Wanted to post about the treatment of Kane not showing for training as I find it important to discuss.
'arry "The Golden Boy" of England, loyal servant to his club, who could do no wrong has magically turned into a baddie who shall not be named.
Some of us may have thought this attitude was strictly for the Sterling's the Pogba's, i.e. black players (they get it worse, of course - Ferdinand was right on that), but no.
What is revealed is that player displays of player power (despite the owners earning MASSIVE revenues DUE to the players) is not allowed. However, even an owner who joined SL that garnered vitriolic fan protests, is acceptable.
Any asking price set is so strongly praised and justified as all up to the owner, rhetoric that "a contract is a contract" with zero recognition or even mention of well known market forces regarding player value, and a history of contracts in football never being equal to a contact or deed to a home as
I argued with a Villa fan on Twitter on Grealish this past week.
A home can possess immense monetary value, but a home is NOT A PERSON with feelings and ambitions whom with an owner has a personal relationship with.
A home is not a top class striker, an entity that cannot be recreated or copied with the same quality anywhere on Earth and be aware of their own value. Yes, this DOES award the owner of a player with a long contract more power, but we know that with Kane this is even more complicated by the "gentleman's agreement" and Kane's personality and loyalty that was praised endlessly prior
Fans moan about player wages, but attitudes about this has always been historically a metaphor for workers fight with owners, even whilst the PRODUCT is the players skills on display.In film and other global audience level entertainment fields top stars earn incredible levels of income, but we don't whinge on about them the same way or discuss their wages so publicly (although they do face arguably worse barriers with lack of privacy).
There is a history of sport owners using their public advantage due to the angry, tribal, black and white thinking of more than enough fans and journalists to smear players and crush player attempts to gain more power - it's those selfish players, visibly cut throat agents, or invisible state owned clubs who all to blame - to get what they want and keep power.
It's little wonder we are now seeing more stars (Mbappe, Pogba perhaps Sterling) seeking to use free transfers to move than ever in Europe. More and more fans have zero appetite for what Kane is doing and I can see it as "hurting their brand" or reputation.
But Kane is stuck because of his mistake signing that contract, believing Levy would let him go for a more reasonable price - I'd argue expecting perhaps similar to how City tend to do with players we let go.
City don't hassle like Levy due to some advantages, but this also includes accepting risk losing players to Barca or RM or Bayern or selling low to Serie A, but also creates an advantage attracting talent by providing the players with a sense of agency.
For someone like Kane to do this is it THAT difficult to see how he may feel he was lied to by Levy? I think the answer has a strong chance of being "Yes."
Similar transpired with Messi last summer, and recall how he was manipulated and forced to concede by Barca. Even a player with his power.
Professional footballers in UK/Europe IMO have LESS power than they do across the pond for a long list of reasons, but that doesn't mean it's truly fair when compared to justification of owner power that in other instances we might raise questions on.
Notice a theme? We accept owner power as okay when convenient for our own self(ish) interests, but recall the difference with Kane here in that Messi HAS won titles, HAS won CL, moving far when settled with children, a change in leadership was likely coming to Barca, and it did. For Kane, all the rest do not match and Levy is going nowhere.
We hear a so called saint of English football Gary Neville clearly hinting something is amiss for Kane do not show for training. That's how frustrated he is with Levy. Nope, all City's fault. Remember always best to blame everyone else and never look inward ever:
When Kane's 6 year contract is raised, yes, we can say he made a mistake, but could it be due to the kinder behaviour he has exhibited these same fans and journalists praised Kane for in the past endlessly with this "gentleman's agreement" yet now we know he was not signing with a gentleman?
Is it surprising players seem more and more "selfish" when so many clubs, fans or journalists treat players, even like Kane, the way they are? So years of credibility is thrown out the window in one breath? That's all it took.
I find interesting that City fans are often accused of being tribalist and closed to criticism but why do sane fans with reasonable questions on "our side" feel similar? We are all not listening or diving deep enough, and blaming one group or the other is poor in approach.
Scapegoating or oversimplifying "what's wrong with football" regardless of how misguided or inconsistent with fans' beliefs - usually social and political - in other areas of life without self-reflection is never the way to go. I can admit things as a City fan that allow for criticism of the club or other aspects that have gotten me into hot water with some of our fans, but I accept that and am open to dialogue.
Yet when it comes to takes on player's worker rights there's little room for conversation amongst too many fans due to strong, somewhat understandable feelings when one is not so well off, over player earnings regardless of what appears like little acknowledgement that their wages are PAID BY THE OWNERS WHO THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO OFFER SUCH CONTRACTS (if we want to play the "choice" game and see the inconsistency there).
Some fans and journalists seem lost that "the money spent" on players and wages justifiably exists due to basic economic forces in a supposed "free-market" Capitalist system.
Supply and demand in an incredibly competitive and lucrative global market for the services to earn MASSIVE revenues for owners (are the owners living on the streets if the club goes bust?) - where contracts mean FAR less and player movement equivalent to what happens when free market capitalists seek to participate in a truly capitalist world - meaning capital (players and humans - most of us NOT allowed of course) is able to move around the world anywhere freely.
If you create an attractive environment with top quality and you will attract the best talent even if some move on. It's how many successful businesses function. Not blocking their workers capacity to change jobs. Yet, Levy and other owners know that fan/journalists will back them so they continue to get away with this, for now perhaps.
Yes, Spurs will still attract strong players despite the Kane saga, and TBF Levy may know he cannot attract the best so his game is the way it is selling, but it was different with other players who have left it feels.
I wonder if treating Kane this way may come back to haunt Levy more than he thinks with future talent.
Curious how it plays out but is it wrong to ask questions about how much Levy cares about Kane or his players? Sport is a cutthroat, dispensable world of what have you done for me lately for the clubs and fans. Kane's treatment shows it.
Feels like a "wow" should sadly, actually turn into not surprising.
EDIT: Apologies for massive editing error when first posting and if you actually read this far, cheers :)
