Much has been made of the ‘role’ that footballers are supposed to play in the modern world. Apparently, according to the media, our so-called stars are not only worthy of celebrity status, but also of being virtuous examples of how our youngsters should behave. Really?
All be it RTG is fairly long in the tooth, but our parents and teachers were the people who taught us how to behave. Back then footballers were revered only for their skill and behaviour on a football pitch: track back; ‘if in doubt, kick it out’; lose the ball, get it back again; refs don’t change their mind so don’t answer back. And so on. Never were we expected to emulate our on-pitch heroes by copying their off-field activities. In most cases we didn’t even know what they were. In those days people were simply not interested (a certain Mr George Best aside).
So what are we to make of David Beckham’s current antics in Sierra Leone? RTG’s burning question is if indeed Beckham is to gain his 100th cap, as the media seem so desperate for him to do, and given that he has not played a competitive match since his substitute’s appearance against Croatia, how can he afford to take four days out to act as Unicef goodwill ambassador in a visit to Sierra Leone – good cause though it may be? RTG has written many times about the farce that surrounds Beckham’s 100th cap and this serves to reinforce the fact that the whole issue of Beckham is turning into a media ‘circus’ and not about football at all.
On balance it is probably a good thing that celebrities are using their status to highlight worthy causes. But for every David Beckham, Geri Halliwell or Out-of-work Eastenders star that beats a path to a Third World Country, very little appears to have been achieved in relieving poverty and people’s suffering. But that’s another issue.
At least Beckham, to his credit, is not kidnapping small children to adopt them or roasting some poor wannabe WAG in a hotel room, but we are surely expecting far too much from our footballers who are generally very inexperienced in the ways of the world, not especially well educated and exhibit all the common trappings of people who have far too much money and time on their hands. Imagine, back in the 1960s, anyone bothering to ask Jimmy Greaves his opinion on world poverty. And therein lies RTG’s point. Nobody would have done because they knew there were better qualified people to ask (and not just because he usually couldn’t remember). Greaves’s skill was in scoring goals and that’s what the media and public were interested in as far as he was concerned.
There are, of course, too many examples of behaviour not worth copying: roasting stories, rape allegations, fights with bouncers, urinating on floors and in their pants; and blatant examples of racism. In addition, there are the likes of Rio Ferdinand launching his £300,000 football academy in Uganda to educate street kids in Kampala who said meeting the kids was ‘overwhelming and humbling’; while also launching an exclusive, luxury, gated housing development overlooking Kampala designed to exclude the very people he’s humbled by. John Barnes gave us his ‘responsible’ attitude to the environment and Green issues by choosing to boast to us how he didn’t understand recycling so he didn’t do it. This from a man who constantly craves ‘respeck’.
If the media keeps trying to hoist on us values and expectations of footballers’ off-field behaviour, this will serve only to drive a wedge further between players and supporters. And the more players try to court the media to bolster their off-field incomes, the more likely that this situation will get worse. Nobody is expecting to see a return to the cloth cap days when players travelled to the game on the same bus as supporters. But what footballers have to realise is that the more they cosy up to the media, the more likely it is that they will lose the respect of their ultimate paymasters, the supporters. Many supporters are already turned off by the cynical manipulation of the ‘badge kissers’. Players should remember one of the old adages, ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.
Reclaim the Game – The Week’s Events
- The clamour by Liverpool supporters for the removal of the American duo, Hicks and Gillett, from ownership of the club grows daily as the realisation that securing the required new loans against the club’s assets is not a good idea after all. But as Manchester United supporters discovered, when congratulating themselves over the blocked Sky takeover, they went from the proverbial ‘frying pan into the fire’ with the arrival of the Glazers. What do Liverpool supporters know of the potential buyers Dubai International Capital (DIC)? Probably the same as they did of Hicks and Gillett. Bugger all. Be careful what you wish for.
- Justin Gregory, the Havant and Waterloo player, who will sadly miss this weekend’s FA Cup tie at Anfield through suspension, appears to be the only person with a realistic view of his predicament. The sensationalists at Talkshite Radio accused the FA of being ‘jobsworths’ by not allowing the rearranged mid-week fixture to count as his suspension game. A shame though it is for Gregory, teams can’t tinker with the fixture list to enable suspended players not to miss vital games. Otherwise, why have a disciplinary system at all? Worse still, why have a system operated not on rules, and equal treatment irrespective of status, but on sentiment? This is one issue RTG actually backs the FA on.
- Manchester United CEO, David Gill’s, house was daubed with anti-Glazer graffiti. Whilst RTG has every sympathy with the plight and aims of Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST), we would like to remind those taking this action that the tactic did not work with John Magnier and JP McManus, the Irish major shareholders in the club pre-Glazer. In fact, it made them more willing to sell up to the Glazers when the bid came in. Not that RTG is at all suggesting that this was sanctioned by those that run MUST but you get the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment