Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Of course not! And that wasn't the intention. But I don't think one can be outplayed by the other. Both can mean, most likely will do, an extremely stressful life. I never really checked on that but it is my understanding that professional athletes (not just footballers) die rather young. And not just because they drive too powerful automobiles so to say.

Actually, I expect that they find a life without the excitement, the thrill, of constant adrenalin very difficult to deal with. Hence dicing with danger, or seeking some sort of edge (such as gambling), or feeling the need to constantly push themselves. Some of them clearly develop addictions - again, to substances that offer a permanent 'high'. Fast, expensive, powerful cars are only one symptom of such things.

For that matter, I seem to remember reading that Alex Ferguson used to like to see his players settled down into stable relationships, rather than drinking and night clubbing; it seems that he felt that a spouse and family served to ground them, stabilise them, and offer psychological security and stability and serve to help the players become more mature as human beings.

Sometimes, I have seen this same dynamic play out with colleagues with whom I have worked with in strange spots abroad; even though they are away from the situation of stress - and the satisfaction of dealing with extraordinary challenges and sometimes dangers - they also miss it and suffer from the withdrawal of the circumstances which gave rise to it.
 
Good points , both of you.

For me, the real problem is not whether or not the players have stress or are pampered - the issue is that the system exploits them.

Players are carefully managed by their clubs while they are useful, but as soon as they are too old they get spat out of the system with almost no education, no life skills, no support network outside their family and friends (who may be just as ill-equipped as they are). It is worse still for non-elite players who invested everything but failed to make the grade, never made a fortune, and then have nothing to fall back on.

For as rich as most clubs in the top couple tiers of football are, you'd think they could work with universities or vocational training schools to place their players in a new career once they retire, and provide them with counseling services or "life coaches" to get them on track in a new career.

A retired footballer is a young man with no university or vocational education who is dumped from a very structured life into the "real" world with no formal preparation. It's a terrible system.

At the end of the day much blame rests with clubs and football associations for treating their employees this way.
 
Good points , both of you.

For me, the real problem is not whether or not the players have stress or are pampered - the issue is that the system exploits them.

Players are carefully managed by their clubs while they are useful, but as soon as they are too old they get spat out of the system with almost no education, no life skills, no support network outside their family and friends (who may be just as ill-equipped as they are). It is worse still for non-elite players who invested everything but failed to make the grade, never made a fortune, and then have nothing to fall back on.

For as rich as most clubs in the top couple tiers of football are, you'd think they could work with universities or vocational training schools to place their players in a new career once they retire, and provide them with counseling services or "life coaches" to get them on track in a new career.

A retired footballer is a young man with no university or vocational education who is dumped from a very structured life into the "real" world with no formal preparation. It's a terrible system.

At the end of the day much blame rests with clubs and football associations for treating their employees this way.

Spot on.

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why the top clubs - which are extraordinarily wealthy, and have been since the advent of the Premiership - are not obliged to put proper support systems in place, for both young and older players, above all for those players who don't make the grade - and provide and deliver proper training and decent qualifications for the youngsters under their care. And indeed, offer counselling and proverbial psychological parachutes to those about to be cut loose from the possibility - or reality - of a gilded existence.

Recently, I read an article about the fate of the famous - some would say legendary - 'class of 92' in Manchester United. While many of the names did indeed become legends, there were some I had never heard of, and many of these were working in very ordinary jobs nowadays, even though, as youngsters, they would have been regarded as some of the most talented in the country.

Mind you, today, Sunderland's spluttered excuses - 'we thought he was going to plead not guilty' - ring very hollow especially when you realise that Adam Johnson himself had briefed them - and they had read the police transcripts of the 800 plus text messages - as long ago as last May. They certainly haven't covered themselves in glory.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
Mind you, today, Sunderland's spluttered excuses - 'we thought he was going to pleas not guilty' - ring very hollow especially when you realise that Adam Johnson himself had briefed them - and they had read the police transcripts of the 80 plus text messages - as long ago as last May. They certainly haven't covered themselves in glory.

Johnson was one of their best players, and, sadly, I imagine that played a role in their decision-making process. If the player in question was an Under-21 or reserve goalkeeper I'll bet they would have fired him on the spot. Instead, Sunderland hedged their bets.

