With the conclusion of both major continental tournaments, the focus of the football world shifted back to the ongoing off-season and the transfers (or non-transfers) that come with it.
This past week, no major transfers were made. However, there was a contract signing which put an end to years of speculation.
Fresh off leading Argentina to victory at the Copa América, Lionel Messi signed a five-year contract extension following the prior expiry of his Barcelona contract. This extension takes his stint at the Catalan club to 2026. As Messi will be 39 at the conclusion of the new contract, he will almost certainly finish his career as a one-club man.
What I will say next is not intended to knock Messi or any other one-club men at all. However, I firmly believe that the idea of the one-club man is the most overrated concept in football. It does not deserve to be romanticized the way it is.
The most obvious argument proving that sentiments about the one-club man is the fact that it's highly situational.
Not convinced? Well, think of some of the all-time great one-club men. Franco Baresi. Carles Puyol. Paolo Maldini. Sepp Maier. Francesco Totti. Wolfgang Overath.
The connection? All the players mentioned played their entire careers at clubs from major European leagues which were generally competitive during their entire stints there. In fact, the first four were part of dynasties. Of course they would have no trouble being a one-club man - it's easy at clubs like that. Had they happened to start off at a smaller, less successful club, they would've all been gone within the first three to four years of their careers.
I'd actually say that unless a player of that level is fortunate enough to begin his career at one of the 10 or so best clubs in the world, that player should not even want to be a one-club man. To me, players of that calibre should naturally want to test themselves against the toughest competition - something that would simply not be possible at many clubs.
On top of that, far too many fans conflate loyalty to a club with actual skill. This in turn has led to many one-club men as well as players who spent the vast majority of their careers with the same club to become massively overrated. It has also caused players who have frequently switched clubs to be underrated.
Once again, this makes absolutely no sense. A player does not magically improve solely by choosing to remain at the same club; neither would that same player become a worse one just by moving to a new club.
I completely understand that fans would like their best players to remain at their clubs for as long as possible. However, the reality is that today, player empowerment is greater than it has ever been and superstar footballers are more likely to seek a transfer now that they were 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. To me, this isn't a bad thing at all - in fact, it's one of the factors keeping elite-level football competitive. No player who ought to be facing off against world-class opposition in the Champions League should have to waste years of his career at a club which is clearly going nowhere.
The concept of "player loyalty" is also overblown. That's not to say that it isn't important to any players - it clearly is to some. But, that in turn brings about the question: if this concept were not mythologized to the extent which it is, would they still feel the same way?
The main point is this: there should not be a sense of moral superiority attached to being a one-club man. It's clearly one of those things which is right for some players, but not so much for others. While it may sting for fans of any club to watch a once-beloved player leave, the fact is that the player in question is most likely doing what he believes is best for his own career.
Ultimately, there are too many extenuating factors for the status of "one-club man" to be considered an achievement. It should be treated like an interesting statistic - nothing more than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment