| |
 Same old story Man U, Arsenal success points to flawed transfer system
Posted: Friday July 30, 1999 11:40 AM
The start of a new English Premier League season beckons, and the question as usual is -- who will take the title, Manchester United or Arsenal? Is that a boring situation or what? I think it is. The essence of good sport is good competition, and with United having won five titles in the last seven years, including two doubles and a treble, and Arsenal having taken the double in their only Premiership-winning year, that's not what fans of arguably the world's best league are getting. Not that United or Arsenal are to blame for this lopsided affair. Indeed Sir Alex Ferguson and his Arsenal counterpart, Arsene Wenger, are only to be congratulated on what they've done -- Ferguson in particular. The Scot's Midas touch having achieved what many thought was the impossible, by usurping the great Sir Matt Busby as United's favorite son, while extending the worldwide following of a club that was already a legend when he arrived. The real fault lies with the transfer system that allows the rich to simply get richer. In the Premier League, as in other major leagues around Europe, the big-money clubs like United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, are in a position to buy up the best proven talent, and their success also attracts the most talented youngsters to their youth systems. Consequently their superiority is maintained, creating an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. To combat that monopoly, why doesn't UEFA at least try adopting a draft system similar to that used in the United States, where the basic premise is that the worst teams in any given season get first choice of the available talent ahead of the season that follows? Certainly on a national basis, and possibly on an international basis, perhaps within the European Community, for example, those players out of contract along with the contracted players who'd been granted a transfer could be placed in a central pool from which all those clubs with an interest would select. The order of the draw would be determined by where the clubs finished in the league -- a reverse seeding, if you like. Round one, for example, would only be open to say the bottom five clubs, round two to the bottom ten, and so on. This kind of auction would not only give the poorer or less successful clubs the opportunity to strengthen their squads at a competitive price, but might also prevent big-name players from seeking to break their contracts, as they would then run the risk of being sold to a lesser team. If, however, a player was traded to a small club and either did not want to play there or could not agree personal terms, then the club would have the right to trade him on the open market. That would have the effect of putting the less powerful clubs in a win-win situation, as they would either gain a star player, or a sizeable chunk of cash through the sale of that player. The extra income would then make them more competitive in the open market situation. In practice this would take massive cooperation from the clubs, players and the football authorities. However something of this nature may certainly be worth a try, as a one- or two-horse race can be interesting for only so long.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
