England's youth: a tale of two players

Football League representatives yesterday passed a controversial bill to overhaul English youth team systems. They did so convincingly (46 to 22 - six were EPL clubs) in order to ensure Premier League funding of the Football League Youth Development stays at the current rate of about 5 million pounds per season.

What the new changes will do, however, is drastically reduce the price EPL clubs will pay their local and grassroots brethren for the young stars of tomorrow.

From The Guardian, via Twitter

Rather than the current tribunal system, which assesses the worth of the player via evidence submitted by both purchasing and vending clubs, the new system places a strict framework of prices increasing fractionally for every year the player has trained at the club. So - for example - if the next Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain were to be purchased next summer, the selling club would receive somewhere between 59,000 and 169,000 - not the seven or eight figure sum Southampton ka-chinged from Arsenal for the double-barrelled tyro.

Change was suggested by the English Football Association after a root-and-branch review of the country's academy and player-pathway system in light of a disappointing 2010 World Cup. The Elite Player Peformance Plan (EPPP) was instituted, aiming to restore Blighty to glories last seen in the late '60s. Though the idea for an academy revamp came from the FA, the change was overseen by the country's superpowers, the clubs in the Premiership.

Shortly after the decision was announced, The Guardian's Football League writer John Ashdown tweeted two examples of how this will disadvantage individual clubs. The first was of Oluwaseyi Ojo, the fourteen year-old MK Don who last week agreed a move to Chelsea 1.5 million (rising to 2 million). Under the new rules, MK Dons would receive only 46,500 plus bonuses for first-team matches played.

Part of John Ashdown's (the Guardian journalist) Twitter feed yesterday

More information came quickly to light. Ashdown was informed of the deal's full structure by colleague Simon Burnton, who tweeted that that the amount would then go up depending on EPL games played (see below). The totals seem reasonable for a player who plays a number of first-team matches for his new club. Ostensibly, after 100 Premier League appearances the vendor club may possibly receive millions.

And what if the player doesn't make the first team? John Bostock, who undertook a much-celebrated and highly scrutinised move from Crystal Palace to Spurs doesn't appear likely to make 'Arry's first team any time soon spends his time at White Hart Lane on loan. Were Bostock's deal to have been done after the enaction of this new EPPP legislation, Spurs could have secured him for a maximum of 160K. They may still sell him for a million pounds to a second division team - could Palace expect to see any of that?

As Ashdown's Twitter correspondent @DSThunder adroitly pointed out, this gives EPL clubs - by definition the richest entities in the business - first dibs on the choicest youth of the nation at little or no financial risk. The legislation was drafted by the EPL and yet affects the Football League.

That, in itself, is wrong.

The problem is this: smaller clubs are now robbed of one of the most fundamental sales principles - demand drives sales. With a framework in place which restricts the amount for which a club can sell a youth player, it's apparent that the first law of economics has not been followed: the marketplace drives price. Now, the market sits behind the wheel seat.

Smaller clubs who may have benefited from the sale of a player who has had the chance to develop big raps will now be robbed of that chance. A sell-on percentage should have been included in every deal in order to give lower-tier clubs a chance of recouping what that player could have been to them.

The classic mistake of sports administrators - professional and amateur - is to prioritise elite "player pathways" at the expense of grassroots development. In effect, assembling a squad of elite players is given precedence over strengthening the game where it is most needed. An elite team can't be built without a solid support base - one formed in part of Stevenage, Yeovil Town and Brentford. It is likely that several lower-league clubs such as these are now likely to withdraw their involvement in youth development.

Rather than decrying the inequality of these changes, the country's governing body has been blinded by it's own majestic vision. The EPPP is less legislation and more a ransom note.

A-League? No, it's all about Harry.

Harry Kewell.

A show-pony. A drama queen. The best football player to come out of Australia.

Just the mention of his name prompts the football fan to opine. It's impossible not to, given his remarkably high-profile successes and failures. The recent debate over a possible move to the Australian A-League has once more forced even the non-football fans to choose a side of the fence - for or against Harry.

The move didn't materialise amidst reports Kewell's salary demands were met by the A-League's biggest two clubs, Sydney FC and the Melbourne Victory, but his requests to the Football Federation Australia (who administer the league) were not. Those demands allegedly included a percentage of the gate for increased attendances his appearance likely would encourage. His manager Bernie Mandic last week nixed any possible return to Australia, saying 32 year-old Kewell would pursue further European opportunities.

The reaction from Joe Public was almost overwhelmingly negative, prompting the hashtag #KewellALeagueDemands to trend on Twitter as amateur wits made increasingly ludicrous requests. Australians, never the most patient or forgiving of peoples, have very little time for "it's all about me" types. It was taken in fun by Kewell and his wife Sheree Murphy, but still exemplifies the scorn such demand generated.

And more than any other combination of four words - more even than "Injury plagued Aussie footballer" the words "It's all about me", define Harry Kewell. At seventeen he was the darling of the Australian soccer community with two goals in the World Cup qualifying playoff loss to Iran (hardly an upset as the partisan video suggets), he married the soap-star princess and played, sorry, rehabbed for one of the world's great clubs, Liverpool, in a country where the cult of celebrity is worshipped by many above almost all else.

How else would you describe him after his comments concerning a galling red card in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa? "The guy has killed my World Cup" doesn't reflect his unavailability despite an obvious important role for the Socceroos, but how it affects Harry. Mandic shouldn't be blamed for his role and neither should Kewell - Mandic is just doing his job, while as a football-hungry public demanded identification, home-grown Harry was our best association with the World Game and thus the unholy combination of Australian expectation/respect and English tabloids created the persona Harry Kewell now proffers.

Who are we to blame a young(ish) man for wanting it all? A family life AND a well-paid football career - sound familiar? It should, because it's nearly exactly the same situation as thelatest Carlos Tevez dilemma, only in reverse. Kewell is content with family life - indeed, Australia would be preferable to Turkey, Russia or even Germany - but isn't able to meet his financial demands. And while Tevez's constant "Look at Carlos" act has worn thin and his methods are dubious, Harry's act is walking a similarly fine line.

By asking for a percentage of any increased gate takings, Harry Kewell and Bernie Mandic are asking for a degree of responsibility that few have shouldered in the fledgling competition. Indeed, while Archie Thompson, Nicky Carle and most notably Robbie Fowler have tried to lift the competition on their shoulders, onlyDwight Yorke has managed to do so successfully. The combination of responsibility doesn't usually rest well on the shoulders of someone whose first priority - and he's hardly alone in this - is himself.

In a business based on exposure, both Kewell and Tevez benefit from their profiles; Tevez also so through his talent. Harry Kewell has become the object of scorn because his profile appeals to a much smaller population: that of Australia, England and possibly Turkey. It is only right he should seek the best deal for himself within that market.

And the FFA is perfectly within it's rights to refuse to accommodate those demands. Partly because even Kewell's salary would further imperil already-struggling A-League teams and therefore further payments based on increased attendance would make even less fiscal sense. It just isn't good business for Ben Buckley and his offsiders and so the likelihood is you'll see Harry next pop up in the hoops of Celtic, Queens Park Rangers or Kayserispor.

It's almost certain that Harry Kewell will perform a valedictory tour in the A-League, displaying as a marquee player some of that dazzle which won him so many admirers so long ago. It would be good business sense to do so - but not for another contract period or so, while bigger dollars, less expectation and better competition await. With those business aspects kept firmly in mind, the chances of Harry Kewell joining the A-League this year were never great, but the publicity certainly was.

Balanced Sports is now on Twitter!

Balanced Sports is now on Twitter!

Our feed is called balanced_sports, and you can follow us by clicking this link.

Context, (poor attempts at) humour, irreverence and sport, all in 140 characters or less. Who could say no?

Garnett: If he said it, punish him

Last night, the Boston Celtics' "heartbeat" Kevin Garnett allegedly called Charlie Villanueva a "cancer patient". This was reported by several news services, particularly ESPN's NBA website and Villanueva's side of the story has been confirmed today by both the player and his club, the Detroit Pistons.

These allegations surfaced when Villanueva, who suffers from a form of alopecia meaning he loses the hair from his head & body, tweeted them last night. Charlie V suffers from a form of alopecia, a condition meaning he loses the hair from his body. Should these allegations prove true, then Kevin Garnett should be sanctioned harshly. As someone who has a friend currently battling cancer, using this horrible condition as an insult or as a means of obtaining a mental edge over another person is misguided and in extreme ill-taste.

Whether it's true or not is another matter. We have no reason to doubt Villanueva and Garnett's reputation as one of sport's unmatched trash-talkers only makes one think it is eminently possible. But as Des Headland and Adam Selwood "proved" in the AFL two years ago, sometimes one player's words are misheard by another. As someone who's made his last decade one of near-unmatched intensity and will-to-win, KG has been known also to overstep the bounds of common sense before - reportedly injuring rookie Rick Rickert with a punch during practice in 2004. Should Villanueva's tweets be accurate, then it also makes a mockery of Garnett's 2006 NBA Citizenship award, which is given to the person who "shows outstanding service and dedication to the community". It must be stressed though that these allegations have yet to be proven or admitted and neither the Celtics and Garnett have commented on his verbal jousting during the Pistons game.

