Bleacher Report - Articles by Willie Nandi

John Terry Deserved a Red Card, but Mark Halsey Could Be Wrong

Willie Nandi — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:02:13 -0400

Following the decision by the FA to reverse John Terry's red card, Chelsea fans will be delighted that their skipper will now be able to face Manchester United on Sunday.

According to the referee's report, Terry was sent off for serious foul play. The decision by the FA therefore implies that Terry's foul on Jo does not constitute serious foul play.

When something like this happens, the football community tends to automatically judge whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not. They wrongfully assume that the referee's decision to give a red or yellow card should be based on that.

In this incident, it was clearly not the case, as the referee's report indicates serious foul play as the reason for the red card. The question here then is, "What constitutes serious foul play?"

According to the Laws of the Game, "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."

That full stop is very important.

Additionally, "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

If the second paragraph is to be taken as the ultimate definition of serious foul play, then a player who elbows another player while challenging for a ball in the air cannot be sent off for serious foul play. (Neither for violent conduct. Violent conduct is strictly for fouls committed while not challenging for the ball.)

The first paragraph is the definition of serious foul play. The offences outlined in the second paragraph are also serious foul play, but not necessarily the only offences that constitute such.

A distinction is clearly made between excessive force and brutality, yet it is the absence of brutality or danger that may have swayed the FA's decision.

Referees are expected to handle matches within the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game using their common sense. Therefore, when awarding a foul, it is up to the referee to decide whether excessive force or brutality was involved.

Holding the shirt of a player next to you or tugging at a player when running after him is not excessive force and is often an instinctive reaction from players. Therefore the argument that there will be a lot of red cards at corners and free-kicks if Terry should be sent off is lame.

Shirt-tugging and Rugby tackles are two different offences. A Rugby tackle on a football pitch is excessive force in the eyes of Mark Halsey, and by rescinding his decision the FA will only encourage more of the same.

Another take on this is that Terry was not challenging for the ball.

In that case this is violent conduct as defined in the Laws of the Game, "A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

Perhaps Halsey was wrong in sending off Terry for serious foul play. Perhaps he should have sent him off for violent conduct because Terry was clearly playing the man (using excessive force).

Mark Halsey may not have known why to send him off, but instinctively he knew John Terry had to walk.

Transfer Economics: Is Berbatov Really Worth Thirty Million Pounds?

Willie Nandi — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:04:22 -0400

In a previous article, I put forward the argument that a player is worth whatever the buying club is willing to pay for him. Little did I expect that it would become a hot topic of debate among Premiership managers.

Following Sir Alex Ferguson's comments that “The big surprise [of the summer] was Liverpool paying £20 million for Keane,” Rafael Benitez has himself suggested that the 30.75 million pounds that Manchester United paid for Dimitar Berbatov was too much.

In the wake of the Bulgarian's lukewarm debut for Manchester United, a few fans may now agree with Benitez.

By suggesting that Manchester United paid too much for Dimitar Berbatov, Benitez is actually implying that they could have bought a player:

a) of the same quality at a lower price.

b) of slightly better quality at the same price.

c) of significantly better quality at a slightly higher price.

d) of slightly lower quality at a significantly lower price.

The only other option is not to buy a striker at all. For Manchester United, not buying a striker could cost them a lot in terms of conversion of new fans, selling tickets, merchandise, and winning trophies.

In deciding the maximum amount they would spend on a new striker, all those factors are taken into consideration and calculations made.

The problem with exercising the options above (a, b, c or d) is that there is imperfect information in the market for players.

There is no reliable yardstick (not even goals ratio) of measuring a striker's quality. Therefore, the decision to pursue one player and not the other is usually a matter of preference.

Equally, there is no reliable method for pricing a player. Therefore the selling club will always seek to sell at a price close to what the buying club is willing to pay.

A manager's preference of one player over the other is influenced by a variety of factors and due to the uniqueness of each club and each player, there will always be differences in preference.

In the end, as long as the player is able to show a good return on the club's investment, the transfer fee is justified. Benitez himself defends the decision to sign Robbie Keane by saying:

"If Keane scores goals and does really well for us then the price doesn't matter."

The same could be said of Berbatov, but the question is, "What if he is a flop?"

In football, nothing is certain. Whether the player was cheap or expensive, the possibility is always there that the player will not have the same impact as was expected of him.

It is better to buy a cheap flop than an expensive one, but a club could also lose out on a potential star by being frugal with their transfer kitty—think Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, and Cristiano Ronaldo, who was also expensive for a player that was virtually unknown.

Transfer Economics: How Much is a Player Worth?

Willie Nandi — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:20:46 -0400

When players are sold and bought on the transfer market, it is important to consider that it is not actually the player that is being bought (Mr. Blatter, take note!), but his registration.

A transfer is short for transfer of registration.

A player registered by one club cannot be registered with another because he has a contract with his current club. Therefore, one accurate estimate of a player's value could be the remaining value on his contract. If a player earns three million per year and has three years remaining on his contract, the remaining value of his contract is nine million—at least this is what he is worth to his current club.

If we use this formula, then many players are overvalued in the transfer market because they are transferred for huge transfer fees at a time when they were not set to earn that much over the duration of their remaining contract.

Either that, or players like Michael Essien, Didier Drogba, Wayne Rooney, Robinho and so forth were underpaid before their big money moves.

However, one can also argue that the player's valuation should not be based on the number of years on the current contract but his remaining useful life—the number of years he is expected to continue playing competitive football.

This is not a simple calculation. Although the player may have seven years of useful life remaining, he will not deliver the same in the last two years as he will in the next two. A complex calculation but it can be done with varying degrees of accuracy, if only it was really useful in transfer dealings.

The fact is that in the transfer of a player from one club to another, it is usually the buying club that initiates the deal and therefore the selling club is usually in a better bargaining position. As a result, most players will be bought for more than their real valuation, if such a measure existed.

When we buy goods in shops we often pay less than what we are willing to pay because the shopkeeper wants to maximise profits by selling the most items at the most profitable price.

If shopkeepers could sell every single item to every customer at a different price (close to what they are willing to pay), that's exactly what they would do, but it would be impractical negotiating prices with every customer that walks through the door and the shopkeeper could end up with stockpiles of unsold stock.

When a club is buying a player, they will have to pay close to what they are willing to pay because the selling club is selling only one player to one club. There's also no harm if a player is not sold and often, that's exactly what the selling club wants.

A club want to buy a player because he will be of some value to their team, the team will enjoy certain benefits (goals, trophies, merchandising) in having his registration. The club that currently owns his registration is also currently enjoying those benefits, so more often than not, they will force the buying club to pay more than what they are willing to pay in a "take it or leave it" manner.

So the answer to the question: How much is a player worth? As much as the buying club is willing to pay, or even more!

Of course it's not that simple, but the point is that a player is only overvalued if the buying club refuses to pay the transfer fee and the deal doesn't go through.

As soon as the deal goes through, we can assume that the player is really worth close to that amount—at least to the buyer.

Robinho an Innocent Pawn in Real Madrid's Transfer Games

Willie Nandi — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:59:21 -0400

For anyone who understands the facts, it is hard to understand or justify the criticism leveled at Robinho in the wake of his transfer to Manchester City. Perhaps people conveniently ignore the facts to vent their real feelings over the acquisition of Manchester City and the transfer of Robinho. Perhaps that feeling is jealousy.

The real sequence of events is as follows:

Real Madrid laid open their intentions to use Robinho as a pawn in bringing Cristiano Ronaldo to the Bernabeau. Consequently, Real did not offer Robinho a new contract.

It was only when Real failed to land Ronaldo that they wanted to negotiate Robinho's contract.

As a professional player, Robinho had two options. He could negotiate a new contract and move on with life at the Bernabeau, or sulk at being treated like a second-rate player and demand a transfer.

With Chelsea interested in his services, Robinho wanted out. He wanted to join a club that would value him and not use him as a pawn in exchange for another player. That is exactly what he said. At that moment that club was Chelsea and he had reached the point where his mind was set on an exit to Chelsea, a top club.

But then Chelsea haggled with Real over the price. Real were reluctant to sell, although the player wanted to leave. When City, a club that doesn't pose any immediate challenge to Real Madrid, enquired, Real jumped at the offer.

Robinho, like any other normal person, weighed the options. Stay at Madrid or join City?

He chose the latter. His pay will be as good as at any other top European club, and his compatriots Jo and Elano are already at City. The club has rich new owners who can bring in more players like him in the transfer windows ahead. What more can a player ask for?

