Loyalty

[sunilvk7]

See what you are saying is It is nothing special to paly for single club like Maldini, Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Xavi, Puyol when they play for one of the biggest clubs in the world. Do me a favor plz list few more players who played for only one club (Milan, ManUtd, Barca). It is not as easy as you think. You are just downplaying their achievements by assuming they wouldn't have stayed at smaller clubs. How exactly can you say this? Assumption.

I go by what i see, Giggsy, Scholesy, Maldini, Neville, Del Piero, Xavi, Puyol are all excellent players and also loyal for their teams. Had they played for some other team, would they stayed with the same team? I dont know, i dont want to assume anything. End Of.

[COLOR=#00e0]---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------[/COLOR]

Can you please list few more players who stayed with one single top club for their career as you think it is norm and minimum expectations from the players playing for the top club.

[COLOR=#00e0]---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------[/COLOR]

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 .

Exactly. Manchester United was not as global or big as it is today. Back in 90s it was all Italian leagues and late 90s Juventus were one of the best teams. Still he didn't move and stayed for his entire career.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------

So that's what bothers me. These guys are worshipped by the media just for doing what should be expected of them.

Actually these guys are worshipped as they are doing something that many are not able to do. Over 90% cant even dream to do. Stay loyal.

Talk is cheap and we can say i would have stayed with small or big club for my entire career. But how many players have actually dont it? That itself warrants all the praise they are getting. That is why people always respect players who played for only one club as it is very rare sight.

 

[curtis290]

Your first sentence is 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. also you forget thats its only the elite who make that kind of money (same as the proffessions 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.

I don't consider anyone who makes a million dollars working for a 'normal profession.' Anyways, the point I was making is football players play a sport for a living. It's a job because they get paid, but it's more than just a job. They are athletes who are trying to win. If you're an investment banker, your only goal is profit. Athletes have other goals. But most importantly, you don't have fans as an investment banker, and athletes do. That comes with a set of obligations. And again, the club trains you as a player from your youth. Businesses don't take you under their wing when you're 15, pay for your school and training, and then work you into the company. If they did, than yeah, you should be expected to show loyalty to them.

As for lower league footballers, I don't know anything about them so I won't comment. I have a feeling though that they're a lot more loyal professional than the wealthier ones since they probably play the sport for pure competition rather than the wages. If they leave for money though I don't blame them. They probably sacrificed their 'real-life' career to play, and if they move clubs so they can put a roof over their heads, than I don't blame them. But what about them? What was the point you were trying to make?

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.

As for comparing football to back then, why can't we compare the two eras? Football is football. It was 11 on 11 back then just as it is now. The difference is that today money has corrupted sports. That's the point I'm making. I think that since the players make such a good living, they should show some loyalty to their club and fans (the ones who ultimately pay for their inflated salaries). Back then, football wasn't a good career choice, you made little money and had to sacrifice your life to play it (you would have no other career options afterwards). Today, they make enough money where all they have to worry about is football, and they live in a dream world where they make millions of dollars (thanks to us, who shell out a lot of money for tickets and TV channels). If someone in the 70's switched clubs so they could feed their family, of course I wouldn't blame them. But I don't respect players who switch clubs just for an extra million or two.

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

If Giggs left because he wanted a new challenge, than I would be fine with that and so would have the fans. If he left just for the money, than that wouldn't have been OK and I'm sure the fans would have been upset about it and you would have as well. But for all of the reasons above, he stayed, which I think is pretty understandable. All I'm saying is that there were many obvious reasons to stay at ManU, so he's not a Le Tissier, and I don't think we're justified in going crazy over his loyalty to ManU, because there were so many obvious reasons to stay there.

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

Yeah, that's the claim I was making. We should expect loyalty and professionalism from the players, not gush over the 5 in the whole league that do. That's the sorry state sports are in these days because of business ruining the game. We're the ones that shell out ridiculous amounts of money for it, so ultimately our money enabled and caused their selfish behavior. A sick twist of irony.



What bothers me though is your line of thinking and how much it typifies how money controls the game. You keep on using the sports to business metaphors: "well if you want to climb up the job ladder..." But sports is not a business, it is much more than that. Businesses don't invest in their employees the way clubs do. More importantly, a club is not a business. Yes it is a business in many ways, but is much more than that. The fans are not simply consumers. You may prefer McDonald's to Burger King, but do you support McDonald's in the same way you support ManU? You probably shell out tons of money to ManU, support the team, and invest a lot of emotion into them. It's a completely different thing.

As an athlete, you have a different set of responsibilities than a normal employer. You work for a club, not a business, that invested a lot in you. You're doing more than just 'going to work,' you're playing a sport, and it's a job many would kill to have, even if they didn't get paid at all. And you have thousands (millions in the case of ManU) of fans, a lot of whom spend a lot of money to go to your games, have supported their club their entire lives and put a lot of emotion into it (and can help you win when they're loud). What do you tell the 14 year old kid who was a huge fan of Adebayor when he decides to leave for Man City when Arsenal are close to winning a title for the first time in a while and City are clearly a ways a way? That kind of behavior, IMO, is extremely disappointing, and it's sad that our society is so accepting of it. It's sad that people respond by saying "oh, well he's an employee, it's his right to do that" etc. Yeah it's his right to do so but that doesn't mean we should be so tolerant of it.

 

[King Sid]

I think you're trying to ruin the reputation of some of the world's best players. Players have the same right as everyone else to want a new challenge, go somewhere else. Yes the fans have payed lots of money over the years to support the club and the club has put money into their development and wages BUT they in turn have helped the club win trophies.

If the club wasn't winning trophies and getting prize money as a result of players like Scholes, Giggs, Xavi, Puyol etc then they wouldn't have the money to pay these players. They wouldn't be the biggest clubs in the world. Therefore over the years you could say the players have earnt themselves the right to a new challenge if they wish. Had they moved immediately after development then it would be a disgrace but once you have won all you can with one club it would be natural to try and win other trophies.

I'm not condoning the wages or the money in football these days, it's ruining the sport. BUT these players had done the best they could at their clubs, won all they could. It would have been fair enough for them to move abroad for a new challenge, to win other trophies they couldn't win at home. They didn't though and this is why they should be commended for their loyalty.

 

[sunilvk7]

Players who are loyal to the clubs have a common reason, They love the club and are passionate about it. I dont think any other factors make a player to stay at the same club for decades except the love for the club.

All I'm saying is that there were many obvious reasons to stay at ManU, so he's not a Le Tissier, and I don't think we're justified in going crazy over his loyalty to ManU, because there were so many obvious reasons to stay there.

We can argue that Le Tissier was never ambitious to test himself at biggest stage. It is easy to donwplay anyone's achievements.

To put it simple, No player who stayed at top club for his entire career is loyal as they have reasons to do it. And you think Le Tissier had no reasons to stay at Southampton.

