Bleacher Report - Articles by Ricky O'Neal

2010 Will Be England's Last Chance to Win The World Cup For A Decade

Ricky O'Neal — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:45:32 -0400

In just under 11 months, Fabio Capello will be tasked with selecting the nation's best 23 players to represent the country at the biggest tournament in world football. And on June 11 in South Africa 32 teams will begin to contest the trophy that has eluded England for over half a century, which is exactly why the upcoming season will be the biggest in the careers of many of England's aging stars, promising hopefuls and emerging talents.

It’s a safe bet that fans across the country anticipating the beginning of the season this weekend will temporarily lose sight of the bigger more imperative issue of the World Cup at the end of the footballing calendar.

And when season 2009/2010 draws to close pundits will begin to talk up the nations chances, and will most likely be reminding everyone that this will be England’s last shot with a squad of players that have been considered as collectively at their peak for a while now. But what does the future hold for the England squad after a tournament which might be the last for many of its key players?

The article title poses a relevant debate simply because by the 2014 World Cup which is to be hosted in Brazil, the top players that have appeared in England’s major tournament squad’s since 1998 in theory may no longer be in contention.

By then the nation could have already witnessed the end of a generation of players that have promised so much and delivered nothing internationally as a yardstick of their potential and capabilities.

Michael Owen, Gary Neville, David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, David James, Joe Cole, Peter Crouch, Frank Lampard, Michael Carrick, Rio Ferdinand, Ashley Cole, Wayne Bridge, Sean Wright Phillips, Gareth Barry and even John Terry will be well into their 30s by Brazil 2014.

Even if some of the current first team players compete in Brazil, this would be under the formula of opting for age and experience over youth which is still a tried and tested possibility by Capello whilst he was manager at the likes of Real Madrid, Juventus and Milan.

But the central issue resonating is that to be relying on those players in 2014 would only be extenuating what has been wrong with England squads for years. A reliance on the same old names regardless of how well they suit the system required to beat different teams.

To debate the topic at hand the attention inevitably must shift to Capello’s options after the current first team names have fizzled out of contention. With the likelihood of the first team youngsters forming the backbone of the next World Cup team and some of the current crop of under 21s forming the fringe players of the next World Cup team, the evident question is will they be good enough in four years or even eight?

Because to suggest that England can win a World Cup within in the next decade bar South Africa 2010 is to assume that the likes of Theo Walcott, Jack Rodwell, Kieran Gibbs, Aaron Lennon, Micah Richards, Gabriel Agbonglahor, Gary Cahill, Joe Hart and even Jack Wilshere are potentially better than England’s top players that have tried and failed for the last 12 years.

In recent years the FA has appeared almost in blind desperation to forcefully emphasise the importance that must now be placed on grassroots football. And rightfully so in the opinion of many who ponder how English footballs current youngsters compare with their foreign counterparts and the nation’s current household names.

The make-up of the English game has changed so rapidly in the last two decades. So much so that it could be argued the England is no longer producing the calibre of player that the countries academies once churned out in the 90’s. The current first team hosts players that will soon fade into the background, to be replaced by players that have come through the game in an altogether different age.

An age where club managers and scouting networks seem to give priority to foreign players. One where players like Michael Mancienne, Joe Hart and Freddie Sears are forced out on loan away from bigger clubs as regular opportunities around the internationally recognised talent are sparse.

Such circumstances are a now permanent fixture at the majority of England’s top clubs currently and are pertinent issues in assessing England’s chances of winning the World Cup within the next ten years.

In similar discussions the same card of foreign players executing home grown chances can be dealt as an excuse for the international team’s short comings, but club managers have no duty to field English players ahead of others if that selection is not in the best interest of their team’s short term objectives.

The FA have enthusiastically backed FIFA’s 6+5 ruling which begins gradually from the 2010/2011 season requiring a team to field four home grown players and eventually six by the 2012/2013 season at the beginning of every match.

This could be an indication of their growing concern at the quality of opportunities that English players are given at the highest level in England; with the wider picture inescapably being how the three lions perform on the world stage every four years.

A decade is a very long time in football. It’s hard to imagine Trevor Sinclair, Kieron Dyer, Danny Mills, Gareth Southgate, Nicky Butt, Teddy Sheringham, Darius Vassell, Nigel Martyn, Martin Keown and even Kop favourite Robbie Fowler were part of the World Cup 2002 squad in South Korea and Japan so who knows what the 2014 squad will look like?

What is evident is that many of the same names and faces that have been consistently regarded as amongst the countries best have failed to deliver time and time again and the end of this season will be their last opportunity to deliver a World Cup for England.

The upcoming season is crucial for many players aspiring to force their way into Fabio Capello’s plans for the World Cup. The longsighted football fan may also feel a time is dawning when the question of whether the decline in the standard of the 23 best players in the country is an imminently relevant issue.

What Do Overambitious Boo Boys at Arsenal Expect of Their Average Team?

Ricky O'Neal — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:48:11 -0500

In the 2003-04 season Arsenal finished the year as the champions of England in a sensational campaign that saw them finish on 90 points without losing a single game.

Arsene Wenger had successfully assembled a blend of an experienced squad that had peaked and gelled with the influx of talented youth to strike a cohesive balance that saw this generation of Arsenal players become known as “The Invincibles”.

With Thierry Henry in irresistible form with 30 goals and the aptitude of players like Bergkamp, Vieira, Keown, Campbell, Cole, Pires, Ljungberg, Parlour and Kanu, Arsenal were an extraordinary outfit that had strength in depth, flair, pace, creativity and discipline in defence.

The only thing preventing that Arsenal side retaining their title was the astonishing cheek of a sugar daddy-aided Chelsea side that lost one game in the 2004-05 campaign, finishing on 95 points.

Fast forward to the current day and Arsenal lie off the pace of the Champions League places, have lost hope of challenging for the league and are rooted in a frustrating cycle of form that has opened the doors to an unwanted record; the club’s longest goalless run for 15 years.

And even though a commanding win against a sub par West Brom side has massaged the nerves, many are still questionable of their ability to maintain consistency or challenge the top sides.

Talk of crisis has never been so rife in the presence of their magnificent manager and some of the Gunners faithful are still calling for drastic changes at the club. But the indenting truth of the matter is that Arsenal are nowhere near capable of reaching the high standards set by the fans, and they should be prepared to ride the wave of a transitional period to see their team reach great heights again.

It’s the modern age of football to call for the manager’s head when things go wrong, impatience takes precedence and instant gratification is demanded.

Put simply, what has been happening at Arsenal for the past three seasons is a transitional period.

The process of fading out the old successful squad, and building a new one to excel to greater heights in the future. That process requires losing games or drawing them, learning what it takes to win, striking a balance in the team and learning from mistakes.

It requires transfers of several players in and out of the club, financial backing from the board, and the experimentation of youth players and most importantly, it requires patience and support from the fans.

After a quick glance at the team sheet from Arsenal v. Fulham on Saturday, and the team sheet from the same game in the 2003-04 season, how can fans booing their lungs out expect anywhere near the same kind of success?

Where is the striker capable of finishing on 30 goals a season? Where is the experience in midfield to coordinate the pace and build effective attacks? Where is the experience and solidarity in defence to prevent conceding to so called lesser teams?

Imbalance, experimentation and a lack of experience is necessary to find a team capable of challenging for the top honours again and without a man who knows how to orchestrate that transition, success is extremely unlikely. So sacking Wenger should be the last option.

Arsenal fans need only look as far as Manchester United for inspiration of what can happen when fans are ready to put faith in major alterations that take a long period of time. When "The Invincibles” were crowned champions is 2003-04, Man Utd would finish third for two consecutive seasons.

A host of players came and went in their droves between then and the next time they won the title including Bellion, Djemba Djemba, Kleberson, Veron, Forlan, Miller, Howard, Richardson, and many others.

Today Sir Alex Ferguson boasts a squad that is now being considered as capable of winning five trophies in a single season. In between that juxtaposition was patience by fans and a belief and trust in that the manager was capable of building a team that was once again ready to be a realistic force in the competitions it entered, given the right amount of time.

For Arsenal’s current predicament it can steer in one of two directions. Either the fans concede that their team is not yet ready to exceed their overambitious expectations and give the process time to come good in the trust that Arsene Wenger will once again succeed in trying to build a great team.

The alternative is to drive him out and leave a half-baked project that will only be hindered further by the arrival of a different manager who will ultimately have different ideas, ambitions, and direction.

There are no objections that Arsenal will be ready to win the league again soon. But that ultimately depends on how soon the fans want that to be. Force Wenger out and it will take longer: Trust in his experience, his judgement, and his track record, and the Gunners could be on the cusp of the glory days once more.

The Underestimated Importance of Football Agents

Ricky O'Neal — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:38:57 -0500

For some, the roles of agents have grown increasingly fundamental to football and the value of their importance helps to make the sport the billion pound industry it is across the world today.

For others, agents are unnecessary commodities that suck millions of pounds out of the game each year at the expense of the sport that relies on them to keep the system working efficiently.

In most scenarios, a relationship between an agent and a client starts when a footballer’s career officially begins. The agent becomes an official representative of the player ahead of any parents, coaches, or guardians in all off the field matters.

This means—depending on the player's career—agents sort out their sponsorships, contracts, and public relations, handle any transfers as well as decide how a player invests any excessive amounts of money they may earn amongst an extensive list of responsibilities.

Apply some common logic and it becomes evident that the more successful the player is, the more valuable he becomes as a client to the agent.

So how do agents earn their wage? Agents are entitled to a commission of any kind of earnings, endorsements, or contract negations and depending on an agent’s ability to select a talented and capable player they can represent, their business can become extremely profitable.

This simultaneously is the same reason why they are envied and criticised by many in the football world as they have the capacity to earn millions of pounds after one day’s work, depending on what happens to their player on the pitch.

Transfers of the likes of Robinho, Dimitar Berbatov, Wayne Rooney, and Carlos Tevez saw agents walk away with sizable commissions, but this was an incident barely taken notice of by the media and fans alike.