Trash talk, whether effective or not, has an exalted place in today's pro basketball. Actually, it has an exalted place in all basketball, from the NBA to your local pickup games at the YMCA. Special reverence is attached to those who are able to talk and then back it up wither with wit or performance. But the major problem is that there are no bounds to what is acceptable and that what is acceptable varies with each person. But no matter what, there are some things that Trash Talk should never encompass - chiefly other people and especially those who have no control over the condition they are endure.

No matter what comes of this issue, one thing has become clear to me. Verbal stoushes will always play a role in sports. We all do things to increase our chances of winning from time to time. But if "mental disintegration" is part of your armoury, there are a few topics which may strike home but you don't use anyway: illness, disability, death - you just don't do that stuff, it's part not only of common sense but simple human decency as well. And if it's worth you effectively selling that decency for a win, then it appears we have completely different ideas about what makes a person admirable.

Kevin Pietersen simply tells us what we already know

The recent furore about Kevin Pietersen tweeting his disgust at being dropped for the oncoming One-day series says nothing more about Pietersen than what we already knew. What it does raise, however, is the burgeoning issue of appropriate use of social networking sites by cricketers, Twitter foremost among them.

The ECB has recently made moves to ban players from using the microblogging site, a move for control by a board unable to micromanage its playing staff as in days past. At the front of their minds must be the abusive tweet sent to a fan by paceman Tim Bresnan as well as Pietersen's outraged update at being “rested”. Gone are the days of a simple five-minute radio interview at the end of a day's play, now replaced by 24/7 access to the dressing room, long the most private area of any team's domain. To that extent, several leagues have legislated to stop players tweeting during matches or about in-game incidents.

This northern summer, KP's form has been patchy at best and he has stagnated as a batsman since the Moores crisis of early 2009. His batting, once powerful and expressive enough to command a place in any world cricket side, has reached the point where he's now convinced – like Matthew Hayden in his career twilight – that domination of a bowling attack comes down only to an aggressive state of mind rather than the combination of footwork, attitude and hard graft.

Of course Pietersen's antics shouldn't come as a surprise. He has ample experience at dealing with traditional media sources and must have known his Twitterrage would be reported yet still posted the message. This adds proof to the theory that most professional athletes react differently to disappointment than the rest of us. As an exceedingly small group, they are feted and praised beyond all recognition simply for their hand-eye co-ordination and as a result a healthy world-view is hard to maintain. These abilities are so desired that the media and fans have created this elite status where a blind eye can be turned consciously to an athlete's self-obsession, all because it's in everyone's best interest to see that athlete perform at their best.

If KP's Twitterburst came from a normal person it would be seen as immature. But we can't judge him in those terms because he's not a normal person. At least he doesn't consider himself normal because he's been told that's he's special by everyone since age twelve. One only has to see his posture at the crease to gain insight into how Pietersen views himself. Like anyone who is told something repetitively, Kevin has come to believe that he is special and that special people get what they want, whether that be a spot in the team, superior treatment in restaurants or a chance to voice their opinion, no matter how alternative, misguided or clinically insane.

Making (and recovering from) mistakes combined with good old-fashioned repetition forms the bedrock of learning. When it comes to cricket, Pietersen's talent has helped him make fewer mistakes than the norm. With a lack of negative reinforcement and only repetition – which in itself breeds obsession – from which to learn, could this be a key source of his skewed perspective? With a minimum of negative reinforcement, how could any of us have a well-adjusted world view?

How any player chooses to express himself is very much up to the individual. The proliferation of athletes regurgitating only cliche and optimism means it's safe to expect only platitudes from the age-old combination of player and microphone. Adding fuel to the fire is very rare now – especially since the retirement of noted agitators McGrath and Warne – but whenever a player steps out of line via Twitter he should as accountable for his words as he would be in any other public forum. Rather than a flat-ban, applying the simple “Would you say that to a microphone”? technique may be the best option. Social networking tools should be treated exactly the same as any other media outlet with anything published on these sites regarded as a public statement – vent, post, or blog at the player's own risk like the rest of us – and if an employer can catch a truant employee via a facebook update then the same rules must apply to athletes.

The ECB shouldn't, and probably legally can't, stop their cricketers from using these sites. Of pro athletes, the number of damaging tweets as a percentage of overall tweet numbers must be microscopic and rarely are any tweets revelatory. I mean, how often do you expect to hear a startling disclosure about anything in 140 characters or less? And combined with the unflappable boredom that makes up the current crop of world cricketers this issue suddenly becomes irrelevant. The domain of the pro athlete is no longer only the arena and has stretched into cyberspace: Twitter is an egotist's (and their agent's) wet dream because it allows everyone in the world free and unfettered access to “the brand”, in this case the most damaging batsman in World Cricket today.