The Secret Footballer - What Players Really Think Of Pundits

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I reckon the footballer in question wants to remain anonymous because he might be afraid of an onslaught on criticism from the media if he did reveal his identity. If I was a pro-footballer, I certainly wouldn't go upsetting the media anyways.
Michael Owen is a good shout though, don't think it was Savage, he'd sign his name to it.

Pro. F

Paparazzo wrote: »

Another thing is, Johnny Giles is highly regarded as a pundit by lots of fans. This is the guy that thinks managers make no difference and players should be told to just go out and play. Maybe he should read the OP's post to familiarize himself with the modern game

Jonny Giles' dismissiveness of tactics is straight from the school of Brian Clough. He actually sounds the exact same as Clough when he goes on about how he thinks tactics aren't important. So it's not a sign of him not understanding the game. And before you say it, no the modern game has not changed completely.

This footballer's view on tactics isn't representative of the modern game. It's only representative of the method of a certain number of managers. All the precision details of where to pass and what runs to make leads me to think that it's someone who is playing under a manager like Pulis or Allarrdyce. Or possibly Ancelotti, but I doubt it. Certainly not Ferguson or Redknapp or the like. Also, it must be a player who has only played under managers with that one style, so probably not a player at a top four club then.

It is really well written, but I don't think that that can be taken as any kind of evidence. It could just be ghost written as has been said.

Whoever it is writing it, it's a great read. Thanks for pointing it out OP.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

PHB

I'd guess at someone like John O'Shea.

peabutler

It's Paul Robinson

Paully D

peabutler wrote: »

It's Paul Robinson

Cracking goalkeeper.

Gillington

Haha its like a game of Cluedo in here!

Bluetonic

Twitter a/c following Liam Gallagher and Beady Eye... someone from Manchester?

Dolph Starbeam

Great read, going to be good to see a few more of these.

Dolph Starbeam

I think its safe to say its not a keeper

Twitter @TSFGuardian

Got nutmegged three times in the circle this morning. A new club record. Not my best days training ever!

Danny Murphy sounds like a good call imo.

Dolph Starbeam

Tomorrows column should be a good read too.

guardian_sport Guardian sport

TSFGuardian:

Dolph Starbeam

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/05/the-secret-footballer-players-wages?CMP=twt_gu

The Secret Footballer: Why do they blame us for the high wages

Money? It's a crime. Apparently. At least according to Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame it is. That was before he made it on to the Sunday Times Rich List (number 763, estimated wealth £85m, since you asked) so maybe he's changed his mind by now.
I have always been of the opinion that talking about money, especially what one earns, might be considered, by others at least, a little vulgar, especially if nine times out of 10 the person you are talking to can only dream of earning what you do. Strangely, however, I find that fans want to talk about the subject more and more. As the seasons slip by, it seems fans want to talk about little else, often to find out if all the zeros they counted on the back of the paper on Monday really are being deposited in players' bank accounts on the Friday. And, let's be honest, there has been a lot of counting going on this week.
It seems a little alien to me now, but when I think back to when I was kicking a flat ball around a council estate with holes in my Nike hand-me-downs, I was just as curious about players' wages. Now that I am a footballer and I earn some of those zeros that curiosity has gone. But for a fan, those feelings and questions remain. So let's talk money.
Be honest. How many of you, when berating a player either in the pub or in the stands, bring up money? Most, I'll bet. "Overpaid!" "Not worth it!" Not many say the owners were mad to give him the wage in the first place. Instead, most of the anger goes towards the player, for seemingly having the sheer nerve to accept it. And this is what I don't understand, because in any walk of life, how many people say: "You know what, I think you're paying me too much." And there aren't many of us who would turn down the opportunity to leave a place of work and do the same job for somebody else if it meant a higher salary and a better standard of living for our families and ourselves. So I try not to feel guilty – although I sometimes do – and I try not to feel that I have been greedy in any way.
That is not to say that I don't "get" the argument of "How much is enough?" when people question why a player earning tens of thousands of pounds a week needs to ask for 10k, 20k or 30k more. But, as far as I'm aware, it is still illegal in this country for a player to hold a gun to a chairman's head. Shame, really.
The point I am trying to make is that football club owners, as much as players, drive wages. After all, a player can ask for as many zeros on the end of his salary as he wants but the only way he will get that money is if an owner is willing to pay it. And, by the same token, none of those players sold on deadline day would have left their clubs, no matter how much they wanted to get away, without a chairman signing a huge cheque at the other end. It seems to me that on deadline day "no" is the hardest word.
To let you into my mind, when I find myself the subject of a transfer and subsequent contract negotiations, I try to remove all of the emotion and work on this simple principle: a group of business people have taken the decision that their club can afford to make me an offer of X amount of money over Y amount of years. If their business falls in to decline, it is because those same people got their figures wrong or misjudged the market. Players can, of course, fail to live up to expectations, but can one bad signing bring down a football club?
Before I stand accused of portraying all footballers as the good guys, let me share a few things. Between you, me and the rest of the world, there are some players out there moving clubs every year to earn contract pay-offs and signing-on fees. Some players see football purely in financial terms, exactly like people do in other professions. They play the game simply because it's a well-paid job. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard: "If I could get the same money doing something else, I'd be gone in a flash." Sometimes they sound almost believable.
Every job has its perks, so why not try to enjoy the ones that come with playing football for millions of pounds? As the song goes, I like new cars, caviar and four-star daydreams but as for buying a football team, I'll leave that to the billionaires that spent eight-figure sums on players last month. And who cares where their money comes from? Not players and not many supporters – at least not until it goes wrong.
So what do fans really want? Players to give 100 per cent? That's the easy answer. How about every trophy, every great player and the best coach possible? And it isn't enough to just win, if the football gods could throw in relegation or financial strife for your biggest rival, well that would be even better.
So who is greedy? Not me. The owners? In some cases, definitely. You? Well, I wouldn't say greedy, just super ambitious and there is certainly nothing wrong with that in life. But the next time you go to punch your pin in on the debit machine to buy three tickets to watch your team play, ask yourself what really makes you happy? Because those of you who want the very best talent that enables your team to compete and win trophies will know that somebody has to pay for it, and those same people will also understand that if it all ends in tears, it isn't necessarily the players that need shooting because, for the most part, we're just playing our role in somebody else's grand design. Those who don't understand that argument, take your card out of the machine and take the kids to the park. Either way, the real power still belongs to you.

kippy

I have to say, whoever wrote that article in the OP, as much as I agree with large parts of it, makes players out to be far more intelligent than the majority of them actually are.

Whatever about players getting scripts the night before with oodles of information and what to do, testing set pieces, he doesnt go into detail as to why a lot of the professional footballers cannot use either feet with proficiency, cannot land a dead ball in the same area/spot with some level of consistency and cannot beat the first man with a cross the majority of the time - stuff would would expect people who play football every day for money should be able to do.

Unearthly

Danny Murphy has done punditry for Match of the day 2 a few times. Unless he likes slagging off himself that would rule him out

Kells...

Rio Ferdinand?

greendom

If it's not ghostwritten, he writes very well for a footballer. As to the content, it's not that great actually - I thought the whole point of the anonymity was that he could be candid about things that would cause upset and get him into trouble if his identity was revealed.

Players earn lots of money and only sometimes feel guilty - yeah and ?

kippy

Its obviously Gary Neville.......
His first foray into media around the time of his retirement.

limpdd

kippy wrote: »

Its obviously Gary Neville.......
His first foray into media around the time of his retirement.

"TSFGuardian: 20 years at the top what an amazing career, congratulations to Garry Neville. Good luck!"
--

http://www.twitter.com/TSFGuardian/status/33155713668743168

Would he tweet about himself?
Also everyone saying that the author seems intelligent so it can only be 1 of about 4 different footballers, come on, don't fall into the tabloid habit of thinking these people have an iq less than 50 because they kick a football for a living.

kippy

limpdd wrote: »

"TSFGuardian: 20 years at the top what an amazing career, congratulations to Garry Neville. Good luck!"
--

http://www.twitter.com/TSFGuardian/status/33155713668743168

Would he tweet about himself?
Also everyone saying that the author seems intelligent so it can only be 1 of about 4 different footballers, come on, don't fall into the tabloid habit of thinking these people have an iq less than 50 because they kick a football for a living.

I didnt myself say the author was intelligent, just said that he was giving footballers credit for being extremely intelligent when the overwhelming evidence would suggest otherwise.

Neville was a bit of a joke to be honest.

jackthelad321

not as good as the last week. Started off well but turned into the same old argument.

Hopefully it'll pick up again, or he will get specific and actually use his anonimty, as a poster here suggested. For a secret coloumist he is very circumspect. It still could just be a chancer in the Guardian. I don't know.I kinda don't care anymore... ah damn.

Johnny Utah

Mentions growing up on a council estate...... which would suggest he's British or Irish?

A lot of detail about set pieces (Mourinho always plans tactics in minute detail) and a brief mention of Chelsea (ie. Drogba)......


John Terry perhaps?

peabutler

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Mentions growing up on a council estate...... which would suggest he's British or Irish?

A lot of detail about set pieces (Mourinho always plans tactics in minute detail) and a brief mention of Chelsea (ie. Drogba)......


John Terry perhaps?

After how every English Newspaper destroyed him 12 months ago ?? Unlikely.

Paully D

Today's column:

With transfer deadline day fallout now nothing more than a smouldering pile of outdated football kit, the focus has shifted to the performances of those multimillion-pound signings. For some, though, the hard work is over for another window and their attentions now turn to the seven-day forecast for Barbados. Allow me, if I may, to give you the good, the bad and the downright brutal in the dog-eat-dog world of the football agent.

The role of the agent in the last 20 years has evolved into one of the most misunderstood – albeit entirely necessary – positions in the game. It is not uncommon these days for an agent to be found booking hotels, leasing cars, sorting match tickets, opening mail and paying bills for their clients. In fact, I know of a player who after being summoned to appear in court over some outstanding debts explained that nobody had ever shown him how to set up direct debits. The letters being held up as evidence were the same ones he'd thrown in a drawer every morning before setting off for training.

Most agents now realise that many of their clients need to be nursed along with the least distractions possible so they can concentrate on their football. Essentially, though, an agent's key role remains what it has always been: to secure the best possible deal for his player when it comes to contract negotiations.

As well as multimillion-pound salaries, agents have come up with every possible incentive to squeeze a few more quid out of a club. You name it, there's a bonus for it. There is little doubt, though, that one of the most sought-after player payments going is image rights. If you're clued up on football finance, the chances are you will be aware of the current dispute between HMRC and the Premier League over the amount of money being diverted away from the nation's coffers through this method.

As a general rule of thumb 15-20% of the value of a player's contract is deemed an acceptable amount to pass off as image rights into a pre-existing company of which the player is a director. HMRC suspects the system is being abused by players who don't have the profile at their club to merit image rights payments, and in some cases they may have a point. But there are two sides to this heavily taxed coin – let's remember that footballers hand over half their basic wage every month. We're talking tens of millions of pounds in total.

Thankfully, footballers have never claimed to be financial experts, unlike those bankers who plunged us all into the biggest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. For them, the 50% tax rate was their punishment and a convenient way of ensnaring footballers at the same time. All of which means the playing field is no longer level. If this is democracy, you can stick it right up Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

What is clear is that image rights – which are a justified payment for many players – are a great way of preserving chunks of your earnings, as long you have an agent who really knows his stuff. I know many players who have been badly advised on the issue and are nervously anticipating a tap on the shoulder from a fat cartoon man in a cheap suit and a bowler hat. The bill for some may well run into seven figures and, believe me, finding that all in one go will hurt.

The long and short of it is that the best agents are worth their weight in tax and they prove as much when it comes to contract talks.

These negotiations are a minefield. I remember being in talks for a move from one Premier League club to another – nothing overly exciting about that – until a phone call shortly before I was due to sign, from another player at a rival club. It went something like this:

"Have you signed yet?"

"No."

"Don't sign whatever you do, our gaffer wants to talk to you."

That's how quickly your career can change course. The rival manager calls moments later and begins spouting all the usual ego-boosting rubbish that he hopes will turn my head, and tells me not to sign until I've heard him out face to face. I relay this to my agent, who sits me down and explains in plain English why it would be a terrible mistake to leave the boardroom where we currently have an agreed deal in place, albeit not signed.

It lasted 10 minutes but was essentially this: "If you leave this room now, the manager who has just been on the phone will know you can't set foot in here again for the same terms that we have already agreed. As a consequence, your arrival at the second club will be greeted with a derisory contract offer, which you, of course, will reject. And so when you come back to this club, they will cancel what we have already agreed and make you a take-it-or-leave-it offer knowing you now have nowhere else to go and that they would, essentially, be bidding against themselves." With me?

At this point, my potential employers have sensed something is going on and I'm whisked out of the room and fed Mars Bars and Coca-Cola while two people talk to me about anything and everything, ensuring my agent and I are kept apart – it's a classic pincer manoeuvre. As long as we stay, though, the manager of the club where we are has a dilemma: he doesn't know who this new club sniffing around is but he has to assume it's a club at least as big as his own given the figures involved, so what should he do with his contract offer now?

Just to clear one thing up in case some of you are wondering why I don't represent myself: one of the reasons a player never likes to negotiate on his own is that, apart from being used to wipe the floor with, he will have to listen to a manager or chief executive telling him how great he is while at the same time telling him why he isn't worth the wages he's just asked for – awkward for everyone.

In truth, I already knew where I was going to sign; the offer was very good and I loved the way they kept giving me chocolate. Looking back, my agent's advice that day may have been the best I ever heeded. And that is why a top agent, who is well versed in the art of negotiation and genuinely has your best interests at heart, can prevent you from sailing blindly up a well-known creek.

But what about the agent that doesn't have a player's best interests at heart? Like when a club approaches an agent it is "tight" with, asking for a particular player. The club says it only wants to pay this player £10,000 a week, the agent mentions he could possibly get the player for £5,000 a week, and if he could … well, you can see where this is going. The agent is pocketing a slice of the difference while at the same time telling the player he got him more than the club were offering. And, conveniently for agents who act for clubs, the player does not see the fee that the agent picked up.

Not everybody feels that they need an agent. In fact, Fifa, or "Jack" as it is known in the trade – on account of the zillions of profit it makes without giving a great deal back – has decided to pull the ladder up and deregulate the agency world, mainly because the rules it imposed in the first instance were a joke. So Jack is going to wash his hands of dealing with those who take millions of pounds out of the game illegitimately – but continue to clamp down on us for being bad role models for occasionally surrounding a man with a whistle.

So what would you do if you were in my shoes? Negotiate your own deal? Good luck. Clubs are ruthless. It doesn't matter if you are top dog, man of the moment, fans' favourite – and I've been there – they'll screw you every chance they get. Players need agents, no question, but finding a good one, I mean a really good one, is fraught with difficulty. Get it wrong and you could be celebrating your 35th birthday with the "help wanted" section rather than a Hello! exclusive. Get it right and you could end up with everything you ever wanted, and more.

As for who for the long discussion we've all had over who The Secret Footballer is, I've noticed on his Twitter page that someone asked him a question about wages and success/failure based on those wages and the only club's he mentions are Arsenal for having a low wage rate along with a high position and then he mentions Middlesbrough as having a high wage rate when they went down. He also speaks about McClaren ''loving coaching'', so it could well be someone who is associated with Middlesbrough or who has worked under McClaren.

I would say Gareth Southgate could be a good shout, as he speaks about his time being a fan favourite which he was at 'Boro, and he's also active on his own Twitter page along with working in media which would justify his knowledge of Keys and Gray, but it seems that The Secret Footballer is still playing, perhaps that's just something to put people off track though? Just a suggestion to add to the many already posed.

Paully D

This weeks column:

For one man on Tuesday night it didn't matter in the slightest that San Siro was hit by a near-monsoon for Tottenham's match with Milan. Everything is going so well for Harry Redknapp right now that he must feel like he could walk on water.

Managers are helped in their jobs by a few things that aren't for sale in any transfer window: resources, timing and luck to name but three. Redknapp ticked a couple of those boxes when he replaced Juande Ramos because he took over a big club with a talented squad that was punching well below its weight. But let's not kid ourselves that luck has played any part in what Redknapp has achieved at Spurs.

So what makes a good manager? I've played for great managers, and I've also played for one or two where I would happily have faked my own death if it meant not working with them a minute longer. The best managers gain the absolute trust of their players, they put you on your toes whenever they set foot in the room, and have a playing philosophy that is greeted with enthusiasm and carried on to the pitch with spirit and belief. Above all, though, a manager must have the respect of everybody at the football club.

Simple qualities are priceless. Players want a manager to be consistent and honest. Nobody wants to sit on the sidelines watching, but an explanation as to why you are not in the team, especially if you have only just been dropped, can go a long way to quelling discontent. Players will respect the manager for pulling them aside even if they don't agree with the decision. Man-management skills like this send out signals to the players; they keep everybody united and, as a result, extract the absolute best from a squad.

When the opposite happens, unrest festers and stories start to surface about how the manager has "lost the dressing room". This does actually happen, perhaps not as regularly as some would have us believe, but there are certainly occasions when players collectively lose respect for a manager. I've experienced it. At one club I played for, it was because of a shared belief that our tactics were flawed, that this was making us look like poor players and, in turn, lose matches.

Players are subjected to disciplinary procedures, but there is no written warning or fine system for managers. Instead players stop trying in training and in matches and lose heart. A friend of mine recently told me his team lacked any clear direction or ambition and, as a result, problems came about which had not been addressed. He said things got so bad that a group of players even began to raise the possibility that it could be a deliberate ploy by the manager to get himself sacked. After all, where else can you get a multimillion-pound pay-off for failure? It's a very dangerous idea but he certainly got me thinking about whom it could apply to.

Managers don't have to be loved. I know a few players who despise their boss but remain extremely successful under them. Similarly, I know one or two managers who put up with a lot of nonsense from some of their players because they are extremely important to the team. It's about mutual respect. Not mutual affection.

Some players want to be managers. But some managers still want to be players. I remember at one club being fined for going out to a pub with a couple of friends while injured. Notwithstanding the fact that this was a Tuesday evening, and therefore not in conflict with the rule that you must not be on licensed premises 48 hours before a game, the argument from my manager was that any alcohol would hamper my rehab. He fined me two weeks' wages.

I didn't argue, but as I left his room he turned from manager to player and, with a big, fat, stupid grin on his face, asked: 'By the way, did you get hold of anything?' He was referring to whether or not I escorted a young lady home, despite the fact that he knew I had a long-term girlfriend, and, as it turns out, was more disappointed that I had no story to tell than with what he was fining me for in the first place. That day we both lost respect for each other but for very different reasons.

I was young back then, but as you get older, and become a more senior member of the squad, things start to change. A manager may ask your opinion from time to time and, since assuming this position, I've found it a challenge to tell the manager what I really think and not just what I think.

The first time this happened I had been playing for the manager in question for a long time. He had always been a man who had all the answers and knew what was best, a man who I looked up to as a god of the game from the way he handled the players, the fans and the media. But now he was asking me the questions and it didn't feel right.

Part of the legend became humanised after that and I believed it would never come back. I felt it was a misjudgment by him to seek help from me, and it showed him up as a man who, at the time, was troubled. It turned out that, unlike Redknapp, he was not the Messiah. He was just a very good football manager.

A Primal Nut

From Twitter:

@anna66newton Those aware of TSF tend to think its one particular player, which it isn't. Naturally, I encourage this!

Its probably a collection of articles from different footballers, ghostwritten by one journalist. Or maybe each article is a collection of contributions from various footballers, collected under the guise of one footballer.

shotamoose

Thought this week's column was good:

Fans stop gay footballers from coming out
I am not gay. But then I don't feel that I should have to "come out" and say as much. It is nobody's business but my own. The cricketer Steven Davies's recent declaration has triggered a spate of absurd media debates in an all too predictable attempt to uncover why the newspapers, TV, radio and websites have no gay footballer to chew up and spit out.

It is starting to feel as though the fault is with us players for not producing a gay professional on demand. Just to be clear, there is more chance of a player's civil partner saying: "Just get me a card this year" than the Premier League outing its first gay footballer. For a start, look at the media coverage that already surrounds the topic despite not even having anybody specific to hold up as an example – who would want to be at the centre of that?

If we apply the law of averages theory, it is highly likely there are gay players among the professional ranks of football, despite its culture. That said (and with apologies for stereotyping here), anyone watching players arriving at a match for the first time could be forgiven for thinking the game was played exclusively by homosexual men, such is the attention to detail given to hair placement, general attire and a luxury gentleman's wash bag – don't even get me started on some of the things I have seen produced from the latter.

The reality is that I don't "officially" know any gay footballers, although I suspect I have been only a Jäger bomb or two away from a team-mate confiding in me. What we are all agreed on, however, is that there is principally one very good reason that gay players would keep their sexual allegiance firmly in the locker: the fans.

For the most part football supporters give out stick that qualifies as banter. But every now and again an element will cross the line. From abusing players for their skin tone to their nationality, certain fans will grab hold of anything if they can get a cheap laugh and be able to tell their mates down the pub later on what they shouted out.

It takes an awful lot to sicken me on a football pitch, probably because I am desensitised, having heard it all before. In certain sections of some grounds I am so used to hearing discriminatory chants that those people may as well be shouting out their weekly shopping list. There is one man at a London club who shouts the same thing at me from the same seat every season. Now I just smile and he laughs, happy that I have heard him.

Unfortunately, whereas I am now hardened, others are still forming their protective shell. I saw a talented young kid reduced to tears in the changing room because of the abuse he took from a couple of buffoons a few years ago. He never told anyone what was said and nobody ever asked him but, thinking back, I can definitely guess.

So would you come out and then travel around the country playing football in front of tens of thousands of people who hate you? I wouldn't. I would be in the dressing room feeling hugely depressed that certain components to our great game make it all but impossible for me to do anything other than keep quiet. I would also have in mind the gay footballer Justin Fashanu, who tragically took his own life in 1998.

Thankfully football has moved on since those days, or has it? Rewind to Fratton Park, September 2008, when Sol Campbell was subjected to homophobic abuse and a section of Spurs supporters were caught on film singing: "Sol, Sol, wherever you may be, Not long now until lunacy, We won't give a **** if you are hanging from a tree, You are a Judas **** with HIV." Apologies if you didn't like reading those words. But spare a thought for how Campbell felt when he was listening to them.

Sadly, I'd say the general abuse players receive hasn't got much better. It is very rare that there is any appreciation of the opposition's great play, a stunning goal is normally met with a thousand hand gestures from the stands and our best talent is routinely booed with the sort of vigour and hatred that, I feel, offers us a precious insight into society as a whole.

Amazingly, having said all of that, I'm pretty sure a gay player would have few problems coming out to his team-mates if he were offered a hypothetical, "nobody outside the team will ever find out" clause. It isn't because we're a superior breed – even I wouldn't take on that argument with half the England team conspiring against me. Quite simply, it is because we're all about looking after ourselves and, consequently, we try not to get too involved with other players' trials and tribulations.

The changing room is a very harsh place to survive – say what you like about footballers' lack of intelligence (and people often do), the banter is razor-sharp and anything out of the ordinary is seized upon in a flash. But this is precisely the reason why a gay player would feel comfortable coming out here. A footballer is a footballer, it doesn't matter if you are black, white, straight or gay, players are at ease in this environment, where they are used to piss-taking.

But the terraces are a different ball game. We are not at home here and are very much on our guard around fans. The changing room offers a strange, familiar sanctuary where the preferred etiquette is to have a quick laugh, look as if you know what's going on and get on with things before anybody starts asking uncomfortable questions such as: "Are you gay, mate?"

One thing I realise every time I go to a match is that so many 'fans' seem to think it's a license to indulge in the worst behaviour they can possibly think of. It seems to be one of the last places where completely despicable conduct is tolerated. The racism (fortunately less common today) and homophobia (sadly no less common) are just the most visible examples, there's also the people who laugh and make 'w******' signs when an opposition player gets injured (Martin Kelly at West Ham was one recent example), or the bloke (we all know one I'm sure) who just stands up bellowing expletives at his own player for what seems like the whole 90 minutes.

In general I think there is too much genuflecting in the media and football in general towards the 'passion' of the fans and not enough talk of the hateful form some of that 'passion' takes.

Paully D

Top read this week as always:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/mar/26/the-secret-footballer-fabio-capello

Rudyard Kipling, a personal hero of mine, is a great example of the success that can be achieved because of an allegiance to two different countries. Torn between Britain and India, Kipling exploited this and wrote some of the finest works in modern literature, his outstanding contributions including the poems, If and Mandalay and the short story, The Man Who Would Be King.

Speaking of Fabio Capello, should he never win anything as England manager, his abiding legacy could well be the contempt he has shown in the past week for the captaincy of his second country. It is a wonder the Italian hasn't attempted to field two captains simultaneously such is his "my way or no way" approach to management.

The latest manufactured headline came courtesy of the lamentable way in which he informed a highly respected member of the team that he was no longer the England captain. Quite simply he chose not to bother and instead invited the players to voice their objections to their former captain's reinstatement on the training pitch on Tuesday. Trust me when I say this, but nobody would dare blink in that scenario, let alone say anything, especially with a hundred camera shutters at the ready. What I would have given, though, to see the new boy, Matt Jarvis, put his hand up at that moment. Shame Wayne Bridge wasn't about as well.

It is difficult to know whether Capello was taunted at school or over-disciplined in childhood but surely, despite being in a different country with its markedly different culture, he understands that there is a right way to treat people and a wrong way. The England manager appears to be going out of his way to destroy his reputation and for reasons that are difficult to understand.

Take John Terry, please. Stripped of the armband last year but once more into the breach this year. And Rio Ferdinand, by the way, is by no means making way for the return of the prodigal son. Outside of Chelsea, JT's standing in the game is hardly that of a saint – in fact inside of Chelsea not everyone is singing from his hymn sheet either. All the while Capello has made his point and, in doing so, embarrassed a fantastic player and certainly a far more popular one. There is so much to question. Here is a man that seeks headlines, here is a man that uses discipline over pawns so that he can sneak round the back and knock off the queen. What happened to the man I respected so much at Milan?

Looking back, Capello's masterstroke seems to be the assertion that he made upon his appointment that this job would be the last of his career. And so, while England burns, the Italian's main focus is fiddling around with the captaincy, in the week of a Euro 2012 qualifier away from home against a nation that would like nothing more than to cause an upset and demonstrate how a unified team counts for a lot more than 11 individuals.

Interestingly, I am forever being told that international football isn't what it was. My ears bleed at the mere mention of the days when "men were men" and "we had none of this rolling around lark back then" – because you were likely to roll over a hatchet, I say. Nobody ever laughs at that, but then it's never meant as a joke.

In fairness, though, there are some lessons that we can take from "the good old days". It is to the eternal credit of the former England captain Emlyn Hughes that he lambasted the attempts of Don Revie to persuade the FA to increase the players' appearance fee in the 1970s. Playing for England, Hughes felt, was a privilege to be earned, not an extra payday. And that is a lesson that has certainly been heeded. England players command a match fee today, which is paid on a game-per-game basis, although every penny is donated to charity and that has been the case for several years.

That said, England players are compensated. A couple of times a year, a chunk of England's commercial revenue is paid to each player. The payment depends on a few things, like how many squads the player has been a part of and whether the fixtures were friendly or competitive, but the money is not to be dismissed. These payments are the FA's way of compensating the player for the rights to use his image to sell anything from replica kits to video games, although there are plans to divert these monies towards a programme designed for bringing through the next generation of England players. All in favour say I.

Something tells me that if I also asked people to raise their hands if they thought Capello should go, the strength of opinion would be just as strong. Interestingly, though, if Capello had stayed put on the continent and the FA was today casting its net for a tough, no nonsense and successful manager, I'd have said they needed the Italian to steer the ship for us. Capello can't suddenly become a bad manager and if my outlandish theories hold no water then it is more likely the case that the Italian has simply lost his way.

When the same happens to me I try to remind myself of a few simple lines that help me maintain some level of success: 'If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too: If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise … Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And – which is more – you'll be a Man, my son!'

An adopted Englishman wrote those words. Fabio has an awful long way to go.

Neil3030

"Sol, Sol, wherever you may be, Not long now until lunacy, We won't give a **** if you are hanging from a tree, You are a Judas **** with HIV."

