More stories

  • in

    Man Utd star Scott McTominay shows off horror six inch gashes down leg after studs up tackle on him against Southampton

    SCOTT MCTOMINAY was left with gruesome stud marks on his leg after he was clattered by Alex Jankewitz.
    The Southampton midfielder was sent off for the challenge after just 82 seconds of his team’s 9-0 defeat.

    Scott McTominay showed off his war wounds after the horrific tackle Credit: supplied by Pixel8000

    Jankewitz, 19, recklessly lunged into McTominay with his studs raised on his first start for the Saints.
    McTominay dropped to the ground in agony before United’s medical team rushed on to assist him.
    Just moments after the brutal challenge, McTominay showed off three huge cuts on his left thigh.
    Swiss star Jankewitz was shown a straight red card by veteran referee Mike Dean.

    But McTominay, 24, was able to play on for the remainder of the match at Old Trafford.
    The Scottish star put an incredible performance as United thumped their opponents 9-0.
    McTominay bagged his side’s sixth goal in the 71st minute with a strike from outside of the box.
    Southampton were reduced to nine men in the 86th minute when Jan Bednarek saw red.

    FRIDAY NIGHT POKER: Play against us to win a share of $5,500

    Alex Jankewitz was shown a straight red card for the challengeCredit: supplied by Pixel8000

    But furious Bednarek claimed even Anthony Martial admitted there was ‘not a foul’.
    United’s incredible performance saw them equal three all-time Premier League goalscoring records.
    As things stand, the Red Devils are now level on points with locals rivals Manchester City.
    But Pep Guardiola’s side, who beat them 2-0 in the Carabao Cup last month, have two games in hand.

    Scott McTominay dropped to the ground in pain after the tackle Credit: supplied by Pixel8000
    ⚽ Read our Man United live blog for the latest news from Old Trafford

    Ole Gunnar Solskjaer reacts to Man Utd’s 9-0 win over Southamton More

  • in

    Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City in three-way Achraf Hakimi transfer fight with full-back up for £35m from Inter Milan

    CHELSEA, Arsenal and Manchester City are set for a transfer tussle for Inter Milan’s £35million full-back Achraf Hakimi.
    The Moroccan star only arrived from Real Madrid last summer but a growing financial crisis at Inter may force the Italian giants to cash in.

    ⚽ Read our Chelsea live blog for the very latest news from the Bridge

    Achraf Hakimi is wanted by Premier League trio Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City
    Hakimi has reportedly been tipped by Arsenal scouts as a potential replacement for Hector Bellerin, while Chelsea are long-term admirers of the former Borussia Dortmund loanee.
    Now Manchester City are hoping to trump their Premier League rivals in the summer, according to Calciomercato.
    The 22-year-old has been one of the stars for Antonio Conte’s men this season as they sit just two points behind bitter rivals AC Milan at the top of Serie A.

    The struggle for funds at Inter has seen them miss a payment instalment on the deal which took Hakimi from the Bernabeu and the Italians have been forced to agree a new deadline in March.
    Now they could lose him altogether with the Premier League trio sensing an opportunity to secure one of the most highly rated young full-backs in world football.
    Hakimi plays as a right wing-back for Inter in Conte’s 3-5-2 system, but can also play as a right back or on the left.

    Antonio Conte faces losing one of Inter Milan’s prized assets
     BEST BETS TODAY: GET THE TOP PRICES AND BOOSTS AVAILABLE

    Born in Madrid to Moroccan parents – and boasting 32 caps for the African nation – Hakimi rose through the ranks at Real after joining them aged just eight.
    It was at Borussia Dortmund, however, where he made his name, having joined on loan in 2018. His two seasons in the Bundesliga allowed Real Madrid to cash in, selling him to Inter for £35million.
    With coronavirus plunging Inter’s balance sheet in the red, they are now vulnerable to a bid just a year later from the cash-rich Premier League sides. More

  • in

    Sporting Lisbon thriving since Bruno Fernandes’ Man Utd transfer with replacement Goncalves firing them towards title

    SPORTING LISBON have been better than ever since Bruno Fernandes left for Manchester United.
    The Portuguese side are charging towards their first league title since 2002 after replacing Fernandes.

    Bruno Fernandes has been a huge hit since he arrived at Old TraffordCredit: Getty Images – Getty

    The 26-year-old established himself as Sporting’s star man before he left the club in January 2020.
    Fans expected the club to struggle without him – but his departure has incredibly had the opposite effect.
    His replacement, Pedro Goncalves, has fired Ruben Amorim’s side to the top of the table.
    They are four points clear of Porto following Monday’s 1-0 victory over Benfica.