When overblown and unrealistic transfer fees that don’t give a breakdown of where the money is going fails to raise any suspicions, it is a powerful indicator that something is not right about the way football agents and clubs are conducting their affairs.

Agents tend to be thrust into the spotlight during highly publicized transfer sagas like the Carlos Tevez malarkey, where agent Kia Joorabchian (pictured) was at the forefront of a complicated arm wrestle between West Ham and his agency before he brokered a deal for the Argentinian's transfer to Manchester United.

For further examples of agent’s potential to earn big take the world’s most infamous football agent Pini Zahavi, who was the business brain behind the transfers of Manchester United’s Rio Ferdinand, Yakubu Aiyegbeni, now of Everton, and Juan Sebastian Veron—deals that amassed a total fee of £65.5m.

If you were taking a considerable commission from that figure, it would be fair to assume you conducted an extraordinarily comfortable lifestyle. But at whose expense, and for what?

For exaggerating the value of players and inflating a transfer market that oppresses the financial capabilities of small clubs? The issue is that people will continue to be sceptical of these agents until their roles and their every action is clearly showcased to the watching public.

But it is important to understand that a large part of football, and any other sport for that matter, would be chaos without them.

Underhand agents have been known for offering sums of money to managers, but this is an action not tolerated by the managers or the Football Association in England.

It would be foolish to assume that football agents everywhere are clean, though, and therefore questions must be raised about other smaller leagues around the world that do not have a media microscope over every transfer dealing that takes place.

But without agents, football would be a mess of dodgy dealings and underhand tactics where fraud would be common place. Agents act and perform their duties under the watchful eye of FIFA and all other corresponding authorities. Without the strict infrastructure they apply, players would be extremely vulnerable and so would the market they operate in.

The power of football agents comes from their ability to understand their market and act accordingly. They aid the top players around the globe in earning the top figures they command and ensuring that their focus is firmly kept on playing football and not worrying about endorsement deals or the mechanics of a club contract.

They may have their critics but on a daily basis, these faceless agents perform complex and crucial operations that keep the game on the surface running smoothly. This is the nature of the extraordinary importance held by football agents.

Ramos, Comoli, & Poyet Make Way for Redknapp in Tottenham Clearout

Ricky O'Neal — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:39:37 -0400

Tottenham Hotspur are in crisis after sacking Juande Ramos, Damien Comolli, and Gus Poyet just hours before a crucial match against Bolton.

Spurs appointed Portsmouth's Harry Redknapp as a successor. Portsmouth have been given excessive compensation, and Redknapp will be in charge at White Hart Lane tomorrow ahead of their match with Bolton.

A dramatic night began when Spurs Chairman Daniel Levy (pictured) and the board decided the rot could continue no longer and sacked their manager, their assistant manager, a coach, and their director of football in an incredible night.

Fans felt a disastrous situation needed to be addressed but couldn't have predicted such an emphatic response from Levy, who has been criticized heavily following a catalogue of horrific decisions that has seen Spurs pick up two points after eight domestic games so far this season.

In an interview on Sky Sports News just after midnight, new manager Harry Redknapp said: "This is probably my last chance to manage a big club before I retire." Portsmouth fans where left devastated after Harry's shock departure just hours before their game against Fulham.

Redknapp received a phone call from the Tottenham hierarchy requesting permission to speak to him whilst he was in Portugal. Redknapp's fond memories of the London club made the opportunity too good to turn down. Portsmouth have received a £5 million compensation package for having to release Redknapp before his contract expires, which should go a long way to clearing up their recent debts.

The initial official statement read on the Tottenham website,

"The Club can announce that Damien Comolli, Sporting Director, Juande Ramos, Head Coach and First Team Coaches, Marcos Alvarez and Gus Poyet, have left the Club, with immediate effect. We wish them well."

The saga will no doubt cloud what is probably one of Tottenham's biggest games so far this season. Ex-Tottenham player Jason Cundy has called the move by the board "ridiculous," stating their timing of action will only hinder any chances of the squad concentrating on picking up three points tomorrow at White Hart Lane.

Is this new development the right decision? Should Levy have gone with them? Can Redknapp turn around Tottenham's bad run? The saga continues.

Professional Football: Chasing An Impossible Dream?

Ricky O'Neal — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:23:14 -0400

Over 13 million people play football outside of the professional game in the UK.

For some of them, the possibility of professional contracts with professional clubs is a very real possibility. But for youngsters, in particular those who idolize the players in the mainstream leagues or their home town teams, only a minority will become professional footballers.

But of those with the talent to play our beautiful game, how many are chasing an impossible dream?

Contrary to popular belief, the job of a footballer is one that starts from an early age. You can't just turn around and decide you want to be a football player anymore. Especially when it has recently become virtually impossible to get signed to a professional club after players reach a certain age.

The standard of the top-tiers in the English game now calls for clubs to catch players early in the development process. This way, they can be nurtured and adapted to a particular way of playing and thinking.

