Liverpool Football Club in the United Kingdom have the presence of mind to bring a touch of finesse to bear on a situation concerning their prized player, Mo Salah, and I notice it. This isn’t the first time I’ve commented on how football clubs across Europe have handled their players. It isn’t the first time, too, I point out on this page the difference in how a British club handles such matters compared to other clubs in Europe. It happens that the current Premier League champions suffer a drop in form. Everyone talks about the reasons. Sallah got benched for a few matches, and he gave an interview saying that some people wanted to run him under the bus.
On a trip to Europe, Liverpool didn’t go with Sallah. The club said they felt he should have some time away from matches. They said this was good for Sallah and the team, adding that no further action would be taken against the Egyptian footballer over his comments. There’s something in this and the management at Liverpool that speaks to me in a nuanced manner, the kind of nuance I would like to point out to whoever hasn’t taken cognisance of it. Note that some players didn’t say as much as Salah did; they didn’t comment on their personal situation in their clubs as Salah did, but such clubs threatened to ruin their careers.
One Liverpool player said recently that since Salah made the kind of comment he did, he should have known what would follow. No doubt this player expected vindictive measures from the Liverpool management. It’s how these sportsmen and women have been programmed, the constant threat under which they operate. Generally, I’m not for team members whose comments distract the team. Not long ago, I made a “face your game” comment online when a Nigerian striker who hadn’t been scoring for the Super Eagles appeared to talk more than play football. I’m ever for a team, and I’m known for being ‘too enthusiastic’ in my support for the working committee in any organisation I find myself. I’ve been told directly to tone down my support. But I love to see fellow humans succeed, so as a principle, I don’t scheme against people.
When others scheme and cause trouble for the leadership in organisations in which I’m active, I distance myself. Instead, I quietly offer advice from the inside. The day I don’t feel like working with a leadership anymore, or its actions run contrary to the principles and values I hold dear, I quietly walk away. In one organisation, I told those scheming that I wouldn’t join them to work against the leadership. I made it clear that the day I felt I couldn’t work with the leadership anymore, I would walk away and establish my own organisation. On one occasion, I did exactly that, and it wasn’t because I disagreed with the leadership. It was simply time to move on.
It wasn’t as if Sallah was against the leadership of his club; he didn’t cause trouble for his teammates, he only expressed his view regarding the situation in which he found himself. On this page, I had called attention to situations where club and player disagreed – first at Chelsea FC in the UK and later at Bayern Munich FC in Germany. Involved were Spain’s Diego Costa and Robert Lewandowski, respectively. When I wrote about each of them, I compared them to what transpired at Barcelona, where Lionel Messi’s case was handled in a manner I wouldn’t suggest concerning a player who gave his all to a club. That was a most regretful sight to behold – Messi shedding tears in the course of an interview. I did state at the time that Messi should have left much earlier. The other situation I would have commented on involved Nigeria’s Victor Osimhen and Ademola Lookman in Italy. I let both pass at the time.
Costa, Lewandowski, Osimhen, and Lookman’s cases were about transfer to another club. The players wanted to move, but their clubs weren’t so willing. Even though the club had its legal grounds to hold on to Costa, and initially asserted its rights, Chelsea quietly allowed him to go. My reading was that Chelsea chose to show Costa respect for his contribution to the club. Chelsea showed class, and I applauded them at the time. In any case, what’s the point of holding on to a player whose heart has left a club? Chelsea recognised that; they showed understanding. A similar situation happened at Bayern Munich, where, in the end, the club allowed Lewandowski to move to Barcelona. I praised the Germans at the time. I’ve often thought of these two situations and compared them to what some clubs in Europe do concerning their players whose hearts have left.
These clubs openly threaten to destroy players’ careers when they express the desire to move on. I regard this as crude, and for me, a club looks more terrible than the players they take on. I think such clubs basically lack appreciation for the humans that we all are. There are ways to amicably discuss these things among humans, and it mustn’t always be legal. I’ve stated in the past that hammering on legal requirements and obligations is one thing, giving thoughts to the mental or emotional state of players is another. Law, I’ve submitted, is made for man, not man for law. Actually, feelingly walking the fine line such that we have a balance between law and humans as emotional beings is what makes what we do feel human. Throw that away and quote the law, then humans aren’t any different from trees or stones. Yet it’s the route some sports clubs often follow.
I wonder if such clubs realise that the management comes across as vindictive, unfeeling, and completely lacking finesse. A club shouldn’t descend low to struggling with a player. Sharp disagreement with a player doesn’t always happen, but when it does one out of a hundred, find an amicable resolution rather than engage in a public fight. Exercising power isn’t what trumps; exercising power with feeling and control counts more.
We all like it when a person in power exercises it in a humble and humane manner, when they remember to relate with others at emotive level in spite of the power they hold. I saw this in the manner in which Chelsea and Bayern handled their players. I didn’t see it in Osimhen and Lookman’s cases, and that left an impression on me. That impression doesn’t stop at the level of the football club and the management, it’s also about the culture, the general disposition of a people and their nations. I expressed here in the past how much class I thought the Brits have got, and how much class I thought the Germans have got as a result of the actions of their respective football club.
The human angle I raise brings me to how sportsmen and women seem to be treated by their handlers like a machine that has no feelings. Sportspeople are to be seen and not heard. Many of us almost began to think that sportspeople were superhumans until a few of them spoke about their fragile mental and physical state. They speak about exhaustion, how they bottle up so much just to keep the peace with coaches, fans, and club managements. There’s also the pressure of playing several games within a short period, as well as handling the psychological impact of being out of form, which clubs must experience. Fans and the management aren’t happy when a drop in form happens and they talk. Players feel the pressure more, but they mustn’t talk. Add that to pressure from private life that they don’t dare bring to the public space, so as not to distract their teams. These things are there like a raging volcano, just below the surface.
I imagine when the pressure finally erupted, particularly regarding the club’s drop in form as it was in Sallah’s case, what Liverpool’s coach and management did was try to understand with their player. They understood the human angle to a superstar player in spite of requirements to meet legal obligations, team rules, and discipline. Liverpool show Sallah respect, allowing him just that little room every sports person needs from time to time. I applaud this great British football club. It has shown a class that other nations and their sports clubs should emulate.
Read the full article here
