• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

What motivates the modern day player?

Daisuk

Daisuk

Dimitar Berbatov
So, why is it so that money and "winning things" are the only things that motivates the modern day footballer? Where are the old clubs legends these days, and why aren't more players trying to become like them? Take a player like Dimitar Berbatov. He could've been a legend at Spurs if he had stayed. But he went to United, won a few things, but now, no-one likes him over there, he's off to, who knows, Werder Bremen or something, and no-one will remember him in United. We as Spurs fans won't ever rate him as a legend, because he forced a leave.

So, end of career, what's left for players like Berbatov (and possibly Modric)? They have a few trophies to boast, waaaaay too much cash, and that's it. How many players become legends in teams like United or Real Madrid? Why don't more players aim to become legends at clubs? How much nicer isn't it to retire as a footballer and know that you will always have the backing of millions of people somewhere in the world, because you were loyal to their club. Isn't that worth anything anymore? Are the modern day players just greedy and stupid? In a few years, people will say, "Berbatov who?", and no one will care. He comes to Manchester, people won't care, he comes to Tottenham, people will have a slight dislike of the guy. What an accomplishment.

I guess I answered my own question, but it frustrates me that there doesn't seem to be any footballers these days with a sense of club loyalty and an ambition to become club legends.
 
In Berbatov's case, I think he is popular at home for what he has done with Bulgaria.

I can think of several reasons for the change.

1. Its much easier to move clubs. Contracts mean little if a player is prepared to be a cvnt. The Bosman ruling had a big effect.

2. The game is less competitive. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, a lot more clubs were in contention for the league and cup and the clubs in contention changed faster. Even during Liverpool's dominant period, a lot of other clubs won once or twice. A player could stay with a mix of expectation and hope that they can win where they are.

3. The Cups were considered real trophies. Winning the FA Cup or UEFA Cup meant something so our 80s players did win meaningful trophies, whereas they wouldn't count now. Getting in the CL is considered more important.

4. More players from foreign lands. Being a legend at Tottenham will mean less to someone from Bulgaria than a local. For every Ossie, there will many who don't care. Locals get less chances so are more likely to move early in their career.

5. Money. The difference between what players get at a top club and a lesser one has become much bigger, so the fiunancial sacrifice of staying loyal is bigger.

6. Changes in culture. People don't expect to stay in a job for life, loyalty is less valued, instant gratification is more valued, etc. Players are not immune to the globalisation and obsession with the media that has changed how people behave.
 
money+1.jpg
 
Why would a player want to become a Spurs legend, when they have their agent, their WAG, their entourage; when they have EVERYONE telling them they can be the next Ronaldo if only they moved to a higher level? Players want to test themselves at the top, because their self-belief (and, in many cases, their friends/agents) makes them believe they CAN be United legends, as opposed to just Spurs legends. If they fail, as hard as it is to say, only then do they consider a move down the food chain to us.

Additionally, most modern players are internationals who like to think they have the backing of their countries to fall back on when they retire. Why would they need club fame when they have international fame? For instance, Modric already has all of Croatia drooling over his every through ball and pass in a Croatia shirt. D'you think he cares about a few Spurs fans singing his name in a few bars somewhere when he can go home and be treated like a hero?

Finally, the only real hope I have of any players ever possessing the desire to become 'legends' at Spurs are those brought up through the academy, since they more likely than not support the club, and ergo want to become a part of its history. It's why I look upon Livermore's 'I only want to play for Spurs' more benignly than I look upon, for example, Younes, when he says the same thing. Because one of the two was born and brought up with tales of Spurs all around him, and so is more likely to want to become a hero here, as opposed to someone brought up on a diet of Real Madrid/AC Milan/United/Barcelona/Bayern et al.

We're not the biggest fish anymore. Players have aspirations to become legends, but only for the teams at the top or for their countries. The only ones we can expect to show any real loyalty to the club are the ones that come through the academy, and after Sol, that's a bit of a shaky proposition as well. Sigh. Modern football is all I've ever known, but it does pain me sometimes.
 
jts1882 said:
In Berbatov's case, I think he is popular at home for what he has done with Bulgaria.

I can think of several reasons for the change.

1. Its much easier to move clubs. Contracts mean little if a player is prepared to be a cvnt. The Bosman ruling had a big effect.

2. The game is less competitive. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, a lot more clubs were in contention for the league and cup and the clubs in contention changed faster. Even during Liverpool's dominant period, a lot of other clubs won once or twice. A player could stay with a mix of expectation and hope that they can win where they are.

3. The Cups were considered real trophies. Winning the FA Cup or UEFA Cup meant something so our 80s players did win meaningful trophies, whereas they wouldn't count now. Getting in the CL is considered more important.

4. More players from foreign lands. Being a legend at Tottenham will mean less to someone from Bulgaria than a local. For every Ossie, there will many who don't care. Locals get less chances so are more likely to move early in their career.

5. Money. The difference between what players get at a top club and a lesser one has become much bigger, so the fiunancial sacrifice of staying loyal is bigger.

6. Changes in culture. People don't expect to stay in a job for life, loyalty is less valued, instant gratification is more valued, etc. Players are not immune to the globalisation and obsession with the media that has changed how people behave.
Click to expand...

Got there before me. Well done. :)
 
Of course loyalty goes two ways. Clubs are much more likely to go and get a better player from elsewhere. Before the local lads where competing with players from the rest of the UK, now its the rest of the world.
 
Daisuk said:
So, why is it so that money and "winning things" are the only things that motivates the modern day footballer? Where are the old clubs legends these days, and why aren't more players trying to become like them? Take a player like Dimitar Berbatov. He could've been a legend at Spurs if he had stayed. But he went to United, won a few things, but now, no-one likes him over there, he's off to, who knows, Werder Bremen or something, and no-one will remember him in United. We as Spurs fans won't ever rate him as a legend, because he forced a leave.

So, end of career, what's left for players like Berbatov (and possibly Modric)? They have a few trophies to boast, waaaaay too much cash, and that's it. How many players become legends in teams like United or Real Madrid? Why don't more players aim to become legends at clubs? How much nicer isn't it to retire as a footballer and know that you will always have the backing of millions of people somewhere in the world, because you were loyal to their club. Isn't that worth anything anymore? Are the modern day players just greedy and stupid? In a few years, people will say, "Berbatov who?", and no one will care. He comes to Manchester, people won't care, he comes to Tottenham, people will have a slight dislike of the guy. What an accomplishment.

I guess I answered my own question, but it frustrates me that there doesn't seem to be any footballers these days with a sense of club loyalty and an ambition to become club legends.
Click to expand...

there is no club loyalty because its work.

ironically the players dont get any loyalty either. why should they show the club loyalty? why should they show the fans loyalty?
 
Most players these days aspire to be the king of twitter banter and to have the world's biggest headphones.
 
africanspurs said:
there is no club loyalty because its work.

ironically the players dont get any loyalty either. why should they show the club loyalty? why should they show the fans loyalty?
Click to expand...

This is an oft quoted sentiment that I don't really agree with. When we sign young players, and give them the time and opportunity to develop their careers and support/carry on paying them through loss of form/long term injury problems we are both showing faith in them and being loyal to them. contracts mean much more to clubs then they do to players. I how often do you hear of clubs agitating to stop paying players with injury /firm problems as opposed to players agitating for a move / demanding said move no matter the length of their contracts?
 
africanspurs said:
there is no club loyalty because its work.

ironically the players dont get any loyalty either. why should they show the club loyalty? why should they show the fans loyalty?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, of course. I understand all the arguments, I just don't understand why so many players are constantly trying to get to "greener" pastures, often failing while doing so. Oh, well, it's a sickness of our culture and especially of the modern day football. And of course it's just going to get worse. It just sickens me to the bone that a player like Modric, earning what he does, can go out on a "strike" because he wants to become a big man.
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
This is an oft quoted sentiment that I don't really agree with. When we sign young players, and give them the time and opportunity to develop their careers and support/carry on paying them through loss of form/long term injury problems we are both showing faith in them and being loyal to them. contracts mean much more to clubs then they do to players. I how often do you hear of clubs agitating to stop paying players with injury /firm problems as opposed to players agitating for a move / demanding said move no matter the length of their contracts?
Click to expand...

its a contract as if the player doesn't produce results, the club will ruthlessly terminate his contract/sell him away.
all about money; it cuts both ways.
 
africanspurs said:
there is no club loyalty because its work.

ironically the players dont get any loyalty either. why should they show the club loyalty? why should they show the fans loyalty?
Click to expand...

Loyalty is one thing, professionalism is quite another. In the circles that I have worked, some of them fairly insestuous, bailing early on a contract can kill your contracting career, and rightly so. A company has paid you a huge sum of money to reflect the special ability that you bring and to appreciate that you are working in the short term, with no securities. Mercanaries who chop and change as the tide turns will quickly be shunned.

So it should be in football. These players have made a commitment to the club, the fees are agreed and in many cases, the salary is inflated to reflect the extended terms that they have agreed to. £30k per week over a 2/3 year period becomes £45k over a 4/5 year period... So with this and "loyalty" bonuses, they have been offered and accepted terms over a well defined period. To throw your toys out of the pram and demand a move, after carefully negotiating your terms for a A SET PERIOD, is just out of order imo. It is unprofessional, opportunistic and lacks class, ethics and character.

It is the club's decision to sell, don't be fooled into thinking that someone held a gun to Modric's head or that he signed a long contract for the love of the club. Signing a 5 year contract earned him more money than signing a 3 year contract, that is all. Now that he has earned that extra money for less than half of his contract length, he wants more money from someone else.
 
metalgear said:
its a contract as if the player doesn't produce results, the club will ruthlessly terminate his contract/sell him away.
all about money; it cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

You can't terminate a contract without consent from the player or strenuating circumstances. Look at Winston Bogarde... £40k a year for 4 seasons... 9 games. "Ruthlessly"? No player goes where they don't want to. If the player isn't capable of delivering to a club's standards, then he isn't delivering his end of the contract and it is absolutely the clubs right to look at moving him away, doesn't mean the player has to accept.
 
Milas_Spur said:
Gascoigne, Sheringham & Klinnsmann all forced a move and now all are considered club legends.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. He fell out with the Chairman over a) our signings and b) over a contract. He wasn't even in the country when Spurs accepted the bid.

Not sure about Gazza forcing a move either to be honest. I thought it was more we needed the money.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back