News: No obligation for clubs to release their players
Posted on March 17th, 2010 by jane
Everybody could be recalled from Beijing by their clubs right now, regardless of age.
Hopefully clubs will show some compassion (?), or some teams could be left with less than 11 players.
All because FIFA forgot to include the Olympic Games in their international calendar.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aoNZosZFCySk&refer=germany
Let's keep the discussion civil, folks. Thanks! :)
There are very few clubs out there that only care about their success on the pitch, and they do so at their own peril, because they need to make money to acquire players and compete in today's market or they'll sink fast. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
of course they care about generating revenue, but that is only means to an end, which is success on the pitch.
to get back on topic , the olympic tournament doesn't help them in either regard.
Isn't that what today's football is all about?
Isn't that what today's football is all about?
no it isn't .
all three clubs that sued fifa are non-profit organizations, actually.
they care about the effect this tournament could have on their success on the pitch.
barcelona would need to sell additional millions of messi shirts to make up for the losses they would suffer if they fail to qualify for the champions league.
and if any aditional messi shirts are to be sold because of his appearance in the olympics, it's more likely it will be argentina shirts .
not that the Olympics will make any difference in shirt selling. it just isn't a very interesting competition .
its a foul comprimise between fifa and the ioc . what other sport has this ridiculous u-23 +3 format ? for all the the other team sports the Olympic tournament is the most important when it comes to international play, and all the individual sports federations need the olympics to promote their sport.
football obviously doesn't need the olympics, but the olympics need football, as it sells better than most events even in this format.
.
fifa has its calendar, the clubs have to release the players on fifa determined dates for international play, the continental championships and the world cup. that is a fair deal.
Isn't that what today's football is all about?
With fixture congestion the way it is though and injuries becoming more and more expensive as wages increase, it's a tough balance. There's a case to be made for the conservative choice.
Which is why FIFA should have said long ago, "there is no choice, except by the player". Not a tricky thing. Either support soccer at the Olympics or kill it outright.
That's debatable, and it might not hurt them either.
Seriously, how do you drop the ball on something like this?
Eh?:confused:
Hmmmm not so much.
Summer Olympic Dates recently
2008 Beijing 8/8 - 8/24
2004 Athens 8/13 - 8/29
2000 Sydney 9/15 - 10/1
1996 Atlanta 7/19 - 8/9
1992 Barcelona 7/25 - 8/9
1988 Seoul 9/17 - 10/2
1984 Los Angeles 7/28 - 8/12
1980 Moscow 7/19 - 8/3
The games this year are earlier than the previous two and pretty much a middle ground dating back to Moscow.
Maybe it wasn't seen as an issue a few Olympic games back, when the U-23 plus 3 overage rule was introduced? After all, clubs have achieved so much power in the last decade(s).
And then, every four years, someone in the FIFA offices checked "what did we do four years ago? Not on the calendar? Let it be the same this time".
Probably nobody just realized the importance of FIFA calendar for the issue of sending players. Only three clubs, only this year, realized this flaw.
Another factor is that it's a late summer Olympics.
Summer Olympic Dates recently
2008 Beijing 8/8 - 8/24
2004 Athens 8/13 - 8/29
2000 Sydney 9/15 - 10/1
1996 Atlanta 7/19 - 8/9
1992 Barcelona 7/25 - 8/9
1988 Seoul 9/17 - 10/2
1984 Los Angeles 7/28 - 8/12
1980 Moscow 7/19 - 8/3
The games this year are earlier than the previous two and pretty much a middle ground dating back to Moscow.
Wow. I really haven't been paying much attention to the Olympics since '96...
I was saying: How can FIFA have just "missed" addressing the status of the Olympics in the FIFA calendar? That's like forgetting to mention that clubs have to release their players for the U-19 World Cup. If FIFA didn't intend for the Olympics to be treated like a friendly, they should have stated so, long ago...
Why ? most european nations couldn't give a toss about the Olympic soccer tournament.
And by "most European nations", I assume you mean the four "home nations" of the United Kingdom that are ineligible to compete in the Olympics as seperate teams.
Understatement of the Year Award.
Seriously, how do you drop the ball on something like this?
Sorry, I didn't have an English language link and was too upset by the news to look for one...
all three clubs that sued fifa are non-profit organizations, actually.
they care about the effect this tournament could have on their success on the pitch.
"Non-profit" doesn't mean "not interested in making a profit". So many people don't get the non-profit thing. All non-profit means is that there isn't a group of owners, be they public or private, that exclusively benefit financially from a company's profit. Non-profit means that all the money made by the team goes back into the team's coffers. And there are still bigwig execs, not to mention the players, that make a great deal of money. Non-profit teams can be just as greedy and all about the bottom line as any other club. I'm not saying that they all are, just as not all privately held teams focus only on making money either.
There are very few clubs out there that only care about their success on the pitch, and they do so at their own peril, because they need to make money to acquire players and compete in today's market or they'll sink fast. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |