|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Decision dilemma To play for club or country
Posted: Friday November 12, 1999 04:56 PM
Club or country? That is the question. When Brazilian superstar, Ronaldo, found himself embroiled in a tug of war between his club, Inter Milan, and his country, he became the latest victim of one of the most difficult dilemmas in the modern game. The insistence by Brazil's coach, Wanderley Luxembourgo, that the two-time World Footballer of the Year play in both friendlies Down Under, rather than just the one he'd committed to, placed Ronaldo in the impossible position of having to choose between club loyalty and national pride. Inevitably, the club that pays his sizeable salary, had to come out on top -- a result which meant the Australian public will be denied a rare glimpse of his talents in the flesh altogether. Furthermore, Ronaldo himself was left as the bad guy, forced to issue a pathetic plea to Luxembourgo via the media in which he said, "I just hope I will again have the chance to play for Brazil." All this over a friendly? Is it really good for football that one of the most gifted players in the game has been forced to put his international career in jeopardy over a "B" team kick-about? I think not.
Surely in this day and age, when clubs pay millions for the services of star players, it's time for the powers that be in football to seek out a solution to this problem, that does not involve the player being put in such an invidious position? FIFA, football's ruling body, supported Ronaldo's decision to obey the dictates of his club by saying that as he'd already made himself available for seven international friendlies this season he was not obliged to play another one. However that still left the ultimate decision with the player, which is wrong. To avoid heaping that kind of pressure on players like Ronaldo why doesn't FIFA take a more pro-active role by establishing an international season of sorts. A model for such an arrangement was found in Britain in the 1970's and 80's, when the home internationals, played at the end of the season, were essentially friendlies with a little edge for which players were automatically available. A similar model, whereby all club activity worldwide stopped for say three or four weeks spread throughout the year -- would not only create a useful breather for the majority of players in a club calendar increasingly crammed with fixtures -- but would also allow the star players to display their talents to a wider audience without the feeling they're somehow cheating their clubs. A series of friendly international breaks would also work well for the international coaches, who could guarantee the chosen players' availability instead of facing the constant battle to get them released which continues despite FIFA's woolly directives on the subject. Of course nobody wants the talents of players like Ronaldo to be spread too thinly. That would only diminish them. But unless we're going to abolish internationals altogether, I think it's high time football itself took responsibility for finding a workable club versus country compromise. Terry Baddoo is a co-host of "World Sport," the international sports show that airs live on CNN/Sports Illustrated and CNN International.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
