There's more than one Carlos Tevez!

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.

Greedy footballers: Wayne Rooney

One thing about being a football fan is the question of why do we put ourselves through it all? The pain and heartbreak of defeat, the uncertainty and speculation over the club and squad; it all puts it into perspective. Why don’t people choose hobbies that provide the relief and excitement without lamentation and soreness. The obvious answer that all football fans can give is besides the nadirs of following a club, nothing can replicate the euphoria of a victory or glory; it is the same as religious evangelism and creates a passion that is intangible to analyse.

Sport at an anthropological level is full of heroes and villains. The soap opera and pantomime stories that follow the professional game highlight the cult and age we live in. It is unfortunate that the denigration and naivety to idolise players has distorted their real characters and personalities. Sportsmen and women are rarely the amateur peoples’ champion that we all love; they are driven, single-minded athletes. They lead a live that is furious and demanding, yet they lead it for glory and to etch their name into history. To describe a sportsman or woman as selfish is not to defame their moral character but their persistence to perform and win. The professionalisation of sport created an industry that pushes athletes to new levels and creates spectacles we can only admire. It also creates a vanity and a spectrum for fame and wealth. Nobody should deny them the opportunity to earn, nor penalise their success; it just happens that most of the time it is not just their own lives’ they are changing.

The saga that has become Wayne Rooney’s future enhances the selfishness of the modern day player. The pronouncements from the Rooney camp are unequivocal in his desire to leave, but do not detract from the ambiguity of previous comments. Rooney left his first love, Everton Football Club, to join Alex Ferguson and Manchester United at the age of 18, so we should not be surprised. ‘The boy’ is ambitious and has already won a great deal for the club, but his ‘desire’ is being used to masquerade his greed. Rooney does not see himself as a Bryan Robson, playing at a club for a decade among inferior players, he feels he deserves he should be at the top club being paid top brass. His overtures to an extent have some truth and the Glazer tenure has made United’s future less secure financially and competitively, yet his arguments are as thin as his loyalty. Rooney is a financial mercenary like John Terry or Joleon Lescott, and the kissing of the club badge is about affectionate as treading in shit.

Superstars perform on the pitch and off the pitch to their club’s commercial arm, to an extent it can be deemed an insult to the intelligence of fans but shows their naivety to believe in this facade. Rooney probably has respect for his club's supporters but we have seen his spite when representing England. If and when he moves, fans will be bitterly disappointed but they will soon appoint a new poster boy. Rooney certainly did enough, particularly last season, to show how good a footballer he is but it goes to show it inevitably doesn’t matter what shirt you’re wearing, as long you’re being handsomely rewarded for it.