The International Break: Clubs, Money, Dictatorships, and Just About Everything You Can Throw Into a Post

As nations compete against one another for the honor of taking a month-long vacation in Brasil come Summer 2014, fans of the other nations in football are given a moment to break from the baying and whining that comes with supporting a football club. There have been a lot of mishaps by clubs in the transfer window — all amplified by the panicky furor of deadline day. Soccer news outlets seem to have taken pleasure in haunting disaffected fans through their dissections of the successes and failures of deadline day and the transfer window. Arsenal and Liverpool were lambasted for their inactivity. Chelsea and Tottenham spent millions of pounds on players during the window. QPR created some sort of weirdo Frankenstein team over the past few months. 

Half-hearted reasoning and criticism has spewed out from everyone from players to managers to celebrities to newspeople. It’s almost too much. However, as much conjecture the media pumps out about transfer policies or internal schisms, these pseudo-nations, autonomous entities operate rather clandestinely. Tight-lipped, clubs obscure our ability to examine their inner-workings. American sports are phenomenally transparent in comparison to European and international sport. This is something I have come to learn and hate about international soccer. Clubs are managed by men (mostly men) and women that have the cultural and economic power to do as they please with the clubs and organizations they are entrusted with or have purchased with their oil/dirty money. It would probably be easier to topple a government than pry a football club from the hands of a terrible, dictatorial, or unbelievably incompetent owner.

 

—-


            I had a professor in my early university years that taught Europe in the 20th Century and Russian History. She wasn’t always a professor. During WWII, she spent time in the Army doing her part as much as she was allowed in the 1940s on the ground here in the States. By the time Vietnam rolled around, she had raised a few kids and almost had them out of the house. Her commitment to her country led her to volunteering to join military intelligence as an interpreter. She became fluent in Russian and French. Pretty useful during the Cold War. She later on went to earn her Ph.D. in Russian History. By the time I had enrolled in her class, she was in her late-70s, but still sharp as a tack. She was my kind of dame.

Between 2004 – 2006, I took a few courses of hers and fell in love with Russian History and Modern European History. At the same time, The United States was embroiled in two wars in far off lands. One was about 9/11 in Afghanistan. The other over some unfinished business we kind of started in Iraq. Every couple of weeks or so, Louise would take some time from her lesson to explain the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. This became really important when she explained Russian intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s. She almost always ended with an explanation of how democracy can never work inorganically imposed on a culture that never knew that kind of cooperation. It didn’t come from a jingoistic, Islamophobic place. It came from an understanding of History that was peppered with examples of the imposition of ideology on a people who were not receptive or ready, depending on how your ideology informs you. Imposing restrictions or freedom on people who were not ready, who did not know the responsibility, or just plain didn’t care for it was not a good idea. This is how Louise went about explaining why the transition from an Imperial, monarchist Russia to the USSR was not so incredibly revolutionary. Sure, the ideas and motivations were different, but structurally, it was much of the same. There was a single figure that controlled everything, either by design or holy mandate; it was control from the center. Decisions would be made and there would be no deliberation. Wrong or right, the responsibility was that of the great leader to guide the masses.

 

—-

 

As this week passed, fans of Liverpool, Milan, Arsenal, and many others bemoaned their lack of signings. What were they expected to do now? Get behind their teams? As exchanges between fans began, a rueful, resentful tone arose from those felt hard done by. They resented the money and influence of the Chelseas and Manchester Citys of the world. These clubs exhibit strong leadership with drive and determination. Maybe some lack the vision. For example, Liverpool loaned out Andy Carroll without giving Rodgers and the administration enough time to get a decent replacement. The one person they did go after, Liverpool failed to meet the asking price by a couple of million pounds, after having paid £35m for Andy to begin with. He’s an expensive mistake. Leadership did not and has not worked together well enough in Liverpool for several years – under Henry or not. Liverpool fans bombarded John Henry with abuse and criticism. Keyboard warrior stuff. They forget Henry has helped get Liverpool out of the mess they were in to begin with. This impatience is exacerbated by the existence of these “sugar daddy clubs.”

Sugar daddy clubs have the ability to just buy a player at will and not have to answer to anyone. Supporters and the interested aren’t even within earshot of these guys. There are no pesky boards or even managers to say no. 

“I want Sheva. I buy Sheva. You work with him now.”

Times are changing, though. This week I read a couple of really great articles about Financial Fair Play, UEFA’s impending rules on how clubs operate financially which will potentially have competitive and financial consequences for clubs that operate in the red without a viable plan of getting out of their financial holes. Rules can become incredibly complicated. Both Gabriele Marcotti and the fellas at Swiss Ramble did an amazing job explaining the rules to simple people like me. What truly struck me was the ease a club could possibly get out of punitive payments or missing out on European competition with the write lawyers or financial experts. UEFA has not imposed a disciplinary system. Instead it’s a set of possibilities and their word that they’ll use their discretion when handing out punishments.

So, sleep well, Chelsea fans. All of the jeering about how the rules are changing and how our plastic club can’t survive is unfounded. Listen, if Chelsea got out of serving a full 18 months without the possibility of signing any new players for the Kakuta fiasco just by batting its eyelids, you shouldn’t worry. Clubs will pretty much be able to operate as they have. This new system will only act as a new way to validate the tyrannical, dictatorial, and wasteful spending of clubs. Some clubs may act irresponsibly with no accountability, but as long as they keep UEFA off their tails, everything is fine. There will be no plagues or droughts like those that affected early kings and princes as long as UEFA are as malleable as they intend to be. UEFA will act as another mechanism to maintaining the natural order that fans and owners love so much but to their own detriment. 