Isn't it hypocritical to berate the domination of the top four in the EPL and at the same time condemn top players who join clubs outside the top four?

Players, managers, and fans alike have harsh and taunting words for Robinho. How many of them have an idea of how Robinho was treated by Real Madrid? Like Real Madrid President Ramon Calderon said, Robinho came to him crying to be allowed to leave. (He denied, he cried, but you get the picture?)

We have read in the papers that Robinho will be used as a pawn in a potential Ronaldo deal, but how many of us have tried to put ourselves in Robinho's shoes? Did Real Madrid always answer his agent's calls? Did the president or coach have a conversation with him besides saying "hello"? Was he treated like one of the Real Madrid first team players?

In their arrogance, Real Madrid could have treated Robinho like an ex-player and for that reason he simply had to move to any club that could match his ambition and Real's valuation.

That club happened to be Manchester City. It wasn't Robinho's fault that Chelsea and Real couldn't agree on a fee or that Barcelona, Manchester United, and other top clubs didn't make an offer.

Robinho should be considered to be brave in joining a club like City, knowing that he can contribute to their transformation. Every player is, after all, a mercenary (not a slave!), except for the few homegrown players like Steven Gerrard.

But the cowards will never take a chance and join a team that is on the up. They would rather sit on the bench of a team that is already there. How do such players have more ambition, ethics, love of football, or loyalty than Robinho?

City might not capture Torres, Ronaldo, Fabregas, and all the other top players linked with them, but certainly they should be allowed to sign any players who are not happy at their clubs. After all, they can afford to buy any player in the world!

2008 Summer Olympics Soccer Preview

Willie Nandi — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:21:15 -0400

Is there any doubt that Argentina boasts the best youngsters in world football?

Names like Nicolas Burdisso, Ezequiel Garay, Fernando Gago, Ever Banega, Javier Mascherano, Sergio Aguero, and Lionel Messi are household names in some corners of Europe and among some of the most talented youngsters in World football.

That is the sort of talent Argentina is taking to the Olympic Games next month in Beijing. And just in case you think that is not enough, Juan Roman Riquelme has been added to the mix as well.

It won't all be easy pickings for the Argentines though, Brazil will also be taking a relatively strong squad to the tournament with Ronaldinho hoping to rediscover the sort of form that won him the hearts of fans around the world.

Messi and Aguero will prove a handful for opponents in this tournament, but Brazil's centre-back Breno will see facing them as an opportunity to prove that he is ready to make the step-up from Brazil to Europe.

Manchester United's Anderson will be joined by Liverpool's Lucas in midfield, while Real Madrid's Robinho will be looking to partner AC Milan's Alexandre Pato up-front.

I haven't mentioned Jo, Ilsinho, Rafinha, Diego... the list is endless.

The South Americans are coming with arguably the strongest squads but the European Under-21 Champions, the Netherlands, can also not be ruled out.

Royston Drenthe was the star at the UEFA Under-21 Championships and the Dutch squad will also include players like Huntelaar and Hedwiges Maduro who all have senior caps.

The Belgians also gave a good account of themselves at the same tournament and if that is anything to go by expect fireworks from players like Sebastien Pocognoli, Maarten Martens and Kevin Mirallas. With Marouane Fellaini's towering presence in the middle of the park and Vincent Kompany shoring up the defence, anything is possible.

Serbia and Italy are Europe's other representatives at the Olympics.

As for Africa, Ivory Coast are strong contenders and the presence of players like Salomon Kalou should boast their chances while Cameroon bring a lot of experience with a few youngsters who were part of the last edition of the African Cup of Nations, like Stephane Mbia and Alexandre Song.

The hosts China and the other Asian presence, Korea Republic and Japan, are largely unknown quantities.

With all due respect, New Zealand, Australia and USA will be looking for nothing more than a good time in China as far as football is concerned.

It will be a great tournament with some of Europe's biggest names on show while players like Argentina's Diego Buonanotte and Brazil's Breno will be looking to announce their arrival on the big stage.

One of them could walk away as an Olympic champion as well, clearly, the smart money should be on either Brazil or Argentina to lift this trophy.

FIFA Wants Three Referees On The Pitch

Willie Nandi — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:29:02 -0400

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has announced plans to have three referees on the pitch at the Confederations Cup in South Africa in June 2009.

The additional referees will be assigned to each penalty area and indications are that they will be "in the penalty area."

