Michael Owen has been a polemic figure throughout his career. At 29 years of age many critics claim that he is already past his prime; that his workrate has slowed, his injuries have multiplied and his goal scoring has come to a shuddering halt. Others believe that his best is yet to come; that he has plenty of energy left, that his injuries mostly come down to bad luck and that he is still, statistically speaking, one of the most lethal English strikers around. Owens’ recent transfer to Manchester United brought out all of these differing opinions. However, few people paid attention to the shrewdness and practicality that went into his contract. Though many United fans lamented the signing of Michael Owen, I have reason to believe that his was one of the most intelligent, devious, and lucrative transfers of the past decade.

1. Where Michael Fits In

It may be surprising to hear, but Manchester United definitely needed someone like Michael Owen in order to strengthen their squad this season. With the departure of Cristiano Ronaldo United lost one of their most creative attackers; a player who could score wonder goals when things were going right and nick winners at the depth when they weren’t. Many United fans would be quick to point out that the likes of Wayne Rooney could step up and fill this role, but statistically speaking that does not seem to be the case.

Let’s look at Rooney’s statistics specifically. During the 07/08 season he made 27 appearances in the Premier League. In his two appearances as a substitute, Rooney scored no goals. However, in the remaining 25 starts, he put away 12 for United. Of these 12, none were game winners or savers. Nine came in no contest games (in which United sealed victory by 3 goals or more.)

Now let’s see what Owen did for Newcastle during that same season. He made 29 appearances in the Premier League for the club. In his five appearances as a substitute, he scored one goal-a game winner. In his remaining 24 starts Owen scored ten goals. Of these ten, five were game winners or savers and six came in must-win situations.

Putting two and two together we can come to the following conclusions: one, that Wayne Rooney tends to score when the going is good; two, that Michael Owen tends to create winners out of nothing; and three, that together these goalscoring foils could collaborate to fill the gap left by Ronaldo.

2. The Question of Injury

Most of Michael Owens’ critics have a problem with his physical fitness, claiming that he breaks down too easily and is sidelined by injury far too often. There is plenty of truth to this claim; we need only to look upon his career statistics to see that he is quite injury-prone. However, most of Owens’ injuries have occurred after he made several consecutive starts. It is easy to see that he isn’t up to par with other Premier League strikers on a game-by-game basis, and his critics are right to doubt him in that particular area.

Manchester United have made it clear that they don’t plan on using Owen in such a way. Based on his contract and the first few games of the season it seems Ferguson will be playing him mostly as a sub, in the same vein as Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. This is an excellent move. Owen clearly can’t hold up properly if he starts every game, but playing in twenty minute spurts or so will keep him healthy and motivated. Looking again at his statistics, he scores nearly ¾ of his goals in the second half anyways, and his tendency to pick up late winners and equalizers means he is extremely well-suited to the role of “super sub.”

3. The Contract

Most of the genius of this particular deal comes from the contract. Manchester United clearly did their research before handing their offer to Owen, as it is perfectly tailored to maximize his potential while minimizing United’s cost of playing him. Obviously, Owen was picked up as a free agent, so United avoided paying any fees to Newcastle United in exchange for his services. This obviously made the signing of Michael Owen ludicrously cheap, but United refused to stop there. They drafted an intelligent contract built around the concept of keeping Owen healthy, motivated, and hungry for goals.

Owens’ contract is almost completely incentive-based. He will be paid based on minutes played and goals scored. Considering United’s attachment to the idea of playing him as a substitute, he will not play nearly as many minutes as the likes of Rooney and Berbatov and will therefore cost United much less. However, knowing that his paycheck is dependent upon his goalscoring performance will encourage Owen to make the most of every opportunity on the pitch. If he doesn’t score, he won’t be paid. If he does get injured, United will lose nothing, as he isn’t earning much of a weekly salary. In short, this deal was far from a gamble. It was a well thought out plan to gain the services of an experienced striker without having to pay the price tag that would normally accompany him. Plus, Owen is English, so he will help United to comply with the Premier League’s new home-grown player regulations. United cannot lose from this deal. And Owen will only lose if he doesn’t perform-good performances, meanwhile, will win him extra payments and a chance to get into Fabio Capello’s good books before the 2010 World Cup.

This is hardly an adoring ode to Michael’s controversial late winner against Manchester City. It is a testament to Manchester United’s rare moment of financial savvy. In a league where clubs are getting into huge amounts of trouble offering lucrative contracts to foreign teenagers, United managed to secure the signature of an experienced and well-respected player with little to no risk of failure. Even if Owen were to leave the club before the season ended, United still wouldn’t have lost. Their alacrity and astuteness in relation to Michael Owen is what surely makes this one of the greatest-and most devious-signings of this new century.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

The economic meltdown has taken many victims around the world, including some that hit close to home for football fans (Southampton and Gretna FC come to mind). It has forced many clubs to rethink their spending habits and cut back. However, some continue to carry on, blithely unaware of the dangers that lurk for football clubs that can’t control their cash flow. These clubs would do well to study the case of West Ham United.

West Ham had to jump every possible hurdle this past season, facing bankruptcy, enormous cutbacks and nerve-wracking (albeit deserved) court dates. Though these problems were certainly far from wanted, they taught West Ham a valuable lesson: that financial status is fleeting and that reorganization can sometimes lead to unexpected success.

The Real Madrids and Manchester Uniteds of this world would do well to take a hint from West Ham’s example, but so far they haven’t exactly bothered. In fact, the majority of the football press seems to have looked over West Ham’s shocking collapse and even more shocking successes at the end of the line.

September marked the beginning of a very difficult year for West Ham United. Manager Alan Curbishley left the club in a huff shortly after the close of the transfer window, citing a lack of control as his main reason for departure. “The selection of players is critical to the job of the manager and I had an agreement with the club that I alone would determine the composition of the squad,” Curbishley said. “However, the club continued to make significant player decisions without involving me. In the end such a breach of trust and confidence meant that I had no option but to leave.” Curbishley had led West Ham to a 10th place finish in the 2007-2008 season and had won two of his three games in charge in 2008-2009.

Alan Curbishley’s less than dignified exit forced West Ham to take a gamble. Gianfranco Zola, a playing legend but relatively inexperienced coach, took the reigns just a few days after Curbishley’s departure. West Ham promised to “build a team” around Zola, offering him control over transfers and enough funds to bring in a selection of players. It seemed as if the club was entering a new era-younger, fresher, and more hopeful.

However, just a few short weeks after Zola’s appointment West Ham’s main sponsor, XL Holidays, went into administration. The two parties immediately ended their relationship, leaving West Ham with thousands of unsellable replica jerseys and a five million pound shortfall. XL’s demise was one of the first casualties of the credit crunch in football, but many more were to follow.

Perhaps the biggest casualty was Icelandic businessman Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, West Ham’s principal stakeholder. During October Gudmundsson’s assets began to tank. The bank he held many shares in, Landsbanki, was seized by the government and his holding company (Hansa) was forced into voluntary liquidation. West Ham remained the only asset in Gudmundsson’s portfolio worth any real money, so naturally the former billionaire had no choice but to put the club up for sale.

As if that weren’t enough to deal with, in November the seemingly never-ending legal battle the club had waged with Sheffield United over the 06/07 relegation fight finally came to a close. The courts ruled that West Ham would eventually have to pay Sheffield United compensation fees after fielding an illegitimate player during the end of the 06/07 season and consequently avoiding relegation.

So, to recap: West Ham entered the month of December with no principal sponsor, no principal stakeholder, an inexperienced coach, a looming debt, and a morale-busting 12-game streak in which the only win came in the form of an unimpressive 1-0 over Sunderland. Plus, the club knew it would be forced to sell some of its most valuable players in the January transfer window in order to make ends meet.

What is interesting about this story is where West Ham ended up once the season was over. One would expect such a burdened team to be fighting relegation, or at the very least standing at the precipice. But West Ham somehow managed to pull it together and finish in the top half of the table-9th place, to be exact. That’s one place better than last year’s finish, with more points AND a better goal difference. Sadly, however, with Barcelona’s treble and looming World Cup qualifiers West Ham’s heroic stand has gone largely unnoticed.

This needs to change. West Ham’s example will prove to be a wise one to follow once more teams feel the pinch of the recession. And they almost certainly will-recent reports show that Liverpool and Manchester United (among others) are just one poor season away from serious financial repercussions. If either were to fail to qualify for the Champions’ League, they would be in danger of entering administration, too. It’s a scary thought, but ignoring it won’t do anything to make it go away. Instead, clubs should learn from West Ham and recognize that they can work with a lot less than what they have.

In today’s economy it would be much more beneficial to bring in a talented and savvy assistant manager, like West Ham did with Steve Clark, then to spend millions of dollars on the Ronaldos and Kakas of the world. When the football “bubble” does eventually burst, it will be the resourceful teams like West Ham that survive and the greedy teams that will begin to fade away.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

This article refers to a previous game. Get the latest Chelsea v Barcelona news here.

“Football defeated anti-football,” raved the Catalan press on Wednesday night.  “Pain and recrimination,” cried the English.  In one of the most bizarre Champions League matches in recent memory, Barcelona managed to draw 1-1 with Chelsea and advance to the final in Rome on the away goals rule.

The ninety-six minute stomach churner began with promising play from both sides, saw a handful of penalties ignored, handballs denied, and even a red card that wasn’t, and finally ended with an undeserved injury-time wonder strike that led to complete chaos on the pitch.

Wednesday night’s referee, Tom Henning Ovrebo, had to be smuggled out of England by the police after allegedly receiving death threats from fans and very nearly getting ripped to pieces by a thunderous Michael Ballack on the pitch.  Though the Catalan press may smile on the result, it leaves dozens of questions unanswered.

However, one was resolved: does European football need video replays in order to better justify referee decisions?  The answer is a resounding yes, and Wednesday’s match is all the proof UEFA and FIFA should need.

It’s difficult to decide where to begin, but it would probably be best to determine who among the officials was at fault for the terrible decision making.  Most seem to be on Ovrebo’s shoulders, although Abidal’s controversial red card was apparently decided by the assistant referee.  So what caused Ovrebo’s shocker of a match?  One could play devil’s advocate and point out the consistency and blatancy of Dani Alves’ and Didier Drogba’s dives during the game, and argue that Ovrebo was simply trying to crack down on immoral behavior.

His blindness to their weak free-kick appeals could have led to, well, blindness in general.  However, it turns out that he has a history of poor judgment in high-pressure situations.  Ovrebo refereed the controversial Italy-Romania match during Euro 2008, in which he incorrectly ruled a Luca Toni goal offside.  This decision cost Italy the three points, and the game ended in a 1-1 draw.  Ovrebo later admitted he had been mistaken, and was relieved of his Euro 2008 duties.

Therefore, although Ovrebo may well release a statement attributing his lapses in judgment to stress, nerves, poor vision, or lack of communication with the other officials, viewers of the Chelsea-Barcelona game would do well to note that this is hardly his first offense.  And it likely won’t be his last: Ovrebo has been pre-selected as a World Cup 2010 referee.  If he is allowed to keep his place in the tournament, his games would certainly be worth watching.

Although Ovrebo made clear mistakes, and this was an important match, football is entertainment at heart and should never, ever jeopardize anyone’s safety, especially not an official who was attempting to bring order to the whole affair.  The Chelsea players’ reaction towards Ovrebo at the end of the game and the supposed death threats sent in by fans are unfortunate and could have been avoided with simple video replays.  If Ovrebo had had this benefit, we would know for sure whether or not he was a “thief”, as Jose Bosingwa elegantly put it.

Those who argue against video replays claim that taking the time to review tapes would ruin the flow and integrity of the game.  While replays would certainly take some time to review, they could hardly take more time than the players of both teams spent arguing fruitlessly with Ovrebo.  And as for the integrity bit, if football fans think making improper calls and consequently having to be smuggled out of a G8 member nation in order to avoid bodily harm is integrity, then we might as well call the whole sport off.

Video replays, even if only used in moderation, could have spared Chelsea an undignified Champions League exit, Barcelona some questionable player suspensions, and Ovrebo his career and safety.  And these replays would have taken up less time than the unruly chaos that broke out on the pitch after the final whistle.

So the Catalan press can coo, the English press can wail, and footballing fans the world over can scratch their heads.  But the only way to possibly bring these groups together is to introduce video replays into crucial matches like the one that was just sullied by poor decision making.  In a match where the only genuinely impressive bits were the classiness of Pep Guardiola’s suit and the vivacity of Michael Ballack’s end-of-match tantrum, in a match where Dani Alves sent more balls into Row Z than to his teammates and Nicolas Anelka and Samuel Eto’o unceremoniously disappeared, video replays would have added some much-needed class and certainty.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

The name Federico Macheda has been bandied around a lot lately, and not just because of his two stunning late goals against Aston Villa and Sunderland. Macheda has been the object of an international tug of war between Manchester United, his current club, and SS Lazio, the club that nurtured and developed him as a boy.

Lazio president Claudio Lotito has argued that his club “could not compete with United’s offer” because unlike in England, FIGC laws restrict players from signing official club contracts until they are 18 years of age. Lotito and some members of the Italian press have also claimed that United lured young Macheda to England by offering his parents prominent, high-paying jobs in Manchester. United have staunchly defended their signing of Macheda, claiming that they followed routine procedures.

So the debate is as follows: was Manchester United’s signing of Macheda legal? The answer: a resounding yes.

1.) The Transfer Process

According to FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, international transfers of players under the age of 18 are expressly forbidden unless they meet some or all of the following conditions: that the player is moving for family reasons that are not connected to football, that the player is moving to a country less than 100km from his home and continues to live with his parents or guardians, and that the two countries are both located in either the EU or the EEA.

The case of Federico Macheda falls into the first and third categories. Manchester United could have easily argued that Macheda moved to England for reasons other than football, as his father was offered a high-paying job in England. It is rather sleazy that the job was offered by United themselves, but not entirely uncommon. Plus, this move is not only available to the English clubs—Lazio, if they were so inclined, could easily do the same thing with a promising English youngster.

The third category is a bit more complicated. There are a whole host of sub-demands that Manchester United must meet in order for the transfer to be legal. They must provide the player with education (football and general), ensure living arrangements, provide a mentor, and notify the former club of the players’ assimilation. United have done each of these things. Macheda is a product of the Manchester United Academy, and therefore received stellar football and general education. United helped the Macheda family find living quarters AND appointed young Kiko a mentor—Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, another king of late goals.

2.) Macheda’s Status

As long as Macheda was registered as an amateur and not a professional in Lazio’s books, his transfer occurred at an acceptable time. According to FIFA, amateurs are players who make less money from footballing activity than the expenses they incur on their club. Amateurs cannot be traded at any time; they, too, have a transfer window. However, it does not always align with the professional transfer window and can vary based on national association. Macheda was signed in September 2007—outside the professional window, but inside the FIGC’s amateur window.

3.) “A Proper Cattle Market”

Though Lazio president Claudio Lotito’s assertion that amateur transfer rules have turned a civilized process into a “proper cattle market” has some weight, he’s complaining to the wrong people. Young player rights are determined by national association, not by FIFA. Therefore, Lotito should turn his anger towards the FIGC. Perhaps the upcoming FIFA Congress in June (which will focus on young player rights) will help inspire national associations to be fairer about the movement of young players. However, until FIFA mandates an acceptable contract-signing age, the losses are all on the FIGC.

It’s also worth mentioning that Italian clubs are free to offer incentives to their young stars just like English clubs do. Sure, they cannot provide a set-in-stone contract, but they can do everything but. And history shows that most young Italian stars choose to play in Italy when they turn 18—the vast majority of players on Italy’s national team and under-21 team are signed with clubs based in their home countries.

Italian football must rue the loss of Federico Macheda. But it would do well to remember that though one got away, dozens stayed behind.

Editor: Macheda has been practicing his ‘pull back, turn and shoot’ routine for a long time now, have a look at this from a U18 game last season:

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

I was only a toddler on June 21st, 1994, but the events of the day are burned into my memory. On that summer afternoon in Foxboro, Massachusetts, Argentina thrashed Greece 4-0 in the first round of the 1994 World Cup Finals thanks to a Gabriel Batistuta hat-trick and the long-awaited return of one Diego Maradona.

Being only a small child at the time, I was unaware of the significance that this match would play in my life. All I knew was that I was surrounded by drunken men singing in Spanish, and I liked it. I learned my first football lesson that day: witnessing a good World Cup game live is the greatest feeling in the world. Maradona became my hero; and football, my passion.

Unfortunately Maradona was promptly suspended from the World Cup for failing a routine doping test. And here I learned my second football lesson: athletes are entertainers, nothing more. You can’t expect them to be good, intelligent, and moral people. It’s not in their contracts.

This cycle of Maradona-induced extreme joy and bitter disappointment replayed itself with Argentina’s shocking 6-1 defeat to Bolivia. I had high hopes for Maradona as a manager; we all did. For some absurd reason everyone assumes that former playing legends will be excellent managers. And at first it looked as if Maradona wasn’t going to let us down.

His Argentina side beat Scotland with some style (not that it’s difficult or anything, though) and notched a victory against traditional powerhouse France before hammering Venezuela, 4-0. Spirits were almost as high off the ground as La Paz in the Argentina camp when the team prepared for its Bolivian clash. Altitude was never much of a worry; Maradona had defended games played at altitude so staunchly it was simply assumed he knew how to prep his team.

And here’s where the disappointment began. Maradona did not, in fact, prep his players for the altitude, surely something any other fool would have taken into consideration. He didn’t study the Bolivian style of play. He didn’t create a tactical plan for his players to understand and carry out. To be honest, I’m not convinced Maradona did much of anything. And it’s a real shame, because his national pride is not to be doubted. He’s just in way over his head.

But it’s important to recognize that Argentina are by no means out of World Cup Qualifying. Sure, their goal difference has taken a hit, but as long as they stay on track, they’ll be fine. This game should not be taken as Argentina falling apart, it should be taken as a warning to remember that second rule: just because they’ve got the feet of a god doesn’t mean they’ve got the brain and judgment to match.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News