"Manchester United must win the major cups this season for the good of football", says an stupid half baked fathead. why not Bury FC? why not Norwich? why not Leicester for the greater good of football? Why only Man U?
Now, what makes Man U a better club then these poorer ones? Bigger city, more fans, more moolah. 'MORE' Moolah. So, when Man U crushes Blackburn on a sunday, it is primarily because they have more money. Not because they are better by birth. And that, the fathead would now say is fair. You could smell the resentment of those small clubs that Man-great-U deign to play in the league and FA cups, 'Big city millionaires', they would say,' anyone would build a team with that kinda money'. So these are the rules of the game, which as you see, are fundamentally unfair. And in this unfairness, if chelsea breaks the rules of the game and pours in some money from the outside, it is Chelsea which is the sole culprit.
You could say it is Ferguson who shaped, nurtured, built Man U from the basics. To which a chelsea fan or even a neutral observer would say, It is Jose Mourinho who has led Chelsea to its success. Ferguson or no Ferguson, Man U was always a good side.
What should be, those fatheads say, is that the fans should have the control of the game. Even if we suppose that this is the 'ultimate benchmark of fairness', of how things should be, then there is no fairer team than Chelsea. A fan controls it, a fan decides whom to buy, a fan decides who is to be the manager. the fan being Abramovich. Now, can a profit motivated, Glazer controlled Man-fucking-U claim that kind of fan participation?
Now, what makes Man U a better club then these poorer ones? Bigger city, more fans, more moolah. 'MORE' Moolah. So, when Man U crushes Blackburn on a sunday, it is primarily because they have more money. Not because they are better by birth. And that, the fathead would now say is fair. You could smell the resentment of those small clubs that Man-great-U deign to play in the league and FA cups, 'Big city millionaires', they would say,' anyone would build a team with that kinda money'. So these are the rules of the game, which as you see, are fundamentally unfair. And in this unfairness, if chelsea breaks the rules of the game and pours in some money from the outside, it is Chelsea which is the sole culprit.
You could say it is Ferguson who shaped, nurtured, built Man U from the basics. To which a chelsea fan or even a neutral observer would say, It is Jose Mourinho who has led Chelsea to its success. Ferguson or no Ferguson, Man U was always a good side.
What should be, those fatheads say, is that the fans should have the control of the game. Even if we suppose that this is the 'ultimate benchmark of fairness', of how things should be, then there is no fairer team than Chelsea. A fan controls it, a fan decides whom to buy, a fan decides who is to be the manager. the fan being Abramovich. Now, can a profit motivated, Glazer controlled Man-fucking-U claim that kind of fan participation?
2 comments:
I'd like to defer on the later point, may be Roman Abramovich is a fan, but he is a business man too. And one more thing with that sortta money even Jose or no Jose chelsea would be a good team(but not a great one) greatness comes from history
May be while saying "good of football" the author had the playing style in mind. Even you wouldn't argue that Chelsea plays a boring, a martinet sorta game as compared to Arsenal, Barca, and (even to some extent)ManU. I'd love to see more of Robben with his artistry. Moreover, Chelsea doesn't give much chance to youngsters(see Arsenal)
What appears more businessmen like--playing a 31-32 year old shevchenko(after buying him for millions), or playing a 17 yr old Walcot. Even ManU is good at nurturing players, everyone knows about Christiano Ronaldo.
So my whole point is if this author(or fathead) had playing style in mind while coining that phrase(dood its inflamatory though) than I support him one some aspects, but on any other point he'd really be a fathead.
And one more thing my friend u sound like an idealist while writing this article, but ideal conditions don't prevail. Yes, the rules are cruel but being pragmatic they seem to be "fair"
It is not 'boring', it is 'variety'. :)
Post a Comment