Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is it that the club teams do not get? International footy comes above club football. Clubs are forced to realease their players for international, yet come up with all sorts of concoctions to get away with not doing so... It's ridiculous. The lawsuit filed by Schalke 04 and Werder is even more ridiculous. The clubs still believe (13 years after Bosman) they OWN the players, as in modern day (altho living in great luxury and packed with women gadgets and cars) slaves. When will the clubs' hypocrisy stop? Probably never.... too bad though.

Discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
i agree with you.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
49,992 Posts
They have to release U-23 players because Olympics are recognized by FIFA as U-23 tournament.

They can't be forced to release players older than 23 though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,652 Posts
Yet Serbia is deprived of 4 U23 players, 3 of them starters in our team.

Tosic (Werder), Kacar (Hertha) and Babovic and Djordjevic from Nantes. Thanks to the clubs! :wallbang:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
How do you say that club football is less important than internationals? I think that is a matter of choice. I personally would not care about internationals as much as club football, I feel a lot stronger connected to my favourite clubs than to my favourite NTs. You see a club play every week if you want, always the same players, week-to-week nights out with the same friends, ... while NT football means a 10 to 15 games per year with a constantly changing pool of players.

Also, let's not forget who pays the salaries. If the FAs would refund clubs for it they would corporate more. If you run a company, pay an employee a lot of money and then see him perform work for a third party, would you be happy? Unless he is exposed so well that you can sell the employee for a large sum, you have not the slightest benefit from the employee representing the third party (= NT)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
How do you say that club football is less important than internationals? I think that is a matter of choice. I personally would not care about internationals as much as club football, I feel a lot stronger connected to my favourite clubs than to my favourite NTs. You see a club play every week if you want, always the same players, week-to-week nights out with the same friends, ... while NT football means a 10 to 15 games per year with a constantly changing pool of players.
I'm yet to see the passion displayed at the big international tournaments on club level. So, indeed it's a personal choice, however most people seem to choose the NT.

Also, let's not forget who pays the salaries. If the FAs would refund clubs for it they would corporate more. If you run a company, pay an employee a lot of money and then see him perform work for a third party, would you be happy? Unless he is exposed so well that you can sell the employee for a large sum, you have not the slightest benefit from the employee representing the third party (= NT)
Why? The players aren't property of the clubs... Besides, the FA's are above the clubs as well as they distribute the cash from the competitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
In, say,, Messi's case though, he is part of the senior NT as well. I think it's ridiculous Barcelona would have to release him for U23 games added to senior, even if it is olympics.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
I have yet to see one player who has a real chance to play the Olympics say that he doesn't rate the Olympic Games highly. It's one of the biggest honors an athlete can have, and the essential symbolism of winning a Gold Medal is immense regardless of the athlete's chosen sport. Standing on top of the Olympic podium is an universal honor, bigger than winning any national league.

Many club fans dismiss the Olympics as 'meaningless' because their clubs don't directly participate, and these fans often choose to ignore the wishes of the players they profess to "love" in favour of the clubs' own interests (which serves to remind us once again that club fans don't actually love their club's players at all; the players are appreciated just as long as they wear the club's colors and not a minute longer), but the players themselves usually dream of playing Olympic Games and telling their grandkids about it (not to mention that pro players brag among themselves about having played the Olympics - the fact that it's a only-once-every-four-years competition that also has age restrictions makes an Olympic call-up something special enough to merit bragging rights among professionals, regardless of the fans' opinions).

Sadly, many clubs and fans still feel like slaveholders and view the players on their payroll as "property" and "patrimony". Inadequate comparisons with normal workers are drawn to justify the employers' supposedly absolute rights - you know what I mean, the "my boss wouldn't let me skip work to help another company" argument, which conveniently disregards the numerous differences between professional football and common desk jobs. There is NO "International Office-Worker Competition" for which world-class insurance salesmen and accountants get called up to defend their National Teams; there is no extra prestige associated to being a member of your country's National Team of Secretaries (but there IS prestige associated to being an NT player, as we can see whenever a major player gets left out of a major NT call-up - does anyone remember the howls of protest when Zanetti was left out of the WC?); and there is no pressure on phone-attendants or elevator-operators to stay away from the nightlife and preserve a wholesome "image" for the phone-attendant's fans.

Direct comparisons between footballers and regular workers are flawed comparisons on pretty much every level - but folks who put clubs above NTs will bring out those flawed comparisons anyway, because it's the only way they can build any sort of defense for an indefensible idea: that the players "belong" to the clubs. The slaveowner's mentality is sadly widespread among club directors and fans alike, and that mentality is expressed every time a player is forbidden to answer his NT's calling (which is, let's not forget, the PLAYER's right and not the NT's; the NTs don't 'own' the players any more than the clubs do, the players have no obligation whatsoever to answer an NT call-up).