This is quite possibly the most disgusting thing I have ever read.

jackthelad321

I'm not impressed by this article, feels like too many Guardian blogs of late. Does anyone else feel as I do?

tommyhaas

Neil3030 wrote: »

This is quite possibly the most disgusting thing I have ever read.

Ah come on, its not that bad. Im not defending it,its bang out of order, but the Spurs fans hate him because he's a Judas to them, which is fair enough, the HIV reference is out of order obviously but you hear worse from the likes of Zenit St Petersburg/Rangers etc where the hatred is based on skin colour/religion/nationality etc as oppose to personality

Superbus

tommyhaas wrote: »

Ah come on, its not that bad. Im not defending it,its bang out of order, but the Spurs fans hate him because he's a Judas to them, which is fair enough, the HIV reference is out of order obviously but you hear worse from the likes of Zenit St Petersburg/Rangers etc where the hatred is based on skin colour/religion/nationality etc as oppose to personality

Yes, it is. It's really, really bad.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

tommyhaas wrote: »

Ah come on, its not that bad. Im not defending it,its bang out of order, but the Spurs fans hate him because he's a Judas to them, which is fair enough, the HIV reference is out of order obviously but you hear worse from the likes of Zenit St Petersburg/Rangers etc where the hatred is based on skin colour/religion/nationality etc as oppose to personality

"We don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" is a fúcking disgrace.

amacachi

baz2009 wrote: »

"We don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" is a fúcking disgrace.

Love how they got racism, homophobia and insensitivity to mental illness into one chant but it's "not that bad."

dreamers75

Worst i heard was fans chanting about a players kids who had Downs Syndrome and were extremley ill. Thats just ****ing wrong.

Fans can be ****.

tommyhaas

Superbus wrote: »

Yes, it is. It's really, really bad.

Did I say it wasent? No, I said it wasent as bad as the 'most disguisting thing Iv ever read'

baz2009 wrote: »

"We don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" is a fúcking disgrace.

Yea, I agree. My point is that chants etc with sectarian/racial undertones are worse.

Sol gets abuse off Spurs cos he fcuked off to Arsenal. Thats fair enough IMO, similarly Tevez getting abuse off Utd, or Rooney at Everton. Obviously the above example is way OTT

What I believe is worse though is a player getting abuse because of his skin colour or religion. Its a hallmark of the lowest of the low

Wrt the comment about it being the most disguisting thing they'v read, Im not condoning it, my point was that there is far worse

v3ttel

Gillington wrote: »

Haha its like a game of Cluedo in here!

It was Balotelli, in the dining room, with the blue training bib.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Rooney10 wrote: »

It was Balotelli, in the dining room, with the blue training bib.

Whilst wearing a glove on his head.

lordgoat

tommyhaas wrote: »

Ah come on, its not that bad. Im not defending it,its bang out of order, but the Spurs fans hate him because he's a Judas to them, which is fair enough, the HIV reference is out of order obviously but you hear worse from the likes of Zenit St Petersburg/Rangers etc where the hatred is based on skin colour/religion/nationality etc as oppose to personality

tommyhaas wrote: »

Did I say it wasent? No, I said it wasent as bad as the 'most disguisting thing Iv ever read'

You kinda did.Also when you say you're not defending it, but go on to defend it. You're kinda defending it.

fulhamfanincork

So first you take away our right to stand at matches and now you want to take away our right to sing/chant? Shame on you.

Sol Campbell brought them chants on himself by not quenching the gay rumours and by leaving Tottenham for Arsenal, their fiercest rivals.

And I doubt he cares considering he's on 100 grand plus a week or whatever it is.

Football banter forever.

greendom

Must admit I found the Rudyard Kipling line a bit annoying. I imagine he's trying to prove not all professional playes are stupid but it just grated for me tbh.

MrStuffins

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

So first you take away our right to stand at matches and now you want to take away our right to sing/chant?

Football banter forever.

Nobody said fans couldnt sing and chant, but the last part of your post shows you have no idea what the difference is between "banter" and disgusting verbal abuse!

If someone in the street said some of the things aimed at footballers, they'd be arrested. Or possibly punched in the face!

Gillington

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

So first you take away our right to stand at matches and now you want to take away our right to sing/chant? Shame on you.

Sol Campbell brought them chants on himself by not quenching the gay rumours and by leaving Tottenham for Arsenal, their fiercest rivals.

And I doubt he cares considering he's on 100 grand plus a week or whatever it is.

Football banter forever.

I dont get this stupid argument.What do you think he's doing,hiding behind a big wall of his money and cant hear anything? Be he on a tenner or a million a week,if someone is shouting abuse at him,I'm sure he cares

An Citeog

tommyhaas wrote: »

Yea, I agree. My point is that chants etc with sectarian/racial undertones are worse.

Sol gets abuse off Spurs cos he fcuked off to Arsenal. Thats fair enough IMO, similarly Tevez getting abuse off Utd, or Rooney at Everton. Obviously the above example is way OTT

What I believe is worse though is a player getting abuse because of his skin colour or religion. Its a hallmark of the lowest of the low

Wrt the comment about it being the most disguisting thing they'v read, Im not condoning it, my point was that there is far worse

What exactly do you think "we don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" refers to? Suitably appalled yet?

SM01

I could be picking it up wrong but I presumed "hanging from a tree" referred to the way in which Judas Iscariot took his own life.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

So first you take away our right to stand at matches and now you want to take away our right to sing/chant? Shame on you.

Sol Campbell brought them chants on himself by not quenching the gay rumours and by leaving Tottenham for Arsenal, their fiercest rivals.

And I doubt he cares considering he's on 100 grand plus a week or whatever it is.

Football banter forever.

Have a bit of cop on.
I'm all for bringing terraces back and I love standing and singing at football, but for fúck sake like.

Sir Gallagher

SM01 wrote: »

I could be picking it up wrong but I presumed "hanging from a tree" referred to the way in which Judas Iscariot took his own life.

I think that would be a bit too subtle, I'd say it'd have more to do with Justin Fashanu, the gay footballer who hanged himself.

tommyhaas

Neil3030 wrote: »

This is quite possibly the most disgusting thing I have ever read.

tommyhaas wrote: »

Ah come on, its not that bad

lordgoat wrote: »

You kinda did.Also when you say you're not defending it, but go on to defend it. You're kinda defending it.

I clarified this in my last post. I wasent saying that the chant 'is not that bad', simply that its not as bad as the worst that Iv heard. I dont know if your misinterpriting what im trying to say, maybe Im not explaining it well, or maybe your just looking for some moral high ground to take. Yes the chant is appalling, however, I have read worse things. I read recently about Neil Lennon and Paddy McCourt being sent bullets in the post, that to me is worse then a chant. My response of 'its not that bad' referred only to the chant being described as the worst thing a previous poster had ever read, not that the chant itself wasent that bad, thats why in my original post I quoted the Neil3030 as oppose to the chant itself

An Citeog wrote: »

What exactly do you think "we don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" refers to? Suitably appalled yet?

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

I think that would be a bit too subtle, I'd say it'd have more to do with Justin Fashanu, the gay footballer who hanged himself.

I assumed it referred to Justin Fashanu, as Sir Gallagher suggested, although could be either

Wrt the fans singing it, they targeted Campell because he left for Arsenal. This is not a justification of the chant in anyway, merely an explaination of why he was targeted. They wouldnt have targeted him like that had he not left for a rival, whereas at the likes of Zenit St P', black players get abused purely because of the colour of there skin

Pro. F

tommyhaas wrote: »

Wrt the fans singing it, they targeted Campell because he left for Arsenal. This is not a justification of the chant in anyway, merely an explaination of why he was targeted. They wouldnt have targeted him like that had he not left for a rival, whereas at the likes of Zenit St P', black players get abused purely because of the colour of there skin

If the Spurs fans were throwing racist abuse* at Sol because he had betrayed them would you be saying that that's OK?

The effect of what you are saying here is that homophobic abuse isn't as serious as racist abuse. It is. Every bit as serious. The reason that homophobia is so rampant is because people are always making excuses for it. You have been making excuses for it here. You really should stop.

*Since you assumed that the hanging reference wasn't racist

tommyhaas

Pro. F wrote: »

If the Spurs fans were throwing racist abuse* at Sol because he had betrayed them would you be saying that that's OK?

The effect of what you are saying here is that homophobic abuse isn't as serious as racist abuse. It is. Every bit as serious. The reason that homophobia is so rampant is because people are always making excuses for it. You have been making excuses for it here. You really should stop.

*Since you assumed that the hanging reference wasn't racist

I honestly dont know was it racist or homophobic. My point related to the fact that he was getting abuse not because of his skin colour or sexuality, but because he left the club for rivals. The nature of the abuse relating to either his race or sexuality is of course out of line, but would not have occured had he not left Spurs in that manner. Did any other black players receive racial abuse that day? At certain clubs however, the fans will abuse players for reasons relating only to their skin colour/religion. Im not making any reference to homophobia, simply because there are no openly gay footballers in England and hence no examples to cite

Racial, homophobic and secterian abuse are all completly out of order. What the Spurs fans were singing was a disgrace, but the abuse relating to his skin colour/sexuality (which ever it related to) stemmed from the fact he left for Arsenal, and I believe this because I dont know of any other recent cases where black players were racially abused at White Heart Lane. I'm not in anyway condoning the chant, I dont understand why people are so keen to insist that I am

fulhamfanincork

An Citeog wrote: »

What exactly do you think "we don't give a shít if you're hanging from a tree" refers to? Suitably appalled yet?

Oh please, it's a chant.