Clubs have gradually become addicted to grooming young talent in order to make the best professionals and today it is a fundamental process of a club's production.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are the youngsters that chase the dream. A dream that not only consists of playing their beloved sport for a living, but comes alongside the glamorous lifestyle that a career in football can offer a teenager in today’s times. An irresistible combination for both players who have what it takes and those who don't.

I'm still amazed at the sight of seven year olds in a disciplined four-four-two formation, playing on half a full-sized pitch in my local area every Sunday. If any confirmation was needed that long gone are the days of kids playing football for fun, this was it.

Parents forcing their children to play Sunday League football is a risky and frequent occurrence across the UK. Unfortunately for the majority of them, they are not in a situation to realise that their aspiring stars are already part of a brutal cycle.

A cycle orchestrated by clubs in the higher brackets of professional football that will end any hopes many of them have of ever taking their football to the top level because let's face it, the amount of players in the highest category of professional football are in a minuscule minority.

The days of youngsters playing football just for fun being over may be a slight exaggeration. But for an increasing number of them playing for teams, getting scouted, or getting into academies is becoming a desirable option as it is the most secure route to becoming a footballer today.

The scouting system itself even encourages youngsters to play for teams because it is the easiest way to get discovered.

Scouts no longer walk the local parks or stand in school playgrounds in search of a toddler with a magic touch. Scouts are aware that being at the footballing academies and near the established lower league teams is the most efficient way to spend their time. They know these teams are the filter at the lowest level of players of good ability, and so do the youngsters that play in them.

Inflated wages that players in the highest bracket of professional football earn is a factor that no doubt plays an influential role in attracting young people to the sport.

Even players gone before with the best attitude required to making the elite levels would find it difficult to resist the pull of money today. But only two decades or so ago, youngsters then grew up to a completely different image of top players.

The wages in football are a luxury that the businesses in the highest tier can offer.

That is a fact. But why do many ignore that top earning footballers are frequently eclipsed by the ones that don’t earn as much in the same profession?

As ludicrous as it may sound, the reality is that top earning players are in the minority. A fact that is clouded to kids and in some cases forceful parents who pursue a dream distorted by the very same fame and attention the players that youngsters idolize get.

Football at the lowest end of the chart will always function to produce players for the teams higher up in the order. A harsh reality is that for every gem discovered, a dozen players are forced to leave behind what in some cases is a misguided dream.

Sky Sports to Lose Premier League Rights to ESPN in 2009?

Ricky O'Neal — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:43:43 -0400

The Premiership is the most lucrative football league on the globe, right?

So it will come as no surprise that television companies across the world are currently lining up to bid hundreds of millions, in order to broadcast the games when the rights hit the market in January 2009. But will a successful bid by ESPN be the final nail in a rotting coffin that will demonstrate the globalisation of a league that has already lost it's identity?

Since BSkyB's acquisition of the Premier League rights in 1990, their sports orientated channel Sky Sports has played an enormous role in the commercialisation of British football. They have arguably played the biggest part in making the Premiership the most popular football league on the planet today.

Who can ignore their extravagant themed advertisements for football matches, which somehow appear to have equal significance to a battle in a roman coliseum. Inteligently engineerd phrases like "Ford Super Sunday" are a prime example of just how commercialised football is in England. Why not just say "Big Match On Sunday"...

Either way it was this kind of over the top marketing and promotion that highlights why Sky Sports have enjoyed nearly two decades of domination in this particular field.

Nearly two decades of domination that recently came to an uncomfortable end when the EU intervened and demanded that Sky's monopoly in the sports television market was broken and shared. Que Setanta Sports, the Irish broadcasting company who bought a share of the rights in 2007; much to the annoyance of fans who where gradually kissing goodbye any chances of ever viewing full games on terrestrial television ever again.

Now American sports network ESPN are amongst the punters proposedley preparing to bid against BSkyB who paid an astonishing £1.31 billion to show 93 games this season. The speculation of a bid goes a long way to showing just how far the audience for "soccer" has grown in the States and just how lucrative the Premier League is.

The arrival of global icon David Beckham at LA Galaxy and the popularity of Euro 2008 across the pond was one of many factors that have continued to convince the puppeteers that investing in The Premiership would be immensely profitable. However I'm yet to be convinced America is ready to ignore it's own MLS for The Premiership on such a regular basis.

For some reason, the thought of an American broadcaster showing The Premiership seems inconceivable.

While there is an audience for it, this feels like the equivalent of BBC Sport showing live NFL games. British football should be shown primarily on the British channels, then everywhere else. Not the other way around. And British fans care primarily about football not the NFL, and likewise the opposite is the case in the States as well.

Even though Football isn't the biggest sport in the America, the sugar daddies of multi-billion dollar television companies are prepared throw money at the league in the hope that suddenly it will just catch on.

As if English fans aren't outraged enough that they have to subscribe to watch their live football in the first place. Imagine the out-raw at the prospect of paying for ESPN's coverage of a Man Utd Vs Chelsea, along with American commentary, advertisements, and the unnecessary showbiz kerfuffle they somehow manage to smudge over every sporting event.

If anything, a successful attempt to secure the rights by ESPN will only demonstrate that the Premier League will have become a victim of it's own success. Suddenly the focus is on promoters, advertisers, marketers, investors, broadcasters; a multi-billion pound industry that does little for football and more for the foreign billionaires throwing their chips into the center of the table and sucking out sizable profits.

Was Selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy Really Sir Alex Ferguson's Biggest Mistake?

Ricky O'Neal — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:02:25 -0400

Ruud Van Nistelrooy is arguably one of the most prolific strikers ever to grace Old Trafford, and his goal scoring record for Manchester United sits amongst the most celebrated legends of the club.

When he was abruptly sold to Real Madrid in 2006, many were quick to slate Sir Alex Ferguson's decision to do away with the Dutch hitman who had netted a phenomenal 149 goals in just over 200 games.

Now, following United's slow start to the season this year, old questions are beginning to creep up about how calculated Ferguson's sale of Van Nistelrooy was, and if the fairly recent acquisitions of Dimitar Berbatov and Carlos Tevez are a sign that United are still missing something up front.

At the root of Van Nistelrooy's departure was a long running feud with Cristiano Ronaldo. Couple this with an increasingly bad attitude, arrogance and laziness on the pitch, and it's easy to see why he was sold.

Fergie hasn't flinched when it comes to offloading superstars, and his motto of no player is bigger than the club was powerfully reinforced when he brought an end to the Dutchman's career at United.

Van Nistelrooy's ability continued to fuel his goal scoring habit in La Liga however, with a staggering 55 goals in 88 appearances to date. You would be forgiven for assuming this kind of service to Madrid can't have escaped the attention of the United manager.

Like myself, many were convinced he had more to give to the club but when I look at the team today, I can't help but think United have become an even better team.

Attacking play is less predictable, counter attacking is swift, pacey and effective, opposing defences constantly struggle with the movement of the versatile forwards and goals are spread all over the team from players in all sorts of positions.

Most importantly, team harmony is kept intact. I came to realise that Ferguson was the first to know Van Nistelrooy would continue his goal scoring exploits at another club. He was well aware that Van Nistelrooy wasn't passed his best. It all boiled down to keeping the most fundamental laws of discipline and respect intact at a big club where big egos can be disastrous for team morale.

If anything, selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy was just another example of Ferguson's unmatchable judgement and wealth of experience, unwavering in the face of great talent and long serving players who have helped United become the force they are today. Just ask the likes of Roy Keane, Jaap Stam, and David Beckham if you need any elaboration.

But the two Premiership titles and the UEFA Champions League accolades are the biggest indication yet that Manchester United have truly benefited from Van Nistelrooy's departure.

So three years on, I ask myself the same question I did before. Was selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy Sir Alex's big mistake?

The answer? A resounding no.

Manchester City: Why It's Already Going Wrong

Ricky O'Neal — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:26:44 -0400

Dr Sulaiman Al Fahim has become the new face of Manchester City's inevitable revolution, following the takeover by the Abu Dhabi United Group (ABUG).

The consortium owner has made several statements to the rest of world football in the past few days, not least with the signing of Robinho and attempt to sign other big name players.

The future looks bright for the Blues. The reality, however, is quite the opposite.

Unfortunately, many are yet to see it.

Al Fahim is a very different owner to Abramovich. He has already stated his intentions to finish in the top four this season, and the pressure that puts on the current squad is immense.

Billionaire investors in the Premiership have proven so far to have an inability to be realistic, coupled with a blinding desire for instant success—and Fahim appears to be no exception.

Mark Hughes not being in charge next season is practically a given.

A relatively experienced and proven manager like Hughes has already shown that, with time, he is capable of making calculated and effective additions to a squad. But Fahim will demand the best in the world instantly, and this is where they would clash.

He will also demand results instantly and even with City's latest additions, breaking the top four this season is still a long way off. Even a fifth place finish wouldn't guarantee Sparky his job.

And just how realistic are Manchester City's footballing ambitions?

Many have likened the current situation with what happened at Chelsea, but it's far from similar in many aspects. What happened to the London club happened at the start of the transfer window not the end of it.

Chelsea had time to build a squad to challenge for the title that season.

Simply put, the buying of Manchester City and the "Arab revolution" has happened at the worst time possible.

Any world class additions to the squad are unlikely to happen in January. After all, it is a month when a player would rather see out their contract, or thrash out a few more months at their club until the end of the season. A month where clubs and managers are reluctant to sell.

Manchester City simply haven't got a squad capable of reaching the top four this season, nor have they got the time to build one.

The new owner's representative has also gone on record to state that Mark Hughes will be responsible for determining which players come to City and then money will be provided, but this is clearly not the case.

It's almost certain the likes of Robinho, Berbatov, Villa and Ruud Van Nistelrooy were not Hughes' targets, whilst other extremely over-ambitious potential targets were clearly engineered by Al Fahim and company, not their bemused manager.

Fahim has stated his intentions to attract the likes of Cesc Fabregas, Fernando Torres and Cristiano Ronaldo to the club. Hardly targets an experienced British manager like Mark Hughes would have picked out.

