A lot of my recent articles have almost been ramblings about how pathetic I feel the media has become, or how transfers may not mean everything in football. This article may sound a bit redundant in terms of the tone, but the more I think about this, the more ironic I find it.
In one of my previous articles, Saraswathi Sirigina (or Sarah) asked a very pertinent question: What are transfers supposed to achieve?
I found that a very interesting question, mainly because I'm sure that most managers today wouldn't be able to answer it themselves.
I can relate the transfer system and economics in a certain way. I remember reading about demand and supply, and how in the earlier centuries, people weren't proficient at producing everything, just like how not all football teams have all the required players.
Hence, there was a need to trade whatever the people needed in exchange for what they produced. That started the whole system of an economy and "a demand-and-supply system."
Similarly, the transfer system evolved due to the fact that clubs would "buy" the players they needed in exchange for money. So, effectively, in the transfer market, football players are commodities. They have a price, a demand, and an owner.
That was the idea, in any case. The irony is that now, the footballers have everything in their own hands. They are the ones that decide whether they want to stay, leave, or stay committed "for the moment."
They move to a club and say, "I'm very happy to have joined this club, it's a very proud moment in my career," and then two years later say, "I didn't really enjoy my time in the city, playing football, and living in the city at the same time made me tired."
Those two statements were made by one player, and are not made up at all.
The transfer system was put in place so that clubs could acquire the players they felt could produce goals, assists, or maybe add some defensive stability on the pitch. To answer Sarah's question, the clubs are a jigsaw puzzle that have to be completed by assembling players from both within and outside of them.
Unfortunately, just like consumerism is fuelling potential economic disasters, the sheer amount of transfer activity can ruin many a club.
It has already ruined one club to my knowledge. Leeds United were Champions League semifinalists not so long ago. Expectations grew to such an extent that loans were made to invest in an expensive squad.
Unknown players like Seth Johnson were bought for £7 million pounds, and when the expectations were not met, Leeds United were doomed to fail. They are now in League One and are trying to get back into the Championship.
I'm sure that it wasn't just the transfer activity that led to Leeds' demise in the Premier League, but it was a major factor. Unscrupulous buying after a couple of seasons' success was a recipe for disaster.
The transfer system was put in place so that clubs could sign what they needed
11 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment
Salaar Arshad Shamsi 11 months ago
Boy oh Boy, somebody's on a good run here...Shyam, third consecutive article with a purpose here..Way to go, my friend.
"value for money" is a purpose for life, which is absolutely true, However, I still feel that if the club uses the Transfer market for it's own good there might be no harm after all..For eg..if a promoted club wants to strengthen it's squad to survive in the first division, what's wrong...it's certain teams and players which make the system go down..
LIKE THEY SAY " DON'T HATE THE GAME HATE THE PLAYER".
Edit Comment Cancel
Shyam Parthasarathi 11 months ago
Well, thanks a lot Salaar.. yeah, I'm on some sort of a streak here! I don't have an issue with the transfer market being used when it is necessary - but today, in all honesty, it's becoming a bit of a joke.
Edit Comment Cancel
Saraswathi Siriginia 11 months ago
An amazing article that explains all my questions but also makes me feel sad that players have now learned to exploit the system to their best use. I recall Seth Johnson and am saddened to hear about Leeds united. Great article Shyam, 5 stars and a POTD when mine is open again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Saraswathi Siriginia 11 months ago
Ok Shyam, some more questions -
1. After signing the player for a hefty fee, do these clubs sideline them, not deploy them properly, try to play them in a different position, not play them at all, not play them for the important games - are any or all of these possibilities? (these questions pop up cause you said the following: "Instead, clubs want to sign players left, right and centre and leave them high and dry after they realize that there was, in fact no use in signing them in the first place.")
2. Once signed on, do the players under perform in some instances?
3. Do the players use these sign on deals as stop over deals until the next big deal comes their way?
Thanks
PS: Gosh, you have my name in your article, did not know I was asking a good question :-) dude, you make me blush
Edit Comment Cancel
Shyam Parthasarathi 11 months ago
Here are my answers to your questions:
1. In the case of Nicolas Anelka when he moved to Real Madrid, he moved for 24 million pounds - a huge amount of money. He made 19 appearances and scored just 2 goals in one season before being sold to Paris Saint Germain for almost half of 24 million pounds. In his case, the players at Real Madrid didn't seem to want him there, and he was simply bought and sold - hence my comment and the example.
