I will think otherwise
I'm not explaining Football, the vast majority of footballers are amateurs, with them you will have loyalty and passion as the main reason they play for a club. Professional footballers are different, it's their job, you don't really think that a guy from Sao Paulo move to Ukraine, France or England for passion and loyalty? This applies to coaches and a large amount of club executives.
The overall package is the same. The money just goes to players, not the clubs own their registration. Clubs from now on will have less incentive to pile up players, loan them out and try to "sell" them for a profit in the future.
I can get my head around that and understand their reasoning but I think this nonsense with Lingard has swayed me a bit seeing him and to an extent Pogba run down a contract just stinks of Mino Riaola being in their ear turning them.
True but the payment structure is more beneficial for the club. In most cases every business will prefer to pay the same amount over time, you have full control over expenditures. On the other side, you risk not getting any money back even if you bought a 20 year old and turned him into a star over 5 years. Basically makes no sense to invest in youthf (from financial POV).
That's how a contract works. You are literally not breaking any rules or ethics for running it down.
It may not talk to you but it's the exact same process at a different level. In Football every years thousands of youth players are abandoned by their clubs around the age of 18-19 without proper education because they weren't good enough on the pitch. Football clubs are the first to apply conditional loyalty, as long as you perform well they will "care" for you. It's the same logic for players, as long as you pay, play and offer them the prospect of silverware they will care for your club otherwise they are out and it has always been the case, the few exceptions don't make the rule and it's generally a particular case where the player is playing for the club he genuinely supported as a kid.
For smaller clubs they do have the incentive to develop and sell young players. As long as they don't price them out of the market and destroy the business model themselves. Also the home grown players rules in EPL force the clubs to invest in youth.
See Haaland/Raiola's contract with BVB as a perfect example.
Actually it makes even more sense. People don't realize that what they are describing is how Rugby works and every club has an incentive in producing starting caliber player on an almost yearly basis.
Just saw this - yeah I think youth development is a good point.
It is and i always find this topic fascinating . You go in the general and its all Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos abuse workers and their rights and they should be paid their worth , Then you come to the football forum its all about players have too much power and paid too much and the club need to stick them in reserves to teach them a lesson
because football fans have a head of slave driver?It is and i always find this topic fascinating . You go in the general and its all Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos abuse workers and their rights and they should be paid their worth , Then you come to the football forum its all about players have too much power and paid too much and the club need to stick them in reserves to teach them a lesson
I think pogba and mbappe are good examples. Clubs say they won't sell unless for a lot of cash. Players just wait. Obviously we are a year out from seeing if that materialises.
I think it's more that, a typical player's professional lifespan would probably be comprised of, what, three 5-year contracts at a top club? 15 years. So, if he goes pro at 18, that'd take him to 33. Some contracts are even longer now at 6 years.
But if its the clubs who are blocking transfers, then it's not an active decision of players to run down contracts?
"I am literally a slave" - C. Ronaldo
The remarkable thing about him is how despite the lack of silverware his teams played decent football regardless of who was on the field. They mainly bottled it due to having generally less talent. In hindsight I think that I underestimated him.
Loyalty has always been one-sided in football. It's been propagandised by football clubs, and the sport in general, to such an extent that a player leaving club A for club B and then B to C and then C to D will be accused of disloyalty by clubs B and C without the tiniest sense of irony.
Ah ok. I saw he went to PSG and just assumed!
I like the idea of a wage cap and possibly more restrictions when dealing with transfers, but what's to stop the richest clubs from doing it the "Man City" way? Hidden payments ect.
I give up, you are not really grasping my point here.
How does it work?
It's not really special players generally have short contracts, 2 to 3 years maximum, and they leave as free agents or extend with their current club, transfer fees are rare. And there is an incentive in producing your own players or at least a large part of your team, you can't rely on someone else to do it, the selection rules often require a large amount of homegrown players and with injuries it's also important to have youth players ready to be called at all time, you may bring a medical joker but it's not the best option.
If clubs block transfers then players make the decision not to sign a new contract and hence run down contract.
But what if, to replace pogba, we pay 100m plus wages to someone else for 5 years, and it ends up far more expensive than just giving pogba the money he wants, let's say 50m more expensive.
It's not just about him though, Bruno has outperformed him, we just took on CR7. Barca should be the horror story people should look at when thinking about giving in. I'm not saying Pogba is wrong to run down his contract, in fact I think players have actually been foolish, especially ones with ambitions to leave later on, to not run down their contracts prior. It's a contract with terms that have been met, regardless of whether fans like it or not, the player cannot be said to have run foul of the agreement. The more these contracts run down, the quicker it will be for fans to accept that its not a sign of loyalty, rather players taking care of themselves and their careers.
In EPL, Grealish just went for 100m and a salary of £300,000/week for Man City. I have no idea who can replace Pogba for much less money in both transfer fee and wages. Leon Goretzka will be/may be available for free next summer but he will demand big signing fee and wages, just like Pogba as well. Even the package for Varane is £340,000/week + £41m transfer fee. Unless Man Utd unearth a raw diamond otherwise need to pay big dollar for a like to like replacement. Pogba will get his money one way or the other. it is just a matter of man utd, real madrid or PSG.
Got this from Arsenal's twitter accounts like AFTV, Welbeast?