According to Blatter, “The players will feel more observed in the penalty area. From a psychological point of view it will be an interesting test.”

It is unclear whether the penalty area referees will carry whistles or not and how two referees will handle the game in each penalty area. It is also unclear if the additional referees' jurisdiction ends in the box.

Goal-line and video technology was rejected by Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini because it could "harm the authority of the referee."

With three referees on the pitch, isn't the referees authority undermined then?

This is another half-baked idea. FIFA will trial it at the Confederations Cup and then throw it out the window. Perhaps the idea is just to be seen to be doing something about controversial decisions and not necessarily to find a lasting solution.

This proposal will see the same fate as the golden goal and silver goal rule.

In my view, only a second referee is needed. This referee should be assisted by technology to make judgements on the spot and cannot rely on video replays.

The second referee will recommend to the referee to award a goal, a penalty or whatever the case may be and the referee will do so, at his own discretion.

The second referee will be invisible to the public and the players and will therefore be an optional component of the game. This will ensure that a World Cup final and a school Cup final can be played using the same rules, although the World Cup final will use a second referee and video technology while the latter will not.

Since the second referee is not part of the game, more cameras and referees can be added without changing the fundamental laws of the game.

However, if FIFA have their way, we would soon be struggling to find at least five officials for a casual game in a social league.

What do you think? Are you in favour of more referees on the pitch or video-assisted referees off the pitch?

Manchester United Shouldn't Cry For Cristiano Ronaldo

Willie Nandi — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:21:15 -0400

Cristiano Ronaldo seems determined to leave Manchester United for Real Madrid, and despite having signed him to a four year contract less than a year ago, there’s a little United can do to change his mind.

The lesson here, and it is not a new lesson at all, is that contracts in football can only guarantee that the club will get compensation when the player wants to leave. Sir Alex Ferguson could take the example of how his nemesis, Arsene Wenger, lost Ashley Cole in the prime of his Arsenal career.

It is tough on United that they should lose the player they helped develop into one of the best players in the world, but he was 18 when United bought him, and Sir Alex cannot take all the credit for nurturing his talent. If he was an English boy he developed from the age of 14, losing him to Real Madrid would be an injustice that FIFA should be concerned about.

Similarly, FIFA should not show any sympathy if Arsenal were to lose Cesc Fabregas to a foreign club. If that club is Barcelona, Arsenal can hardly complain, after all Fabregas was poached from Barcelona in the first place.

English players for the most part are loyal to their English clubs. One exception that comes to mind is Ashley Cole, and even then he moved to another English club. Once an English player breaks into a top English side, it is almost impossible for a foreign club to prise him away, with Michael Owen being another exception to the rule.

It seems then that the value of a contract is limited to the transfer fee that a club can obtain once the player wants to leave, and loyalty is not part of the package.

In any case, why should a player be loyal to a club?

Clubs will discard the player once they have no more use for him, and once again there are exceptions. Inter Milan treated Ronaldo and got him through his injury problems before he ditched them for Real Madrid. The bottom line is, football is a business and as they saying goes, “There is no place for sentiment in business.”

With the complaints about too many foreigners in leagues like the EPL, FIFA should not be too concerned about foreign players being poached by foreign clubs. After all, less foreigners is what FIFA wants right?

At the same time, clubs want to have better protection of their top players. How about offering better protection on contracts of home-grown players, or even lowering protection on contracts of foreign players?

Such a system would encourage clubs to develop local talent and sign fewer foreigners because of the risk of losing them to the next club that will pay them higher wages.

Under such a system, local players will have less bargaining power and probably lower wages, while foreigners will hopefully be fewer and on higher wages to ward off potential bidders.

It might not be fair on the local lads that they are on a tighter leash (and potentially lower wages) at their clubs, but the rationale behind the 6+5 rule and other proposals that will force clubs to pick players on non-merit criteria is that it will benefit local talent.

Local players should be willing to sacrifice high wages early in their careers in order to get more opportunities

Furthermore, the protection on contracts can be the same for local and foreign players over the age of twenty-four, at which stage local players should be expected to compete on merit with their foreign counterparts, without the protection of rules like 6+5.

This article is in line with my previous article on the 6+5 rule. FIFA needs to tackle problems in football holistically and not in isolation, because all the problems in football are interlinked and there are common solutions for many of them.