Historically, pseudo-accountability, validation from on high has served autocrats, totalitarians, dictators, kinds, and strongmen well. The game of fabricating a mandate or external force pushing the hand of the government plays well into the obscured lives of owners and chairmen.  Now owners can play the part of either in opposition or cooperating with a variable that is out of their control when it really is not. The external can bring everyone together, hold together hierarchy, and keep the peace. This is if they’re smart.

UEFA’s discretion will change from here to there, and it is unpredictable. A friend of big money clubs now, it can all go wrong very quickly. UEFA can become foe or ally quickly, and it is important for fans to understand this and push for more responsible spending the best way they can. A whim could doom a club much like the Goodell Era of the NFL here in the United States.

So what?

Chelsea had its Sputnik moment last season. The top-down thing works rarely, and the club’s future is invested in a man with a short temper and a long life ahead that may lead him out of football. Chelsea opening its continental account was an amazing story and a great achievement for everyone who supports Chelsea, but it’s not the end nor is it close. The arms race with City, United, Real, Barcelona, and PSG will continue. What clubs and fans will have to realize is global economic systems will eventually catch up with the overspent, overexerted, and overbearing clubs, much like they caught up with the Soviet Union and Communist China in the late-1980s. Sure, economies have collapsed and football has remained okay, but for how long? It’s already affecting Italy and Spain’s leagues. China got itself out of the muck, but Russia sure hasn’t. Both nations were so caught up in the need for central, strong authority after their near/total collapses, that they refused to truly change the order of things. Putin is still in power, and the People’s Republic is still run by a handful of party members.

Central authority allows people to throw their hands in the air and absolve themselves of responsibility. It also reinforces the simplistic natural order of things. No matter how much people complain about the processes in football or the money, given the opportunity, many wouldn’t take it upon themselves to help manage their clubs in whatever system available. However, this doesn’t really tell us much. Many of us like standing outside of the limelight, and we wouldn’t like people constantly speculating about our money and our private lives. It takes a madman to run a club. It takes a madman to rule a nation. No matter how mad football becomes, we’re complicit in its practices. It feeds off of us, and we feed off of it. We’re overtaken by the revolutionary fever that has claimed so many through the course of history. We’re victims and collaborators all the same.

RISK!

Greens versus Reds. Ain't that always the case?
"Hey, hand me that dice, old chap. I must decide the fate of Africa," said Great Britain to France.

Despite internet pornography/social networking sites and the microwave, modernity has given us the wonderful privilege of being constantly bombarded with fucked up situations and possibilities.  Every time you step outside your front door, or backdoor depending on circumstance or 70s classic rock band you front, you leave yourself vulnerable to a host of dangers.  You could get randomly electrocuted, or even its most brutal extreme blood-trocuted.  You could get hit by a bus being driven by a chronic texter.  You could stumble into the crossfire of a gang battle over the artistry of Kanye West or the debate over whether or not Glee is too gay/not gay enough for TV.

The inclement weather in Austin today could create a slippery enough surface that I could bust the back of my head on the stairs outside.  Today’s weather could knock out all of the power to the security grid we’ve so tirelessly built, releasing all of our predatory dinosaurs and allowing them to roam free to kill our favorite black actors.

I’m not much of a risk taker, but I’m aware of the dangers that await me out “there”.  Despite the horrifying likelihood that we all get in an awful car crash at some point in our lives, I get in “El Guerito” and drive to work like a good citizen on a daily basis.  I laugh in the face of  being approached by a vagabond or transient in a South Austin cafe and being asked for change.  Every moment I pass off a latte to an unsuspecting businessman or douche-fag is a death wish.

I can get H1N1! What would happen to me?!?!? I’m only 23! I can’t die from someone not washing their hands!  Even then, there’s apparently some terrifying side-affect to the H1N1 vaccine that I just discovered that has sworn me off vaccinations and probably the whole Enlightenment Era in general.

I’m not much of a risk taker.  It took me ages to even consider doing ESPN’s Streak for the Cash, and that’s free.  I never buy anything out of impulse anymore.  This might be caused by my lack of substantial income, but I also don’t want to have to eat dirt for a couple of weeks because I decided I needed thirteen Wild Side Snuggies for my friends and family. I suppose this is why my life is pretty plain for the most part.  I never go downtown because I’m petrified of dude-bros and their persistence on being.  I never go on camping trips because I watched too many slasher films.  I never say much to women between the ages of 20-25 anymore because they’re mostly self-involved succubi that have no motive but to be insufferable.  OK, I don’t mean that… only sort of.  I don’t hang out or jam with guys that aren’t my friends because I’m always afraid I’ll be disappointed with who they are and what they’re about.  That’s usually the case.  I couldn’t just move somewhere unless there was something concrete and worthwhile there.

Security in oneself and their future is derived from hard work and diligence.

Even in the seemingly most secure moments, it’s hard to push yourself over that edge.  You have to convince yourself you’ve done enough.  You have to trust yourself.  For any great self-loather, that’s quite the task.

I appreciate risk-takers in whatever capacity they choose.  At times, they can be the embodiment of strength.  In business, it takes a strong personality to make something work.  In art, it takes a strong spirit to push through the drudgery and pain.  In relationships, it takes a strong mind to be able to deal with the bullshit artists and shitty situations you put yourself in.  In poker, it takes strong nerves to sit at a table with me CUZ I COM TO TAEK ALL UR MONNNEEZZ LOLOLMAO! [I have never won a table in my life.]

I’m going to start taking baby risks.

Like throwing them in the air,

Dago

PS: The new Between the Buried and Me album comes out tomorrow. I am so psyched!

PPS: Fell in love with Devil Sold His Soul today.

PPPS:  The Texans, Longhorns and Chelsea all won this weekend. Let’s give it up for my favorite teams!