    Goncalves has been the star of the show with 12 goals and two assists in 14 matches.
    He proved his potential as he scored ten times in six games earlier this season.
    Sporting snapped up the ex-Wolves star in a £5.85m deal from Famalicao in August.
    Following his impressive spell of form, Manchester United are keen to sign him too.

    CASINO DEALS: BEST SIGN UP OFFERS TO CLAIM OVER £700

    Bruno Fernandes vs Pedro Goncalves this season

    Bruno Fernandes
    21 games
    12 goals
    2 assists
    Pedro Goncalves
    14 games
    12 goals
    2 assists

    Pedro Goncalves has filled the void left by Bruno FernandesCredit: Getty Images – Getty

    The Red Devils are reportedly prepared to pay the 22-year-old’s £53million release clause.
    United are believed to be keen to link Goncalves up with Fernandes in the middle of the pitch.
    Sporting have managed without Fernandes – but he’s continued to impress this season.
    He has scored 11 goals and made seven assists in 21 games for Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s side.
    Fernandes has even been voted as the best ever January signing of all-time in a BBC poll.
    ⚽ Read our Man United live blog for the latest news from Old Trafford

    Ole Gunnar Solskjaer forced to defend Man Utd superstar Bruno Fernandes after criticism of display at Liverpool More

  • in

    Tyson Fury names Eric Cantona as the one Man Utd icon he’d like to meet for drink and plans 365-pub challenge for 2021

    TYSON FURY admitted he would love to pop to the pub for a pint with Manchester United legend Eric Cantona.
    The heavyweight champion, who plans to drink 365 beers in 2022, would also like to have a drink with Jesus Christ, Elvis Presley and Tom Jones.

    Tyson Fury will not drink a drop of alcohol during 2021Credit: Twitter

    During an interview with Gareth A Davies, Fury was asked which stars from past or present he would like to get to know over a pint.
    Davies immediately guessed that the Gypsy King would pick Cantona as he is a huge fan of Manchester United.
    Fury, 32, responded: “That’s who I’d want as you know he’s my all-time favourite player. I would love to have a beer with Eric.”
    The unbeaten heavyweight has been spotted in the crowd at United’s Theatre of Dreams on a number of occasions.

    And it was claimed that his trilogy fight against Deontay Wilder would be held at Old Trafford as that was his ‘dream’.
    When asked if he likes to attend United’s home games, Fury said: “Yeah, I did before Covid changed the world.”
    As well as Cantona, Fury added a few other big names to his star-studded guest list.
    He named Jesus Christ, then added: “Can you imagine what it would be like to have a beer with my saviour?”

    FREE BETS: GET OVER £2,000 IN SIGN UP OFFERS HERE

    Eric Cantona scored 82 goals for Manchester United in 182 appearancesCredit: Getty – Contributor

    Fury continued: “I’d like to have a beer with Elvis Presley, that would be a good one.
    “And I’d love to have a beer with Tom Jones. Me, Tom and Elvis in a room having a few beers.”
    He also admitted he would ‘love’ to have a beer with Donald Trump – but he did not make Fury’s final cut.
    But any drinking sessions will have to be put on hold as Fury is planning to go without alcohol in 2021.
    He said: “I’m having a dry 2021, like last year I had three or four days where I had a few drinks in the year.
    “This year I’m having none, I’m having a dry 2021. Not that I need to, I just want to do it as a challenge. I like challenges.”
    He will have a dry 2021, but the WBC king has set himself an incredible drinking challenge for the following year.
    He said: “Then in 2022, my goal is to have one pint of beer per day for 365 days of the year.

    Boxing superstar Tyson Fury is a huge fan of Manchester UnitedCredit: Getty – Contributor
    “But here’s the twist, it’s got to be in a different pub, bar or hotel everday.
    “I’m going to take a picture with the pub and the pint, so the logo is in the background.
    “At the end of the year, with 365 of them I’m going to put them onto a collage and put it up in my room.”
    Fury – who has his sixth child on the way with wife Paris – is fully focused ahead of his showdown with Anthony Joshua.
    Promoter Eddie Hearn has claimed that the fight dubbed the ‘Battle of Britain’ will take place in June.

    Tyson Fury warns Anthony Joshua that fighting him is like wrestling a T-Rex More

  • in

    Dele Alli’s future ‘hugely uncertain’ after PSG miss out on Tottenham star with midfielder frozen out by Mourinho

    DELE ALLI reportedly faces a ‘hugely uncertain’ future at Tottenham after his loan move to Paris Saint-Germain collapsed.
    The Spurs outcast had been tipped to spend the rest of the season on loan with former boss Mauricio Pochettino in France.

