Image posted by the great Benit in the OleOle graphics forum. I thought I'd share it to those of you who are non-graphics forum browsers. It's hilarious, and a bit harsh for Michael Ballack. But hey, the truth hurts.

Once more, FIFA manage to annoy me. This time dealing with Romanian player Adrian Mutu. Apparently, FIFA want Mutu to pay Chelsea 12 million euros as compensation for the cocaine incident. This is possible only with the Premier League ruling that said that following Mutu's failed drug test, he unilaterally voided the contract with Chelsea. But that ruling only happened because Chelsea wanted the contracted voided in the first place. 

Chelsea didn't have to let Mutu go. Manchester United didn't let Ferdinand go free of contract when he missed his drug test and received one month MORE than mutu in suspension and a similar fee. Chelsea said they don't condone this kind of behavior and therefore can't allow Adrian to be part of the Chelsea organization any longer. So they did everything possible to place the blame on Mutu for their release at the time.

Now FIFA expect him to pay 12 million euros for something that he didn't want to do - leave Chelsea. He was forced out instead of waiting a 7 month suspension and playing again or being sold, and now they want compensation. It's total crap and another reason to hate Chelsea. And FIFA ruling in favor of Chelsea on this case is even more annoying. They have their own interests, and not the interests of the players in mind. Crap umbrella organization. 

I hope he gets a better lawyer and keeps fighting this. It would be a shame if not.

I was about to go to sleep and then read in interesting blog article here on OleOle. And frankly it got me thinking a tiny bit and then made me write this post.

So money in football, good or bad? That's the main question. The aforementioned blogger things it's ruined football, and I think it's done quite the opposite.

When you think about football you have to think of it as an economy -the football economy - driven by the football business enterprise.  Being the sport with by far the largest audience (2 billion people roughly), there is a lot of money involved and a lot of development. Everything is about money... war, religion, welfare programs, and even charity - because either you pay money to charity or volunteer your time (which means you can afford to take time off from working.. I mean.. do you see the mine workers in Africa volunteering at their local food bank?).

So understanding that everything is about money is essential. Then comes what ideas you have about how economies work and what the best approach would be. The way it's working right now is through sort of a trickle down - free market system. And I'll go into why I think that's working in a bit.

I never like the arguments that certain clubs have monopolized football. If there really was one true monopoly in the football industry, then we'd have only one champion every year of everything, and football would get really boring. The fact that teams fluctuate so much eliminates the possibility of even considering that any one team has an absolute monopoly. Then comes the argument that the top clubs have some kid of cartel formed, where they just dominate. But that doesn't explain how come every season there is the surprise team breaking through, and they haven't spent more money than a team they place above in the league. 

Big clubs with big bank accounts help smaller clubs more than they hurt them by "dominating". It's no coincidence that there are by far more professional footballers now than there were 50 years ago. Money that has been pumped into big teams has been spent towards transfers, stadiums, youth systems, academies, tournaments. Teams are making their living and growing because big clubs pay them money for talent they grow. The money they get, they invest in better facilities, higher paychecks, more youth, etc. For some teams it pays off, for others it does not. 

Manchester United spent the money they won from Champions League revenue and the money they got for winning the league on all their transfers. The money they spent was earned through performance, and they received so much money because WE watch their games and see the advertisements, WE go to their stadiums for the matches, and WE buy their merch. Once clubs mature and profit like United has, they invest only money they win. And that's all they need to invest to maintain or add some youth. They don't spend 100 million extra to buy one super expensive player that they don't really need.

Think how much Tottenham have stimulated the football market in the past few years. They've paid high prices for crap players and they've won nothing (well some cup) and they're just abosulte shit. But the prices they paid helped other teams, and in turn that money helped other teams and so on. 

The money invested helps the global football business grow, expand, and frankly employ more people and raise standards. We have a faster game, more exciting, and with more attention than ever before. And we still don't have a monopoly!

I can tell you when I did see a monopoly in football - during communism in Romania, at the peak in 86. No one was allowed to invest in any clubs, they were run by government organizations. The organization with the biggest budget was the Military, and their team was Steaua. They won basically every season, league and cup. And one season they won the Champions League too, with no foreign players. But they completely monopolized football in Romania and there was no money invested to make any kind of difference, making our league pure crap after those years. And we're still recovering from that now. Finally through investment and good management, a small team broke through the ranks and won the league - CFR Cluj. They spent far less money than Steaua, they spent much less time match fixing and hiring referees, but then won the league. And that to me makes a big statement. 

When you have any kind of control and you don't allow the market to do it's job and allow a freedom of flow of money through the system you can't expect progress. You might have some for a short time, but then it all starts to snowball. Money makes people want to do things... like continue playing football, because it pays as well or better than working on a farm, cleaning shit off of toilets, or for a group of footballers, it pays better than managing a big company or being a doctor.

My last example is Arsenal, who spend very little money compared to other big teams in the Premiership, and continue to do well. They don't win the league every season, but they might be able to dominate for the next few years if they can keep their players - WITH MONEY! And with Hleb, Flamini etc. leaving, it's just another bit of proof that it's hard to monopolize football even if you have a completely created team and not a bunch of 50 million dollar superstars. Barcelona are suffering from the "too many superstar" syndrome. And they're changing their ways, selling players, promoting youth, etc. 

But in the end, football has benefited from influx of money over the years. The rise of Eastern European leagues for example is due to money being invested. You've seen Romanian and Bulgarian teams in the Champions League groups for the past few seasons (though they didn't do very well.. but still..) and they were there because  of money. The industries in these countries are growing in terms of football, and it will just give more and more young kids the opportunity to play an amazing game and maybe make a living out of it and entertain us. 

Football sales and industry in Brazil also represents the amount of GDP that it cost to switch from oil to ethanol as their fuel. Eliminate the money in football in Brazil, and you would not have an energy-independent nation. Think about that for an impact.

Plus, if there wasn't so much money in football, you wouldn't have places like OleOle... and that would be no fun. ;)