6+5: Better Alternatives To Sepp Blatter's Plan

Willie Nandi — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:29:45 -0400

Many clubs and fans are opposed to FIFA's proposed 6+5 rule, whereby "a club team must start a match with at least six players that would be eligible for the national team of the country in which the club is domiciled."

However, few have come up with alternatives and there are possibly many.

But before I delve into the alternatives, I would like to raise some objections which have not been pointed out in the other articles:

a) 6+5 is not practical. Six nationals should start the match but how long should they play? Can they be substituted by foreign players? Other writers have already pointed out the fallacies of this rule when it comes to injuries and suspensions.

b) It will rob nations, especially African countries of their players who would choose a European country over their country of birth because of the preferential treatment they would get.

The 6+5 rule is ill-considered and alternatives need to be looked at.

Firstly, we need to consider why foreign players go to England, Spain or Italy. It's because those leagues are at the centre-stage of world football. Playing in those leagues enhances their chances of getting a better salary and being selected for their national teams and personal awards like World Player of the Year.

In short, the world's best players compete in the major European leagues because that is where the money is. "Money makes the ball go round" and if FIFA sees a problem, they should think about money before anything else.

The problem is brought about by money (economics) and not politics, and therefore the solution should be coming from football economists and not football politicians.

The solution is not to de-globalise the European elite leagues and reduce the money in Europe but to promote other leagues and thereby increase the money and prestige in those smaller leagues.

Brazil and Argentina are responsible for a large percentage of foreign players in Europe. Next in line is probably African players. FIFA and UEFA should address the cause and not just treat the symptoms by improving the standard of those leagues.

How about taxing revenue from TV rights and the UEFA Champions League and allocating that money to leagues in Brazil, Argentina and Africa?

Another alternative would be to tax clubs a percentage of their prize money for each foreign player on their books, whether they play or not. That money will go to the top league of the player's country of origin. This will make clubs think twice about signing a foreign player, especially one that is not guaranteed first team football every week.

Alternatively, clubs could be asked to pay a percentage of each foreign player's salary and/or a percentage of any transfer fee involving a foreign player. That money will again end up in the coffers of the the top league of the player's country of origin.

The net effect will be that foreign players would be relatively more expensive to buy and keep while players back in their home country will have better salaries and less motivation to move to Europe.

Secondly, FIFA must consider incentives for players who play in their home league. The revenue generated by their compatriots abroad could be one of those incentives. The Olympic Games Soccer Tournament was at one stage only for amateur players. At the moment it is limited to Under-23 players and three overage players.

How about limiting the games strictly to players under-24 playing in their home leagues? After all, the Olympic Games are all about national pride.

FIFA, the local FA and fans could also establish a trust that will operate a "national club." The national club will operate an Academy dedicated to developing local talent and sign only local players as a club policy and not a regulation to escape the wrath of the EU laws.

Athletic Bilbao have done this for years, signing only Basque players. There are no prizes for guessing where funding for the national club could come from.

Thirdly, Footballers want to compare themselves to the best and to do that they have to play against the best and compete for the top personal awards. What has FIFA done to ensure that a good player at Boca Juniors stands as good a chance of winning the World Player of the Year as a player playing for Real Madrid?

In that respect, FIFA can be accused of hypocritical behaviour. Complicit to the centralisation of Football in Europe but at the same time complaining of an influx of foreigners in European Football.

Will UEFA and FIFA consider merging the Champions League, Copa Libertadores and other continental competitions and forming a season long World Club Champions League? As a compromise, the competition can be based in Europe but it will still allow players to compete for the top personal awards on equal footing and also to rub shoulders with the best without moving to a European club.

If those proposed solutions are implemented together, it would be fantastic. The Brazilian league will be flooded with money every season and the best Brazilian players will have no reason to move to Turkey, Portugal and other countries that are used as a stepping stone to the big leagues of Italy, England and Spain. Young players will not want to move to an average European league when the Olympics are around the corner.

Imagine Diego Buonanotte scoring the winning goal for River Plate against Real Madrid in the final of the World Club Champions League at Old Trafford. Future generations of footballers will not always dream of playing for Real Madrid, they could dream of lifting that trophy for their home team: Necaxa of Mexico, Flamengo of Brazil or Orlando Pirates of South Africa.

FIFA should not close some doors. It should just open more windows.