    Dele Alli has made just four Premier League appearances this season Credit: PA:Press Association

    Jose Mourinho has hardly used the 24-year-old this term.
    But with no replacement arriving at Spurs a move to PSG for Alli failed to materialise.
    Pochettino was keen to bring the former MK Dons star to France in an attempt to revive his career.
    According to the MailOnline, the England ace now faces an uncertain future in North London.

    Alli has made just FOUR appearances in the Premier League during the 2020-21 campaign.
    It was reported that he was trying to force his way out of the club amid interest from PSG.
    Transfer guru Fabrizio Romano said: “Dele Alli > PSG deal is *not* happening. Definitely collapsed.
    “The player was pushing to leave Spurs but Tottenham refused to let him go because they didn’t find a replacement. It’s over.”

    Alli will be desperate for game time in order to impress England manager Gareth Southgate ahead of Euro 2020 this summer.
    Those opportunities could now be few and far between.
     BEST BETS TODAY: GET THE TOP PRICES AND BOOSTS AVAILABLE

    New PSG boss Mauricio Pochettino wanted to sign Dele Alli on loan Credit: Reuters

    Mourinho predicted last month that Alli would to see out the rest of the season in North London.
    When asked if he still expected Alli to be around after the window shuts, he said: “I expect.”
    Alli has been with the club since 2015 and his current deal is not set to expire until 2024.

    Jose Mourinho says he’s very happy with Dele Alli’s performance against Marine More

  • in

    Chelsea Fires Frank Lampard as Manager

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHoping to Salvage a Troubled Season, Chelsea Fires Frank LampardLampard, a title-winning player, failed to draw out the same type of success from his team as a manager. The German Thomas Tuchel is expected to replace him.Frank Lampard’s job security vanished as Chelsea slipped down the Premier League standings.Credit…Pool photo by Andy RainRory Smith and Jan. 25, 2021Updated 8:50 a.m. ETLONDON — Lying ninth in a congested Premier League table and with only two wins in its last eight league games, Chelsea confirmed on Monday morning that it had fired Frank Lampard, one of the club’s greatest players, from his post as head coach after 18 months in the role.Chelsea’s recent slide, despite a handful of expensive summer signings, had not only dashed any remaining hopes of contenting for the Premier League title but also imperiled the club’s chances of qualifying for next season’s Champions League, Europe’s richest club competition. Chelsea’s board said in a statement that an immediate change was the only option “to give the club time to improve performances and results this season.”Such is Lampard’s standing at Stamford Bridge — where he spent 13 years as a player, winning three Premier League titles, four F.A. Cups and the Champions League and establishing himself as Chelsea’s career goals leader — that Roman Abramovich, the club’s reclusive Russian owner, took the rare step of explaining his departure to the team’s fans.“This was a very difficult decision for the club, not least because I have an excellent personal relationship with Frank,” Abramovich, a largely silent presence in his 17 years at the club, said in a statement on Chelsea’s website. “I have the utmost respect for him. He is a man of great integrity and has the highest of work ethics. However, under current circumstances we believe it is best to change managers.”Lampard took the job in the summer of 2019, on the back of a single season’s experience as a manager at the Championship team Derby County. In his first year at Chelsea, he guided the club to a creditable fourth-place finish in the Premier League, despite the club’s losing his star, Eden Hazard, to Real Madrid and working under the restrictions of a FIFA-imposed transfer ban.The stakes this season were always likely to be higher: Chelsea spent $300 million on new players last summer, despite the economic uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic, with a view to challenging Liverpool and Manchester City for the Premier League title.Under those increased demands, Lampard has struggled. Two of the most expensive summer signings, Timo Werner and Kai Havertz, have made little impression, and the club has dropped out of the title race at the season’s halfway point.Fearful that qualification for next season’s Champions League was at risk, the club felt it had no choice but to act. Chelsea is expected to appoint Thomas Tuchel, the former Paris St.-Germain and Borussia Dortmund coach, as Lampard’s replacement.“We are grateful to Frank for what he has achieved in his time as head coach of the club,” the club said in a statement confirming his firing. “However, recent results and performances have not met the club’s expectations, leaving the club mid-table without any clear path to sustained improvement.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Mesut Özil's Long Goodbye

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyRory Smith On SoccerThanks for the Moments, Mesut ÖzilAs he trades exile at Arsenal for a new start at Fenerbahce, Özil should be measured by what he brought to London, not what he didn’t.Mesut Özil on the ball could bring the Emirates Stadium crowd to its feet in an instant.Credit…Adrian Dennis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJan. 22, 2021, 11:50 a.m. ETMesut Özil watched Jack Wilshere’s pass as it drifted over his shoulder, and then plucked it down from the sky, a coin landing on a cushion. Most players might have accelerated then, with an empty penalty area unfolding before him, an opponent giving chase at his back.Özil, though, slowed down, almost to walking pace. He did not look at the ball; he did not need to. He knew where it was. Instead, he glanced to his right, assessing Olivier Giroud’s intentions. He had called the Frenchman his teammate for only 12 days — a handful of training sessions, no more — but he read him perfectly.If anything, it looked as if he under-clubbed the pass he then sent Giroud’s way, a soft-shoe roll across the penalty area that seemed to sell the striker slightly short. The appearance was deceptive: The ball invited Giroud to dart away from his marker, and gave him enough space and time to pick his spot. He swept a shot past the goalkeeper.[embedded content]As he wheeled away in celebration, he sought out the man who had made it possible. Özil had been unwell in the buildup to the game. Already, though, he had made quite the impression. His very presence had lifted his teammates. Online, his new fans swooned. “If that’s Özil under the weather, with little or no relationship with any of his colleagues, then I can’t wait to see him when he’s firing on all cylinders,” Arseblog wrote. He had, at that point, played 11 minutes for Arsenal.In truth, he did not even need that long. On the night he signed — transfer deadline day in September 2013 — a throng of fans congregated outside the Emirates Stadium, mobbing the Sky Sports News reporter stationed outside as he delivered updates on how the complex negotiations were proceeding. When the deal was completed, they celebrated with the sort of gusto that would ordinarily greet a late winning goal.Özil had Arsenal at hello. Even at the time, his arrival felt a little like another milestone in soccer’s blooming transfer culture, an age in which acquisition is a success in and of itself, an expression of power and clout and virility that renders what happens afterward — whether the player is, in fact, any good — if not irrelevant then very much secondary.Such a reading of Özil’s time in London — that the most significant aspect of his Arsenal career was the fact of it — is not entirely invalid, but it is a touch misleading.Özil’s Arsenal career isn’t having the happy ending everyone expected when he signed.Credit…Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA, via ShutterstockThe sense of jubilation on the night he signed was understandable. The previous seven years had been difficult for Arsenal: not difficult in any real sense, not difficult in a way that fans of Rochdale or Torquay or York City would recognize, but difficult by thoroughly modern superclub standards.Hamstrung by the need to repay the loans required to build the Emirates, Arsène Wenger had been forced to work on a relative shoestring. The sight of players’ leaving Arsenal for more money and broader horizons at Manchester City had become a common one. A year earlier, the club had allowed its talisman, Robin van Persie, to sign with Manchester United, a gesture taken as a symbolic surrender. An Arsenal team that had always seen itself as a title contender seemed to have downgraded its ambitions to merely qualifying for the Champions League.Özil’s arrival was greeted as a sign that the dark days were over. Here was a bona fide superstar, lured from Real Madrid no less, for a record fee. He was a symbol of a new dawn: The debt paid down and the calvary completed, the club could now take its place as one of the game’s true superpowers, equipped with a team fit for its home.It did not, of course, quite work out like that. Özil’s tenure ended this week, when he flew to Istanbul to join his boyhood team, Fenerbahce, on a free transfer, several months after Arsenal effectively shrink-wrapped him and left him on the loading dock.