Club or Country?: Why Steven Gerrard Shouldn't Play for England

Former England manger Bobby Robson recently claimed that Rafael Benitez "has a duty to put England first" in deciding whether Steven Gerrard should play in two crucial qualifiers for his country. 

As much as I respect Robson for his services to football throughout the years, I believe he's wrong.

Benitez is employed by Liverpool to serve the interests of the club. All managers have a duty to put their employers first. The fortune of the national team should not be the concern of the clubs, but rather of those parties paid by the FA to manage the squad.  

Two weeks ago, Gerrard, with a fractured toe, played a staring role against Chelsea. At the time, Benitez decided that playing his hobbled star was a risk worth taking—for the sake of the club. 

If Gerrard plays through pain for England, on the other hand, Liverpool accrue all of the risk and none of the benefits.

Benitez is right to object.

The Club-or-Country debate will continue for a long time, but I believe clubs are starting to win it. Gone are the days when international football was considered the pinnacle of the game. Only the latter stages of the World Cup produce a quality of play on par with that of the Champions League. Fans no longer have to wait for England matches to be entertained by the world's best players—they're playing in this country week-in and week-out. 

What's more, the "honour" of playing for the England team seems to be diminishing. In recent years, Shearer, Scholes, and Carragher have all retired from international football to concentrate on playing for their clubs. 

Obviously representing one's country still generates pride, but some senior players have apparently decided that playing well at club level is more important.

Although international football still has a place, I believe national associations need to realise that they're borrowing club players. If a player is injured, no matter how slightly, the club has a right to ask that he be kept off the field.