 

[jolena]

to be honest.those times are over...now the players disrespect theire teams and go where they can earn more.as an "standaard liege "supporter i know what happends to smaller clubs in europ.even if the will not play a lot by theire new "bigger" club they will still leave.just for the money.nothing less or more.and those players will fail and be miseribly in the end (exept a few exeptions) for example standard sold Milan Jovanović to liverpool.what happend? on the bench.lots of money yesssss but what of the love for the game? football is a passion and if youre club gives u all u need why should u go? and by the way youre all lucky in england.u get to keep mostly all of youre good players.in belgium..everything leaves when they are a little bit good.what wil happen to dufour,lukaku,vossen if a big player will show up??? bye bye club love and yess moneyyyyyyy....
the player who are loyal are verry verry rare...

 

[DanWalsallFC]

I'd be loyal to one club on their wage too.
It's lower league loyalty which I see as more admirable.

 

[Mike.]

I don't consider anyone who makes a million dollars working for a 'normal profession.' Anyways, the point I was making is football players play a sport for a living. It's a job because they get paid, but it's more than just a job. They are athletes who are trying to win. If you're an investment banker, your only goal is profit. Athletes have other goals. But most importantly, you don't have fans as an investment banker, and athletes do. That comes with a set of obligations. And again, the club trains you as a player from your youth. Businesses don't take you under their wing when you're 15, pay for your school and training, and then work you into the company. If they did, than yeah, you should be expected to show loyalty to them.

As for lower league footballers, I don't know anything about them so I won't comment. I have a feeling though that they're a lot more loyal professional than the wealthier ones since they probably play the sport for pure competition rather than the wages. If they leave for money though I don't blame them. They probably sacrificed their 'real-life' career to play, and if they move clubs so they can put a roof over their heads, than I don't blame them. But what about them? What was the point you were trying to make?



As for comparing football to back then, why can't we compare the two eras? Football is football. It was 11 on 11 back then just as it is now. The difference is that today money has corrupted sports. That's the point I'm making. I think that since the players make such a good living, they should show some loyalty to their club and fans (the ones who ultimately pay for their inflated salaries). Back then, football wasn't a good career choice, you made little money and had to sacrifice your life to play it (you would have no other career options afterwards). Today, they make enough money where all they have to worry about is football, and they live in a dream world where they make millions of dollars (thanks to us, who shell out a lot of money for tickets and TV channels). If someone in the 70's switched clubs so they could feed their family, of course I wouldn't blame them. But I don't respect players who switch clubs just for an extra million or two.



If Giggs left because he wanted a new challenge, than I would be fine with that and so would have the fans. If he left just for the money, than that wouldn't have been OK and I'm sure the fans would have been upset about it and you would have as well. But for all of the reasons above, he stayed, which I think is pretty understandable. All I'm saying is that there were many obvious reasons to stay at ManU, so he's not a Le Tissier, and I don't think we're justified in going crazy over his loyalty to ManU, because there were so many obvious reasons to stay there.



Yeah, that's the claim I was making. We should expect loyalty and professionalism from the players, not gush over the 5 in the whole league that do. That's the sorry state sports are in these days because of business ruining the game. We're the ones that shell out ridiculous amounts of money for it, so ultimately our money enabled and caused their selfish behavior. A sick twist of irony.



What bothers me though is your line of thinking and how much it typifies how money controls the game. You keep on using the sports to business metaphors: "well if you want to climb up the job ladder..." But sports is not a business, it is much more than that. Businesses don't invest in their employees the way clubs do. More importantly, a club is not a business. Yes it is a business in many ways, but is much more than that. The fans are not simply consumers. You may prefer McDonald's to Burger King, but do you support McDonald's in the same way you support ManU? You probably shell out tons of money to ManU, support the team, and invest a lot of emotion into them. It's a completely different thing.

As an athlete, you have a different set of responsibilities than a normal employer. You work for a club, not a business, that invested a lot in you. You're doing more than just 'going to work,' you're playing a sport, and it's a job many would kill to have, even if they didn't get paid at all. And you have thousands (millions in the case of ManU) of fans, a lot of whom spend a lot of money to go to your games, have supported their club their entire lives and put a lot of emotion into it (and can help you win when they're loud). What do you tell the 14 year old kid who was a huge fan of Adebayor when he decides to leave for Man City when Arsenal are close to winning a title for the first time in a while and City are clearly a ways a way? That kind of behavior, IMO, is extremely disappointing, and it's sad that our society is so accepting of it. It's sad that people respond by saying "oh, well he's an employee, it's his right to do that" etc. Yeah it's his right to do so but that doesn't mean we should be so tolerant of it.

hang on wait, becuase they earn lots of money at the top non of them are normal professions. riiiight...

you say fans invest emotionally yet they shouldnt laud the players who stay at their club forever.

We are talking about the game today, not back, then and it has changed, for better or for worse. Thr truth is that many players don't stick around any more and therefore most fans feel we should take pride in the players who do. If you dont want to, that's your perogative, but i cant see how you can say others shouldnt do the same.

thats all from me on this

 

[curtis290]

See what you are saying is It is nothing special to paly for single club like Maldini, Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Xavi, Puyol when they play for one of the biggest clubs in the world. Do me a favor plz list few more players who played for only one club (Milan, ManUtd, Barca). It is not as easy as you think. You are just downplaying their achievements by assuming they wouldn't have stayed at smaller clubs. How exactly can you say this? Assumption.

I go by what i see, Giggsy, Scholesy, Maldini, Neville, Del Piero, Xavi, Puyol are all excellent players and also loyal for their teams. Had they played for some other team, would they stayed with the same team? I dont know, i dont want to assume anything. End Of.

I'm not downplaying their achievements, when did I say that? They're all obviously great players. I'm just making the point that everyone gushes over their loyalty, when I think some of that gushing isn't justified. For pretty much all of those players, it was in their best interest to stay at their clubs, so that alone doesn't prove their loyalty. In the case of Le Tissier, it does. People should make a huge deal about that type of loyalty, and I think it should be more common.

So I think it's other people who are doing the assuming. They assume that these players would not have left the club if it were in serious troubles, which is a much truer mark of loyalty than just staying with a really successful club. The argument I'm trying to make is that ultimately we don't know how loyal these players are because it is also in their best interests to stay at their respective clubs. Since we don't know how loyal they really are, I say we should stop gushing over it. More importantly, we should stop gushing over it because loyalty should be expected from players.

Here's an example: Rooney is a promising young English player and leaves Everton for ManU. Obviously he's going to win more trophies at ManU, so of course I don't think less of him for wanting to leave (unless it was secretly just for the money, in which case, I would respect him much less). Now, had he stayed at Everton and waited until the owners built a winning team around him (and convinced good young players in the team to do the same), and they did and maybe grabbed a trophy or two, I would think that was really, really awesome. I think it's too bad that this is completely unheard of in the modern age: you would think there would be some players who would do this out of loyalty to the clubs that developed them as youth players and/or put a lot of faith into them, but we never see this happen. It would be a much truer mark of loyalty than Zanetti's, for example, who happens to be loyal to the best team in Italy. Zanetti might be a more loyal player for all we know, but we'd have to make that judgement based on something else.

[COLOR=#00e0]---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------[/COLOR]

Can you please list few more players who stayed with one single top club for their career as you think it is norm and minimum expectations from the players playing for the top club.

[COLOR=#00e0]---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------[/COLOR]

There's a long list that someone posted. It used to be much more common, back in the days before sports were ruined by money. It's also pretty common in the states. Michael Jordan, the best basketball player of all team (possibly best athlete of all time), stayed with the Bulls for years even though they weren't a good team (this was in the days before the salary cap). But his waiting was rewarded and they eventually built a great team around him and he won championships. You wouldn't see this anymore in football, and it's really too bad.

You don't have to be a one club man to be loyal, and being a one club man doesn't necessarily make you loyal either. That's why I brought up the example of United. Their loyal players just happen to loyal to the best team in their country, the biggest team in the world, under possibly the best manager in history. Am I saying they're not loyal players? No. I'm just saying I don't necessarily know how loyal they truly are, so I'm not going to make a huge fuss about them. If Ferguson left years ago, when they were still good and the team struggled and they lost a lot of good players, and those guys stayed with ManU through thick and then, then yeah, we could much more definitely say that they're loyal. Just like we can more definitively say that Le Tissier is loyal. Does that mean that Le Tissier is more loyal than Giggs? Of course not (not that there's a way to objectively measure loyalty anyway though, it's just for the sake of explanation). It does mean though that we know more definitively that he is loyal. Because of that, I am willing to make a bigger deal of Le Tissier's loyalty than Giggs'.

As for loyal players who move clubs, there are many, and we don't make a big deal about their loyalty. Kun Aguero is a great example. He grew up a fan of Independiente, played in their youth team and made his way up to the first team (debutting as the youngest player to ever play in the Argentine top division) and had a great but short Independiente career. Then he left for Atletico Madrid. His sale paid for their new stadium and the fans still thank him for it. He is still extremely loyal to Independiente and plans on returning. Veron has a similar story, started at Estudiantes, got really good, tested himself in Europe, and when he was old, returned to Estudiantes.

These players are just as loyal as Giggs or Scholes, but we don't hear about them because they aren't one club men. Unlike Giggs and Scholes though, the clubs they are loyal to are in a much smaller league, and they want to test themselves against the highest level of competition (much different than the Rooney Everton scenario, where he already is in the best league and the team can improve in a different way). The salaries in Argentina are also extremely low. I know I said before money shouldn't count, but when the difference is that extreme, I don't blame them (although I might if that was their only reason). I'm not talking about the difference between EPL and Serie A wages, I'm talking about European-based players earning 10 times as much as the highest paid Argentines (look at FM if you don't believe me).

That's the main point I'm trying to make. Yes, Giggs and Scholes are one club men, but it's for the biggest club in the world. So I don't think they're necessarily more loyal than a lot of other players who switch clubs. But we don't hear about their professionalism, all we hear about is Giggs' and Scholes'.

Exactly. Manchester United was not as global or big as it is today. Back in 90s it was all Italian leagues and late 90s Juventus were one of the best teams. Still he didn't move and stayed for his entire career.

Actually, by the time Giggs was good and in his prime at ManU and when the Italian interest came in, it was the biggest club in the world. In the mid to late 90's the Premiership did a great job of selling itself overseas, which is why there was so much Beckham fever in Asia. It was in the process of establishing itself as a huge global brand, even more reason not to leave. All I'm saying is that he had a lot of interest in staying at ManU.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------

Actually these guys are worshipped as they are doing something that many are not able to do. Over 90% cant even dream to do. Stay loyal.

Talk is cheap and we can say i would have stayed with small or big club for my entire career. But how many players have actually dont it? That itself warrants all the praise they are getting. That is why people always respect players who played for only one club as it is very rare sight.

It's not that players aren't able to stay loyal, it's that they choose not to. They value their paychecks over their clubs. The fact that it's rare is what I'm talking about. It's very sad that there are so few loyal players. I don't expect every player to be a one-club man, as I said before you can be extremely loyal and switch clubs or be a one-club man and not be so loyal, but I think players should show a lot more loyalty and the fans should expect it. Players like Giggs, Scholes, Aguero, Veron, Xavi, etc. should be much more common.

 

[sunilvk7]

I dont know what you mean with that post. Zanetti was amazingly loyal even when Inter were struggling and not won league for 14 years.

Every player stays at club for the best of their interests. I haven't seen anyone who sacrificed himself for club. It is all about striking the balance.

And Giggs, Scholes stayed not because we were successful, they were the reason why we won so much.

Anyways, we are going in circles. Players who stayed at club for decades deserve massive respect and all the praise. Doesn't matter how big or small the club is.

I'm done on this.

 

[curtis290]

I think you're trying to ruin the reputation of some of the world's best players. Players have the same right as everyone else to want a new challenge, go somewhere else. Yes the fans have payed lots of money over the years to support the club and the club has put money into their development and wages BUT they in turn have helped the club win trophies.

If the club wasn't winning trophies and getting prize money as a result of players like Scholes, Giggs, Xavi, Puyol etc then they wouldn't have the money to pay these players. They wouldn't be the biggest clubs in the world. Therefore over the years you could say the players have earnt themselves the right to a new challenge if they wish. Had they moved immediately after development then it would be a disgrace but once you have won all you can with one club it would be natural to try and win other trophies.

I'm not condoning the wages or the money in football these days, it's ruining the sport. BUT these players had done the best they could at their clubs, won all they could. It would have been fair enough for them to move abroad for a new challenge, to win other trophies they couldn't win at home. They didn't though and this is why they should be commended for their loyalty.

No, I'm just pointing out with a lot of these players life was great at their clubs and they had little reason to leave so we shouldn't go crazy over them being so loyal. It's different for Le Tissier.

Players who are loyal to the clubs have a common reason, They love the club and are passionate about it. I dont think any other factors make a player to stay at the same club for decades except the love for the club.



We can argue that Le Tissier was never ambitious to test himself at biggest stage. It is easy to donwplay anyone's achievements.

To put it simple, No player who stayed at top club for his entire career is loyal as they have reasons to do it. And you think Le Tissier had no reasons to stay at Southampton.

Well you don't know exactly why they stay with their clubs, nor do I. The point I'm making is that players like Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, etc. are millionaires that have a ton of reasons to stay with their clubs. So we shouldn't be gushing on about how amazingly loyal they are to their clubs as if they went through some sort of hardship to stay there. Anyways, this type of loyalty (whether or not they stay at one club) should be a lot more common and expected of players these days.

As for Le Tissier, he tested himself at the biggest stage, he was playing in the Premiership. Even though he could have gone to a better club and earned more money, he chose not to due to loyalty to his club. That's not something Xavi did. If Barca collapsed and he had to take a huge paycut and stayed there even though he was much better than everyone on the team, that would prove loyalty, and in that case, all of the praise about his loyalty would be justified (although it would still be too much praise, because that type of thing should be common and we should expect that type of loyalty from the players). But we don't know if his loyalty is that strong, it's never been tested. So I'm not going to go on and on about how loyal Xavi is. I'll just talk about him being a good player. Now if he went to Real Madrid, for example, that would make him extremely disloyal. That type of behavior should never happen but it does. Players like Inzaghi, for example, have no loyalty and go from team to team just to collect money. There are a lot of those types around in football these days (they were much less common back in the day though), and it's sad that people are so accepting of that type of behavior.

hang on wait, becuase they earn lots of money at the top non of them are normal professions. riiiight...