Özil arrived in Istanbul this week to complete his move to Fenerbahce.Credit…Fenerbahce.Org, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn the course of seven and a half years at Arsenal, Özil won three F.A. Cups and played a central role in one genuine title challenge, in 2016, but he could not be said to have signaled a change in the club’s fortunes. (He would also, of course, win the World Cup with Germany during this period.)The Arsenal team he joined was a fixture in the Champions League; the one he left was scrabbling to claim a place in the Europa League. Özil, in some quarters, was held responsible for some part of that decline; a kinder interpretation would be that he was simply not a bulwark against it.Either way, his time in London did not have the outcome that either he or his club would have preferred. Instead, as The Guardian neatly put it this week, he left a sort of “half-legacy” at the Emirates: one of games that he dominated, rather than seasons; one of eternal promise that something more was around the corner; and, in later years, one of intense division among those who hold Arsenal close, some of whom saw him as the problem, and some who still believed he might be the solution.To most, then, even if he cannot be deemed a failure, then he certainly cannot be cast as a success. There was no Premier League title, no Champions League crown, not even a Premier League player of the season award. He never lived up to that initial hype. In his twilight, Özil came to be dismissed as a player of great moments, and nothing more.And yet that seems a strange reason to condemn him as a letdown. It is a common misconception that supporting a team is about trophies and championships and glory. It is not. If it were, millions of us would simply not bother. It is, instead, about memories of moments.Özil after losing in the 2019 Europa League final. Arsenal, and its fans, expected better.Credit…Yuri Kadobnov/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWinning, of course, is cherished because it tends to create more of those moments than losing. Winning is prized because the instant of victory is the greatest moment of all. But that does not strip meaning or value from all of the moments along the way; the journey is as much the point as the destination.And Özil, though he never took Arsenal where the club hoped he might, provided plenty of those moments. That pass, 11 minutes into his first game, was just one of many, which went beyond the goals against Newcastle and Ludogorets and Napoli, plus all the others that might grace a YouTube compilation soundtracked by off-the-rack E.D.M., or all of the 19 assists he recorded in his finest season.There were the countless deft first touches, the hundreds of clever passes, the ones only players of the rarest gifts can see. There were the otherwise tedious games — true, often against weaker opposition — that he illuminated, especially in his first few seasons. There was, most important of all and yet least tangible, the sense that with him in the team and on the field, something might happen at any moment.None of that is worthless. Özil might not have heralded a new dawn for Arsenal, after all; he might not even have been able to stay the decline. He might feel, with the benefit of hindsight, when the final verdict is issued, like something of an anticlimax. But the journey is as much the point as the destination, and Özil provided plenty of moments along the way.The Crest of a WaveRespect the crest. Play hard for the crest. Never, ever get a tattoo of the crest.Credit…Jennifer Lorenzini/ReutersIn many ways, Inter Milan’s decision to undertake a comprehensive rebrand should be welcomed by anyone who has cause to refer to the club in English. It solves a rather knotty problem, you see, one that is rooted in the fact that Inter Milan does not, strictly speaking, exist.The club’s name is Internazionale, which can be abbreviated, in Italian or in English, to Inter. But there is no mention of Milan. Inter Milan is a widespread, longstanding (and ultimately pretty harmless) Anglicism, but it is not — technically — a thing, any more than Arsenal London is a thing.So the club’s reported plan to change its name to Inter Milano should, to some extent, make everything easier for us — and what, ultimately, is more important than the convenience of the English-speaking world? — just as it would be in our interests for Sporting Clube de Portugal to accept the inevitable and start calling itself Sporting Lisbon.Inter’s plans extend beyond its name, though. The club intends to alter its crest, too, in line with the redesign of its great rival, Juventus, a couple of years ago. That, too, should be unremarkable: Inter has had 13 versions of its crest in its 113-year history, though the basic style has been the same since 1963 (with the exception of a weird decade from 1978 to 1988 in which its ornate design was replaced by a cartoon snake).But this is all uncomfortable, for two reasons. One is quite what the point of it all is: Juventus defended its own change as a sign of its progression from simple, all-conquering soccer team into a brand capable of “delivering lifestyle experiences.” But what does that mean? How can Juventus deliver a lifestyle experience? And how does it do that through its crest?The other, more important, reason is that a crest is more than a corporate logo. It is a symbol of all the history and emotion and communal experience that compose a soccer team. The best of them — in which Inter’s might be included — are immediately identifiable: They have a glamour and a power that can be accrued only through tradition.To change a crest through a desire to