players wealthier. Perhaps most significantly, the landmark Bosman ruling allowed players to leave clubs at the end of their contracts giving them greater power over pay and contracts.
Modern day footballers are perceived as mercenaries that are inherently disloyal to fans. Yet, who’s not to say that players such as Bobby Moore or Stanley Matthews wouldn’t have done the same in their time, it’s just the framework was different back then. In the real world, people leave jobs all the time for better pay (granted not on the same scale) but no one calls them disloyal.
I can’t condone what Tevez did but nevertheless I don’t think we should have been as surprised by it all.
Many commentators have pointed to the analysis of former Scotland and Liverpool player Graeme Souness and now Sky pundit for his remarks. Souness said: (You can see them here)
“Why would a player not want to go on and help his teammates? How selfish can you get? Because you didn't start: how petulant can you be?
“You chase him as far as you can from Manchester tomorrow, because he is one bad apple and that can spread. He's a disgrace to football. Your man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with modern footballers. He epitomises what that man thinks."
I think the most interesting turn of phrase that Souness uses is ‘man on the street’. The ‘man on the street’ is what we perceive as the same social and economic background where most players came from, what we may deem as working class – the same grouping as the majority of fans. Yet football has moved on in so many different ways. The abolition of the wage cap in 1961 allowed footballers to earn much more money than previously, the revenue generated by television and consequentially global marketing made clubs and ultimately players wealthier. Perhaps most significantly, the landmark Bosman ruling allowed players to leave clubs at the end of their contracts giving them greater power over pay and contracts.
Modern day footballers are perceived as mercenaries that are inherently disloyal to fans. Yet, who’s not to say that players such as Bobby Moore or Stanley Matthews wouldn’t have done the same in their time, it’s just the framework was different back then. In the real world, people leave jobs all the time for better pay (granted not on the same scale) but no one calls them disloyal.
I can’t condone what Tevez did but nevertheless I don’t think we should have been as surprised by it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment