Comments on: Dear football, we love each other so don’t make me divorce you

By: Andy Sammons

Andy Sammons — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:07 +0000

As well as this, I think people are missing the point slightly. The paradox is that the glamour and the glitz, and the awesome stadiums/players are now synonymous with cash. I would like people to think about how this will effect the lower league clubs more, with the bigger clubs being more and more commercially enslaved. The real nerve centre of football is still with is in some way, but I think that with the free market being applied to something as non-sensical and irrational as love of a football team, that the two can only go hand in hand before something crashes miserably…

By: Andy Sammons

Andy Sammons — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:46:02 +0000

I think that the Kaka deal could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back to be honest, but I think that in many ways both parties, particularly Milan, bottled it. Moving to City from Milan would have been for money alone, and this would have been a serious watershed and precedent for football in general. Nothing quite like this has been seen before- although Robinho was incredible, he was unhappy and just wanted the cash. In Kaka’s case, we have a deeply spiritual guy in a city he loves, in a team he loves, being prized away simply for the cash.

This debate is not as simple as people might think. As a Liverpool fan, I saw that the Â£9bn man was in for the club yesterday, and I certainly wouldn’t be adverse to it. Below I wrote about the natural order of things, and I stand by that, but in all honesty I can understand why people should just assume things can’t change more instantly. Football has changed beyond all recognition since even the time I have followed it. I still being absolutely flabbergasted that Vieri was on more than Â£100,000 a week 15 years ago, which players are now routinely on.

I read the argument on http://www.soccerlens.com (very well written) and totally understand his point. I do feel more of my heart going out to Southend United, who I suppose my heart is now really with as my local side. I feel no self-recognition with Liverpool and the premiership in general now. Money talks, just like everything does in the free market. In all honesty, I think things are heading for an almighty crash, and cannot sustain themselves. Something has to snap. What makes football so special is that people watch it for the same reasons as they always have, which is why the “money” variable is one which is so worrying.

By: Andy Sammons

Andy Sammons — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:41:43 +0000

I just done think things can sustain themselves with money going one way and people’s love of the game being eroded with so many issues

http://www.addedtime.blogspot.com

By: Bobmagee

Bobmagee — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:51:39 +0000

Fine, It was just that you were coming across as if you were looking down on the sport

By: John in the USA

John in the USA — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:01:05 +0000

Bobmagee, what on earth are you talking about? ALL SPORTS ARE KIDS’ GAMES. American football, soccer, baseball. Pick one, kids play it. More kids play it that grown ups, that’s for sure. And what are they called again… oh, GAMES. That implies it is not vital to survival to PLAY a GAME.

What are you so uptight for?

And FYI, I love football and futbol. I’ve played and followed both my whole life. Take your European blinders off and you’ll there is room in life for more than one sport. And I ain’t talkin’ ’bout just cricket either.

The term “kids’ game” is not a diss on football, it’s a comment about the reality that these grown men get paid to kick a ball. Nothing essentially gets accomplished that could feed you, provide you with shelter, or make you more comfortable. It’s just for perspective. Deep breath mate.

By: Bobmagee

Bobmagee — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:24:50 +0000

John if footballs a kids game then whats American football? having to play in armor, is that not what a mother would do for their 7 year old? If you are not interested in the sport then why are you even on this site?

By: Bobmagee

Bobmagee — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:25:46 +0000

for the record my real names not bob magee, thats just something I thought would be funny

By: John in the USA

John in the USA — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:00:29 +0000

Mr. Arbuckle, I’m flattered that you paid so close attention to my posting as to reply. I agree with you that capitalism is not a very good model to build a country on. But for a business it is the only way. You’re fooling yourself if you think that English football is played ‘for the love of the game.’ Why would an owner offer to pay grown men corporate salaries to play a kids’ games? Because they can get even more rich (and famous) along the way. Sure, they may love football, but these people are not stupid, save for a handful of owners most of them are in it to get paid. It’s a business. That it happens to be associated with your neighborhood is a coincidence. Maybe the ‘for the love of football’ argument stands while you play for your pub team, but the EPL and it’s subsequent leagues are there as a revenue source for their owners, they just happen to please you along the way.

And as for your poor Halifax fans, darn, they’re all out of… what? A football side to cheer for? Poor them. What about the people that Halifax employed? You’re really blinded by your love for football, but I admire that. Just one day you’ll wake up and see that a) no matter how much you love it, it’s still only a child’s game and b) it is a business first and a football side second.

By the way, I should mention that I’m not pro-capitalist, but I do very much understand it’s importance in the business world (where your beloved football is considered a business venture not a way of life).

By: Bobmagee

Bobmagee — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:22:39 +0000

The one thing that you are forgetting my American friends is that boycotting games for big clubs will do next to nothing to their pockets, as there’s always another fan lined up, waiting to snap up a ticket and besides most top 4 clubs revenue probably comes from merchandise and football shirts etc so there’s no point in not going.

By: PaulieA

PaulieA — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:48:29 +0000

I’m coming to this late but such a good inital piece and interesting comments. I’m pretty much with you all the way Gary, although would definitely add that people have probably been saying similar for years – when Jimmy Greaves went for just under Â£100,000 back in the day to when Blackburn went on their spending spree in ther early 90’s. Mind you, that all seems rather quaint and low-key in today’s market.

Game 39 was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me – utterly pointless, poorly thought-out and motivated entirely by money. And we certainly haven’t seen the last of it.