Yeah, I wouldn't consider being the CEO at Microsoft a 'normal' profession. But it's totally inconsequential to my argument, and you're just picking out tiny pieces of it to disagree with because you don't have anything else to say. The main point of those few sentences was the being a football player is not a normal profession, so don't treat it like it is. If Inzaghi goes to a rival team to make more money, don't compare that to going to leaving your job to go to a competitor that will pay you more.

you say fans invest emotionally yet they shouldnt laud the players who stay at their club forever.

When did I say you can't laud Giggs? Like him as much as you want, he's been at your club forever. I'm just saying that neither you nor the media, especially, should act as if he's the most loyal player in the universe just because he never left United. He's not any less loyal than Beckham, for example, who wanted to stay forever but was forced out by Ferguson. But we don't hear about Beckham's loyalty to ManU, do we?

We are talking about the game today, not back, then and it has changed, for better or for worse. Thr truth is that many players don't stick around any more and therefore most fans feel we should take pride in the players who do. If you dont want to, that's your perogative, but i cant see how you can say others shouldnt do the same.

As far as our reaction to loyalty/professionalism goes, I'm saying our reaction should be much different to the guy. Rather than go crazy over the loyalty/professionalism of Xavi or Maldini, we should be ****** off that not everyone is like them. We should be ****** off at the Adebayor's of the world, and we should be ****** off that loyalty and professionalism is rare these days. How can we not expect loyalty and professionalism from these players that earn millions?

You might think Giggs should be praised like crazy for not leaving to Serie A to earn 7 million instead of 6 when there were a million reasons to stay at ManU (again, had he gone for a new challenge, that's one thing, if not, the example applies), but I think that he should have been expected to be loyal to ManU despite the slightly lower salary and if I were a ManU fan, I'd be furious if he went to a different club for money. That would be an extremely disloyal act, so I'm not going to praise Giggs like crazy for choosing not to be extremely disloyal. But it seems that you wouldn't mind if he left for money, because after all, he is simply going to a competing employer that pays more.



My argument is pretty simple. There are two parts.

1. You don't have to be a one club man to be loyal, and being a one club man doesn't necessarily mean you're extremely loyal. I don't see how Giggs is any more loyal to ManU than Beckham, and I don't see how Xavi is more loyal to Barca than Veron is to Estudiantes. Some players, like Le Tissier, are clearly extremely loyal because they turned down chances to play for teams higher up in their league because of their loyalty to the club, so I'll praise him for his loyalty more than Neville's. That's not because he is necessarily more loyal than Neville, but because I have more proof that he's a loyal player.

2. Loyalty and professionalism should be expected of our players. As for loyalty, the clubs invested in these players and developed them, so they should be loyal to them. The fans invested a lot emotionally in them, so they should be loyal to the fans and the club. Since the players earn millions, they don't have a need for money, so if they do leave just for money, than they deserve no respect. Dani Alves is the perfect example. He's going to leave Barca on a free transfer because he doesn't think their new contract offers are good enough. That is extremely disloyal and I've lost a lot of respect for him. Choosing not to do this shouldn't be praised like crazy, it's what we should expect from players we've been loyal to. They should show us the same.

Professionalism should most definitely be expected from the players. The English media goes on and on about the "professionalism" of players like Giggs and Beckham. They say things like "they've never criticized their manager or any of their teammates." They should NOT be praised for that, they should be expected to behave like that. I don't criticize my manager and co-workers, do you? That would be unprofessional, and like a normal employee, I don't do that. If I did, I would be fired. Now, footballers are not normal employees. They are paid millions and they have the best job in the world. So yeah, I expect them to act professionally, and if they don't, it really ****** me off. Why should we spend so much of our hard-earned money supporting them when they can't even act like adults? I'm not going to praise Beckham like crazy just because he doesn't **** his teammates' wife or criticize his manager or spit on players, I think good behavior should be expected of him. You don't agree?



Face it, I used ManU players in my OP example (mainly because Neville just retired and the media goes on and on about them) and you get sensitive about it and so you had to disagree. If I would have used Puyol and Xavi instead of Giggs and Neville you would have agreed with me.

 

[dasty]

I couldn't be bothered to browse through you every single reply because they're so horribly long, but I would like to get a few things straight.

1. In the 90s, the Italian league is the biggest and richest league in the whole world by far. You can say that Giggs might earn only a bit more than he does if he stays in Man Utd, but that would not be the case if you look at the financial power of Italian clubs in the 90s and early 00s. Don't believe me? Let's look at the transfer fees paid. Crespo - 35.5m, Buffon 32.6m, Vieri - 32m, Nedved 30.7m, Mendieta 28m, Ronaldo 19m etc. Transfer records were smashed seasons after seasons and the salaries paid were enormous. You might not have been watching football then but that was the time when the Serie A is so much superior in comparison to the EPL.

2. As for Scholes, the thought of him leaving had never appeared in my life throughout my years of supporting Man Utd. This guy loves the club so much that he doesn't even have an agent throughout his career because he don't think he needs one. Do you think Scholes care if he gets paid a huge load or if he gets to play for the best club of the world? He himself had said that he just wants to play his games for Man Utd and then spend the rest of his time with his family. Find me another player that is similar to him. If this still doesn't convince you that he is loyal I don't think I have the need to argue with you.

3. Gary Neville will never leave the club. His passion for the club is so incredible that he puts even the most fanatic Man Utd fans to shame. His loyalty and passion for the club is unquestionable, trust me. If Man Utd wants him to stay I don't think he will ever leave. He's the kind of player that would break his arm for the club he plays for and supported since young.

 

[Mike.]

Face it, I used ManU players in my OP example (mainly because Neville just retired and the media goes on and on about them) and you get sensitive about it and so you had to disagree. If I would have used Puyol and Xavi instead of Giggs and Neville you would have agreed with me.

nonsense curtis290 ,especially as sunilvk7 talked about xavi repeatedly... dont assume anything on my part, thank you

 

[samillyroy]

matt le tissier has got to be hands down the most loyal player in regards to his own personal quality.

 

[Joel`]

Hideously flawed argument. You're saying that it's nothing special that Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Puyol, Xavi etc. all stayed at the club because they're at the biggest clubs, and that their loyalty is nothing special. Yet you completely ignore the fact they're still a minority group, numerous exceptionally talented players have come and gone through these clubs, a far greater number that have stayed for their whole career. If they've done something that the majority have failed to do, then they must have an exceptional attribute that defines them over the majority, and that attribute is loyalty. I can't be bothered going into a far bigger rant, their loyalty is unquestionable, and I don't need to defend it against such ludicrous arguments.

 

[sunilvk7]

Face it, I used ManU players in my OP example (mainly because Neville just retired and the media goes on and on about them) and you get sensitive about it and so you had to disagree. If I would have used Puyol and Xavi instead of Giggs and Neville you would have agreed with me.

Like Mike said, i dont know how many times i have mentioned Xavi, Puyol, Maldini, Del Piero, Totti. And i hate Xavi and Puyol FYI.

 

[curtis290]

I dont know what you mean with that post. Zanetti was amazingly loyal even when Inter were struggling and not won league for 14 years.

He gets better with age, and early on in his Inter career he was surrounded by the biggest signings in the history of the sport, they team just couldn't quite gel together and they went through a lot of managers (also, Serie A was the best league in the world at this time and it was hard to win a title). So he had a good reason to stay. And he was made captain early on. Once you're made the captain of the team, a good deal of loyalty from you should be expected, don't you think? If he went off to Juventus for a trophy, that would be incredibly disloyal...so why praise him for something that should be expected of him?

Every player stays at club for the best of their interests. I haven't seen anyone who sacrificed himself for club. It is all about striking the balance.

Le Tissier. Dan Marino. Barry Sanders. Jim Kelly. Cris Carter. **** Butkus. Dan Fouts. Patrick Ewing. Karl Malone. John Stockton. Ernie Banks. Ted Williams. Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Bagwell. Tony Gwynn. Charles Barkley. All great players who stuck with their teams through thick and thin even though they easily could have gone to better teams won titles. Not a single one of those guys every won a title in their sports because they stuck with their teams the entire time, even though they easily could have gone to a better team and won, and for the most part, they did not play in a league with a salary cap. That's true loyalty. And it should be expected instead of being so rare. It's much more common in American sports, which was one thing that turned me off of football at the beginning.[/QUOTE]

And Giggs, Scholes stayed not because we were successful, they were the reason why we won so much.

Well two players don't make a team, and had they left, of course Ferguson would have found replacements and would have won titles. But the fact is that they knew that at ManUthey'd win titles. Point 1: of course this doesn't mean that they're not loyal, I'm just pointing out the fact that they had very good reason to stay at ManU, so you can't say they're more loyal than say, Veron, even though he wasn't a one club man.

Anyways, we are going in circles. Players who stayed at club for decades deserve massive respect and all the praise. Doesn't matter how big or small the club is.

I'm done on this.

Point 1 from my last post: it matters a lot. Why should Giggs receive more praise for his loyalty than Veron? Giggs is loyal to the best club in the world, so of course he's going to want to stay. Veron was loyal to a club in a continent whose football has been destroyed by business, so he gets nothing by staying there. Of course if he did stay there the entire time, that would make a ridiculously loyal player, and one to receive tons of praises (like Le Tissier). But he wanted to try playing at the highest level of competition and grow as a player to the full extent of his potential (something you need to be in a better league for, though not necessarily a better team), which is very understandable, so he went to Europe, and then returned to Estudiantes. If Giggs had done the same and started at a small club, gone to ManU, and then returned, that he wouldn't be any less loyal than Neville, who stayed at ManU the whole time. You guys act like the fact that they stayed at ManU the whole time makes them the most loyal players in the world, when I'm pointing out the fact they had good reason to, and that they aren't necessarily any more loyal than other players who switched clubs just because they spent their whole career at one club.

Point 2 from my last post: they shouldn't receive tons of accolades for being loyal, that type of loyalty should be expected. If I had their salaries and grew up playing for the biggest team in the world and best in my country, than I would be loyal too and would want to stay. I wouldn't leave for more money. I think most of you would be the same. This is the way it was not too long ago, but nowadays, there are few loyal players. My point is we should expect this kind of loyalty rather than go crazy about it. Give me one reason why Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should NOT be loyal to their clubs. One reason. You'll probably tell me money, but I think when you're earning millions you should not worry so much about your salary and should be loyal to the club that made you the player that you are.

I dont know what you mean with that post. Zanetti was amazingly loyal even when Inter were struggling and not won league for 14 years.

He gets better with age, and early on in his Inter career he was surrounded by the biggest signings in the history of the sport, they team just couldn't quite gel together and they went through a lot of managers (also, Serie A was the best league in the world at this time and it was hard to win a title). So he had a good reason to stay. And he was made captain early on. Once you're made the captain of the team, a good deal of loyalty from you should be expected, don't you think? If he went off to Juventus for a trophy, that would be incredibly disloyal...so why praise him for something that should be expected of him?

Every player stays at club for the best of their interests. I haven't seen anyone who sacrificed himself for club. It is all about striking the balance.

Le Tissier. Dan Marino. Barry Sanders. Jim Kelly. Cris Carter. **** Butkus. Dan Fouts. Patrick Ewing. Karl Malone. John Stockton. Ernie Banks. Ted Williams. Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Bagwell. Tony Gwynn. Charles Barkley. All great players who stuck with their teams through thick and thin even though they easily could have gone to better teams won titles. Not a single one of those guys every won a title in their sports because they stuck with their teams the entire time, even though they easily could have gone to a better team and won, and for the most part, they did not play in a league with a salary cap. That's true loyalty. And it should be expected instead of being so rare. It's much more common in American sports, which was one thing that turned me off of football at the beginning.[/QUOTE]

And Giggs, Scholes stayed not because we were successful, they were the reason why we won so much.

Well two players don't make a team, and had they left, of course Ferguson would have found replacements and would have won titles. But the fact is that they knew that at ManUthey'd win titles. Point 1: of course this doesn't mean that they're not loyal, I'm just pointing out the fact that they had very good reason to stay at ManU, so you can't say they're more loyal than say, Veron, even though he wasn't a one club man.

Anyways, we are going in circles. Players who stayed at club for decades deserve massive respect and all the praise. Doesn't matter how big or small the club is.

I'm done on this.

Point 1 from my last post: it matters a lot. Why should Giggs receive more praise for his loyalty than Veron? Giggs is loyal to the best club in the world, so of course he's going to want to stay. Veron was loyal to a club in a continent whose football has been destroyed by business, so he gets nothing by staying there. Of course if he did stay there the entire time, that would make a ridiculously loyal player, and one to receive tons of praises (like Le Tissier). But he wanted to try playing at the highest level of competition and grow as a player to the full extent of his potential (something you need to be in a better league for, though not necessarily a better team), which is very understandable, so he went to Europe, and then returned to Estudiantes. If Giggs had done the same and started at a small club, gone to ManU, and then returned, that he wouldn't be any less loyal than Neville, who stayed at ManU the whole time. You guys act like the fact that they stayed at ManU the whole time makes them the most loyal players in the world, when I'm pointing out the fact they had good reason to, and that they aren't necessarily any more loyal than other players who switched clubs just because they spent their whole career at one club.

Point 2 from my last post: they shouldn't receive tons of accolades for being loyal, that type of loyalty should be expected. If I had their salaries and grew up playing for the biggest team in the world and best in my country, than I would be loyal too and would want to stay. I wouldn't leave for more money. I think most of you would be the same. This is the way it was not too long ago, but nowadays, there are few loyal players. My point is we should expect this kind of loyalty rather than go crazy about it. Give me one reason why Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should NOT be loyal to their clubs. One reason. You'll probably tell me money, but I think when you're earning millions you should not worry so much about your salary and should be loyal to the club that made you the player that you are.

I couldn't be bothered to browse through you every single reply because they're so horribly long, but I would like to get a few things straight.

1. In the 90s, the Italian league is the biggest and richest league in the whole world by far. You can say that Giggs might earn only a bit more than he does if he stays in Man Utd, but that would not be the case if you look at the financial power of Italian clubs in the 90s and early 00s. Don't believe me? Let's look at the transfer fees paid. Crespo - 35.5m, Buffon 32.6m, Vieri - 32m, Nedved 30.7m, Mendieta 28m, Ronaldo 19m etc. Transfer records were smashed seasons after seasons and the salaries paid were enormous. You might not have been watching football then but that was the time when the Serie A is so much superior in comparison to the EPL.

First of all, Premiership salaries were climbing like crazy in the 90's (and the amount of money they were making was unprecedented in sports in Britain), and it was growing crazy as a global brand. Serie A was overspending and on the decline. When offers came in for Giggs, it's reasonable to assume he would know that in a few years his salary at ManU would be hired. If you look at American sports and how their salaries grew in the 80s and 90s with the financialization of the sports and the amount of money from endorsements, it was clear the Prem was headed in this direction.

Second, point two in my other post, these guys are incredibly rich and get a lot of their money from endorsements. If Giggs left ManU for Inter for a slightly higher salary (like Dani Alves is doing to Barca right now), that would be disloyal, and you would be justified in disliking him. He didn't and he showed loyalty to the club that made him the player that he is today by staying there (and of course he had a million good reasons to stay, another part of my argument). Shouldn't that be EXPECTED of our players? My point is that players like Giggs and Scholes should not be as rare as they are, and we shouldn't praise them so much for their behavior, we should expect it. If Rooney stays at ManU and collects his huge salary instead of going to City and collecting an even bigger salary, are you going to go on and on about how loyal he is?

2. As for Scholes, the thought of him leaving had never appeared in my life throughout my years of supporting Man Utd. This guy loves the club so much that he doesn't even have an agent throughout his career because he don't think he needs one. Do you think Scholes care if he gets paid a huge load or if he gets to play for the best club of the world? He himself had said that he just wants to play his games for Man Utd and then spend the rest of his time with his family. Find me another player that is similar to him. If this still doesn't convince you that he is loyal I don't think I have the need to argue with you.

Good for Scholes. And again, I didn't say he was disloyal. I'm making the point that this type of loyalty used to be the norm, and we should expect it from our players. Also, in American sports, it's common to take a paycut to help out the team's salary cap. And as I've said repeatedly, these guys have it great at ManU. Why would they want to leave? They're at the biggest club in the world winning tons of trophies. Of course they're going to be loyal to it. Also, as I've said before, why is Scholes, for example, necessarily more loyal than Veron? Veron could be making a much, much bigger paycheck in Italy than the tiny one Estudiantes gives him (where he is still great, BTW, I watch him play frequently). But we don't hear about Veron's loyalty, because he's not a one club man. If Scholes had come from a small club he was loyal to, gone to ManU, and then returned, he would be equally as loyal as he is to ManU. The most commendable loyalty, IMO, is that of Le Tissier or Gerrard. How often do we hear about Gerrard's loyalty? A lot, but not nearly as much as Giggs'.

3. Gary Neville will never leave the club. His passion for the club is so incredible that he puts even the most fanatic Man Utd fans to shame. His loyalty and passion for the club is unquestionable, trust me. If Man Utd wants him to stay I don't think he will ever leave. He's the kind of player that would break his arm for the club he plays for and supported since young.[/QUOTE]

Same arguments as my response to your second point. Cool, he's loyal to the club that made him the player he became and to the fans that support him like crazy. Shouldn't he be? You don't expect that of him? If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you do the same thing? Also, why isn't he any less loyal than say, Kun Aguero? Yet we hear constantly that he's the most loyal player to ever play the game, etc. There are other players out there equally as loyal to their clubs, but for some reason the media has a few favorites they like to focus on.

Hideously flawed argument. You're saying that it's nothing special that Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Puyol, Xavi etc. all stayed at the club because they're at the biggest clubs, and that their loyalty is nothing special. Yet you completely ignore the fact they're still a minority group, numerous exceptionally talented players have come and gone through these clubs, a far greater number that have stayed for their whole career. If they've done something that the majority have failed to do, then they must have an exceptional attribute that defines them over the majority, and that attribute is loyalty. I can't be bothered going into a far bigger rant, their loyalty is unquestionable, and I don't need to defend it against such ludicrous arguments.

First of all, did you listen to my arguments? When did I ever say they were disloyal? I'm saying that a)their loyalty is not the same as Le Tissier's, and b)that it's not necessarily better than Veron's...just because they stayed at one club doesn't automatically make them more loyal than all the other players. They may have had reasons to leave their clubs that were totally legitimate, while Giggs, Raul, etc. never had a reason to leave their clubs.

As for them being a minority group, that's my second point. It should NOT be a minority group. Players should have much more respect and loyalty towards the clubs that made them into the players they are. We, as fans, should expect them to do so, not go crazy over the small few that do. Can you give me one good reason for Giggs to have left ManU? For Xavi to leave Barca? For Beckham to have left ManU? Did they ever sacrifice anything to stay at their clubs, other than a slightly higher paycheck at Man City or Chelsea or Inter in their spending days or something like that? As for the ManU players, they did sacrifice playing time towards the end of their careers (not Giggs), but sitting on the bench and winning trophies is very appealing.

Le Tissier, on the other hand, sacrificed title challenges so he could stay for his club. Gerrard sacrificed definite titles so he could stay at his club. If you can give me one good reason that Puyol would have to leave Barca, than you win the argument. If he decided he had won everything he could there and wanted to move on, that would be one thing, and I'm sure most fans would understand. But most players wouldn't feel that way and would just at their clubs. If Puyol left for a bigger paycheck (what Dani Alves is doing), than that would be extremely disloyal and we should have no respect for him. If he's loyal and stays at Barca, even for a lower salary, than fine, that's what should be EXPECTED of him. Fans these days just have such low expectations for the athletes...they just assume they will be disloyal, greedy, and unprofessional, and if they aren't, we praise them like gods.





Do you guys think that Neville and Giggs are any less loyal than say, Henry or Vieira? Those two were extremely loyal to Arsenal yet left because the club needed the money. What if ManU was building a new stadium and wanted to balance the books, and a ridiculously high offer came for Giggs that ManU had to accept? Would you think less of Giggs' loyalty than Neville's? That wouldn't be fair to Giggs, would it? That's one of the points I'm making. A lot of players equally as loyal as say, Neville, don't get any attention for it because they played at multiple clubs. There are a lot of different reasons for this that don't involve the player being disloyal. What about Kaka? He is extremely loyal to AC Milan, yet the media never talks about his loyalty because he plays for Madrid. It wasn't his choice, he was basically forced out.

 

[Joel`]

You are saying that we are praising Giggs, Scholes etc. too much for being loyal, and then arguing they're now more loyal than a player like Le Tissier. What the **** do you mean? So just because certain players don't get recognition (due to the way our media works) we should discredit other players? Idiotic.

I don't consider anyone who makes a million dollars working for a 'normal profession.' Anyways, the point I was making is football players play a sport for a living. It's a job because they get paid, but it's more than just a job. They are athletes who are trying to win. If you're an investment banker, your only goal is profit. Athletes have other goals. But most importantly, you don't have fans as an investment banker, and athletes do. That comes with a set of obligations. And again, the club trains you as a player from your youth. Businesses don't take you under their wing when you're 15, pay for your school and training, and then work you into the company. If they did, than yeah, you should be expected to show loyalty to them.