When signing world-class footballers, everyone and their parrot knows perfectly well that National Team football is part of the "world-class-footballer" package; and yet, once the star players are signed the clubs would like them to turn their backs to their National Teams. Ideally, clubs that hate seeing "their" players participate in NT football should be upfront about it and just include in all their standard contracts a clause forbidding the players from participating in ANY international football; and any players who agreed to sign such contracts would be naturally in agreement with that one clause. But of course, any club that tried to impose such a preposterous "no-NTs" clause would quickly find itself at a dramatic disadvantage in the race to sign the world's best players, as the world's best players would simply choose to sign with OTHER clubs that didn't deny them the basic right to defend their NTs. The answer? The clubs don't bother specifying in the contracts that their players must give up International Football; instead, they complain and try to get the players to give up their NTs, all the time posing as poor victims who could NEVER have predicted that having foreign world-class players would mean that sometimes the players would get called up for their countries' National Teams. :rolleyes:

And that's how we end up where we are: the clubs sign all the International-level players that they can, and begin to complain as soon as these players are called for International competitions; and the clubs' fans whine and moan because any competition that their fave club doesn't participate in must by definition be "meaningless", and how DARE the players not stay on the club's side? After all, the club pays the players' wages and therefore the players must BOW BEFORE THE CLUBS' WILL! Submit! Abandon all your dreams and national prides, all ye who enter here! For you have signed a contract and therefore YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO US!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,059 Posts
The players have no obligation whatsoever to answer an NT call-up
Really? Ask Makelele. :)

What is it that the club teams do not get? International footy comes above club football.
This.

Sadly, many clubs and fans still feel like slaveholders and view the players on their payroll as "property" and "patrimony". Inadequate comparisons with normal workers are drawn to justify the employers' supposedly absolute rights - you know what I mean, the "my boss wouldn't let me skip work to help another company" argument, which conveniently disregards the numerous differences between professional football and common desk jobs. There is NO "International Office-Worker Competition" for which world-class insurance salesmen and accountants get called up to defend their National Teams;
So? If there was an "International Office-Worker Competition" you think the bosses of the office workers wouldn't grumble about it? Dream on. And of course the executives and presidents of football clubs couldn't care less about players' dreams and whatnot if same dreams happen to potentially make a dent in the bosses' pocket. Totally understandable.

But of course, any club that tried to impose such a preposterous "no-NTs" clause would quickly find itself at a dramatic disadvantage in the race to sign the world's best players
I really doubt FIFA would allow such a thing, if it did someone would certainly have tried it already. I am 12893293829% certain there are tons of players who couldn't care less about their NT if such a contract would give them an extra few hundred thousands (or a few millions) each year. Although NTs do help players get higher advertising contracts, so it would probably be quite a few millions for the superstars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,870 Posts
It's ridiculous. ....the clubs still believe they OWN the players, as in modern day (altho living in great luxury and packed with women gadgets and cars) slaves.
I totally disagree.

1. All U-23 players have to be released.
2. The controversy is over over-aged players, who are paid famously to work for their clubs, nothing else. If you worked in a factory and told your boss that you're taking off to throw darts/shoot deer/pick your nose in the Olympics and that he still has to pay you, I'd argue that the boss is both likely and entitled to have reservations. This is not different in any way.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Threatened to be fined if he didnt play for the NT having retired already from international football.
Fined? Fined by whom? NTs can't fine anyone. If a player doesn't want to play for the NT, he doesn't have to. If the French NT issues hollow threats against players who refuse call-ups, they're idiots who clearly don't understand how International football works.

When Serginho (when he played for Milan) decided that he didn't want to play for the Brasilian NT anymore, he unilaterally informed the NT manager of his decision and was promptly removed from the NT's plans. After the 2006 WC, Juninho Pernambucano also unilaterally decided to retire from the Brasilian NT, and the Brasilian NT simply had to accept it. When Aldair and Cafu wanted to stay in Roma to prepare for an important upcoming league match instead of playing a friendly with the Brasil NT, they simply told Brasil's manager (Zagallo at the time) that they'd rather stay to prepare for the important league match, and they were naturally left out of the NT call-up for that friendly - because it's not the NTs that have any rights over the players, it's the players who have the right to play for their NTs if they wish to do so.

The France NT has no rights whatsoever over Makelele, and any threats of fining him are empty gibberish. It's Makelele who has the right to accept or decline his NT's call-up as he sees fit. The only thing that an NT manager can do against a player who refuses a call-up is not call that player anymore.
 