Even in the face of what has happened recently, those players joining City is in the highest category of unlikely.

More shockingly, this shows a total disregard for the current squad who almost certainly won't be playing together next season. Expect a massive exodus of members of the first team, reserves and academy talent to other clubs during what will be the most sensational summer of spending in next year's transfer window.

I expect (at most) four of the current City squad to still be in the first team at the start of next season.

Money will not be an obstacle at City, and that's one of their biggest problems. Fans are already claiming they will be one of the richest clubs in the world, capable of competing with the big boys of Europe, but at what expense to the club?

Inflated wages and transfer fees are a guarantee, if £4m a year wages for Robinho and a supposed £134m future bid for Cristiano Ronaldo is anything to go by.

This, coupled with the lack of financial infrastructure at the club—even considering what the Abu Dhabi group plan to pump in—can only mean one thing for the club.

Debt.

More debt than Chelsea and Man Utd, and as a club independent from the Dhabi Group, City would be totally unsustainable as a business.

There would be absolutely no possibility of making a profit on anything from shirt sales to season tickets, for as long as the club sees it as ideal and realistic to bid over £100m for one player.

Unfortunately, City's new owners will learn the hard way that football just doesn't work the way they imagine. Experiencing a change of manager, before the club even get its feet off the ground, and not finishing in the top four this season will be part of this learning curve.

Expect the fans to protest and turn on the board when it happens, much like events in the aftermath of Thaksin Shinawatra sacking Sven-Goran Eriksson. And expect new Arab sponsors and even Arabic players at the club.

I've watched City fans celebrating over the past couple of days, blinded by the fact that their club is already losing its true identity.

The red lights clearly aren't flashing for the Blues faithful, and things will get a lot worse before they start to get better.

Wayne Rooney: The Player the World Thought He Would Be?

Ricky O'Neal — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:01:05 -0400

In 2002, a 16-year-old Wayne Rooney shot to super stardom as the most exciting teenage footballing talent the world had seen since Pele.

Labelled the complete footballer by pundits, fans, and praised by all professionals, he was set to become a truly world class player.

But, six years later, is he really developing into the player everyone expected him to be?

For a striker, Rooney is of a rare kind, and this is were the problem lies. His work rate and contribution to the team as a whole is always likely to exceed his goalscoring rate.

His footballing ability, astute reading of the game, movement off the ball, and natural skill are arguably unmatched by most his age in top tier football today, yet many still appear to be skeptical of Rooney's development.

Recently he has been accused of over working, over thinking, and finding it difficult to adapt to playing as a natural front man. Apparently, this can be proved—if any clarification was needed—by his evident frustration on the pitch.

I beg to differ, but he certainly isn't the prolific center forward that Ruud van Nistelrooy was, and Sir Alex Ferguson's pursuit of another temperamental but effective striker in the form of Dimitar Berbatov may be evidence enough that there is something lacking upfront for Manchester United.

Which leads me onto my next point.

It can be argued that skeptics are judging the forward on his goal scoring rate rather than his overall contribution to the team and fair enough—after all he is a forward.

But the man himself will be the first to admit that his game is about not only playing upfront, but getting involved elsewhere on the pitch just as much.

At only 22 years of age, Rooney has a long way to go in his career and he has statistically improved every season. Even when he doesn't score his contribution is sound, so why do question marks continue to appear about his progression?

Will he get better or has he reached his peak already? Will the Rooney we watch today be the same or better in six years time? Or is it all mess and is Rooney still getting better?

Player Power: What is all the Fuss About?

Ricky O'Neal — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:06:21 -0400

Many are aware of the highly publicized football news items this summer, about want-away professionals turning down contracts, not training hard enough, and even threatening to strike in a bid to move to their desired clubs.

This situation has been labelled player power.

But in actual fact it's a vicious cycle, one that has finally come round to kick clubs in the backside—the same clubs that thought it was okay to pay wages worth thousands of pounds a week in the first place.

In effect it was the clubs who gave power to the players and their agents, so why are we blaming the players, and why do clubs all of the sudden want the power back?

Such behaviour has become a reality of the transfer market, yet people are just not ready to accept that the foremost interest of a player and their agent is the well being of their careers and nothing else.

Forget about so called loyalty to the badge on their shirt, the faithful supporters in the terraces, or the club they have been at since they were 14 years old. Players are the most important asset to any club, and for that reason alone they rightfully should have the kind of control that has seen the likes of Gareth Barry, Dimitar Berbatov, Cristiano Ronaldo and Robinho engineer transfer sagas that have run for weeks on end.

The opposition in this player power row is obviously provided by the clubs. Somehow, individuals within the higher echelons of such institutions feel it is okay to interfere with a player's will, only to uphold the image of club remaining in control of the player.

A perfect example of this would be the unprofessional comment that came out of White Hart Lane recently, suggesting Tottenham would rather sell Berbatov at a lower price to another club—simply to stop him going to Manchester United.

Or, for another example, Spartak Moscow's willingness to hang onto their prolific striker Roman Pavlyuchenko, even when the Russian club are clearly in no position to keep the player, or deny the sort of funds being offered.

If a player doesn't want to play for you anymore, or clearly doesn't show commitment, sell him.

It's that simple.

Take a leaf out of West Ham's book, who recently sold Anton Ferdinand to Sunderland when his bid to hold out for a £50,000 a week contract backfired. A bold reminder that clubs are just as powerful as the players in some cases.

James Milner also recently handed in a transfer request at Newcastle. Yet to my dismay, some criticize him because they believe he's trying to engineer a move to Aston Villa. Surely this is the most respectable way of going about such affairs, rather than talking to the press or getting "tapped up".

Is there really a problem with that, and will Newcastle hold him against his will?

Fans are just as guilty as the clubs of demanding loyalty from their players while they offer no such acknowledgement in return. Who can forget the hypocritical actions of Liverpool fans, burning Steven Gerrard's No. 8 shirt outside Anfield when they thought he was on his way to Chelsea?

This after all he had given to the club up to that point.

The hard truth is that there is an increasing decline in loyalty in football, and player power is nothing new. As long as players get excessive amounts of money and their contracts are engineered by agents, clubs, and fans will continuously be reminded who the bosses really are.

Chelsea FC: A Disaster Waiting to Happen?

Ricky O'Neal — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:04:40 -0400

Since the arrival of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich at Chelsea in 2003, and chief executive Peter Kenyon in 2004, I've long been sceptical about the club's ambitious desire to become a commercial power house and a global brand around the world.

In this ruthless quest to become the greatest club on the map will their big spending, sacking of capable managers, disregard for the academy and eagerness for instant success see them fall from grace before they have reached the pinnacle of footballing success that they crave so dearly?

No doubt their long term ambition is to become the equivalent of clubs like Manchester United and Real Madrid—with global recognition, a large fan base, a star studded squad, commercial success and financial viability coming along with success on the pitch.

That's why the players, staff, and fans at Stamford Bridge consistently set the standard so high each season.

But what Sir Alex achieved at United took the best part of a decade. Somehow, the Chelsea contingent believe it's possible to eclipse or even come close to that achievement—even with little regard for the development of the youth system, and how financially feasible their excessive spending is for the club as a business in the long run.

Since 2003 Chelsea's spending has exceeded £353.3 million on new players alone, and they have won only six domestic trophies. Is that money well spent?

As with every club, managers misjudge how players can fit into the team. But with Chelsea the transition to the team they are today has encountered an extensive list of expensive errors.

Juan Sebastian Veron, Mateja Kezman, Adrian Mutu, Hernan Crespo, and Damien Duff are just some of the players regarded as failures at the Bridge, whose combined transfer fees reached a staggering £62.9 million.

How can that kind of spending be sustainable?

What should trouble Chelsea fans the most is the longevity of their squad. Nine of the current first team are over 30 years old. So in less than five years another squad will presumably have to be assembled by current boss Luiz Felipe Scolari.

So will that possibly mean another transitional period, where a dip in form and results is likely?

The Chelsea board have shown what can only be described as a ruthless attitude in pursuit of footballing glory. An example of this comes in the statistic that they have had four managers in six years.

Despite Claudio Ranieri initially leading Chelsea to their best ever finish in the 2002-2004 season, he was deemed unsuitable to take them to the next level.

Jose Mourinho was arguably one of the most successful in the history of the club, yet Chelsea parted with him after tensions rose behind the scenes.

More recently, Avram Grant took Chelsea further than they've ever been in the Champions League, and to their best ever finish without actually winning the EPL—and still got sacked.

Is it not an issue when the board are willing to sack proven and capable managers who don't immediately deliver what they expect?

After all, it was patience of the board at Manchester United that saved Sir Alex Ferguson his job, when he was on the verge of getting sacked in 1992. Patience is key to success, and look what happened to United since then.

Chelsea have so far failed to demonstrate a similar level of faith in their managers, and that can’t be good news for the future.

Talking about the future, I doubt the days of producing the next John Terry through the academy are still rife at the club.

With the millions spent on the first team, how many are convinced there is an infrastructure at Chelsea that can produce great players for the future from their academy and reserves?

Notable youngsters from the Chelsea team, including Ben Sahar and Scott Sinclair, were on the fringes of the first team last season—and even they were signed from other clubs.

Some are also aware of the reality football show they were a part of, Football Icon, where Chelsea scouts scoured the country in search of one talented youngster to join their academy.

In my opinion, this just appeared to be a desperate attempt by the club to appear to still value the importance of young talent and let’s face it, it didn't make for interesting television either.

Even if a batch of youngsters came through next month, do they have a realistic chance of breaking into the first team? Probably not.

I'm saying potentially all these factors could be disastrous for Chelsea in the long term. Abramovich won't be around with his billions forever, and at some point you have to eclipse your expenditure to be a success business wise.

The youth system at any big club should still be working efficiently. That's how a first team can continue to challenge realistically, even through the transitional period of players going out, and new ones coming in.

Chelsea's quest for world domination may have lost the club their true identity already. Whilst my points are possibly worst case scenario for the London club, I'm yet to be convinced they will be the best football club in the world in the next five years.

