Welcome!

FM Base has been serving the Football Manager community for nearly two decades and we're keen to ensure that we are here for two decades more.

Become a part of our community today, and you'll quickly realise that the Football Manager community is the best community.

Register

Loyalty

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
With Neville retiring there's a lot of gushing about the loyalty and professionalism of the United players, such as him, Giggs, Scholes, etc. It's very admirable they've stuck with their clubs the entire time and I think it's great to be a one-club man. It also shows how well-run ManU is as a club.

But do you think we're praising them a bit too much for their 'loyalty'? Does loyalty mean the same thing when you're playing for the biggest club? It's one thing to stick with your club no matter what if there are better opportunities available, that shows true loyalty...putting your club above your own personal career. But what if loyalty also is what's best for your career? Can you praise someone so much for that kind of loyalty?

Realistically, where else would have Neville, Giggs, and Scholes gone too? [edit: I'm not just referring to these players, I'm talking about guys like Maldini, Zanetti, Xavi, Puyol, etc., I'm just using ManU as an example] ManU is by far the biggest and 'best' club in their country. They've won the most trophies in the modern era, have been the most consistently successful, and are by far the most popular (a good example of this is how many ManU fans there are on FM base, I would estimate there are 2-3 times as many as the next most popular club), not only domestically but globally as well since it has a huge following in Asia and the US. I don't see why they would want to leave or where they would leave too.

So Chelsea comes in and spends a lot of money and rises to the top. Would Abrahamovic/Ranieri/Mourinho ever have been interested in any of those players? More importantly, why/when would they ever want to leave for Chelsea? ManU has been successful for longer and will be successful for longer, as well as its history. And Arsenal? I really don't think Wenger would have been interested in them and that wouldn't be the Arsenal type of move. Had they gone to either of these clubs, they would have been branded traitors, hated by a lot of people, and today we would consider them examples of very disloyal players. ManU wins more trophies than those clubs anyway. So why would they want to leave?

Where else could they have gone to? Inter Milan? Bayern Munich? Both are perhaps equal in stature to ManU, but why would you leave the club you grew up at for a foreign club that wouldn't pay you more or win you more trophies? The only club arguably bigger than ManU in the modern era would be Real Madrid. Now I know most English think Giggs and Scholes, for example, are the two best midfielders of our generation, but I personally don't think they would have been even first teamers in a midfield with Zidane, Figo, Makelele, and Guti (the greatest midfield of all time, IMO). True, Beckham did, but that was primarily a commercial move, not a football one, and I think it was a poor one.

Which brings me to Beckham. He's the one of the 'loyal' and 'professional' ManU players that left...but he didn't want to. Even though he left to the only club in the world that's arguably bigger than ManU (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying one could argue it is) and possibly paid him more, he definitely would have stayed at ManU. And why would he? Why move away from the club you grew up at to a foreign country to play for a club that would definitely discard you when you got old? Why leave a country that worshipped the ground you walked on? Obviously he would have stayed at ManU if he could have.

Now people might counter these with the example of Cristiano Ronaldo, but he's a different story. First of all, he's not English, he's Portuguese, who tend to prefer life in Spain to life in Britain, and he does. Also, he wasn't grown at ManU, he was a Sporting product. I also think his game is better suited to La Liga, and he's able to be a more technical player there, were the game is slower, rather than simply relying on his speed and blasting shots in. Most importantly, it was his boyhood club. So I can see why he would want to leave ManU for Real Madrid.

As for their professionalism (Beckham's included in this group), what exactly did they do that was so commendable? They're paid millions and their clubs have treated them very well. So what if they never spoke poorly about another teammate or never criticized their legendary manager. Isn't that's what's expected of them? If I were paid millions to kick a ball around I would be very professional about it and wouldn't cause any problems for my team or say anything negative about anyone. More importantly, isn't that how most football players acted back in the days not so long ago when salaries were much, much lower? Have we reached a point so low that we praise millionaire football players for acting professionally, which you and me (well, if you're employed) do in our workplaces for salaries a fraction of theirs? I don't criticize my boss or co-workers unless I was having a private conversation that wouldn't reach their ears. I don't think I should be commended for it, that's what's expected of me. Even more importantly, there are countless other players who are just as "professional" as these guys, we just don't hear about it because either they're not as good, play for smaller clubs, or play in a different country. But we don't hear about it because the media doesn't choose to make a big fuss about it.

