• Manchester United Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Dogstar Dogstar Oct 6, 2006 19:54 Flag

    Dein named as new chairman of G14 group

    I'm not sure if I agree with this whole compensation for players injrued on international duty, particularly Dein's comment that "ours is the only industry where an employee goes somewhere else and gets injured and doesn;t receive compensation." But playing for your country is supposed to be the highest honour, and not intended to be a hardship on the clubs who they play for.

    If clubs start suing the FA for players injury, who's to say they might not exaggerate the length of injury in iorder to get more compensation? And what if a player gets injured playing for his club - should he not then sue his club for compensation if the injury ruins his career?

    As for the Owen thing, it was the World Cup, for Christ sake. A competition which all footballers should die to play for, and the only one which Owen seemed to care about. Newcastle did nto object to him playing in the competition, and had they done so Owen would not have been too happy with them - maybe even ask for a transfer.

    The more clubs see England games as a distraction and incoveneience to them, the more players will begin to feel that way. So what happens? PLayers will play international games like they don't want to be there and the national team will suffer moreso.

    I know this deviates slightly from the original thread - sorry. But it is a controversial issue and I don't agree with it.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are correct that all players would leap at the chance to play for england and so it should be. Equally you are right that players would not thank clubs if they were prevented from doing so.

      The problem is that other sports.. cricket, rugby etc have arrangements where the governing body does not get those players for free and the clubs have a strong say in the number of games played etc... I don't necessarilly want to see football go the whole hog here as for instance with cricket most of the english 11 only olay internetional cricket and hardly ever for their club, the country pays their wages on a central contract.

      I think what the clubs are getting to is two fold. Firstly that the timing and quantity of friendlies should be looked at to see if there is anything that could be done as far as scheduling goes to improve the lot of the clubs. And secondly they are saying that whilst they pay players salaries and insurance against injury the england side make no contribution other than perhaos the win bonus structure ( the players draw their salaries from the clubs even on engladn duty) it seems fair to say that there would be nothing wrong with a situation where the england team has to find player salaries whilst they are with them and pay for the insurance that will insure that should the players become injured whilst on international duty that the club does not lose out. Personally I think that sounds like a sensible appraoch. The players that play selected for internationals play in them, the clubs don't get penalised by having to play for their salaries whilst on duty or their salaries should they become injured. Engald and other international bodies earn huge sums when their players play internationals... the clubs effectively pay for the entertainment out of theri own pocket currently.

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • Were the FA to fund an individual salary and insurance whilst on international duty, I daresay that this amount would never amount to £20 million, which is the sum asked by Newcastle for their temporary loss of Owen.

        Owen probably earns £5 million a year, so how is this £20 million compensation claim justified? But this would set a benchmark which otehr clubs will use if and when their players get a lengthly injury after playing for England.