So you're not in a normal profession because you've succeeded? Right.. People like Paris Hilton living off their parent's success, that is not a normal profession.
Athletes are trying to win, do you really think the men at the top of business empires and in high flying jobs need more money? No, they do not. They're there to win, they're competitive, just because athletes desire trophies, and they desire profit, both have an insatiable appetite to win.

What bothers me though is your line of thinking and how much it typifies how money controls the game. You keep on using the sports to business metaphors: "well if you want to climb up the job ladder..." But sports is not a business, it is much more than that. Businesses don't invest in their employees the way clubs do. More importantly, a club is not a business. Yes it is a business in many ways, but is much more than that. The fans are not simply consumers. You may prefer McDonald's to Burger King, but do you support McDonald's in the same way you support ManU? You probably shell out tons of money to ManU, support the team, and invest a lot of emotion into them. It's a completely different thing.

Numerous businesses invest in bright employee's, either coming out of university, and some will even pay for tuition fees to see you through, so yes they do invest in employee's in the same way. And differentiating between fans and other businesses, fans are just an extreme case of brand loyalty with emotional investment.

As an athlete, you have a different set of responsibilities than a normal employer. You work for a club, not a business, that invested a lot in you. You're doing more than just 'going to work,' you're playing a sport, and it's a job many would kill to have, even if they didn't get paid at all. And you have thousands (millions in the case of ManU) of fans, a lot of whom spend a lot of money to go to your games, have supported their club their entire lives and put a lot of emotion into it (and can help you win when they're loud). What do you tell the 14 year old kid who was a huge fan of Adebayor when he decides to leave for Man City when Arsenal are close to winning a title for the first time in a while and City are clearly a ways a way? That kind of behavior, IMO, is extremely disappointing, and it's sad that our society is so accepting of it. It's sad that people respond by saying "oh, well he's an employee, it's his right to do that" etc. Yeah it's his right to do so but that doesn't mean we should be so tolerant of it.

You've completely derailed from questioning players we see as loyal, and if they are in fact so loyal. Now you're just ranting about non-loyal players, which isn't the point of the debate.

 

[sunilvk7]

I couldn't give **** anymore reading those huge posts. The players i have mentioned are loyal players and deserves every praise they are getting.

 

[Gav123]

He gets better with age, and early on in his Inter career he was surrounded by the biggest signings in the history of the sport, they team just couldn't quite gel together and they went through a lot of managers (also, Serie A was the best league in the world at this time and it was hard to win a title). So he had a good reason to stay. And he was made captain early on. Once you're made the captain of the team, a good deal of loyalty from you should be expected, don't you think? If he went off to Juventus for a trophy, that would be incredibly disloyal...so why praise him for something that should be expected of him?



Le Tissier. Dan Marino. Barry Sanders. Jim Kelly. Cris Carter. **** Butkus. Dan Fouts. Patrick Ewing. Karl Malone. John Stockton. Ernie Banks. Ted Williams. Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Bagwell. Tony Gwynn. Charles Barkley. All great players who stuck with their teams through thick and thin even though they easily could have gone to better teams won titles. Not a single one of those guys every won a title in their sports because they stuck with their teams the entire time, even though they easily could have gone to a better team and won, and for the most part, they did not play in a league with a salary cap. That's true loyalty. And it should be expected instead of being so rare. It's much more common in American sports, which was one thing that turned me off of football at the beginning.

Well two players don't make a team, and had they left, of course Ferguson would have found replacements and would have won titles. But the fact is that they knew that at ManUthey'd win titles. Point 1: of course this doesn't mean that they're not loyal, I'm just pointing out the fact that they had very good reason to stay at ManU, so you can't say they're more loyal than say, Veron, even though he wasn't a one club man.



Point 1 from my last post: it matters a lot. Why should Giggs receive more praise for his loyalty than Veron? Giggs is loyal to the best club in the world, so of course he's going to want to stay. Veron was loyal to a club in a continent whose football has been destroyed by business, so he gets nothing by staying there. Of course if he did stay there the entire time, that would make a ridiculously loyal player, and one to receive tons of praises (like Le Tissier). But he wanted to try playing at the highest level of competition and grow as a player to the full extent of his potential (something you need to be in a better league for, though not necessarily a better team), which is very understandable, so he went to Europe, and then returned to Estudiantes. If Giggs had done the same and started at a small club, gone to ManU, and then returned, that he wouldn't be any less loyal than Neville, who stayed at ManU the whole time. You guys act like the fact that they stayed at ManU the whole time makes them the most loyal players in the world, when I'm pointing out the fact they had good reason to, and that they aren't necessarily any more loyal than other players who switched clubs just because they spent their whole career at one club.

Point 2 from my last post: they shouldn't receive tons of accolades for being loyal, that type of loyalty should be expected. If I had their salaries and grew up playing for the biggest team in the world and best in my country, than I would be loyal too and would want to stay. I wouldn't leave for more money. I think most of you would be the same. This is the way it was not too long ago, but nowadays, there are few loyal players. My point is we should expect this kind of loyalty rather than go crazy about it. Give me one reason why Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should NOT be loyal to their clubs. One reason. You'll probably tell me money, but I think when you're earning millions you should not worry so much about your salary and should be loyal to the club that made you the player that you are.



He gets better with age, and early on in his Inter career he was surrounded by the biggest signings in the history of the sport, they team just couldn't quite gel together and they went through a lot of managers (also, Serie A was the best league in the world at this time and it was hard to win a title). So he had a good reason to stay. And he was made captain early on. Once you're made the captain of the team, a good deal of loyalty from you should be expected, don't you think? If he went off to Juventus for a trophy, that would be incredibly disloyal...so why praise him for something that should be expected of him?



Le Tissier. Dan Marino. Barry Sanders. Jim Kelly. Cris Carter. **** Butkus. Dan Fouts. Patrick Ewing. Karl Malone. John Stockton. Ernie Banks. Ted Williams. Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Bagwell. Tony Gwynn. Charles Barkley. All great players who stuck with their teams through thick and thin even though they easily could have gone to better teams won titles. Not a single one of those guys every won a title in their sports because they stuck with their teams the entire time, even though they easily could have gone to a better team and won, and for the most part, they did not play in a league with a salary cap. That's true loyalty. And it should be expected instead of being so rare. It's much more common in American sports, which was one thing that turned me off of football at the beginning.[/QUOTE]



Well two players don't make a team, and had they left, of course Ferguson would have found replacements and would have won titles. But the fact is that they knew that at ManUthey'd win titles. Point 1: of course this doesn't mean that they're not loyal, I'm just pointing out the fact that they had very good reason to stay at ManU, so you can't say they're more loyal than say, Veron, even though he wasn't a one club man.



Point 1 from my last post: it matters a lot. Why should Giggs receive more praise for his loyalty than Veron? Giggs is loyal to the best club in the world, so of course he's going to want to stay. Veron was loyal to a club in a continent whose football has been destroyed by business, so he gets nothing by staying there. Of course if he did stay there the entire time, that would make a ridiculously loyal player, and one to receive tons of praises (like Le Tissier). But he wanted to try playing at the highest level of competition and grow as a player to the full extent of his potential (something you need to be in a better league for, though not necessarily a better team), which is very understandable, so he went to Europe, and then returned to Estudiantes. If Giggs had done the same and started at a small club, gone to ManU, and then returned, that he wouldn't be any less loyal than Neville, who stayed at ManU the whole time. You guys act like the fact that they stayed at ManU the whole time makes them the most loyal players in the world, when I'm pointing out the fact they had good reason to, and that they aren't necessarily any more loyal than other players who switched clubs just because they spent their whole career at one club.