I'm not trying to knock Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham, etc. but I just don't see why they should be praised for their loyalty when sticking with their club was clearly the best thing for their careers. I don't think loyalty to the biggest club is as commendable as some people make it out to be. If they would have started at a smaller club they would have left it and possibly never come back. If ManU for whatever reason fell and became a mid tier club and they were still great players, they probably would have left. True loyalty to a club is only shown when you turn down better career offers to stay at your club (within reason, of course if you're a great player for a very small team or in a small league, of course you'll leave).

A very good example of this for me is Steven Gerrard. He could have gone to a club where he would have been paid more and won more trophies, but he turned them down twice because of his loyalty to his club. And even though his club fell into hard times and sat much lower in the table, he's sticking it out, and I bet he would even if the owners were terrible and there was no chance of them recovering within the next few years. And of course the best example would be Le Tissier, a great player who stayed at a small club out of loyalty. That is much more commendable than the loyalty of Xavi, Puyol, Raul, Giggs, Zanetti, etc.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
516
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I wonder how many players have done in history. (stay at one club)
 
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just skimmed through the post.

They would have gone to Italian league or Spanish league where they would have earned 2X or 3X the money they earned here. But they didn't. Reason, they were loyal to the club and never wanted to move.

All his Career Giggs had so many enquiries from Serie A, Juventus and Inter Milan to be specific. But it never came close as Giggs was not interested in the move.
No one was bothered to enquire about Scholes, who according to ZIdane is the toughest opposition, complete player and best midfielder of his generation. Reason, Scholes was never remotely interested in the move to earn mega big bucks.

Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Solskjaer, Maldini, Del Piero, Totti, Xavi, Puyol, Le Tissier, Zanetti are all amzingly loyal players. You cant get much better than them.
 
Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
I just skimmed through the post.

They would have gone to Italian league or Spanish league where they would have earned 2X or 3X the money they earned here. But they didn't. Reason, they were loyal to the club and never wanted to move.

All his Career Giggs had so many enquiries from Serie A, Juventus and Inter Milan to be specific. But it never came close as Giggs was not interested in the move.
No one was bothered to enquire about Scholes, who according to ZIdane is the toughest opposition, complete player and best midfielder of his generation. Reason, Scholes was never remotely interested in the move to earn mega big bucks.

Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Solskjaer, Maldini, Del Piero, Totti, Xavi, Puyol, Le Tissier, Zanetti are all amzingly loyal players. You cant get much better than them.
Would they really have earned two to three times more? I'm not sure about what salaries were like in the 90's, but if they would have earned more if they went elsewhere, I guess it's good they stayed at United, but still, would you prefer to earn 4 million a year and win a trophy, or 5 million a year and not?

I didn't mean to pick on ManU, I just used them as an example, the same goes for these players. Xavi? Puyol? Where else would they have gone too? The only club equal in stature to Barca in Spain is Real Madrid, and if they went there, they would be the most hated men in Spain (Figo). Totti? Roma is one of the big 4 in Italy, where else would he have gone too? Maldini? He played for the biggest club in Italy, where else would he have gone to? Maybe Real Madrid in the 00's, they would have paid him more, but he chose his club and country over making x amount of millions instead of y amount of millions. The same goes for Zanetti. That's good I guess but don't see why that's as big of a deal as people make it out to be...I would have done the same if I was in his shoes, and I think many of you are the same. If I was adored at the biggest club in my country, a club equal in stature to any in the world, and made a ton of money, I would stay, even if there was another club in a different country willing to pay me a bit more. This is exactly what I'm talking about. They're filthy rich and can afford to turn down the money.

Del Piero is a good example because he helped Juventus get through Serie B, but he was old by that point anyway. Le Tissier is by far the best example in the thread. He should be commended for his loyalty much more than anyone else mentioned. But that was a different era. If he played nowadays, I'm sure a 50 million quid offer would have come to Sunderland that they would have had to take.

I guess the real point is how much the money-grubbing whores (players like Adebayor) suck.



As for Scholes/Zidane, Zidane said that because he's humble...Zidane is definitely the best player of our generation. If you don't believe me, check out the best players of all time thread. He's mentioned much more than Scholes, and this is an English forum.
 
Last edited:
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Would they really have earned two to three times more? I'm not sure about what salaries were like in the 90's, but if they would have earned more if they went elsewhere, I guess it's good they stayed at United, but still, would you prefer to earn 4 million a year and win a trophy, or 5 million a year and not?

