Fifa set aside £400m contigency fund for South Africa 2010

A few weeks ago, the U.S. economy was rocked with the downfall of $20 billion company Bear Stearns. Americans hear worrying news reports on the state of the economy on a seemingly hourly basis, but Bear Stearns seemed to be surprising.

It was merely a span of a few days from the time Bear Stearns went national with assurances that the company was secure, to the news that J.P. Morgan had bought out one of its largest competitors. Confidence, some analysts stressed, is a large factor in driving the success of any economy or company. Bear Stearns lacked that confidence; they panicked, and the result was nearly a full collapse.

So with FIFA recently admitting that they are preparing a £400m contingency fund in preparation for the possible collapse of the 2010 South African World Cup, confidence seems, to say the least, to be a bit shaky. The governing body has at last looked in the eye some of the concerns that soccer fans have been outlining all along – a lack of solid infrastructure, shoddy safety for the players and the spectators, inadequate stadiums, and a lack of tourism appeal and hospitality to make this more developing country seem as alluring as the lodgings of the more recent Cups – Germany, the United States, Japan and Korea, and France are all considerably more developed than South Africa.

But that is certainly part of the allure of a South Africa World Cup. The world undoubtedly seems to hold their breath during the tournament, and to envelope the competition in a part of the world that is less traveled to the majority of the spectators and players changes the tenor of the tournament; away from the more commercial and familiar setting, to a backdrop that many of the smaller or less developed nations – whether recognized or not by Fifa - can identify with.

The instigation of this contingency plan stems from the insecurities of insurers, which led to indecisiveness in whether they will provide coverage for South Africa. At this point, a full commitment from the insurers is lacking. Because insurance is so essential to such a massive event, FIFA is smart to set aside a Plan B fund, but its not helping put anyone at ease.

The insurers are not simply hedging their bets. As told to The Guardian, Munich Re, the German insurance conglomerate who insured the 2006 World Cup, remains concerned about the actual physical progress of the stadiums. “The situation is quite difficult and fluid,” said a spokesman for Munich Re. “The problem is they need 10 stadiums and some of these are rugby grounds that are run-down and in a very bad condition.”

The Guardian also spoke with a Fifa insider who stated that security, transport infrastructure, and the local political climate were also of concern to the insurance companies. However, the most feasible feat at this point are the stadiums first, and the rest after. Remaining silent at least for now on the safety and the infrastructure, without the necessary stadiums, there is no place for the tournament to take place, making anything else simply icing on a hollow cake.

In a recent press release, Fifa stated they were working at making certain the money would be available so that a 2010 World Cup could take place – presumably in South Africa, but at this rate, anything appears possible. Fifa’s confidence is clearly shaken and while Bear Stearns was able to be bought out, there is no one but Fifa to help themselves - even if that means moving the tournament elsewhere, or pouring in £400 million of their own funds to make sure it happens.

South Africa is not static, however, and they maintain that their rehabilitative and construction plans for the stadiums should ensure they are ready by 2010. They have also initiated anti-crime initiatives in Johannesburg to promote more security. The country still intends to stage the Confederations Cup scheduled to take place in 2009, which is essentially a World Cup primer, but as told to The Guardian, its possible that, despite its projections, the country may still be unprepared. A Fifa spokesperson, however, insisted there were no internal concerns over the World Cup. Confidence, Fifa appears to be stressing, is key. In the longer run, however, Fifa’s decision about 2010 will undoubtedly impact insurance for future Cups, including Brazil in 2014 and possibly even England in 2018.

Hopefully South Africa will be worth all the trouble.

LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION FOR WORLD CUP 2010

Much has been made about the strength of South Africa’s infrastructure to host a successful World Cup. To that end, South Africa is considering beefing up their capabilities in providing the best World Cup possible by legalizing prostitution.

It was South African police commissioner Jackie Selebi who first proposed the idea, arguing that if prostitution is legalized, it would free up police to deal with more pressing security issues, but last Wednesday, at an Arts and Culture Department meeting on its plans for social cohesion for 2010, the proposal was presented again, this time from ANC MP George Lekgetho. “It is one of the things that would make it [the tournament] a success because we hear of many rapes, because people don’t have access to them [women],” Lekgetho stated during a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture in Parliament.

Not everyone was as keen on the idea as Lekgetho, some seeing it as a joke, and others as an offense. Lekgetho’s idea is supported by many of the same arguments that have been thrown around before. Theoretically so long as it’s legal, it will be easy to license, regulate, and tax. It would provide money for the country, establish some guidelines and safety precautions for the workers and their patrons, and generally allow the prostitutes more organizational capabilities, providing more safety and empowerment. There is also the issue of HIV. Legalizing prostitution could pave the way for regulations on mandatory testing for HIV and other STD’s, making it safer for both the prostitutes and their patrons. Said Lekgetho, “If sex working is legalised people would not do things in the dark. That would bring us tax and would improve the lives of those who are not working.”

The remainder of the meeting focused on the customer service in South Africa, but the topic of legalizing prostitution for the 2010 tournament was left for further consideration, with another ANC MP, Christopher Gololo suggesting the topic be an issue given to the public to debate. However, DA MP Sydney Opperfman pointed out the danger in “commercializing” the relationship, stating, “You cannot attach a price to the deepest union between a man and a woman and link it to our tax base.”

On the other hand, the issue of human trafficking and abuse cannot be ignored as football fans across the globe flock to the fragile nation for football and all the other accessories that go with the game. Alcohol and sex seem to be as big a part of many fans’ experience as watching the matches itself. Legalizing prostitution may make fans safer, and make their access to prostitutes a little bit cleaner, but South Africa is correct in realizing that their country’s long-term identity will not be defined solely by 2010, and weighing the detriments compared to the benefits of such a drastic policy shift may spell disaster for the country in the long run, if the country isn’t ready for it.

Instead of pondering these profitable but theoretical possibilities, South Africa should look at what they projected they’d be able to produce when they were initially awarded the tournament, and legalizing prostitution was probably not in that dossier.

Its natural for South Africa to refer back to 2006, as Germany served as a fantastic host. The legalized public drinking and prostitution probably helped that along, and to that end, replicating Germany in terms of legalized prostitution makes sense to debate, but Germany also had readied stadiums and roads and transportation. Cart before the horse, really.

The Video Technology Tug of War

Fabio Capello recently offered compliments to England referees when he observed how infrequently they stop the game. Capello praised the match officials, stating:

“The first thing I noticed were the referees because they whistle so little compared to those in the rest of Europe.”

Statistically his inference that the England refs tend to let the game play on more than their European counterparts is correct. The Premier League referees currently allow 25 free kicks per game, the lowest average in Europe. The referees dole out about 3.2 yellow cards a game, also the lowest when compared to the averages in the neighboring leagues: 4.5 a game in Italy and 5.5 per game in Spain.

The English referees are also much closer to the game, staying about 14 meters back from the action, 9 meters less than just two years ago. The English refs run about 7.5 miles per game to stay so close. But these statistics are silent on whether or not the referees are accurate and the introduction of goal line technology could give us those statistics.

But in an effort to further avoid goal line technology, while still providing potentially more accuracy, UEFA proposes introducing two extra assistant referees in the penalty area at both free-kicks and corners. UEFA is still experimenting with placing the extra officials behind the goal line or on the pitch itself. Said UEFA spokesman William Gaillard: “The game’s a lot faster now, it’s hard to keep up with play all the time…Some people say it is better for them to stay behind the goal, others that it is better for them to be inside the penalty area so that things that go on such as pulling and pushing are properly sanctioned.”

UEFA got the green light from the International FA Board to test this option starting with youth tournaments, and depending on those results, two more referees could be introduced at the professional level as an alternative to goal line technology. These extra refs would act as the linesman does now, communicating their observations and opinions to the referee via radio.

This development is illustrative of UEFA’s awareness in safeguarding the game from erroneous calls, but UEFA may simply be stalling an inevitable change in the game, choosing instead to add more of the same than something completely different. Yet if football has to change, adding two more officials is counterproductive if the goal is to give the player’s fairness and accuracy.

Adding two more referees has its own problems. It adds another layer of human error and inconsistency that will alter the flow of play. It still changes the traditional form of the game, a change that opponents of goal line technology decry. It will add costs to the game for the clubs and the league, and in the long run may be more expensive than the technology. It requires two more competent referees for every game.

It also adds two more bodies to the pitch for the players to work around. And while in theory it gives the referees more help, it also adds two more points of view that will inevitably at times be at odds, leaving fans to ask why there isn’t a video available for all three on field referees to refer to.

(Sources: Lenient English Refs
Capello)

Farewell G-14

The G-14 knew what they wanted all along, it just took eight years and the presumed dissolution of their organization to get it.

Platini called for the “elitest” G-14 to disband last year, but it wasn’t until Tuesday that he got his wish. UEFA, FIFA, and the G-14 signed a letter of intent, setting out a dissolution of the G-14, including all of its legal claims. This letter of intent paves the way for another association not unlike the G-14 except, perhaps, in membership. Already called the European Club Association, this is good news for smaller clubs who, though their interests may have ultimately been represented by the G-14, were not official members.

It’s no secret that UEFA and FIFA were at constant odds with the G-14. Initially formed to aid negotiations with the latter governing bodies, the G-14 spent a considerable amount of time tied up in court with various complaints. The G-14’s intent was to be a voice of the clubs but evidently if you weren’t a massive club, your voice wasn’t heard quite as loudly, especially since membership was by invitation only. Regarded as a European super league, they seemed to impliedly threaten a possible breakaway unless they got what they wanted. The organization’s aim was to act in the best interests of major clubs in Europe, focused heavily on finances, international play, and compensation for players from their home countries when on international leave, especially if those players returned to their clubs injured. Prior to the 2006 World Cup, the G-14 asked for a percentage of receipts from such tournaments, to compensate the clubs for the force release of their players. This, by all accounts, has been unyielding.

Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s President, initially refused to negotiate or discuss the G-14’s demand. To force UEFA and FIFA’s hands, the G-14 took the international compensation matter to court, however, as the group is set to disband, this presumably dismisses the cases altogether. This legal cease and desist, along with UEFA and FIFA’s promises to give clubs compensation for the time their players are away on international duty, taking into account any injuries, appears to end this matter.

But what is the point of disbanding the G-14 if another club association rises like a phoenix from its ashes? Presumably there will be more room for smaller clubs but that’s not the likely motivator. More plausible is that the dissolution of the G-14 came at the price of both UEFA and FIFA agreeing to compensate players for taking part in European Championships and World Cups. As stated in BBC Sport: “Significantly, the clubs are going to get paid when their players take part in international tournaments,” said BBC sports news reporter James Munro. “All the details have not yet been sorted out but I understand that it is going to be a daily rate irrespective of whether it is £100,000-a-week or £1,000-a-week.”

By all accounts, a major motivator for the G-14 disbandment was the dissolution of their legal opposition in return for what they have been after since forming in 2000. The legal action was likely a financial drain to the clubs that they’d rather be without, and the G-14 acted as a threat to both UEFA and FIFA’s governing powers that they’d rather do without. Likely figuring they would have to pony up the finances for the G-14’s demands in the future anyway, UEFA and FIFA appear more peaceful negotiator, less pressured and weakened organization.

It is not an entirely done deal yet, as some of the legal cases involve clubs outside of the G-14, who will have to agree to drop their claims. As told to ESPN, G-14 general manager Thomas Kurth accepted that Tuesday’s announcement may lead to the group disbanding, but not without further, detailed negotiations:

“The general assembly of G-14 will need to ratify any agreement to disband or end the court cases. We will meet on Feb. 15 and then yes, if all is agreed, we will have to take the decision whether to continue with the court cases. As you can see from the FIFA statement the intention is to resolve the remaining issues on compensation for injured players, the international calendar and a greater democratic say in how the game is run. But any agreement (on the court cases) must have the backing of Charleroi, Lyon and Atletico Madrid as those cases stand on their own and will only go away if all our issues are resolved.”

It’s a positive and probably necessary step that UEFA and FIFA are willing to recognize and compensate the club for players who are injured while off on international duty (something Newcastle would have appreciated a la Michael Owen), but its left to tell what the new, European Club Association will take FIFA to task on next. Perhaps more efforts to promote fair treatment of away fans, and fight hooliganism, as the G-14’s premise and objective appeared to boil down to money, money, and more money.

Barcelona president Joan Laporta, speaking on behalf of all the clubs, expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the meeting: “Friendship and confidence is the basis for our game. I compliment the UEFA president on having implemented the change he promised when he came to office. It is a victory for all.”

Friendship and Confidence? So that’s what they’re calling it nowadays.

BANGURA TO REMAIN IN THE UK

But the issue opens up greater questions on international footballers




The football world breathed a sigh of relief Monday as the Home Office announced that 19-year old Watford midfielder Alhassan Bangura would be granted a work permit and avoid deportation back to Sierra Leone.

Though a work permit looked bleak, (Bangura has never been capped by Sierra Leone, who are absent from top 70 nations of Fifa’s world rankings) the outpouring of support from both football and non-football supporters alike made his case appear even more inhumane.

Such a surge of support reminded the Home Office of the importance of finding any avenue available for Bangura, and despite the chatter that Bangura shouldn’t be treated any differently than any other asylum seeker, Bangura’s place in the sporting world did not go unnoticed. It was an independent panel composed of Home Office members and members of the football world who decided Bangura’s fate, and he had the support of Watford and the football community at large as the severity of the originating country and the happenstance of Bangura upon his possible return was decided. Bangura’s case also reminded the football world that when players come from less developed countries, they are given more than just a chance to play football, they are given a chance to reverse their fortunes.

A very brief history of UK asylum policies: Guided by the first primary legislation devoted to asylum in the UK in 1993, within the last decade, the UK has tightened up asylum acceptance, out of fear of “bogus asylum seekers” who want to take advantage of economic benefits. Notwithstanding those individuals, the UK remains mindful of the 1951 United Nations Asylum Seekers Convention, initially created to handle the displaced, post World War II. For people like Bangura, the most favorable provision is Article III of the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. If a country knowingly sends a person into such a depraved situation, it is in direction violation of Article III. Add to that widespread protest against the deportation of that individual, where imminent harm or death is on the horizon, and their case for asylum is helped even further.

Sierra Leone is still home to about 5 million, who may not appreciate seeing their country depreciated by Bangura who, though just trying to make a better life, tarnishes the image of Sierra Leone in the process. As Ade Daramy, a Soccerlens reader articulated, “What little people do know about Sierra Leone is not especially positive. They may dimly recall that there was a brutal, 10-year civil war and that Tony Blair sent British troops in to help restore the civilian government to power. It is against this background that Al Bangura and his supporters have used the situation in Sierra Leone to concoct a fantastical tale and gain sympathy. What may astound those campaigning on behalf of Bangura is that the only emotion his case has stirred amongst Sierra Leoneans is one of anger. Anger that this young man is prepared to further tarnish the name and image of his country in order to be allowed to stay here.”

Despite Daramy’s impassioned response, UN statistics are not on his side: In Sierra Leone, men on average reach their 40th birthday if lucky, and women on average live to about 42. Sierra Leone, according to the United Nations Population Fund, is one of the 49 least developed countries, and has some of the highest maternal mortality ratio (2,000 deaths per 100,000 live births) and the infant mortality rate (162 deaths per 1,000 live births).

Less capable of statistical aptitude is the country’s history of corruption and violence. The largest fear for Bangura was not that he would die young (though considering the statistics, seemed certain), but that the same group that killed his father, which prompted him to flee to begin with, would murder him. Known as the Soko, they are the heads of a wider group, the Poro, a secret society responsible for regulating the sexual, social, and political conduct of the wider population, but are often associated with voodoo or witchcraft.

As Bangura first told the Guardian when asked about his religious beliefs, Bangura, who is Muslim, stated, “ ‘I don’t know. But you can’t do these things and say you believe in God.’ When he told the Soko community he didn’t want anything to do with it, they got nasty. ‘They said, “Well, if you don’t do it, something is going to happen to you. They started threatening my life.’ Bangura thinks they might have attacked him with black magic. ‘They do stuff, you start feeling sick and lose your life.’ Voodoo stuff? ‘Yeah. That’s what they do to you. I’ve seen those things. I don’t believe in doing them, but I know they work. I used to get nightmares.’”

Not unlike what is happening in the UK and the US, Sierra Leone Muslims are facing more challenges from the Poro today. As stated in the Awareness Times back in 2007, serious tensions between Muslims and Poro Society had developed, at least those members from the Pendembu town in the Kailahun District. The Awareness Times reported that the Poro captured several Muslims and forcefully initiated them into the secret Poro society. This is in response to Islamic preaching against the practices of the Poro society, which reportedly angered Poro members. In response, the Poro adopted the policy of forceful initiation of non-members, religious leaders not exempt. Corruption is also a problem in Sierra Leone, partly in the forms of bribes and misappropriation of funds, creating an atmosphere of distrust. While this may not sound that different from most governments, it is more atrocious when the money is being taken by a population that is one of the poorest in the world.

More well known to Sierra Leone are the blood or conflict diamonds, crucial to the wars in Africa. Illicit diamond trading in Sierra Leone brought out violent combatants and about eight years of civil conflict. In 1999, negotiations, aided by the United Nations and the Economic Community of West African States, between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front led to the signing of the Lome Peace Accord. In signing, the parties agreed to cease the hostilities, disarm combatants, and form a government of national unity. Despite the agreement, rebel forces continued fighting well into 2001 and the consequences of the decade long war cannot be easily erased.

Daramy also maintains that the portrayal of this Sierra Leone secret society may not be accurate, “The facts are that the Soko Society is a kind of slightly fearful, traditional Sierra Leonean secret society (a kind of slightly less benign Freemasons, if you will). Whilst it is true that a son may be expected to follow his father into the society, there is absolutely no compulsion. Most of the people from Bangura’s tribe are not members and no one has threatened them with death. If what he alleges is true, his case would be the first one of its kind in history!”

Historically speaking, the Poro society seems to have appeared in the late 19th century to oppose colonialists and boycott European trade. Known as a Sierra Leone hero, Bai Sherbro Kpana Lewis was a member of the Poro at that time, and the society was then known for acting as a judiciary, police, political, and economical infrastructure. Still, according to Bangura, this is not the case any longer.

Bangura related his experiences to the Guardian with the following, “Bangura was told that, as the son of a chief, he was next in line to lead. ‘They came out of the village and gave my mum a message, saying, ‘Your son’s dad used to be the head of this society, so we have to make sure your son will follow as head.’ My mum knew about the group, but she didn’t want me to be in it. They’re not good things that they’re doing; they cut off bits of their body. She said, ‘I don’t want you to be with these people, this is not part of your life.’”

Bangura’s case is thus instructive, an example of the conflict between personal perceptions and experiences and other, perhaps more objective data. While no one would call Bangura a bogus asylum seeker, these differences speak loudly. Still, Bangura’s past is remarkable, and makes a strong case. In that same Guardian article, Frances Lynn, a Watford fan and a member of the Supporters Trust, emphasized that Bangura’s past and his work with the club made a solid case for him to stay. “It’s shocking. Most of us don’t know people who have experienced things like this. Then you hear of this young boy who plays for your football club who always has a beaming smile, and it brings it home that the things you hear are not just stories, they happen to people in your community.”

As stated in the International Journal of Refugee Law, “People who claim to be refugees will generally prove their entitlement to that status and be accorded their rights as refugees almost immediately.” Proving an entitlement to be considered a refugee is thus a delicate art. In a motion asking for the Home Secretary to review Bangura’s case, it was his contribution to sport that stood out most. “This [deportation] ignores the valuable contribution he’s made to his community through playing for Watford. We express alarm that Mr. Bangura is being forced to return.”

Despite acknowledging these differences in opinion, Daramy joined in the chorus of supporters wanting Bangura to remain in the UK, and minus finding Bangura in a bald faced lie, it was nearly impossible not to. Bangura was lucky to have the support of the world and the football community at large. As stated by Graham Simpson, Watford’s chairman, “As a club, we are very happy with the news but, most of all, we are delighted for Al and his family. We always knew we had a strong case and, despite our setbacks, we knew we had to fight for what we believed to be right for this young man. I would like to personally thank all the Watford fans whose backing of Al has been so crucial to moving this forward and securing his immediate future in the United Kingdom.”

Americans Revel in England's Failure

(this should be on soccerlens today or tomorrow with a better picture/graphic)

Without being one of England’s historic sporting rivals like Scotland or Germany, it’s a bit strange that there were some Americans pleased with England’s failure to qualify for Euro 2008.

No one doubts that the Americans and the English have a somewhat tenuous history, but as far as recent politics go, things have generally been going the American way.

Sporting rivals are fairly non-existent as the mainstream American sports aren’t even played that heavily outside of the good old 50. But that seems to have taken a turn in the last couple of years as soccer gains in popularity, and Americans seek to both gain England’s approval and also become better competitors.

Usually its America’s lack of history and tradition that makes up the bread and butter of England’s arguments as to why American soccer is always “just so bad.” While America clearly doesn’t have the history that England does, that isn’t always an impediment. Much of the England style of play and coaching seems to be in a slump deeply rooted in a history that they can’t shape for the future. Americans really don’t have that problem, (minus the whole NASL debacle and so far so good in terms of the MLS), which provides less of a struggle as nearly everything Americans do in soccer is innovative and worth a chance (at least to Americans). England’s history just doesn’t allow for that novelty which creates scrutiny for whatever they do, and makes the expectations, especially those of American fans, much higher.

Yank fans continually suffer from shots taken because of the MLS (a.k.a the Mickey Mouse league), which can get tiring and cause some resentment. Yes, England birthed the world’s game, but lately the England national team seemed to limp from one major competition to another. While some Americans may take slow pleasure in the suffering that has struck the big brother of American soccer, many yanks began to feel that England was overrated. England may have failed to qualify for Euro 2008, but that failure has also put an end to the moral hazards that were impeding their growth. Now England might be more able to live up to the esteem that American soccer fans hold England to, a certain standard that England have been disappointing.

Maybe Americans just feel satisfied that, for once, they’re not on the spot as the only nation with a troubled soccer program. Maybe they just feel spite that the mighty England giants have fallen. While England might not have to worry about America producing any truly dangerous competition for a few more years, England’s failure has given Americans a strange sense of hope for their own league and national program. Americans are used to being on top, and suffering under England’s superiority in soccer seems to finally given way to some genuine animosity towards the English game. Never mind these are the same people that root for English league teams, because there, it isn’t the country but the club on the pitch. American fans will continue to justify their disdain for the national team, but continue being fans of the league, despite that most of the English players are current figureheads for EPL clubs. But since its pretty well decided that those figurehead players don’t play up to form for the national squad, (a theory that Americans have the English to thank) Americans probably won’t see any problem with that.

Sacked: McClaren

Not a huge surprise but seeing as both Big Sam and Mourinho have turned down the opportunity to take the hugely popular job as the England manager, heads are scratching as to who will be the next one to disappoint England.

Farewell Steve McClaren...and here's a list of reasons as to why you had to go.

PLAYER vs. CLUB: CAN A PLAYER EVER BE BIGGER THAN THE CLUB FOR WHICH HE PLAYS?

Pledging Allegiance to Spurs?

Before Berbatov began to sing Juande Ramos’ praises, the speculation surrounding whether he would stay or go swirled with rumor, one of which was that Manchester United were top of Berbatov’s January transfer window wish list. It’s no contest that this season Manchester United is performing much stronger than Tottenham, and because Berbatov is widely known as their marquee player, a rumor surrounding his eventual transfer is, to some degree, to be expected.

The perception generally is that clubs like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Chelsea are the big clubs in the BPL – and selective big club status necessitates rungs of smaller clubs. Because Berbatov’s form seems to be so strong (stronger than this season’s Spurs, in toto), the natural progression seemed to be well on its way: Berbatov was moving from the Spurs and up into the powerhouse of the North where he belongs. Whether this sets itself out of newsprint and into an actual contract has yet to be determined, but it is just the most recent example of what can look like a proverbial chicken or the egg question for football fans. Can a player ever be(come) bigger than their club? Or does the issue just boil down to dollars and cents?

The MLS instituted the designated player rule (DPR), which at its core creates a loophole in the MLS’s strangling salary caps while separating, to some degree, the wheat from the chaff. The internationally acclaimed players (compared to the standard MLS roster) who qualify for this exception are admittedly much bigger names with much bigger clubs behind them than the typical MLS player has. Without judgment, no one would probably dispute that, at least from the way the LA Galaxy has marketed David Beckham, that Brand Beckham is bigger than (t)his club and league. When the announcement was made that Beckham was coming stateside, it was under the inaugural year for the DPR. No one was surprised that Beckham created a rule that allowed him to be paid nearly ten times more than some of the other MLS players because he is “such a huge player” compared to the MLS as a whole, an assumed starter for the Galaxy who was handed the captaincy, seemingly carte blanche, from Landon Donovan early on. During Beckham’s tenure at his past clubs, he never sparked such an exception to league rules, or garnered the captaincy so quickly. Real Madrid and Manchester United typically are filled with super star rosters, and Beckham is a member of that elite class of “luxury players,” which deems the standard MLS player more akin to utility than luxury.

David Villa has also been offered spots at more prestigious clubs but he continues to pledge his allegiance to Valencia despite numerous rumors that bigger clubs want to lure him away (the most recent being Real Madrid). Because apparently it isn’t the money that does it for Villa, even when the club is underperforming. The same might be said about Steven Gerrard. These players are a little surprising because they showcase loyalty, an intimacy that not every player can claim with their club (i.e. Didier Drogba).

Perhaps players that don’t feel the need to move from club to club believe they have reached the end of their professional climb up the league ladder. Maybe it’s getting paid more money to remain big in a small club than they would be paid at a larger one. Maybe their family plays a part. Or there could be some sort of inarticulate loyalty that continues to pull these players back, season after season (the club’s management, head office, etc.). Or it could be that the level of play at their club is the most competitive to them. The opposite of these reasons could be why players choose to move around. Still, loyalty to a club, the kind that the fans have, is absent in most players. Fans may sort of assume that if a player gets too good for a smaller, stepping stone club, sooner or later they’ll be biding farewell to him. This may not make that player bigger than the club, but rather just disproportionate to the club’s (current) success.

