The Champions
League semi-final draws are now complete, and Bayern Munich will face Real Madrid
in one leg, with the other matching Chelsea with Atletico Madrid. While it’s
not certain that the four best teams in Europe have qualified for the Final
Four, there can be little argument that this quartet are certainly the most
deserving.
The most visible storyline emerging from the draw concerns
the fate of Atletico Madrid’s goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois, the Belgian prodigy playing
for Atleti temporarily – or
not – while waiting to assume Petr Cech’s Chelsea mantle. The loan
agreement between the two clubs did not explicitly state that the player would
be allowed to play against his parent club, meaning his appearance against the
Blues would incur a €3 million “penalty fee” per match, an amount far
in excess of what Los Rojiblancos’
balance sheet could justify.
It is still unclear as to whether the youngster will be able
to play in the quarter-finals, but a ruling
today from UEFA seems to strikes positive chords for both Atletico and
Courtois. Despite the inevitable (and potentially legally justifiable) clamour that
will emerge from West London in response, this is the best solution for the
competition.
Courtois has become such a factor for his proxy team that robbing
Atleti of his presence would lessen the competition’s status as the world’s most
elite football league. Courtois has featured so heavily in his three years at
Vicente Calderon that employing his understudy would greatly de-harmonise defensive
understanding – a
key factor in coach Diego Simeone’s tactics – and rob the side of some
morale simply due to their not having one of the world’s top handful of
goalkeepers available. Atleti would certainly still be capable of winning the
tie, but it would be far more difficult.
Were Chelsea to win without facing Courtois, it would be a
hollow victory, a defeat of a team minus one of its key components. Any legal
challenge made by the Blues would be an attempt at slanting the balance of the
tie in their favour – which they have every right to do – but would nonetheless
seem unsporting. But no matter what the context, a larger organization using
legal intricacies to minimize their smaller opponents’ chance of victory just
doesn’t smell good.
Chelsea have more money than, well, just about everybody. Atletico
Madrid employ a goalkeeper on loan from a more prosperous club because he was
the most cost-effective option they could find. The club couldn’t afford to
replace Manchester-bound David De Gea with a goalkeeper of similar quality permanently,
and thus were forced to rely on the loan market.
 |
| Mendeleev Tank, courtesy wikipedia |
The situation has worked wonderfully well for all three
parties: Atletico obtained a potentially world-class keeper, Courtois got ample
game time and developed into one of the world’s best, while Chelsea allowed
another club to turn an asset into one far
more valuable while also earning back a significant chunk of his transfer fee.
To further encumber Atletico by legally challenging UEFA’s ruling is their
right – but would also turn Abramovich’s behemoth further into a faceless
corporate victory tank.
Having the superior financial resources to purchase Courtois
in the first place is one thing – bully for Chelsea FC. To then further use
that stash to inconvenience opponents who just don’t have the same fiscal means
begins to look a little antisocial.
No comments:
Post a Comment