West Ham United: Could They Have Been among the Best in Europe?

Ricky O'Neal — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:51:05 -0400

In 2001 Upton Park was home to a group of the most talented youngsters British football had seen—arguably the best since Manchester United's youthful talent in the mid-'90s that included Scholes, Giggs, and Beckham among others.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way something went terribly wrong and today the "Hammers" are an underachieving mid-table side though they once had the potential to challenge domestically and possibly stake a claim in Europe.

So, does the story of West Ham's demise expose a problem in English football?

How can the Premier League truly continue to expand, when smaller teams with great players have no means of growing into bigger clubs?

I have thought it over countless times, and I'm continually fascinated that this team once had those who are today regarded as the top British footballers playing in England.

Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick, Joe Cole, Jermain Defoe, Glen Johnson, and Frank Lampard were all products of West Ham United's infamous academy.

Include players like Di Canio and David James—who signed from other clubs at the same time—and this appears to be a winning formula.

However, West Ham lacked the infrastructure and resources to keep their squad together, and ended up selling their players to big clubs to reduce their debt. So what chance do smaller clubs have of breaking into the top four and Europe, when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

That is meant in the lightest sense, considering the millions of pounds so-called "smaller teams" splash out on foreign talent each season. This led me to consider that this might be their most legitimate way of competing with big teams.

Going abroad for talent is the exact answer for trying to turn smaller clubs into more competitive forces. They simply can't afford big players and their promising youngsters get pinched from them.

If that theory needed any confirmation, just look at the recent saga with John Bostock leaving Crystal Palace for Tottenham Hotspur.

This is bigger than West Ham failing to achieve their potential, or whatever financial woes which forced them to sell their best players. I doubt that even at their peak they would have been able to achieve success domestically, considering the relative lack of depth and size in their squad.

It's about the state of British football and the many reasons the Premier League continues to label itself the best football league in the world—but in the long run at what expense to the national team?

I often find myself wondering whether a British club academy will ever again produce a batch of English talent like Man Utd and West Ham once did.

It's sad that it's become the norm for club scouts to jet off around the globe to watch obscure under-15 tournaments to recruit a fresh group of talent. And even in this case is that a bad thing for English football?

Yes, you would have to look extremely hard to find Brazilian teams scouting British teenagers to play in their league. After all Sao Paulo, the current Brazilian champions, have a first team and reserve team consisting entirely of Brazilians!

Surely that only makes it easier for their international squads to be truly at their strongest—so doesn't that make their league stronger, considering how it affects the nation's success?

I would like to think so.

Yet Premier League teams seem addicted to attracting the world's best foreign talent to their clubs, in order to try and increase their success. The example of what happened at West Ham is only the start of the problem.

At the center of why England fail to achieve at international level is the high quality of foreign players in the Premier League, and it will be interesting to see what measures are taken to improve what clearly may become a problem for British football in the long run.

So It's 2008 and Pele Is Still the Best Football Player to Date?

Ricky O'Neal — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:52:33 -0400

Legends. It's a word bandied about a lot in the world of football today, about retired veterans and memorable players. But is there a reluctance amongst pundits and fans alike to certify legendary status, only to uphold the greatness of players gone by?

Upon reading an article questioning whether Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was worthy of being considered a legend at Manchester United, I started to ponder what actually makes a player a legend—in the eyes of the media contingent and the fans as well.

Why does it feel as if the current talents of football will be never be able to take the mantle of greats like Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, and Beckenbauer?

The football world is without doubt trapped in nostalgia, and you don't have to look far to find it—whether it be in the club you support or the tournaments they compete in.

Football is addicted to its history and it's for that reason that the majority still recall Pele as the greatest.

Or perhaps it's a case of the experiences of past generations somehow managing to remain the most prominent, even in the face of the most sensational talents gracing the world stage today.

The people who had the pleasure of watching Pele in his day proclaim him to be the best and fair enough. But on what basis do people reading statistics and watching archive footage continue to side with Pele as the true great of football—ahead of every player that has played professionally to date?

This article may be focused on Pele, but I use him only as an international example to highlight the unspoken stigma existing in football. That the greats will not be eclipsed, at club level or internationally, when in actual fact there is a large number of gifted athletes playing today with just as much ability and talent.

But when the question of whether players today may have bettered the greats arises, many are quick to reject that possibility.

Traditional legends in a football sense only mean the elite group of players who were among the first to achieve a supreme status of super-stardom with their footballing capabilities. They're legends for this reason only.

But on the other hand, I would like to think football has progressed since the '60s—that the game and the players have become better.

In the opinion of those brave enough to admit it, the likes of Ronaldinho, Lionel Messi, Kaka, or Cristiano Ronaldo are just as good if not better than most having come before them.

They may not share similar winners medals or appearance tallies, but if you were to compare two people as players and not statistics, would you still prefer to watch Pele over Cristiano Ronaldo?

Pele has been the greatest for decades, and even the younger generations side with that belief because history has preached this opinion to them as fact.

Whether history will preach a different great in 50 years time is an entirely different story altogether.