become more recognizable not only risks the precise opposite — if anything, a new crest can only be poorer in its connotations — but also threatens to alienate those fans who feel a kinship with the current one. Worse still, it suggests a lack of faith in your own history, your own lore, your own identity. It seems a heavy price to pay for the marginal, and largely theoretical benefits, of being a lifestyle brand.A Morality TaleMoisés Caicedo will move to Europe — he’s too good not to — but it won’t be easy.Credit…Jose Jacome/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe key thing to remember, strictly speaking, is that there is no villain in the story of Moisés Caicedo. For the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to piece together the reason so many European clubs have been given the same warning: That for all Caicedo’s immense promise, a deal for him is just too complicated to pull off.The reason for that is, on one level, unremarkable. The transfer market is saturated with agents who try to interject themselves into any prospective deal. They approach players with promises that they can get them to a certain club or to a certain league. They receive mandates from clubs to sell a player in a specific territory.In Caicedo’s case, at least three separate agencies are thought to have some sort of legal claim on his transfer; the likelihood is that several more are touting their own connections across Europe in an attempt to conjure a transfer out of nowhere. And, to reiterate, this is all (seemingly) perfectly above board, as things currently stand.Whether it should be that way is a different matter. It feels, from the outside, as if much of this is completely unnecessary, as if soccer’s authorities are vaguely complicit in allowing the transfer market to operate as a free-for-all. It is hard to see how any of this is in the players’ best interests. The benefits to the clubs seem indistinct, at best, too.It should not be hard to regulate things a little more effectively. Agents, certainly, should not be allowed to operate for more than one party in any deal. The practice of allowing clubs to nominate agents to act on their behalf makes sense — it allows them to retain some negotiating power — but the issuing of multiple mandates seems ripe for complication. And it might help if representation agreements had to be signed long before deals were completed.Caicedo, it is to be hoped, will find himself in the right place regardless of the squabble over his future. Brighton, the running favorite to land him, is a well-run, forward-thinking club, much like his current employer, Independiente del Valle. But it is a shame that his emergence — as the standard-bearer for a talented young generation of players in Ecuador — should be allowed to become a faintly tawdry opportunity for lots of people to try to get rich quick.CorrespondenceFar more fans experience soccer this way than watch it in stadiums.Credit…Louisa Marie Summer for The New York TimesLast week’s piece on the hierarchy of fandom — and the underestimated importance of the armchair viewer — prompted Kevin Hegarty to point out that, at least in Britain, “there is a split among those who follow their team from home on TV, between following your team from home within England, and following your team from home from abroad. The latter is the lowest rung, and I find weirdly takes the blame for what TV has done to the game.”This is absolutely right, and is entirely nonsensical. I had this conversation with people on Twitter, too. The idea that not everyone can just go to a game at the drop of a hat is something that is not factored in enough. Nor is the fact that it is, increasingly, those international viewers who enable teams to have the funds to sign and pay the superstar players all fans crave.Keith Woolhouse, meanwhile, wants to know what Sam Allardyce’s secret is. “What elixir does he have that enables him to prevent otherwise doomed clubs from sinking into oblivion? Whatever it is that Sam has that turns clobbers into nimble-footed magicians, he should have applied his skills to politics: England needs resurrection, and all hands to the pump.”Sam Allardyce is in another race against time.Credit…Pool photo by Tim KeetonSadly, I suspect reviving the British government at this point might be beyond even Allardyce. He’s a fascinating character, though: an undoubted pioneer and an impressive coach scuppered to an extent, I think, by his own thirst for validation.I do worry that his latest trick is his hardest, though. In most of his previous jobs, he has taken over teams drastically underperforming, and restored a little order and belief and purpose to them. West Bromwich Albion is not underperforming: Its squad is doing exactly as it should in the Premier League. His test, now, is to find out if he can get players to play above themselves. My instinct is that he will fall short, albeit narrowly.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    In Defense of Television, Soccer's All-Purpose Villain

