John Terry: Self-centred to the end

John Terry: Self-centred to the end

John Terry will go down as a Chelsea legend, of this there can be no doubt. The esteem in which the fans hold him ensures he is free from criticism. But for those looking in, the captain of Roman Abramovich’s footballing empire is a questionable human being whose greatest strength is looking after number one. That’s why his latest outburst, informing the world in a post-match interview with the BBC that his contract wasn’t being renewed, should come as no surprise.

It should be noted that the club haven’t flatly refused him an extension. All they have said is that for now they won’t be renewing his contract until a new manager has been appointed. This is a positive step by the London club. In the past there’s been rumours that Abramovich interferes too much with transfers. Clearly, the board want the new boss to have the final say on all ins and outs.

A man that loved the club would appreciate this, respect it, and await his new gaffer’s decision. But that requires a degree of loyalty and honourable behaviour he’s been unable to show his wife, so why an employer should be given special treatment is unfathomable.

Of course this accusation will enrage Chelsea fans but they deserve him and any insults that head in his general direction. They supported him while booing Wayne Bridge for having the audacity to feel disgruntled that Terry slept with his partner.

Somehow Terry manages to appear the victim in spite of his vile actions. Losing the England captaincy was everyone else’s fault but his. Later in his career he announced his retirement from international football after the Anton Ferdinand incident. Being acquitted in court was supposed to render the evidence that made the FA fine him £220,000 irrelevant.

Just because a civil proceeding couldn’t convict intent beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean his actions were naïve or without malice. He was playing the wise guy and conned his own fans once again.

He’s using them now to further his own end. If he cared for the club he’d have remained silent until a new manager was confirmed. It’s a Machiavellian plan to force the club’s hand with fan pressure. What makes it worse is how he said in the interview that no man is bigger than the club. So why act out of line as if he is owed special dues?

Chelsea should now emphasise the point that nobody is bigger than the club by withdrawing the offer to wait until a new manager is appointed. Keeping the door half open just places pressure on their shoulders. Furthermore, they should insist Terry makes a new statement declaring his desire to leave regardless of what a new manager says.

This will save face for both parties and Terry can claim he made the original statement because he wanted a definitive answer on his future to remove a long period of uncertainty.

It wasn’t just the club that were in his crosshairs, former players took a hit too. Comments about never playing for another Premier League club was a veiled dig at those, like Frank Lampard, that did stay on in England. The truth is no other top four side would offer Terry a contract anyway.

And if he wants an example of how to behave in the future he could do far worse than take notes on how Frank Lampard conducts himself in public. Always polite, professional and a gentleman.

All the virtues John Terry lacks.

Adidas: The Brand with the two sides

Adidas: The Brand with the two sides

The BBC have reported that sports manufacturer Adidas are to end their commercial agreement with the world governing body of athletics, the IAAF. It appears that the recent doping scandals, highlighted best by the allegations of Russian state sponsored cheating, has brought them to the decision. It seems strange they have found moral ground after refusing to condemn FIFA and Sepp Blatter amidst corruption charges.

In big business making public displays like this from large corporations is more about image than moral fibre. People sat in an Adidas boardroom will have decreed that being associated with drug cheats is detrimental to the sporting brand.

This sounds fair enough. When a company is paying in excess of $8m a year, they deserve to be linked with an honest product. There’s no doubt the doping claims and lack of trust surrounding athletics is a turnoff for spectators and commercial partners.

But the IAAF have been more than willing to root out the wrongdoers and have welcomed – albeit with red faces – the findings from World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). They reported that corruption was rife within athletics but their condemnation was aimed at former IAAF President Lamine Diack.

However, the report, presented by respected former president of WADA, Dick Pound, concluded with the statement: “There’s an enormous amount of reputational recovery that needs to occur here and I can’t think of anyone better than Lord Coe to lead that.”

Lord Coe

So we have a large sporting institute in turmoil that has taken steps to correct itself by inviting independent bodies to air their secrets in public. Furthermore, they have installed a new president, in the guise of Lord Coe, who has universal backing and is beyond reproach.

But Adidas want to jump ship.

This is the same Adidas that refused to criticise Sepp Blatter when he was coming under increasing scrutiny towards the end of his FIFA reign. The same Adidas that has been the longest serving sponsor of football’s governing body but didn’t flinch when FBI investigators started to detail a web of corruption far more widespread and complex than the one affecting the IAAF.

The same Adidas that seems to have put money before morals.

Leaving the IAAF now isn’t making a statement against drug cheats in sport; it’s taking money away from an organisation trying its best to fight corruption.

The IAAF want to clean up athletics and isn’t running for cover or acting self-servingly like Blatter and Platini did. They shouldn’t be punished for the actions of some within the sports they represent. If a footballer takes drugs he is accountable for his actions, the authorities he plays under should punish him. Adidas should punish the athletes and nations that sought to gain an advantage, not an IAAF trying to reform.

To put it into context, Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonald’s and Budweiser all made statements in October 2015 stating that Blatter’s continued presence at FIFA was holding back reform. However, at the same time Adidas stood by the now disgraced president.

There’s too much to be gained financially by staying in bed with FIFA.

Adidas weren’t interested in making an ethical choice when the FIFA scandal came to light, don’t be fooled into thinking they care about sporting interests now. To this day, FIFA are still resistant to impartial third parties assisting in reshaping the organisation to help wipe-out corruption. There’s no WADA-type invite being issued by them.

The IAAF will survive and under Lord Coe will overcome the many difficulties facing athletics. When they do triumph they’ll be better off without hypocrites like Adidas in their party.

Modern Game, Archaic Attitudes

Modern Game, Archaic Attitudes

 

Last week the Daily Mail, a publication not renowned for high class output, once again confirmed its status as a small minded rag, pouring out the worst of society’s views. The target this time was Cristiano Ronaldo of Real Madrid; a man many believe is the greatest player on Earth. The article didn’t centre on any of his on-field activities, instead it speculated what he enjoyed doing in private – with other men.
The Daily Mail wrote: Real Madrid star Cristiano Ronaldo is in a gay relationship with a Moroccan kickboxer, it has been sensationally claimed.
Proving that in the world where low-end papers exist, it’s always the 1970s. It doesn’t matter if Ronaldo is homosexual or not. It shouldn’t be newsworthy.
The real problem is how a paper known for its xenophobia is using the rumour as some sort of slight against the Portuguese player.
It’s indicative of a fault well rooted in football’s primitive attitudes. In a sport that can change with the times when it comes to generating income, it still hasn’t learnt one thing since the days of Justin Fashanu.
He was the first £1m black footballer and the first professional player to come out as gay in England. The high fee was paid by Brian Clough who took him to Nottingham Forest. The legendary manager admitted in his autobiography one of his biggest regrets was his poor handling of Fashanu.
This came with the benefit of hindsight, coloured by the eventual suicide of the once promising talent. At the time Clough lacked the understanding and knowledge surrounding the issue. Like many back then, he was ignorant when it came to the subject of homosexuality.
Instead of being the father figure he later wished he’d been, when he first found out about Justin’s lifestyle he barred him from training with the first team. Then he hauled Justin into his office and broached the rumour in the manner recalled here, as written in Clough’s autobiography:
“‘Where do you go if you want a loaf of bread?’ I asked him.
‘A baker’s, I suppose.’
‘Where do you go if you want a leg of lamb?’
‘A butcher’s.’
‘So why do you keep going to that bloody poofs’ club?’”
It must have worn Justin down over the years, and by the time he was accused of sexual assault after an incident in America, he feared his colour and sexual orientation would make his case impossible to win.
Watching the many struggles he endured, it’s not hard to understand why only one other player has openly come out since. The fact it was Robbie Rodgers, a free agent at the time and hardly a household name in this country now, proves no top flight players believe it’s worth the risk.
More recently Sol Campbell became the centre of nothing more than gossip. A rumour spread that he left during Arsenal’s halftime interval with West Ham in 2006, a game The Gunners lost 3-2, because his agent had informed him a national newspaper was going to run a story about his sexual preferences.
Pink News printed comments made by Sol Campbell explaining how the racist and homophobic remarks were hard to deal with, he said, “There were moments when it became too much. West Ham at home with Arsenal I couldn’t come out in the second half. It was a chipping effect over the years. I suddenly couldn’t face it.”
The irony is, Campbell is one of the most outspoken players of his generation, had the rumours been true he would have been one of the first to come out and stand tall. But the tabloid press wasn’t going to let the truth get in the way of a story, even if it meant the well-being of a top England international was going to be damaged.
In the end they did run a story, omitting all names, only referencing the person in question as a current Arsenal and England defender. This led to Ashley Cole taking the heat. Something he put to bed when he married Cheryl Tweedy.
It was another example of sexuality being used as a negative. There shouldn’t have been a story to print. It isn’t in the public’s interest and doesn’t affect how a player performs for his club. How it’s used as a shaming tactic is disgusting in this supposedly enlightened age.
It was only a few months ago the Daily Mail (them again) reported that before the start of next season two Premier League players would come out as gay. Once more, an absolute no-news story, reported for the shock and shame value. Of course any player in the closet will expect some chants from rival fans but most of this will be more like pantomime and banter than anything close to hatred. It’s only papers such as the Daily Mailthat try and spread that.
Players should also have zero concerns about teammates making life difficult. They are protected by laws and men in other male dominated sports, such as British-born NBA basketballer John Amaechi, and Welsh Rugby star Gareth Thomas, have had no trouble since coming out.
The Ronaldo article shouldn’t have asked if he was gay, but simply: Who cares what he does in private with a consenting adult.