2. In the case of Andriy Shevchenko, you can say that he has under performed so much that he is a shadow of his former self. It is sad to see that a striker who was on the score sheet in every single game for AC Milan can't even start a game for Chelsea on a consistent basis. Chelsea paid 30 million pounds for Shevchenko and he has been a major flop.
3. I haven't seen many instances of this happening. But, the way things are going, I think this will become an option to the players very soon.
Edit Comment Cancel
Saraswathi Siriginia 11 months ago
it is horse trading, but the players at Real Madrid did bear him (Anelka) for 19 games, right?
Edit Comment Cancel
Shyam Parthasarathi 11 months ago
They technically paid more than 1 million pounds per game for him, which is basically madness. His tenure lasted for 1 season.. he was a promising striker and is still world class, but would've gone on to become an Arsenal legend - he's now merely a nomadic presence in the footballing World.
Edit Comment Cancel
Saraswathi Siriginia 11 months ago
at a guess, who among these is getting paid his real worth, me figures that most of them are over paid - yet to see anyone being underpaid
Edit Comment Cancel
Jason Clarke 11 months ago
Impressive article, until reading it I had felt that player contracts were ethically unsound because they did not allow free employee movement. However, highlighting that the players are the football club's commodity creates an business vs ethics grey area.
Having been one of the very few that felt Christiano Ronaldo should be allowed to move to Real Madrid if he wished had left me outside many conversation circles. It seems an almost unsolvable situation putting the commodity argument forward. It really begs the question, what comes first, the individual or the businesses rights? On one hand, if players are allowed to move at any given time it will undermine any team not playing Champions League football. Conversley, a person should never be asked to work anywhere against their wishes. These players may be on mega money but that should not reduce their human rights to lower than other people as a punishment of success.
Once again, an impressive, thought-provoking article.
Edit Comment Cancel
illya mclellan 11 months ago
Well written article and you do raise some good points with effective reasoning. The transfer system as you say is based on business principles, the case of Leeds United and several other clubs who have found themselves in serious difficulties because of transfers cannot however be blamed on the system itself. The Leeds example along with others is just an example of bad business. There are clubs throughout the world who manage their finances much more astutely than Leeds United did, and year to year do make a profit on their transfers whether it be from merchandising because of a purchase or from a cash injection from a sale. While the system is very far from perfect and needs some sort of overhaul, I cannot agree with your proposal that clubs should not be allowed to sell players unless they are out of contract. There are too many reasons why this would not be fair or logical to enact. Sometimes a player just has to go. For the good of the player or of the club. Financial or otherwise there are always reasons.
While the situation of 'mercenary' players has arisen and is defined very well by someone like Anelka it is because of a Club and its desire for a quick-fix that this happened in the first place. If he had been a success at Real it would have been very a very different story. In one sense Anelka conducts his business in much the same way football clubs do toward the players they own. While this disappoints the fans it is only fair that a player should have some power in the transfer system. Players were exploited for a long time before changes were first made in regards to bonuses/player percentage fees etc.
The players have only learned to look after themselves a lot more than it was possible for them to do in the past.
While I think that you have indeed provoked thought on the issue, when I began to read I did so in the hope that you would have perhaps illustrated some possible alternatives or adjustments that could be made besides- "you can't help but think what might have been if clubs weren't allowed to transfer players unless they were out of contract".
I agree with the sentiments of your article but think you could have perhaps tried a little harder to list possible idea's for alternatives to the current transfer system.
Edit Comment Cancel
Shyam Parthasarathi 11 months ago
Thanks for the comment Illya. This article, in all honesty, wasn't written to find solutions or alternatives to the current system. As I mentioned earlier, it was merely echoing my sentiments about how I feel about the transfer system as it is - and how it has grown from something being done for necessity to something which is being done for the sake of it (by top clubs particularly),
That particular instance you have quoted isn't a solution at all - it is just something which is the opposite of the transfer system - all I've said is that you can't help but think what would happen.
It's just that the transfer system is being abused to a certain extent and all I want is something transparent, clean and something with accountability - that is not a solution, but it is something that the clubs should try and maintain because at the current rate, the transfer system is going to collapse - and that is very dangerous for football.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.