No loyalty in modern football?

[YorkshireSquare]

The last week or so hasn’t been a great example for showing the existence of loyalty in modern day football. Money speaks louder than ever in the beautiful game, it’s hard for it not to when the Premier League signs a new TV deal for £5.1 billion. This summers transfer news has been dominated by Raheem Sterling’s drawn out transfer to Manchester City. Completed for an English record £49 million it had been brewing for a while with Sterling and his agent looking to engineer a move at the end of last season. Television interviews without the clubs permission, disciplinary issues, stories in the press, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Sterling says he regrets the nature of his transfer but that there are no issues with his relationship with anyone at Liverpool, you wouldn’t have though that listening to Brendan Rogers or Steven Gerrard over the last few weeks though.

Then we had another transfer involving Manchester City, after all they are the ones with the big pockets. Ex-Leeds youngster Fabian Delph’s on off transfer was eventually completed for a cheap as chips £8 million. When the transfer was first being talked about people questioned Delph’s loyalty but he surprised everyone my making a U turn and staying at Villa. He told the press; "I'm staying at the football club and I can't wait for the start of the Premier League season”. Just 6 days later though, and in a complete 360 he put pen to paper and signed a five year deal at Man City. So the money and the prospect of medals wins out again. Delph would have been a pivotal part of Villas team, especially being captain, now he may find it difficult to pin down a starting place next year and may spend more time sat on the bench playing the new slot from NetEnt.

Then, with all hope lost of a footballer or football club showing any signs of loyalty in the modern game Luke Murphy signs a new four year deal on reduced wages at Leeds United. Murphy had an ok first season at Leeds after his £1 million signing from Crewe but had faded into the background at the start of last season. Training with the reserves he only made an impact after assistant manager Steve Thompson put an arm round his shoulder and plucked him from obscurity. After than Murphy was an essential part of the team, playing some of his best football, scoring important goals. He is set to be a vital part of the squad again this season, curtailed slightly by missing the start of the season following knee surgery, but if he plays anything like he did at the end of last season he will make a valuable contribution.

His high singing fee and wage were possibly a burden round Murphy’s neck but the mid-point last season represented a fresh start and this new contract rewards his performances this calendar year. It is unusual for a player to accept a lower wage these days but I’m glad he is staying and perhaps he will feel more comfortable without the burden of his signing fee hanging over him. He is no longer £1 million Luke Murphy but Luke Murphy who accepted a wage cut to stay at the club. The club too have shown loyalty, they gave given Murphy a big vote of confidence by giving him a four year deal. I’m looking forward to seeing what he can do next season, he’s already gone up in the estimation of Leeds fans a lot this summer.

[mvm]

It's only the players that go to City that have no loyalty to their former clubs. The other 99.999% of players that move during the transfer window do so under obvious duress. Show some nuts and tell us what your agenda is.

[YorkshireSquare]

It's only the players that go to City that have no loyalty to their former clubs. The other 99.999% of players that move during the transfer window do so under obvious duress. Show some nuts and tell us what your agenda is.

Wasn't supposed to be taken as a pop at City.

My agenda was merely to highlight the pay cut Murphy took to stay at Leeds, an act of loyalty in sport normally associated with greed.

[John in Louisiana]

The game is bug business now, and there won't be any escaping the current state of affairs as long as people can make millions - even hundreds of millions - in the game both as players and owners.

Players, in particular, will be looking for the highest possible contracts as they have just a very limited amount of time to earn the money necessary to retire. And retire is what most players have to do by the age of 30 or 35 as there are even fewer jobs in coaching or television commentary than there are playing, and very few, if any, players ever had the opportunity to prepare themselves for some other career. So they take the money where they can find it, and good for them. I don't begrudge any player for leaving any team - even Leeds - for more money. it's all well and good for me to want players to stay as loyal to my team as I am, but I don't have to feed their kids.

What I do begrudge is certain teams with greater resources being able to corner the market on excellent players. I'm talking to you, City, Scum, and Chelsea. Financial fair play rules have made it impossible for smaller market teams to compete as they simply can't make as much as teams with 70,000-seat stadiums, ridiculously high ticket prices, and the ability to sell merchandise worldwide. Apparently the people who created and named these rules have no sense of irony.

Here in the US what happened in Major League Baseball is instructive. Baseball used to have a what was known as the reserve clause, which tied a player to the first team to sign him for life. About forty-five years ago, however, players won the right to free agency in court, meaning that they were free to negotiate with any team they liked for whatever salary they could get. For the first few years of this system the big market teams - most notably the New York Yankees - dominated the game.

Since then, however, baseball has introduced its own version of the fair play rules, but they have nothing to do with an individual team's profit or loss. Instead, a cap has been placed on the total amount a team can spend on player payrolls. If a team exceeds the cap, it is required to pay a "luxury tax" which starts at 17.5% of total payroll and increases each year the team exceeds the cap (limited to 50% maximum). So, unlike UEFA members, baseball teams can make the decision to accept a short-term financial loss in an effort to assemble a better squad.

Because of this system baseball has seen a significant increase in the number of teams competing for championships; nine different teams have won titles in the last fifteen years. By contrast, the last time any team other than Scum, Chelsea, Man City, or Arsenal won a title was twenty years ago. Plus, the teams competing in the baseball playoffs are coming from increasingly smaller markets like Kansas City and Pittsburgh. Just as importantly, what we've found is that even though players can now go wherever they like, average player tenure with teams has gone up, especially among star players who can command the long-term contracts that protect them from the consequences of injury.

This sort of thing might be especially difficult to negotiate in Europe as, unlike with baseball, there exist four, not one, top leagues and cooperation among the leagues would be essential, but it would be preferable to the current system.

[jock44]

In this day and age Money rules. If a player can get substantial wage increase he will move heaven and earth to get it.
His agent will be working all the angles in the background for his client.