World Football: Why Money Is Not Ruining The Game

*It should be noted at the outset of this article that I am playing devil's advocate. I am not a fan of any of the foreign owners. Nor am I fan of how some of the players extort the clubs for transfer fees. I expect criticism and heavy handed comments from all of you. I almost think you wouldn't be doing your duty as fans if you didn't.

The institution of football as a league oriented sport originated in the late 1800's when a group of men got together and formed the Football Association, The FA.

From that time, people of all walks of life have attended league games on a yearly basis. The few exceptions being during war time.

There have been a handful of constants in the game throughout history. The shape of the ball has never changed. The game has always lasted 90 minutes. Also, the fans have always wanted to blame losing on something that they can't control.

Usually you can blame the training methods employed by the manager or how the footballers themselves take care of business off the pitch. If there was fault in George Bests game you could blame it on the liquor, though it never seemed to bother him.

In the last handful of years, though, the emphasis has shifted to the influx of money into the game.

Salaries for Premiership players have been breaking records left and right in recent years. For example, the recent signing of Robhino to Manchester City. And it is likely that City will continue to break league transfer, if not world transfer records if they go shopping again this Christmas.

But is this influx of money the real issue? Fans will argue that new club owners know nothing about the game. They will argue that the players are not playing for glory anymore but is there truth to this? I do not think so and I plan on explaining why in the article to follow.

The Rich Owner Does Not Understand The Game.

First and foremost: I have been a Nashville Predators fan since the team arrived in Nashville almost ten years ago. Now bare with me here, I know you must be wondering why I am mentioning a hockey team. These aren't the same sports. I know.

However, they have one similar fact. They are essentially a company. Their products are different than what my mom produces at her job in a boat factory, but they have the same goal. To produce.

You have businessmen buying teams and running them like businesses. There is not to my knowledge a special section of business school that deals with owning sports teams.

You gain experience by owning companies and looking at the numbers.

Malcolm Glazer, for example, has owned the controlling stock in Manchester United since 2005. Last time I checked, the club was doing pretty well. They have an extensive fan base world wide and continue to bring home silverware.

Another person of interest when it comes down to the owner argument is Roman Abramovich. The Russian oil oligarch took over ownership to the club in 2003 and in his five years there, they have won five major trophies. Their most recent accomplishment was making it to the finals of the Champions League.

The major rift came with former manager, Jose Mourinho. Mourinho argued that Abramovich was attempting to effect the team line up. The man is paying your salary and you aren't loosing. I could understand if you ended up dead last in the league, but you finished second.

The recently common theme comes in regards to the departures of Kevin Keegan and Alan Curbishley. The managers left their clubs over transfer policy dispute. The problem with this is simply put. Yes, you are the manager. You are the one who takes the team out every day, but you don't own the club. You don't pay the salaries.

It is the job of the front office to make sure the club runs smoothly. As long as the club is not in administration and you aren't loosing, why do you care? Why resign your position because of what the owner wants?

This will obviously be a common point of discourse over the season and likely the next season as well. The only alternative is letting the fans buy shares in the team.

This runs in to two problems. How many fans can afford shares? And how many of them understand what their shares would entitle them to?

The first question is probably easy. Maybe 30 percent of fans that spend money on season tickets a year could afford a stake. Then you come down to a handful, lets say six fans, who buy enough share to have a control on the club. It will turn into the foreign owner dilemma all over again.

Secondly, people, not individuals, are stubborn. If you had 300 fans that bought stock in the club can you imagine what it would be like trying to get a majority of them to vote one way? You think politics is horrendous, imagine being at Chelsea Supporter Club Ltd. meeting, trying to decide who to go after in the transfer market.

While this seems to be the major concern about money in the game today, lets not rule the players out.

Have You Forgotten What It Feels Like To Play For Yourself?

The short answer to that question is, for the most part, yes. I'm not going to lie. With salaries and transfer fees soaring higher than the Eiffel tower, it would seem that players are self centered.

However, I pose this question: if you were the professional footballer of the year, how much would you expect a club to pay for you? If you answer with anything less than what Solomon Kalou goes for these days, then you are lying.

Money is a human condition that only pious monks and children can get around.

The more money you make, the more you want. If you are coined as the new George Best or the new Eric Cantona, and someone is getting transferred for a higher price than you, you are going to be pissed.

That does not mean that you will not go out and play.

Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the highest paid players in the world and he goes out every game and earns his paycheck. He gets bonuses when he does well. Hell, most of us get a year end bonus at work if we meet the sales quota or we increase productivity.

Should footballers not be treated the same? Or are they supposed to go out and make a lousy 100 quid a game and be happy because they land more balls in the net than an air traffic controller lands planes?

It is a simple formula. You go where the money is.

What's Really Wrong With Football?

Apart from the fact that it obeys the same whimsical laws of humanity? Nothing. Beautiful goals are still scored. Teams win on the weekend. You have a pint with your mates if you win or if you loose.

Money makes the world and the game of professional football go around.

Is it sad? Sure. It's also sad that people would pay a small fortune for a jersey signed by Pele. It's sad that they will stand in line at the club store and get their name printed on the back of a new kit that they just bought and then complain about how money is ruining the game.

Do you spend money? Yeah.

Do you spend way too much sometimes? Yeah

Do you spend way too much on stupid stuff? Yeah.

Then why are you complaining? You are no better than the managers and players you are pissed about.