Logically a player can never match the history that these clubs have, even though players are indispensable to the clubs; without them, it’s just an empty crest. It’s the players who create those landmark seasons that contribute to the history that fans recount. Current players Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes exemplify this, collectively treading on approximately 31 years of Manchester’s 129-year existence, but you’d be hard pressed to find any Red Devil that would claim either player is bigger than the club, even if they have been consistent staples of some of the best Man U seasons in history. Because while fans typically support and bleed their clubs, the same isn’t usually true towards the players; in fact a player changing clubs could render him blacklisted for many fans, no matter how much they contributed, because its club first, player second. Indeed, the longer time a player spends at one club could render a move even more insulting – imagine if Gerrard moved to the blue side of Merseyside?

And then there is the West Ham debacle which all started in part because Tevez and Mascherano weren’t getting playing time, despite their talent. So they went elsewhere – but this wasn’t a lateral move: Mascherano and Tevez are fixture players for their bigger, post West Ham clubs. In fact Mascherano admitted that he felt compelled to leave, and while its certainly frustrating to be looked over by the manager, it takes guile to know that you are better than your manager’s decisions. Mascherano’s statements illustrates that player’s play for themselves, above all else, but it doesn’t hurt when other, bigger clubs are sniffing around.

So it seems that some players, upon realizing their full (earning) potential, may begin to play like they are bigger than the club, possibly even believing that they are better than where they are. In forming that belief, the player props himself up in the shop window, so to speak, and turns his attentions away from his current club and towards the next.

But like the running theme of most stories commenting on soccer’s turn toward the dark side, soccer is a business – a global, multi million dollar business – and as the tide continues to turn away from history and tradition and “greater good” mentality, the emphasis on the individual player – with his lucrative collateral contracts, his sky high salary, and even a good degree of paparazzi fan fare (if you’re stylish and naughty enough) – will grow. This could be in part because fans no longer recognize their clubs, or at least the club their elders supported (new foreign owners, a lack of homegrown talent, and bloated salaries, to begin with), so perhaps it’s easier to find that sort of purity or ideal in a player, rather than a club.

This growing development could inevitably chip away at the importance of the club as an entity and more as a vehicle for the players. As the tiers between and within the leagues continue to grow, players will always be looking onward and upward. We wouldn’t respect them if they weren’t hungry for wins or success. But that mobility shouldn’t diminish their commitment to the club they play for at present, no matter where they end up or want to be. Players would be wise to keep in mind that while they may be one of the best of their generation, they are no match to the generations of fans that support the club for which they play.

WE SURE MISSED YOU SCHOLESY

So Man U let it all go in stoppage - a Gallas equalizer (and there is going to be no "was it or wasn't it" argument be/c it cannot change anything at this point and this stuff usually works itself out) and some shoddy defending handed Man U a draw rather than what would have been a great win to take them to the tip top of the table.

But in memory of some good Arsenal - Man U tussels, here's the infamous tunnel scuffle between Viera and Keano. Lol. Is this how he manages nowadays? One can only hope... "SEE YOU OUT THERE."


...and the title to this post is because Anderson, despite being a good player, is not premier league fit yet, at least how he needs to be for Man U or at least to be an adequate option when a player like Scholes, despite reaching his twilight, typically performs. Scholes would have been a welcomed face. Three more months of Scholes-less play. Pass the tissue box.

KAKA + CHRISTIANITY = SOLID GOLD

God Bless.

When FIFA unveiled its nominees for its 2007 World Player of the Year award, there were some grunts and groans. It may seem obvious to reiterate that some of the most influential, important, and talented players were left out for others that failed to achieve similar greatness (Cannavaro and not Totti? Lampard but no Ibrahimovic? Ronaldinho over Fabregas?), making the honesty of the award a little less credible.

While there is dissatisfaction over the nominees, the most frustrating aspect of the list seems to be the automatic assumption that one certain Brazilian would claim the title. While Kaka is a great player, if he was the best player of 2007 is asking a different question.

In terms of the regular Scudetto season, Kaka scored 8 goals. In the Champions League, he was the lead scorer with 10 goals. Kaka won three UEFA Awards: Top Scorer, Best Forward, and Club Footballer of the Year and he was named FIFAPro’s 2007 Player of the Year. He helped lead AC Milan last season’s Champions League victory. He was largely absent in international play (he sat out of the Copa America, needing to take a well-deserved break from what is otherwise 3 full seasons of uninterrupted soccer). These stats are all relevant, as the award is FIFA World Player of the Year, not Champions League MVP (he seems to have already won that award).

Another award winning player from 2007 and presumable runner up for this award is Cristiano Ronaldo, who scored 17 goals towards Man U’s Premier League victory, and 3 for the Champions League. He was a multi-award winner: PFA’s Player of the Year, Young Player of the Year, Fan Player of the Year and the Football Writers Player of the Year. He played for Portugal. He was strong for Manchester United through their run in the Champions League that got them as far as the Semi finals.

While it is more than just awards and goals that go into both Kaka and Ronaldo’s performances last year, good arguments can be made that Kaka may not have been the best player of 2007. Even if he ends up receiving the award, there should be more dialogue as to who the better player was, and not this automatic assumption that Kaka will take the silverware. So in determining why Kaka is the clear favorite, other factors between those two players become unfortunately relevant.

Aesthetically everything about Kaka makes him look, play, and act like an agent’s dream of an ideal player. He grew up in an upper middle class family. He is 25 but could easily pass for 21 in terms of looks. In terms of maturity he acts beyond his age. He has a wife (his teenage sweetheart of course) who doesn’t appear to be tabloid fodder, so it’s assumed she is not a distraction or controlling aspect of Kaka’s career (unlike the way the British WAGS tend to be portrayed). He is good looking (modeling contracts with Armani) and Brazilian (thus the automatic Joga Bonito allure). He is humble. He is also an incredible Evangelical Christian, something that intensified after an unfortunate accident from a swimming pool that could have left him paralyzed. He attributes that healing to God and has the words “God is Faithful” stitched onto his boots. He is the youngest UN World Food Program Ambassador and gives 10% of his wages to his church. And that arm raising to the sky after goals scored is a perpetual thanks to God for allowing his recovery from his accident.

Its no secret that Kaka is a Christian – and not just religious, but close to being a zealot. While players can get penalized for stripping off their jerseys, when Kaka does it, he reveals not a bare chest but a shirt reading “I belong to Jesus.” He follows up these statements with actions though. In an interview with Champions League Magazine for the latest issue, he overtly states that he is very radical with his principles, and that if something goes against those principles, he will always refrain. To that end, he refuses to do any advertising for alcohol or cigarettes. While that seems to be logical as he is an athlete and wants to promote a healthy and active lifestyle, it is actually his devote evangelical faith that dictates that decision. He claims to have never cried over football, and he prefers to stay at home with his family in his spare time. He reads the Bible daily. He is not flashy. He is an ideal, although perhaps not realistic, footballer.

Cristiano Ronaldo, however, doesn’t seem to be such a martyr. He is also good looking but vain (sin!) – a recent injury to his face prompted him to state that he wasn’t worried and that he would soon be beautiful again. He is confident on the verge of cocky. He grew up poor. He is clearly not married. He rather hides who he dates which makes him worthy of tabloid speculation (Gemma Atkinson? Were they or weren’t they?). He pays for sex and shares those prostitutes with his roommates. He is known to be a diver. He has that whole World Cup wink mess haunting him. He cries over football (a lot). He doesn’t seem to be affiliated to any organized religion, and even if he is, he doesn’t appear to showcase that religion very openly. When he takes off his shirt, it’s to show off his abs and not his love of Jesus. He doesn’t have an official United Nations ambassadorship. He can be construed as being flashy in dress and in lifestyle. He is a stereotypical footballer.
So for these two players that were both outstanding last year, it seems that one aspect cements the differences between these two: one is an evangelical Christian and the other is not. Without that faith, what would Kaka’s everyday life be? Nothing about Ronaldo’s choices is really all that bad, but when you compare any footballer – or any average person – against Kaka and his lifestyle a la Jesus, Kaka wins. No contest.

On the pitch, Ronaldo was beyond expectation last season. Off the pitch, he’s acting like a 22 year old, million-dollar paycheck, footballer. Kaka’s performance on the pitch sets him apart from some of the best footballers, but his actions off the pitch are more like an athlete who attends seminary at nights. To be sure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Christian; Kaka is doing amazing things for people in need and he has a lifestyle that doesn’t hurt anyone. But neither player’s personal time should matter in terms of evaluating who was the better footballer.

As FIFA doesn’t seem to punish players for actions like Ronaldo engages, it would be assumed that they would also not reward Kaka for his choices either. FIFA is, after all, not St. Peter, and this award isn’t a morale competition, but an award being given to the best player of 2007. Lifestyle choices, whether agreed with or not, should have absolutely no bearing on how the player performs on the pitch, or how he is evaluated there from. FIFA seem to want to cloud this award with an unspoken hint at what footballers should be doing in their spare time. Is FIFA punishing players that are not pious? Or are they quietly sending a message to footballers that FIFA will no longer just look at those 90 minutes in terms of what makes a Best Player? While it certainly discredits the award, it also unfairly punishes players for making decisions that are possibly not in accord with FIFA’s unofficial code of conduct. But if it’s unofficial, then it shouldn’t count. Especially not for this award.