On the one hand, final judgment should be reserved until the due process of law has worked itself out. That is why we have trials. On the other, Johnson's private admission of guilt to the club should have made it clear that he would very likely be found guilty of a serious crime. A more ethical solution would have been to suspend him / withhold his wages until the outcome of the trial. But Sunderland were in a dangerous league position and needed points, so they succumbed to the temptation to ignore the situation until he actually plead guilty.

If Big Sam's statement about being surprised was true, he was duped by his own club.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
Johnson was one of their best players, and, sadly, I imagine that played a role in their decision-making process. If the player in question was an Under-21 or reserve goalkeeper I'll be they would have fired him on the spot. Instead, Sunderland hedged their bets.

On the one hand, final judgment should be reserved until the due process of law has worked itself out. That is why we have trials. On the other, Johnson's private admission of guilt to the club should have made it clear that he would very likely be found guilty of a serious crime. A more ethical solution would have been to suspend him / withhold his wages until the outcome of the trial. But Sunderland were in a dangerous league position and needed points, so they succumbed to the temptation to ignore the situation until he actually plead guilty.

If Big Sam's statement about being surprised was true, he was duped by his own club.

Unfortunately, I very much doubt that Big Sam's surprise was genuine. They had the transcripts of the phone texts, - over 800 of them - the FB stuff, and police interviews since last May. This should have come as no surprise to anyone.

I understand the commercial and Premiership imperatives, but I think the club is being rather disingenuous at best, and very equivocal about what they knew and what possible inferences should have been drawn from that. Whatever about paying his wages, suspending him - given what it was more than likely he would be found guilty of - might have been an appropriate step to have taken.

And the kid was a star struck season ticket holder; what sort of message does that send out to kids who support the club?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
I agree. Sunderland have been a terribly-run club for years now and they have been terrible on the pitch, saved from relegation only by other clubs around them suffering late-season collapses.

This affair just gives them even more bad karma.

I hope Norwich can pull themselves together because Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa all deserve to go down.
 
Last edited:
On income and stress, for example, the Prime Ministers of most of the EU countries will not earn much more than €200,000 p.a. - yet someone such as Mr Johnson, late of Sunderland, pockets - or used to pocket until he was fired - a salary that clocked in at £60,000 per week.

the fact that Angela Merkel earns 216.000 Euro per year while Rooney pockets 250.000 pounds per week sure makes ones head spin.
For her salary he very likely wouldn't even bother to get out of bed.

(Mario Draghi earns 370.000 euro per year .... as head of the italian national bank he earned twice as much ... imagine you salary getting halfed when being promoted. Sure takes dedication)
 
the fact that Angela Merkel earns 216.000 Euro per year while Rooney pockets 250.000 pounds per week sure makes ones head spin.
For her salary he very likely wouldn't even bother to get out of bed.

(Mario Draghi earns 370.000 euro per year .... as head of the italian national bank he earned twice as much ... imagine you salary getting halfed when being promoted. Sure takes dedication)

Well said, but that was my very point.

And I am not someone who is of the opinion that political leaders should earn a derisory salary - the responsibility of their office needs for them to be completely financially independent and sufficiently well remunerated to not be tempted by bribes, for example. A quarter of a million a year is the very least of what they are worth and is a fair price to pay for a functioning and independent political system.

A similar situation to Mario Draghi would be where top barristers have been known to have taken quite a sizeable salary - or income - cut, or drop, when they have been elevated to the bench.

However, I think the bloated salaries of top footballers do serve to give them an inflated sense of their own worth and importance. Personally, I think a salary of £250,000 per week obscene.

Yes, I am delighted that Jimmy Hill fought the good fight against the income controls in football of the 1950s, - many footballers at the time were little more than indentured servants, and most of them were every bit as uneducated as many of the current crop of footballers are, with next to nothing to show for it when they left the game.

Likewise, I am even more pleased that Marc Bosman won his case, but I am not sure that the sense of bottomless entitlement encouraged by the payment of such salaries serves the game, and its supporters well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
A similar situation to Mario Draghi would be where top barristers have been known to have taken quite a sizeable salary - or income - cut, or drop, when they have been elevated to the bench.

i just thought "I didn't know that serving coffee actually paid a sizable salary" ... until i realized that barrister is obviously a false friend and has little to do with hot beverages. After a short visit to wikipedia i learned something new.
 
i just thought "I didn't know that serving coffee actually paid a sizable salary" ... until i realized that barrister is obviously a false friend and has little to do with hot beverages. After a short visit to wikipedia i learned something new.

Sorry, my bad. Mea culpa.

I should have been clearer, - and used the word 'lawyer' or advocat, but in the UK and Ireland higher positions on the Bench, traditionally, have been the preserve of barristers, whereas solicitors can be appointed to serve as judges in the lower courts.

However, many of the really good ones can end up offered positions on the bench, and almost invariably take a considerable cut in salary when they do so. A good friend of mine was in such a position and when he mentioned the financial aspect it was merely as a statement of fact, not a complaint. It is viewed as honourable and prestigious to be asked to serve, and those appointed usually consider it a privilege to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
not in every case, I've seen plenty of footballers who'd rather take the spot on the bench or not even there in favor over a transfer since they would earn significantly less when playing. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
Yes, but does Rooney have blood on his hands?

Cheers,
OW

Not trying to get overly political here, but heads of state are elected to make the hard geopolitical decisions upon which the lives of millions are balanced...

...Rooney kicks a ball.

Of course the beauty of football is that it can sometimes take us out of reality to a safer, happier place, and that's its true value.
 
Not trying to get overly political here, but heads of state are elected to make the hard geopolitical decisions upon which the lives of millions are balanced...

...Rooney kicks a ball.

Of course the beauty of football is that it can sometimes take us out of reality to a safer, happier place, and that's its true value.

Excellent and thoughtful response - one with which I agree.

My original point was on the stress, of public office, and having to shoulder considerable responsibility, - and indeed take ownership of - and responsibility for - hard geopolitical decisions (the old reliable standby 'it was the ref's fault' doesn't really cut it in international relations) and - comparatively speaking, relatively paltry salaries - compared to and contrasted with the lives - and sometimes obscene salaries - paid to top footballers.

While football at its best can serve to distract and entertain, it is still a modern take on the old 'panem et circenses' - or the sort of chariot racing prevalent in the later days of the Roman empire, in places such as Constantinople during the reign of Justinian, where the successful and leading charioteers of the top racing teams enjoyed and lived the sort of lives not unknown to top footballers or sportsmen those days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
My post was with regard to Merkel who has acted irresponsibly.

Like footballers and other walks of life, there are some in public office who deserve more, some less, and some should be kicked to the Moon.

Cheers,
OW

You won't get any arguments from me there!

Speaking of people in football who deserve to be kicked to the moon, Charlie Stillitano, an American executive at the company Relevant Sports (sounds like joke name from a sitcom) has been involved in talks with top English teams about the ever-present proposals to create a European Super League.

He also made some completely nauseating remarks showing just what he thinks the the sport is all about:

Discussions within the ECA about the merits of advocating guaranteed Champions League places for prestigious teams come at a time when Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United are all in danger of missing out on qualifying for Europe’s top competition next season.

“What would Manchester United argue: did we create soccer or did Leicester create [it]?” said Stillitano, who met United’s executive vice-chairman, Ed Woodward, on Tuesday. “Let’s call it the money pot created by soccer and the fandom around the world. Who has had more of an integral role, Manchester United or Leicester? It’s a wonderful, wonderful story – but you could see it from Manchester United’s point of view, too.”

"Created Soccer"? Absolutely disgusting! But Stillitano is not alone in thinking that certain big clubs "created" soccer when they transitioned from being regional sports teams to global business enterprises - and that they deserve special privileges as a result.

I am a real believer in the notion that supporting a team is something of a life commitment - you don't switch allegiances. But if Liverpool were to become part of a European Super League, or gain an automatic Champions League qualification based on the size of their Asian revenue streams, I think I would back away from them and become a neutral, a fan of the game itself rather than any specific team (in Europe anyway...Columbus are still fighting the good fight. ;) ).

There is no team in the world that is inherently better than any other, nor is it acceptable to me that todays richest clubs should be permitted to cheat the system and lock themselves in at the top forever. That is fundamentally unsportsmanlike.

Somehow, we have to further limit the impact of money in the game, or at the very least stop it from gaining more influence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
You won't get any arguments from me there!

Speaking of people in football who deserve to be kicked to the moon, Charlie Stillitano, an American executive at the company Relevant Sports (sounds like joke name from a sitcom) has been involved in talks with top English teams about the ever-present proposals to create a European Super League.

He also made some completely nauseating remarks showing just what he thinks the the sport is all about:



"Created Soccer"? Absolutely disgusting! But Stillitano is not alone in thinking that certain big clubs "created" soccer when they transitioned from being regional sports teams to global business enterprises - and that they deserve special privileges as a result.