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyRory Smith On SoccerSpeaking Up for the Armchair FanTelevision, which influences everything from salaries to kickoff times, is soccer’s most convenient villain. But for the vast majority of fans, it’s the only connection they have.Critics of television’s influence on soccer ignore that it’s still the way most fans experience the game.Credit…Felix Schmitt for The New York TimesJan. 15, 2021, 1:22 p.m. ETTelevision is not a dirty word. It is not the sort of word that should be spat out in anger or growled with resentment or grumbled through gritted teeth. It is not a loaded word, or one laced with scorn and opprobrium and bile. It is not a word that has a tone. Not in most contexts, anyway.In soccer, television is treated as the dirtiest word you can imagine. It is an object of disdain and frustration and, sometimes, hatred. Managers, and occasionally players, rail against its power to dictate when games are played and how often. They resent its scrutiny and its bombast. Television is never cited as the root of anything pleasant. Television is the cause of nothing but problems.There is no need to linger for long on the irony and the hypocrisy here. Television, of course, is also what pays their wages. It is what has turned them into brands and businesses. It is television that means managers can accumulate squads full of stars, and it is television that means that, when they are fired, they leave with generous compensation packages. Television, and the money it pays to broadcast soccer, is what makes the whole circus possible.If anything, though, the contempt of players and coaches for television pales in comparison with that of most fans. They, too, talk about television with a certain tone: television as the force behind the erosion of the game’s values, television as the driver of unwelcome change, television as the root of all evil.Match-going fans in Germany have protested Monday games (Montagsspiele), which they deride as a surrender to television’s priorities.Credit…Armando Babani/EPA, via ShutterstockTo many fans, television has become something close to an antonym of tradition. It is television that has eaten away at the way the game used to be, distorting its form for its own ends. It is because of the needs of television that fixtures are spread across a weekend, rather than packed into a Saturday afternoon, as they always used to be. It is because of television that fans are forced to travel vast distances at inconvenient times. It is because of television that the game feels more distant, a religion reduced to just another form of entertainment.There is, and always has been, a strict hierarchy of authenticity among fans. At its head sit those who follow their team home and away, who devote countless hours of their lives, and whatever money they have, to the greater glory of the colors. They might, in some cases, be ultras, or members of some organized fan group, though that is not necessarily a prerequisite.Below them are those who hold a season ticket for home games. A step down are various stripes of match-going fans: those who attend regularly, those who go sometimes and so on, until we come to the bottom, where those who follow the game, their team, from the comfort of their own homes, through the television, reside. And there, almost audible, is that tone again.Both that hierarchy and that attitude are baked into the conceptual landscapes of most fans. It is as close as soccer comes to a universal truth. Even broader organizations, the ones that speak for fans’ rights and work to protect their interests, hover somewhere between disinterest in and outright scorn for “armchair fans.”In the latest annual report of the Football Supporters’ Association — a well-meaning, important body that represents soccer fans in England — there is a section entitled “TV Hell.”“In previous years this chapter has been full of the misery that broadcast changes have inflicted on match-going fans,” it begins. “From late changes to kickoff times, to Monday night away games 300 miles away, supporters’ encounters with broadcasters have been fraught and adversarial.”For the vast majority of fans, a television is part and parcel of the matchday experience.Credit…Boris Streubel/Getty ImagesWhat follows is not to suggest that any of those complaints are invalid. By the time fans return to stadiums after the pandemic, it would be nice to think that both leagues and broadcasters — having become painfully aware, in their absence, of how crucial they are to the spectacle of soccer — would take the needs of match-going fans into account far more than they once did.Capping ticket prices would be a start, a way of ensuring that seeing live sports in the flesh is no longer an innately privileged activity, one only readily available to certain demographics. Crowds need to become younger, more diverse in both color and gender, and cost — as the Chris Rock joke about luxury hotels has it — is the primary barrier to that.Beyond that, subsidizing travel to games — as happens in Germany — would reflect the importance of fans to the experience. So, too, would scheduling them in such a way to make it as easy as possible for fans to attend. No more Monday nights for Newcastle fans in London; no more games that finish after the last train home has left.But for an organization like the F.S.A. to suggest that the relationship between fans and television is inherently adversarial is a comprehensive misunderstanding of the dynamic between the two. It is one that it is far from alone in making, but it is one that serves to reinforce what is, in truth, an entirely false schism.With stadiums closed during the pandemic, television revenue has been paying a significant share of soccer’s bills.Credit…Pool photo by Julian FinneyThat is because we are all, deep down, armchair fans. If not all, then overwhelmingly: there may, it is true, be a few hundred die-hards attached to each team who travel to watch their side home and away and never watch another game of soccer.But for most of us, even match-going fans, television is the way we consume the sport, whether we are season-ticket holders who follow away games remotely or fans who, by pure accident of geography, happen to live thousands of miles from the stadium our team calls home.You might be an ardent supporter of a team mired in the lower leagues who regularly tunes in to watch whatever the big game of the weekend is. You might find yourself idly watching a distant Champions League game most weekday evenings in fall and spring. You might support one team, but take pleasure and hold interest in the sport as a whole. You might just like falling asleep in front of “Match of the Day.” Whatever their circumstances, television is the vector by which most fans get the bulk of their hit.And those fans — although the traditional hierarchy does not recognize it — deserve an advocate for their interests, too, because their interests are our interests. Indeed, their interests are soccer’s interests.Cameras are an intrusion until the moment they’re not.Credit…Pool photo by Fernando VergaraThis is the part that is always missed, whenever the sport bemoans the power of television: Television, that dirty word, does not actually mean television. It does not even, really, mean the broadcasters who produce the content and carry the games. It means, at its root, the fans who watch, the ones who buy the subscriptions and watch the games and make the advertising space valuable.Because, ultimately, television does not pay for soccer: We do. The broadcasters only pay a prince’s ransom for rights to leagues because they know that we will tune in. Their aim is to make a profit from their investment, whether direct — through the advertising sales and subscriptions — or indirect, as is the case in Britain, where both Sky and BT, the Premier League’s principal broadcasters, see soccer as a weapon in the war to dominate the country’s broadband market.Deep down, it is not television that keeps the circus rolling, it is us. We are the ones that pay the salaries, that provide the millions, that have turned the players into stars. (This very same argument, as it happens, can be applied to the issue of the need for more transparency in soccer.)The relationship between television and fans is not adversarial because, at heart, television is the fans. When soccer comes to consider how it will look in the post-pandemic age, it would do well to remember that: not to present those who go to games and those who do not as antagonists, but as two overlapping groups, with interests that dovetail more than they divide. Television should not be soccer’s dirty word. Television, at heart, means all of us.Political Football (Reprise)Just checking: Anyone hugging? No? Carry on then.Credit…Pool photo by Laurence GriffithsBritain’s hospitals are close to their breaking point. Intensive care departments are full, or close to it. Ambulances are lining up at the gates. More than a thousand people are dying a day. Case rates are soaring. The population, or at least that part of it that is not being compelled to go to work, is locked down once more.Underprivileged children are being sent individual potatoes and zip-lock bags full of cheese in lieu of school meals. The bleak realities of Brexit are starting to bite at the country’s ports and docks. And yet, listening to a substantial portion of the country’s public discourse this week, it is almost as if Britain’s most pressing issue is soccer players who hug after scoring a goal.We have been here before. Back in the spring, during the first wave of the pandemic, British lawmakers seized eagerly on the idea that the Premier League’s millionaire stars should all take a pay cut, as many of their clubs were requesting. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, used a news briefing to urge them all to “make a contribution,” even though it was not clear how them allowing the billionaire owners of their teams to save money would help the beleaguered National Health Service.This time, the central axis of the debate is a little different. The government is concerned, apparently, that players’ celebrating goals is “sending the wrong message” at a time when the country as a whole is forbidden by law from even seeing friends and family, much less hugging them. Lawmakers have written to the leagues to remind them of the need to follow restrictions. The leagues have, duly, written to their clubs. The news media has brimmed with fulmination.To be clear: there are protocols in place that players and their clubs must adhere to if soccer is to continue in the pandemic, rules that exist for their own protection and the protection of society as a whole. Players who are proved to have broken those protocols away from the field, if anything, have not been punished enough.But a ban on celebrating goals is not part of those protocols. The players have all been tested, often more than once a week. If they are on the field, we have to assume they are clear of the virus. If we cannot assume that, they should not be playing at all. They are no closer during celebrations than they are at corner kicks. If the former is not safe, then neither is the latter. There have been no cases of transmission between teams during games, or even among a single team: Where there have been outbreaks, they seem to have taken place at training facilities.Celebrating goals, in other words, is a nonissue. That it has been allowed to become a controversy, to take air away from all of those things that genuinely matter, is because lawmakers are once again in need of a convenient villain, and because sections of the news media cannot resist a chance to indulge the cheap thrill of click-inducing indignity. And both, in such circumstances, know exactly where to look.CorrespondenceThat’s George Best on the right there. Not to be confused with Pete Best.Credit…Victor Boynton/Associated PressFirst, to address a query expressed by a couple of readers: Yes, I am aware that George Best was not actually in the Beatles. No, I am not mixing him up with Pete Best. How could I? Pete Best never won a European Cup, for a start.The confusion arose from some poor phrasing in last week’s column (a lesson, here, on the importance of precision in language). I wrote that Best (George) was “regarded as the fifth Beatle,” though perhaps “presented as a fifth Beatle” would have been better.As the story goes, Best (the footballer) was nicknamed “O Quinto Beatle” by the Portuguese news media after starring in a game between Manchester United and Benfica in 1966. That was then picked up by the British newspapers, who referred to him as “El Beatle.” Presumably because the idea that Portuguese and Spanish were distinct languages was too much for them. Still, we all go wrong with the direct article sometimes.On the subject of the fading of the F.A. Cup, George McIntire wonders whether the most conclusive proof of its reduced status came from Arsenal. “What truly sealed its declining relevance was the futility of three wins in four years to save Arsène Wenger’s job,” he wrote. “There’s no Wenger Out campaign if he wins three leagues or Champions Leagues.” This is entirely right, and it’s interesting to note that — at certain clubs — domestic titles appear to be going the same way.And a depressing note to end on from Casey Lindstrom. “You wrote that fame and values are interlinked,” he wrote. “However, one does not need to look far [outside sports] to see those who are famous with all the values, ethics and integrity of robber barons.” This is also entirely right, and I do not have a convincing response to it. Though I find it hard to imagine that an athlete would achieve, say, Marcus Rashford’s level of prominence espousing less admirable views, and that is some solace.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More