
Very little about today (especially as I'm still ignoring England stories). Giggs defends footballer's salaries:
"There is plenty of money in the game but the majority of the players deserve it," Giggs told ITV's News at Ten. "There are a number of players that perhaps 20 years ago would not have got paid the money that they're getting now but that is the way that football is.
"The average player is getting a lot of money – if that is right, I don't know. But good luck to them – the money is in the game, why not earn it while they have got the chance? But 20 years ago that wouldn't have happened. Then it was probably only the top, top players, the elite players who would be earning good money."
Which I'm not quite sure is the way to argue - you start using words like "deserve" and people come back with "what about doctors, or soldiers, or..." Whether or not they "deserve" it, there's a lot of money in football, footballers provide the entertainment, footballers should therefore reap the benefits of the cash in football. It's not about "deserve" it's about a fair distribution of the wealth in football. Maybe one day the rest of society will actually catch up with the idea...
Only other thing is this from Brian Moore in The Telegraph, on Sir Alex and Wiley:
This I still don't get - the comment which has apparently so successfully hidden our poor performance against Sunderland is constantly repeated with the words "deflecting analysis away from his team's poor performance against Sunderland" or something similar. As a tactic it hasn't worked, so why does everyone claim it has? And another thing, if Sir Alex is wrong to criticise the referee, of not being fair to the referee, why is it right that the FA and referees get to be unfair to Sir Alex? Two wrongs don't make a right - and referees giving off the record quotes to the media against Sir Alex seems both unfair and cowardly.
Only other thing is this from Brian Moore in The Telegraph, on Sir Alex and Wiley:
the United manager holds little hope of receiving a fair and proper hearing because of a media witch-hunt fuelled by sources close to senior referees.
Oh, the irony – a comment, one of many similar, that manipulated the media by deflecting analysis away from his team's poor performance against Sunderland, is now held against him.
This I still don't get - the comment which has apparently so successfully hidden our poor performance against Sunderland is constantly repeated with the words "deflecting analysis away from his team's poor performance against Sunderland" or something similar. As a tactic it hasn't worked, so why does everyone claim it has? And another thing, if Sir Alex is wrong to criticise the referee, of not being fair to the referee, why is it right that the FA and referees get to be unfair to Sir Alex? Two wrongs don't make a right - and referees giving off the record quotes to the media against Sir Alex seems both unfair and cowardly.
No comments:
Post a Comment