I am a real believer in the notion that supporting a team is something of a life commitment - you don't switch allegiances. But if Liverpool were to become part of a European Super League, or gain an automatic Champions League qualification based on the size of their Asian revenue streams, I think I would back away from them and become a neutral, a fan of the game itself rather than any specific team (in Europe anyway...Columbus are still fighting the good fight. ;) ).

There is no team in the world that is inherently better than any other, nor is it acceptable to me that todays richest clubs should be permitted to cheat the system and lock themselves in at the top forever. That is fundamentally unsportsmanlike.

Somehow, we have to further limit the impact of money in the game, or at the very least stop it from gaining more influence.

Excellent post. And I am pretty much in complete agreement with you.

Ever since Manchester United withdrew from - and declined to grace the FA Cup (as it then was) with their presence as competitors in 1999 (for the competition 1999-2000), in essence, sending the message that an ancient competition with a genuinely venerable ancestry was no longer sufficiently challenging (or financially rewarding) for them, I have held them in low esteem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
Ever since Manchester United withdrew from - and declined to grace the FA Cup (as it then was) with their presence as competitors in 1999 (for the competition 1999-2000), in essence, sending the message that an ancient competition with a genuinely venerable ancestry was no longer sufficiently challenging (or financially rewarding) for them, I have held them in low esteem.

They may have set the precedent, but many others have followed. Pretty much all Premier League teams field weakened starting XIs until the quarter or semifinals of the cups. But you could make the argument that Ferguson, with the connivance of the FA, got the ball rolling on the devaluation of the FA Cup.

Man City is the richest club in England, with a huge squad and youth development system. Yet Pellegrini has complained again and again about fixture congestion. It's hard to be sympathetic because the clubs themselves (along with FIFA/the FA) are the ones who increasing the number of matches played in tournaments and leagues to boost revenue.

Neoliberal economists (and the football executives who follow their policies) might believe in limitless economic growth potentials, but there is a limit to the number of matches an elite athlete can play in a calendar year without suffering long-term consequences; I think we have already exceeded that limit.
 
Lord Blackadder,

The Disney movie clearly shows Manchester United inventing football. I have no problem with Leicester City taking part in European crisp and cheese competitions.

Edit - Paul Wilson (The Guardian article) - no love for either blue or red of Manchester and even Evertonians seem to question if he is indeed a Toffee.


Excellent post. And I am pretty much in complete agreement with you.

Ever since Manchester United withdrew from - and declined to grace the FA Cup (as it then was) with their presence as competitors in 1999 (for the competition 1999-2000), in essence, sending the message that an ancient competition with a genuinely venerable ancestry was no longer sufficiently challenging (or financially rewarding) for them, I have held them in low esteem.

From a BBC report:

The FA wants United to play in the new tournament in Brazil next January - because they believe it could aid England's 2006 World Cup bid.

Plus:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/853647.stm

Cheers,
OW
 
Last edited:
Lord Blackadder,

The Disney movie clearly shows Manchester United inventing football. I have no problem with Leicester City taking part in European crisp and cheese competitions.

Edit - Paul Wilson (The Guardian article) - no love for either blue or red of Manchester and even Evertonians seem to question if he is indeed a Toffee.




From a BBC report:

The FA wants United to play in the new tournament in Brazil next January - because they believe it could aid England's 2006 World Cup bid.

Plus:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/853647.stm

Cheers,
OW

True, it wasn't Ferguson's fault first (the club suits and the FA made the call), though he did try to finagle a bye to the fourth round out of it. Cheeky.

No, but they went along with it, - fairly enthusiastically - which had the unfortunate effect of devaluing the oldest cup competition in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMike
Spurs Spurs'd it up, and Arsenal Arsenaled it up...their mutual choking canceled each other out. Sanchez and Kane aren't chokers though...

Another big day for Leicester. If they can win today they'll have put some precious distance between themselves and Spurs/Arsenal/Man City.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
Spurs Spurs'd it up, and Arsenal Arsenaled it up...their mutual choking canceled each other out. Sanchez and Kane aren't chokers though...

Another big day for Leicester. If they can win today they'll have put some precious distance between themselves and Spurs/Arsenal/Man City.

Yes, I read about that result with interest.

Even though I am a (somewhat desultory) Arsenal fan, I really and truly hope that Leicester win the title this year.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.