Point 2 from my last post: they shouldn't receive tons of accolades for being loyal, that type of loyalty should be expected. If I had their salaries and grew up playing for the biggest team in the world and best in my country, than I would be loyal too and would want to stay. I wouldn't leave for more money. I think most of you would be the same. This is the way it was not too long ago, but nowadays, there are few loyal players. My point is we should expect this kind of loyalty rather than go crazy about it. Give me one reason why Giggs, Scholes, Xavi, Puyol, etc. should NOT be loyal to their clubs. One reason. You'll probably tell me money, but I think when you're earning millions you should not worry so much about your salary and should be loyal to the club that made you the player that you are.



First of all, Premiership salaries were climbing like crazy in the 90's (and the amount of money they were making was unprecedented in sports in Britain), and it was growing crazy as a global brand. Serie A was overspending and on the decline. When offers came in for Giggs, it's reasonable to assume he would know that in a few years his salary at ManU would be hired. If you look at American sports and how their salaries grew in the 80s and 90s with the financialization of the sports and the amount of money from endorsements, it was clear the Prem was headed in this direction.

Second, point two in my other post, these guys are incredibly rich and get a lot of their money from endorsements. If Giggs left ManU for Inter for a slightly higher salary (like Dani Alves is doing to Barca right now), that would be disloyal, and you would be justified in disliking him. He didn't and he showed loyalty to the club that made him the player that he is today by staying there (and of course he had a million good reasons to stay, another part of my argument). Shouldn't that be EXPECTED of our players? My point is that players like Giggs and Scholes should not be as rare as they are, and we shouldn't praise them so much for their behavior, we should expect it. If Rooney stays at ManU and collects his huge salary instead of going to City and collecting an even bigger salary, are you going to go on and on about how loyal he is?



Good for Scholes. And again, I didn't say he was disloyal. I'm making the point that this type of loyalty used to be the norm, and we should expect it from our players. Also, in American sports, it's common to take a paycut to help out the team's salary cap. And as I've said repeatedly, these guys have it great at ManU. Why would they want to leave? They're at the biggest club in the world winning tons of trophies. Of course they're going to be loyal to it. Also, as I've said before, why is Scholes, for example, necessarily more loyal than Veron? Veron could be making a much, much bigger paycheck in Italy than the tiny one Estudiantes gives him (where he is still great, BTW, I watch him play frequently). But we don't hear about Veron's loyalty, because he's not a one club man. If Scholes had come from a small club he was loyal to, gone to ManU, and then returned, he would be equally as loyal as he is to ManU. The most commendable loyalty, IMO, is that of Le Tissier or Gerrard. How often do we hear about Gerrard's loyalty? A lot, but not nearly as much as Giggs'.

3. Gary Neville will never leave the club. His passion for the club is so incredible that he puts even the most fanatic Man Utd fans to shame. His loyalty and passion for the club is unquestionable, trust me. If Man Utd wants him to stay I don't think he will ever leave. He's the kind of player that would break his arm for the club he plays for and supported since young.[/QUOTE]

Same arguments as my response to your second point. Cool, he's loyal to the club that made him the player he became and to the fans that support him like crazy. Shouldn't he be? You don't expect that of him? If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you do the same thing? Also, why isn't he any less loyal than say, Kun Aguero? Yet we hear constantly that he's the most loyal player to ever play the game, etc. There are other players out there equally as loyal to their clubs, but for some reason the media has a few favorites they like to focus on.



First of all, did you listen to my arguments? When did I ever say they were disloyal? I'm saying that a)their loyalty is not the same as Le Tissier's, and b)that it's not necessarily better than Veron's...just because they stayed at one club doesn't automatically make them more loyal than all the other players. They may have had reasons to leave their clubs that were totally legitimate, while Giggs, Raul, etc. never had a reason to leave their clubs.

As for them being a minority group, that's my second point. It should NOT be a minority group. Players should have much more respect and loyalty towards the clubs that made them into the players they are. We, as fans, should expect them to do so, not go crazy over the small few that do. Can you give me one good reason for Giggs to have left ManU? For Xavi to leave Barca? For Beckham to have left ManU? Did they ever sacrifice anything to stay at their clubs, other than a slightly higher paycheck at Man City or Chelsea or Inter in their spending days or something like that? As for the ManU players, they did sacrifice playing time towards the end of their careers (not Giggs), but sitting on the bench and winning trophies is very appealing.

Le Tissier, on the other hand, sacrificed title challenges so he could stay for his club. Gerrard sacrificed definite titles so he could stay at his club. If you can give me one good reason that Puyol would have to leave Barca, than you win the argument. If he decided he had won everything he could there and wanted to move on, that would be one thing, and I'm sure most fans would understand. But most players wouldn't feel that way and would just at their clubs. If Puyol left for a bigger paycheck (what Dani Alves is doing), than that would be extremely disloyal and we should have no respect for him. If he's loyal and stays at Barca, even for a lower salary, than fine, that's what should be EXPECTED of him. Fans these days just have such low expectations for the athletes...they just assume they will be disloyal, greedy, and unprofessional, and if they aren't, we praise them like gods.





Do you guys think that Neville and Giggs are any less loyal than say, Henry or Vieira? Those two were extremely loyal to Arsenal yet left because the club needed the money. What if ManU was building a new stadium and wanted to balance the books, and a ridiculously high offer came for Giggs that ManU had to accept? Would you think less of Giggs' loyalty than Neville's? That wouldn't be fair to Giggs, would it? That's one of the points I'm making. A lot of players equally as loyal as say, Neville, don't get any attention for it because they played at multiple clubs. There are a lot of different reasons for this that don't involve the player being disloyal. What about Kaka? He is extremely loyal to AC Milan, yet the media never talks about his loyalty because he plays for Madrid. It wasn't his choice, he was basically forced out.[/QUOTE]

Longest post in History!

 

[King Sid]

Le Tissier. Dan Marino. Barry Sanders. Jim Kelly. Cris Carter. **** Butkus. Dan Fouts. Patrick Ewing. Karl Malone. John Stockton. Ernie Banks. Ted Williams. Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Bagwell. Tony Gwynn. Charles Barkley. All great players who stuck with their teams through thick and thin even though they easily could have gone to better teams won titles. Not a single one of those guys every won a title in their sports because they stuck with their teams the entire time, even though they easily could have gone to a better team and won, and for the most part, they did not play in a league with a salary cap. That's true loyalty. And it should be expected instead of being so rare. It's much more common in American sports, which was one thing that turned me off of football at the beginning.

Maybe these players were just less ambitious? They clearly weren't fussed about winning anything so why should they be praised? I'd say players that are ambitious AND loyal (like those mentioned, Scholes, Giggs, Xavi, Puyol, Zanetti etc) deserve much more credit than the ones mentioned above. They are clearly better players, were playing for the teams that they loved AND winning trophies. So clearly you can be loyal and successful.

Anyway end of argument from me. This is tiresome now.