·
Rei Brasileiro
Joined
·
8,569 Posts
you know all this talk of players making millions and having to report to their club.... we all have to remember: Clubs make MILLIONS from players too- otherwise they would never afford to pay them that much.
 

·
Senior Poster of the year 2007
Joined
·
40,147 Posts
Fined? Fined by whom? NTs can't fine anyone. If a player doesn't want to play for the NT, he doesn't have to. If the French NT issues hollow threats against players who refuse call-ups, they're idiots who clearly don't understand how International football works.

When Serginho (when he played for Milan) decided that he didn't want to play for the Brasilian NT anymore, he unilaterally informed the NT manager of his decision and was promptly removed from the NT's plans. After the 2006 WC, Juninho Pernambucano also unilaterally decided to retire from the Brasilian NT, and the Brasilian NT simply had to accept it. When Aldair and Cafu wanted to stay in Roma to prepare for an important upcoming league match instead of playing a friendly with the Brasil NT, they simply told Brasil's manager (Zagallo at the time) that they'd rather stay to prepare for the important league match, and they were naturally left out of the NT call-up for that friendly - because it's not the NTs that have any rights over the players, it's the players who have the right to play for their NTs if they wish to do so.

The France NT has no rights whatsoever over Makelele, and any threats of fining him are empty gibberish. It's Makelele who has the right to accept or decline his NT's call-up as he sees fit. The only thing that an NT manager can do against a player who refuses a call-up is not call that player anymore.
This is the irony of the rule. The player didn't want to go with France and the rule says that the player is forced to go, if he doesn't want to be fined.

Obviously, common sense makes things easier, because why call a player that don't want to play? But things are like this. In Spain, there was a debate some years ago, because Oleguer was called to be in a preliminary list for the last WC. Oleguer, known by his independentist ideas, publically suggested that he didn't want to go, but the rule forces him to go. He went to Madrid and talked to Luis Aragonés, who didn't call him anymore.

Why would Luis Aragones want a player that isn't motivated to play? But if Luis Aragonés had wanted, he could have called Oleguer and he would have been forced to go, if he didn't want to be banned from official competitions with his club.

Stupid, but it happens. You can say you retire from the NT, but if you're an elligible player and you're called, you're forced to go, if you don't want to be fined for it.

Talking about "slavery" in football... this is how Blatter really protects the players.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
52,972 Posts
I totally disagree.

1. All U-23 players have to be released.
2. The controversy is over over-aged players, who are paid famously to work for their clubs, nothing else.
Actually, the controversy is over the U-23 players only.

Havent been issues over overage players. Messi is being stopped to go, the German clubs are refusing to let Rafinha and Diego go, the Serb players who were told to say are all U-23.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Clubs should write penalties into the contracts so the players lose large percentages of their salaries for attending the Olympics, then we'll see how much a fcuking bronze medal in China means to the players...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,223 Posts
This is the irony of the rule. The player didn't want to go with France and the rule says that the player is forced to go, if he doesn't want to be fined.

Obviously, common sense makes things easier, because why call a player that don't want to play? But things are like this. In Spain, there was a debate some years ago, because Oleguer was called to be in a preliminary list for the last WC. Oleguer, known by his independentist ideas, publically suggested that he didn't want to go, but the rule forces him to go. He went to Madrid and talked to Luis Aragonés, who didn't call him anymore.

Why would Luis Aragones want a player that isn't motivated to play? But if Luis Aragonés had wanted, he could have called Oleguer and he would have been forced to go, if he didn't want to be banned from official competitions with his club.

Stupid, but it happens. You can say you retire from the NT, but if you're an elligible player and you're called, you're forced to go, if you don't want to be fined for it.

Talking about "slavery" in football... this is how Blatter really protects the players.
Olegeur getting a call-up still makes me laugh.
 

·
Major
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
well its a question of family or work. lets say national team is your home and club is your work. it depends on you how you manage between work and home and which one do you prefer more. because you can change companies,in this case clubs, but you cant change your home, i mean family not the home you stay, in this case it is NT. so we cant make rules as such who the particular player must choose. it must be left to the player and bring in laws to make sure that player's will doesnt harm it. this is nothing to do with the contract. you can be contracted and take leave in case you need it. similarly, a player should be granted leave if he has a obligation fulfil the call of his NT. because its ulitmately his home, his people who are calling him.clubs can cut salary for that period, its their option and their right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
Clubs should write penalties into the contracts so the players lose large percentages of their salaries for attending the Olympics, then we'll see how much a fcuking bronze medal in China means to the players...
Precisely.

It's been irrelevant since 1930, people.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top