Written by Mr H on Sunday, 05 June 2011 13:17

Before I begin this article, I would like to state for the record, I am a member of the AKB. I firmly believe in the project and direction of the club. It is a financially savvy and frugal system that flows against the unsustainable and in many ways corrupt strategies employed by so many other teams around the world. There is no point naming names, but in my opinion ( I'll stress this point, for this is a blog that provides the platform for everyone to express there opinions and not dress opinion as fact) the money that comes into the EPL has raised the levels for potential corruption. There have been more than a few articles that look into Football investment as a means of money laundering. That is not the focus of this article.

I would like to take a different angle on football. As pointed out above, the buy buy buy philosophy in many ways can lead to the corruption of the sport, and as such I prefer the build build build philosophy, the philosophy of Barca, Ajax and Arsenal (and many more). However, on a moral level, is this actually any better than the former (yes I know, I am probably contradicting myself, but frankly my dear I don't give a damn, I want to express the thoughts that I have been pondering).

Is it possible that both paths are fundamentally morally dubious? Could it be that whichever path leads to success is the right path and that in fact the ends do justify the means???

What I would like to posit is that the system in place at Arsenal and Barca can in many ways be seen as just a new form of resource exploitation for the profit of uncaring private investors. Sport is an entertainment business and behind any business there are those who merely concern themselves with profit. It is how you make profitability that can fall into the imoral or moral. Or is profit ever moral, that is the point I guess I am getting at. Look at Enron, Fannie Mae, AIG and Lehamnn brothers, or even further still, the Robber Barons or even European Monarchies. The profitability of all the above institutions all had one thing in common, they were ruthless in their pursuit of profit.

In the case of colonial economies, the system worked as such: they would ruthlessly exploit undeveloped nations resources, export them back to Europe, manufacture them and then sell them on at a massive profit. Such is the same model of Neo-Colonial capitalism (Coca Colonisation for example).

Is this not very similar to what Arsenal and Barcelona are doing? We find diamonds from underdeveloped regions, such as Latin America, Africa and in some cases different parts of London (yes that is a joke intended to lighten the mood) in turn those diamonds are removed from these areas, processed into finished products which can be sold on for profit.

These areas barely see the money that these diamonds are worth and the real money more than likely goes to private investors in the region. The players themselves, while they earn a fortune (especially in comparison to their national compatriots) are in most cases unprepared for the money they earn and tend to retire from the game in financial ruin.

As is the case with the exploitation of natural resources, the less developed the region, the cheaper you can buy the resource and the more profit you can ultimately make. As such it is never in the best interest of those buying the resources to develop the region of origan. And this much can be said to be true in a footballing sense. While teams do want to improve a certain amount of the footballing infrastructure so that they can continue to exploit a partially developed product, the true profit is never seen in the players community nor for the region.

Maybe teams like Arsenal develop the area closer to home, but what do they do for their players from further afield? How much financial training do they give to their young players to provide them with protection from the dark financial realities of a professional footballer? Do they even provide any?

Arsenal is a team of development, but is that development meant to only increase the profit of some soulless private investor or is it spread out to include the regions that are used to provide this industry with it's products?

I love this team and this club, but I also think it is important to ask such questions, so that when we as supporters criticize other teams for their direction (buy buy buy or grow grow grow) we can say theirs is wrong while knowing we aren't doing equally harmful things, that may not be as noticeable because they are not as close to home.

This is a think piece, so think about it and criticise don't just criticise the action of thinking...

Mean Lean's Response

Certainly a think piece with some very interesting questions.

Arsenal like any other club, in fact like any business try to do the very best for ourselves and ourselves only. If this means pinching assets from other clubs for a value far less than said player is worth then we are likely to do just that.

I had a recent debate with several other Gooners about Arsenal making a profit from the youth development system we have in place and as supporters I suppose it can be easy to think of Arsenal as a club just set up to satisfy it's support, or at least attempt to satisfy the support.

The reality is that Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Oxford City, Ipswich Town and FC Barcelona are all businesses. Businesses that have to compete ferociously with competition on all levels.

'How much financial training do they give to their young players to provide them with protection from the dark financial realities of a professional footballer? Do they even provide any?'

I am not certain about how other clubs operate but I do know that, at Arsenal we educate all our young players and try to develop them as people as well as players. Education, media training, English language (in some cases) as well as many other things are part of the Arsenal way.

The moral or immoral question is interesting. Whilst you could probably argue for and against artificial cash being thrown around from rich billionaires, you could argue that Arsenal do much more for young men than most clubs. We may not fill the pockets of a club from an underdeveloped country but we certainly do great things for individuals. Educate both footballistically and academically, teach them how to become men and if they cannot manage to equal the quality of Robin Van Persie then they are perfectly prepared to further their careers elsewhere.

I think that is about as moral as a club will get in 2011.

• Add New
• RSS

Comments (15)

• 07-Jun-2011 12:31 | | arse  - No
  

  Simple - No they dont. NEXT.

• 07-Jun-2011 12:44 | | modern idiot
  

  i stil see this system as the lesser evil considering slavery exists in some parts of the world.at least they have the dignity to pay these players wages most of us only dream of.

• 07-Jun-2011 13:09 | | berry  - overhoul squed
  

  plays out nasri,fabregas,ebue,denelson,bentner,alumina,diaby,squilacia play in velvez,bojan,thiago,stekelenburg,girvinho,defoe,vertonghen

• 07-Jun-2011 13:16 | | berry
  

  they have to let nasri go becouse to keep player no happy will not work for the team ,they must also let fabregas to go so that cash and buy like bojan,thiago,girvinho,defoe,vertonghen,stekelenburg,veloso

• 07-Jun-2011 15:22 | | mr h
  

  what does any of this have to do with the article?
  
  Can't you just leave transfer speculation for transfer speculating articles???

• 07-Jun-2011 15:23 | | mr h
  

  I don't know where I stand... Well... I'm a Gooner through and through, I just want to know that when I say that the big money spenders who just through cash at players are doing more harm than good, then I want to know that the system I support is doing more good than harm...

• 07-Jun-2011 15:29 | | Gunning for glory
  

  Because so many Arsenal fans are too stupid and can only think about FIFA & Championship manager.
  
  Good piece MrH and ML

• 07-Jun-2011 16:00 | | Wenger Boy
  

  Excellent, excellent piece Mr H. Raises a number of interesting questions.
  
  I think in terms of comparing foreign players to resources the difference is that the resources have value already whereas value is imparted into the players through being developed at a more established team. The players will most likely never reach the same level of value by staying in the local area and if we look at some of the African stars they often use the money they have accumulated through playing in Europe to build training facilities etc. in their home countries. Therefore, it could be argued, these countries have actually benfitted more by allowing the players to go abroad and develop their value there.
  
  There is never going to be a system whereby a local team is paid what the player will be worth once he is developed because a) they can't claim complete responsibility for developing them and b) there is always a fair chance that these players wont develop the value they were expected to anyway.
  
  I wouldn't therefore label Arsenal immoral for their practices even if at first sight this system seems unfair to the local areas where the talent was gathered. Bear in mind that Arsenal also do not control this system and actually utilise it to offer chances to those who may not have one without it.
  
  I think it would be more immoral if Arsenal mistreated the players once they arrived, but there is absolutely zero evidence for this and plenty for the opposing view. I would say that to my knowledge Arsenal is one of the best places for any aspiring footballer to develop as both a person and a player. And for that I think the club should be credited.

• 07-Jun-2011 16:12 | | Mick
  

  I wouldn't say that but I would say Barca do what we do much better. I'm thinking we are doing it wrong Barca have turned many youth players into superstars. Perhaps rather than cherry picking worldwide perhaps we should try and find and grow local talent Ashley Cole became a superstar, Wilshere is coming along quite well, United built a legacy from a core of youth products. This would save Arsenal much more money. So if we feel youth is the answer perhaps we need to look closer to home.

• 07-Jun-2011 20:11 | | mr h
  

  Good points.
  
  The reason I wrote this piece is due to a discussion with some of my students. I'm currently working in Chile and a discussion developed around a comparison between Maradonna and Messi.
  
  One of the points raised was the general inability of players from poorer regions to deal with the mass amounts of money thrown at them by football clubs (especially those in Europe). This was a definite distinguishing factor between the downfall of Maradonna as compared to the seeming down to earth mental aptitude of Messi.
  
  This lead me to wonder what our club was doing in terms of financial preparation of our young stars in the making.
  
  Coming from South Africa and working in South America, I feel that there can perhaps be outlined more than a few similarities between colonisation of raw materials and "neo colonisation" of footballers.
  
  Look for example at the amount of African players from former French colonies playing in France and South American players in Spain and Portugal.

• 07-Jun-2011 21:58 | | Podge
  

  Barca bring in young talent from all over the world and all over Spain whereas Arsenal only have a 90mile radius to pick English players

• 07-Jun-2011 22:04 | | Podge
  

  It's a good question and I know Arsenal built an academy in a west African country recently that is a school as well. The club also forms partnerships with many clubs we buy young players from and arranges money spinning friendly's and loan deals

• 08-Jun-2011 11:47 | | richie  - Podge's response to Mick
  

  Podge, I started respond to Mike's point before seeing your post. As you say the FA in their "infinate wisdom" have limmited our potential pick up zone for young players. Considering that we have Chelski the Tiny Totts and loads of other championships clubs like Weat Ham in that 90mile zone to compete with, its not surprising that Barca, who can pick from all of Spain are doing better developing players than us.
  
  Not only that but they set up their academy 15years earlier. Just as Ajax set up their academy earlier. The input from Croyff on both Ajax & Barca's academy's cannot be overstated. Its said that the great JC wants only players that emerge from the academy to play for Barca, because its easier to intergrate academy players into their style of play. Which is a point that comes up later. Should we choose a similar route raising a team thats been together for years to counter big money teams of galatico's.

• 08-Jun-2011 12:13 | | richie
  

  We are relatively new comers to Academy building. Both Ajax and Barca have successful satilite academy's. Only good can come from educating young kids in those academy's because they are being given a chance that they otherwise wouldn't get. Personally I love the idea that my club could be changing the lives of people in 3rd world country's.History teaches us that social change doesn't start with country's it starts with individuals. Not only that but I'm totally with Mr H. As he points out he's a proud wearer of the AKB badge and so am I! I would rather build a team than buy a team. Croyff's dream of a totally home grown academy team would suit me fine if we could pull that off at Arsenal.

• 11-Jun-2011 12:24 | | CHGooner  - 90 minure radius
  

  Two points on this.
  
  I) 20 million people live within a 90 minute radius of Arsenal. Man U have less people and compete with City, Liverpool, Everton, Leeds etc so don't think we are particularly disadvantaged there
  
  Ii) did you see how many of Barca's team came from Catalonia? Those from Catalonia all came from within a 90 minute radius. There'll be another one joining them in the summer.
  
  What is your point then?
  
  On the main article, interesting but overall I think if you are a promising player from a less developed country it would be unfair to restrict your opportunity to maximise that talent. I do think that some form of 'football tax' could be levied once a player had made a number of appearances in the Premier League for example, which would be payable to the local FA but of course in many cases that would probably line individuals pockets rather than actually go on football development. Complicated subject certainly.

Write comment

Your Details:

Name:

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Powered by Compojoom comment 4.1.7 stable