Carlos Tevez - the bizarro Bosman

So with the latest Carlos Tevez saga in full flight - twelve individual articles posted on the Guardian's football site within the past 24 hours, nine of which made their front page - it's now time to ask what, if any, value contracts still retain in football. The cynics among us will automatically say only "to maintain a player's sell-on value". It could even be worse than that.

City's Argentine thorn could keep a snit of contract lawyers employed and happy for months. (Yes, I just made up a new collective noun and I'm quite proud of it)

Essentially, Tevez's alleged refusal to play amounts to an employee telling his boss "I'm not going to go into work because I middle management isn't using me the way I want". Try that today - I dare you - and see where it gets you.

Although it must be emphasised that Tevez's "misunderstanding" story has a whiff (and it may just be that) of truth, Manchester City have little recourse other than to suspend or fine their erstwhile captain. Both are money saving moves, rather than actions which recompense Sheikh Mansour for the star's apparent immaturity.

Player's contracts should have in them clauses which state clearly that the player must play when available and selected - or face suitable legal action. When said player has the talent and earns the sums that Tevez does, withholding pay has little effect. He is now almost irreparably damaged as a City commodity - and so will be available at a more cut-price rate.

The manner in which contracts are disregarded by players who think themselves underpaid or undervalued stinks of Collective Bargaining Minimalism that somewhere, Peter Costello is getting aroused. Before Kevin Rudd's 2007 landslide election victory, it was leaked that the then-Treasurer hoped to extend the nation's "Work Choices" bill so that everything other than minimum wage was negotiable.

Gradually and with only occasional outcry, footballers' contracts have essentially evolved into the reverse. Terms and salary are locked in, but outside that it appears the individual rather than - his nominal employer - has "hand". Again, this is hardly revelatory. But it's worth pointing out that, should Tevez be sacked from his employment contract, Manchester City would:

     a) not see full return on the 25.5 million transfer fee they paid to acquire his services,    

     b) not receive any transfer fee when seeing him play for another club,

     c) have paid his now-exorbitant wages for 2-plus years,

     d) allow him to leave a city he disdains without financial penalty,

     e) see him the most desired free-agent in football history, able to name his wages to play at a club of his choice.

It is in Manchester City's interests to sell him, yet by announcing (as they had to) his suspension they have effectively cleaved his resale value in half. Again, they are out of pocket. The contract that Tevez signed on agreeing to play for Manchester City now so favours the player that it's outmoded and essentially worthless.

It is time for footballer's contracts to more mirror standard employment deals. Were I to compromise my employer's profitability - especially by such great sums - I would expect to be dismissed. Additionally, if there were three replacements who could do my job at equal or better standards, I should fear. Whatever option they choose to pursue - beyond retracting some of his already-paid wages, which is sketchy legally - Manchester City come out behind on this deal.

Jean-Marc Bosman must be crying into his claret - his stand was needed to change the domination that clubs held over their playing staff. Accusations of slavery are of course ridiculous, but not so ridiculous that credible sources like Sepp Blatter aren't fooled. What Bosman did for player empowerment, Tevez has taken so far that he has become the inverse, a Bizarro Bosman whose actions damage player credibility more than aid it.

There should be enough middle ground (as opposed to, say, the NBA) for both sides to be satisfied. Can't we all just get along?

Rooney's true colours aren't United's

I must preface this post with the following statement:

I love Manchester United. I used to love Wayne Rooney.

Now, to business. Wayne Rooney's actions before signing his new five-year deal with Manchester United have been just loathsome. He's spent the last six months agitating for a new contract, held out, slammed the club as lacking ambition, publicly contradicted his manager and now finally re-upped for a major wage increase.

To be brutally honest, although I suggested last week (link) that selling Rooney should be considered, I never honestly thought he would sign for Real Madrid or for Man City. The former option would involve him relocating abroad ("Does Señor want some chocolate for those churros? No Señor, we don't do baked beans here") and the second would involve verbal abuse for the rest of his life and, sadly, potential physical danger (see photo below). It seemed like posturing for a new contract until the doubt was magnified incredibly with SAF's Tuesday declaration that his star was adamant he was leaving. To read the "contract signed" headlines today brings what threatened to turn into a saga back into sharp relief: Wayne Rooney is a spoiled, childish athlete and we were fools to excuse his past actions.

Whenever Rooney's got himself in trouble it's been excused by both his followers and by United. Any problems have been dismissed as a bad combination of money crossed with his lack of years - a working-class kid with outstanding gifts thrust into the public limelight when not quite ready. Selfish acts have been attributed solely to capricious youth. We now know better. This furore wasn't a result of his thinking United lacked ambition or any desire to live abroad. It came down simply to money. Never more will we - or should we - look at his indiscretions and say "Oh well, that's just youth". Now we will look at them and judge them the sins of self.

Sometimes in sport, a player whose game is based on unselfishness is expected to live up to that

reputation outside the sporting arena. The most notable example is LeBron James. A truly unselfish basketballer on-court, his antics this offseason - remember "LeDecision"? - when switching from Cleveland to Miami were the epitome of a "me-first" athlete who didn't quite get it. People weren't upset so much about his team-swap but more the way he engineered it. With James, many were surprised because his sporting prowess is based on making others better.

Wayne Rooney - unlike celebrated former-teammate Cristiano Ronaldo - is obviously an unselfish footballer. He probably deserved a wage-rise. But the way he set about engineering it marked his cards permanently: by publicly slamming his club and teammates he became not an immature guy but a conceited one. His apparent apology to Ferguson and teammates is quite inconsequential. You can't say something, take it back and then continue to enjoy the full trust of your peers. Life doesn't work that way. From now on, United will see him as someone who was prepared to sell them out for an extra dollop of cash and rightly so. United will forgive, but they should never forget.

I will continue to cheer when Wayne Rooney scores. I'll also cheer when he gives off an assist, or marvel at his workrate. What I won't do though, is make excuses for him any longer. As a football-following public we've been too lenient with him. Even if his form returns to levels approaching last year all will not be forgotten, nor should it be. Fans don't necessarily have long or short memories, just convenient ones - we're happy to excuse players as long as they appear outwardly penitent and perform onfield. Wayne Rooney's recent conduct is something fans should never conveniently forget. He should now be recognised for what he is: a severely flawed footballing genius.

If he stays until the end of this contract or beyond, Rooney should be remembered as one of United's greatest players. All will be better, but it will never be completely right again. With his posturing over the last fortnight he's damaged his legacy and will now never be remembered as fondly as players like Giggs, Scholes or even as happily as someone who left like Denis Law.

I hope the extra few quid are worth it, Wayne.

(picture courtesy: guardian.co.uk)