I didn't mean to pick on ManU, I just used them as an example, the same goes for these players. Xavi? Puyol? Where else would they have gone too? The only club equal in stature to Barca in Spain is Real Madrid, and if they went there, they would be the most hated men in Spain (Figo). Totti? Roma is one of the big 4 in Italy, where else would he have gone too? Maldini? He played for the biggest club in Italy, where else would he have gone to? Maybe Real Madrid in the 00's, they would have paid him more, but he chose his club and country over making x amount of millions instead of y amount of millions. That's good I guess but don't see why that's so commendable...I would have done the same if I was in his shoes. If I was adored at the biggest club in my country, a club equal in stature to any in the world, and made a ton of money, I would stay, even if there was another club in a different country willing to pay me a bit more. This is exactly what I'm talking about. They're filthy rich and can afford to turn down the money.

Del Piero is a good example because he helped Juventus get through Serie B, but he was old by that point anyway. Le Tissier is by far the best example in the thread. He should be commended for his loyalty much more than anyone else mentioned.
Giggsy, Scholes would have earned so much had they moved to any club. And Maldini would have walked into any team in the world. Totti rejected big European clubs as he wanted to stay with Roma. That is call coz of Loyalty.

What you are saying is, at big clubs players are not loyal even if they are one club player. How does that work. Yes, Players sticking with smaller teams should be praised more, but why to take any credit away from the ones who stayed at bigger clubs.

Simply they were loyal and talented to nail the spot for decades.

For players winning trophies is not the only thing in the game. Money matters for the most and like i said, all the players i mentioned would have earned a lot lot more, had they moved from the clubs.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

Xavi and Puyol stayed with Barca when they were struggling. They would have gone to any league and any team. But they didn't. They are all loyal players.
 
Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I think bashing there loyalty due to the club they were at is really unfair, Italian Football in the 90s was more prestigious then the EPL and as already stated Juve and Inter really inquired about giggs

As for claiming that they would bench warmers in Madrid, if there are any players of British Descent who havent been over-hyped its Giggs and Scholes and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of an insult
 
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Points
16
As for Scholes/Zidane, Zidane said that because he's humble...Zidane is definitely the best player of our generation. If you don't believe me, check out the best players of all time thread. He's mentioned much more than Scholes.
True, Zidane is a class act and very humble. But can you say the same thing about players like Theirry Henry, Veira or Fabregas who have echoed practically the same thoughts on Scholes?
 
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As for Scholes/Zidane, Zidane said that because he's humble...Zidane is definitely the best player of our generation. If you don't believe me, check out the best players of all time thread. He's mentioned much more than Scholes.
Oh I missed this. Yes Zidane is better than Scholes. I just posted what Zidane said.

And lol at the bolded part. You think the thread shows who is the best player? This forum is full of 13-15 year old people(No disrespect though) and you want to base your opinion on what they post?
 
Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Giggsy, Scholes would have earned so much had they moved to any club. And Maldini would have walked into any team in the world. Totti rejected big European clubs as he wanted to stay with Roma. That is call coz of Loyalty.

What you are saying is, at big clubs players are not loyal even if they are one club player. How does that work. Yes, Players sticking with smaller teams should be praised more, but why to take any credit away from the ones who stayed at bigger clubs.

Simply they were loyal and talented to nail the spot for decades.

For players winning trophies is not the only thing in the game. Money matters for the most and like i said, all the players i mentioned would have earned a lot lot more, had they moved from the clubs.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

Xavi and Puyol stayed with Barca when they were struggling. They would have gone to any league and any team. But they didn't. They are all loyal players.
Are you sure about the salaries? By the 00's the Prem became the highest paying league, and I doubt it was far off from Spain or Italy in the 90's. Even still, if I'm an athlete, trophies are my priority. If you'd ask me if I wanted 4 million and a trophy or 6 million without, I'd take the former. If I spent my entire life trying to win, that would be my priority over money. This is within reason of course, if you asked me if I wanted the trophy and no money or 5 million, I'd take the 5 million. But these players make tons of money. At least this how it is in the States for most players. There's a salary cap in the NFL and NBA, and rather than be the one good player on a crappy team and earn a huge salary, many of them stay on good teams where they know they'll get paid less. A lot of players actually take big paycuts and move to a good team where they know they'll win a championship. Football should be the same.

As for Maldini, that's my point. He was at a club just as big as any in the world and made tons of money. The only place he would have made more money would be Real Madrid in the Galactico era, and maybe an English team in the 00's. But why leave your country, the club you had grown up in, and the fans that worship you for a team that will discard you later? What's a few extra millions when you're already a millionaire?

Totti is similar: Roma is one of the big 4 in Italy and wins silverware. He gets paid tons of money. I guess it's good that he didn't jump ship for one of the Milans, where he would have won a couple of others, but he would have been hated by the entire city of Rome had he done so, and eventually they would have discarded him, and where would he have gone to?

True, Xavi and Puyol stayed at Barca when it was struggling, good for them. But as I said before, no way they could have gone to Madrid, and Barca is Spain's second biggest team. Eventually it would improve and get better than Valencia, Sevilla, etc. So it made sense to stay at Barca.

I think bashing there loyalty due to the club they were at is really unfair, Italian Football in the 90s was more prestigious then the EPL and as already stated Juve and Inter really inquired about giggs

As for claiming that they would bench warmers in Madrid, if there are any players of British Descent who havent been over-hyped its Giggs and Scholes and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of an insult
Oh come on, I wasn't "bashing" their loyalty, I was just saying people make too big a deal out of it. As for Giggs, why leave a team you're well established in and you know you're going to win trophies? What if he didn't settle well to Italian football? Staying at ManU made sense.

First of all, where did I say Giggs and Scholes were overhyped? All I said was that I didn't think they would have fit into Real Madrid's midfield, and in Giggs' case, most would agree with me. I think Zidane and Figo at that time were better than Giggs, and I think most people would agree with me. But somehow that's an insult? If you think that suggesting Zidane (who many think is one of the 3 best players of all time) and Figo are better than Giggs is an insult, than you have some serious problems.

Anyways, even if I did suggest they were overhyped, suggesting a player is over-hyped, how is that an insult? People can have opinions, football is subjective. If I think a player is overrated, it's no insult, it's simply my opinion. Some will agree and others won't, but no way it's "insulting" in any way. If you have severe emotional issues and can't handle someone disagreeing about the quality of one of your favorite players, than yeah, you might take it as an insult, but if that's the case than you should take a break from following the sport.

But yeah, actually I do think that Giggs is overhyped. I've heard several people declare he's the best player of all time, which is ludicrous. He was a great role player for many years but never was in the same class as Maradona or Zidane. As for Scholes, I think he was a bit underhyped. A great player and people don't make as big of a deal about him as they could.
 
Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oh I missed this. Yes Zidane is better than Scholes. I just posted what Zidane said.

And lol at the bolded part. You think the thread shows who is the best player? This forum is full of 13-15 year old people(No disrespect though) and you want to base your opinion on what they post?
A lot taken ;) Nah JK

Although yeah Zidane is probably better than Scholes but he did disgrace himself at the WC which took away from his rep IMO.
But Scholes is definitely very good and so is Giggs and Neville, and they have been great servants to their clubs. It just shows some people in footy are not just in it for the money... not mentioning any names ehh ehmm CR!
 
Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Oh I missed this. Yes Zidane is better than Scholes. I just posted what Zidane said.

And lol at the bolded part. You think the thread shows who is the best player? This forum is full of 13-15 year old people(No disrespect though) and you want to base your opinion on what they post?
Clearly it's not an objective source on who is the best player (and there isn't one, since it isn't objective), but this is an English forum. The point I was making is that if even an English forum says Zidane is better than Scholes, than it's probably true. I'll edit it to make that clear.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Points
16
People also need to know, salaries may seem higher in the EPL than the other European leagues, but take into account the ridiculous tax rate in England, isn't it something like 50% tax for anyone making over a 100,00 a year?
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
People also need to know, salaries may seem higher in the EPL than the other European leagues, but take into account the ridiculous tax rate in England, isn't it something like 50% tax for anyone making over a 100,00 a year?
yes it is, as opposed to 25% in spain for example
 
SAF greatest ever.
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Are you sure about the salaries? By the 00's the Prem became the highest paying league, and I doubt it was far off from Spain or Italy in the 90's.
Italy and Spain teams spend so much on wages, it is unreal. Even now Ibra, Robinho are paid handsome money comapred to many in English league. Serie A and La liga always paid better wages than any. At United Giggsy and Scholesy were never paid over the odds.

Even still, if I'm an athlete, trophies are my priority.
It is not about me and you. It is about the player who is earning. We can talk the talk, but when it comes to the real life, I'm not sure what you or me would have done.

As for Maldini, that's my point. He was at a club just as big as any in the world and made tons of money. The only place he would have made more money would be Real Madrid in the Galactico era,
So still he had better place to move but he didn't. And AC Milan were not winning everything there is to win in the late 90s if I'm not wrong. It was Juventus who dominated.

. But why leave your country, the club you had grown up in, and the fans that worship you for a team that will discard you later? What's a few extra millions when you're already a millionaire?
That is what i call loyalty. He loved his Club and country and stayed for his whole career.


Totti is similar: Roma is one of the big 4 in Italy and wins silverware. He gets paid tons of money. I guess it's good that he didn't jump ship for one of the Milans, where he would have won a couple of others, but he would have been hated by the entire city of Rome had he done so, and eventually they would have discarded him, and where would he have gone to?
If I'm not wrong he rejected a move to Real madrid where he would have been paid much better than at Roma, would have won more titles. Big 4 is nothing if you are not winning titles.
True, Xavi and Puyol stayed at Barca when it was struggling, good for them. But as I said before, no way they could have gone to Madrid, and Barca is Spain's second biggest team.
Why only Madrid. They could have moved to Italy or England. But they didn't. They sticked with their club all the time. Hence they are loyal to Barca.
 
Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Italy and Spain teams spend so much on wages, it is unreal. Even now Ibra, Robinho are paid handsome money comapred to many in English league. Serie A and La liga always paid better wages than any. At United Giggsy and Scholesy were never paid over the odds.
Maybe that was the case in the 90's in Serie A, as for La Liga, the only teams that can afford big wages are the big two. When was the Juve interest for Giggs? The other thing we have to keep in mind is endorsements...this is a huge part of a player's income, and Giggs, etc. would make a lot more from that staying in England.

It is not about me and you. It is about the player who is earning. We can talk the talk, but when it comes to the real life, I'm not sure what you or me would have done.
Yet why is it so common in America for athletes to take pay cuts so they can win a championship?

So still he had better place to move but he didn't. And AC Milan were not winning everything there is to win in the late 90s if I'm not wrong. It was Juventus who dominated.
If you stay at a club for 20 years, yeah, they won't win the trophy all of the time. AC Milan is the biggest club in Italy though so I doubt he would want to leave. And yeah, he didn't leave for Real Madrid, good for him. He liked it better in his home country where he was at the biggest club (as big as any in the world) and one of its icons. Cool. I just don't see what's so amazing about it, I would've stayed there too if I was in his shoes.

That is what i call loyalty. He loved his Club and country and stayed for his whole career.
What if Cagliari was his club? Do you think he would have stayed there? I'm not saying he wasn't loyal, I'm just saying that his situation was great and there was only one possibility of something better, and that was Madrid, where he would get a slightly higher salary. A lot of players wouldn't want to play there for various reasons, so I don't think him rejecting Madrid necessarily makes him super loyal.

If I'm not wrong he rejected a move to Real madrid where he would have been paid much better than at Roma, would have won more titles. Big 4 is nothing if you are not winning titles.
Again, Madrid is a dangerous place to go to. There is a good chance he would have been benched in favor of say, Ronaldo. It's not always a career move. And he did win titles at Roma and they were almost always in the title race. So there wasn't really a move upward. He could have gone to Milan and won a couple more trophies, but would have been hated by his old fans and city. Or he could have gone to Real Madrid, which wasn't necessarily a good move for him.

Why only Madrid. They could have moved to Italy or England. But they didn't. They sticked with their club all the time. Hence they are loyal to Barca.
A few things here. First, Xavi would not do well in the Premiership. Second, they're Catalans. Playing at Barca was a dream for them, and it's as big as any club in the world. Think about their situation. They're Catalans who come through Barca's youth side and eventually into the first team. This was in the early 00's by the way, after Barca's struggles. They weren't huge players back then, I don't think there was foreign interest. Early in their career, in 2004, Barca is the best team in the world with Ronaldinho playing out of this world football and Rijkaard as the coach. It's not like they were well-established players who were on a team that was seriously declining and would want to jump ship. They came through the Barca system, and within a couple of years, Barca became a great team and they were key players.


I'm not saying these guys aren't loyal, I'm simply saying that they did what I think many people would do if in their shoes, so we shouldn't make that big of a deal about it. Shouldn't their loyalty be the expectation, not the exception? Isn't this how professional athletes are supposed to act? I mean they're stars who make millions, shouldn't they respect and stick with the clubs that made them?
 
Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Le Tissier is by far the best example in the thread. He should be commended for his loyalty much more than anyone else mentioned. But that was a different era. If he played nowadays, I'm sure a 50 million quid pffer would have come to Sunderland that they would have had to take.
Le Tiss played for Southampton. Kthnxbye.
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
They are professionals, which gives them the right to move to another club for whatever reason, same way you would move to another job for whatever reason. So I dont think really say that it should be the expectation.

The Juve interest for giggs was in the late 90's, infact it was the summer before our treble. When the Italian league was at its peak, and money recieved for endorsments then was nothing like today, Giigs would have easily earned more in Serie A, where the wages were completely insane for the period
 
Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1
Points
36
They are professionals, which gives them the right to move to another club for whatever reason, same way you would move to another job for whatever reason. So I dont think really say that it should be the expectation.

The Juve interest for giggs was in the late 90's, infact it was the summer before our treble. When the Italian league was at its peak, and money recieved for endorsments then was nothing like today, Giigs would have easily earned more in Serie A, where the wages were completely insane for the period
Football is not a normal profession. Unlike us, they make millions, have the best job in the world, and don't need more money. Also, they are trained by a club and go through its youth system and then are developed by the club. The club has invested a lot in them besides their wages. So they should show loyalty to the club. It's usually not like this so much with a job, but when it is, people usually show loyalty to the company. When they don't, they aren't respected. Anyways, even before football players will made millions, they usually respected their clubs and don't carry on like the do today. Loyal players like Giggs were the norm back then.

Good for Giggs then for not leaving for the money. But why leave ManU at that point? He was well-established at the biggest club in his country and the most popular in the world. He had been brought through the youth system and had been there for years. He was loved by the fans. He was playing under possibly the greatest manager in the history of the sport. If he left to earn x amount of millions instead of y amount of millions and left the club for that reason, I would have no respect for him and neither should you. The fans surely wouldn't.

Players like Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should be the NORM. This is how professional athletes ought to act. So we shouldn't be praising them like crazy. Anyone who doesn't show loyalty to their club and just plays for the money should be a rare exception and they shouldn't be respected.

So that's what bothers me. These guys are worshipped by the media just for doing what should be expected of them.
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Football is not a normal profession. Unlike us, they make millions, have the best job in the world, and don't need more money. Also, they are trained by a club and go through its youth system and then are developed by the club. The club has invested a lot in them besides their wages. So they should show loyalty to the club. It's usually not like this so much with a job, but when it is, people usually show loyalty to the company. When they don't, they aren't respected. Anyways, even before football players will made millions, they usually respected their clubs and don't carry on like the do today. Loyal players like Giggs were the norm back then.

Good for Giggs then for not leaving for the money. But why leave ManU at that point? He was well-established at the biggest club in his country and the most popular in the world. He had been brought through the youth system and had been there for years. He was loved by the fans. He was playing under possibly the greatest manager in the history of the sport. If he left to earn x amount of millions instead of y amount of millions and left the club for that reason, I would have no respect for him and neither should you. The fans surely wouldn't.

Players like Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should be the NORM. This is how professional athletes ought to act. So we shouldn't be praising them like crazy. Anyone who doesn't show loyalty to their club and just plays for the money should be a rare exception and they shouldn't be respected.

So that's what bothers me. These guys are worshipped by the media just for doing what should be expected of them.
Your first sentence is a bit flawed; what about bankers, investment brokers, major lawyers, business leaders. all these guys make millions at the top, they dont need more money. Arent they not normal professions, yet no one complains they seek better jobs. also you forget thats its only the elite who make that kind of money (same as the professions i mentioned) what about the lower league players, certainly the many who have second jobs and trades.

Your next point on loyalty certainly not always true in other professions, people always climb the job ladder all the time in real life.

Football was a lot less business like back then, the game has changed so it makes little sense to draw distinctions back to the 70's etc and even then players still moved from club to club.

Giggs could have left for many reason, he wanted to try something else, get even more money, play for an even bigger club (at the time), not sure why you ignore any of those factors Your second paragraph is all your opinion, not fact. Nor can you tell me that i shouldnt have respect for him if he had left. Up till that point he had performed to his ability, and justified the money he was getting paid, like any other person at the top of his profession he is entitled to seek other opportunities. Whether people like it is neither here or there. No boss in any profession likes to lose a top employee

Again your last paragraph is what you as a person expect from them, its not fact.
 
Last edited:
Top