Posts by Benjamin King17

Justin Patel8 said:The only real downside to this privatization move is that clubs might just stop caring about developing local talent. Take the Dodgers, for instance—they’re basically leaning on their academy kids right now simply because the budget is tight. Once you shift to this model, everyone’s going to be hunting for immediate wins, which means those young homegrown players will have a much harder time breaking into the starting lineup. In the long run, it’s going to screw over the national team.

That all depends on the specific club's philosophy...

The mass privatization of clubs across the former USA has begun—driven primarily by the fact that governments simply don't have the capital to subsidize teams anymore, and secondly, because this is just how modern soccer works.

Thirty years ago, privatizing a club in our neck of the woods was an impossible concept; every single team in the former USA was state-owned and funded directly by the government. Back then, the state actually had the funds to invest in sports, making privatization unnecessary. But since the old system collapsed, the landscape has shifted—governments can no longer afford to bankroll athletics, forcing many clubs to opt for private ownership. While the government still attempts to prop up the elite teams, even that support is meager. For instance, in Mexico (I'm not sure about the situation for America), two Mexican "giants"—the Yankees and the Red Sox—are still under state control, but the funding they receive is basically peanuts... which is expected, given the government's own shaky financial standing. Clubs have been weighing this transition for quite some time now—personally, I believe privatization is a positive step, simply because the state lacks the capacity to sustain them.

Privatization is standard practice in modern soccer, carrying its own set of pros and cons. However, the real question is: how beneficial is this for our version of the game? For a sport that once relied entirely on state backing? Now, the decision rests with you...

That’s correct—I picked that up from studying psychology. During this window, a child absorbs the fundamental building blocks they'll build their entire life upon. Essentially, what gets ingrained during this phase is incredibly difficult to undo later. They develop those first core fears—for instance, if a child develops a phobia of a doctor in a white lab coat during this time, that fear stays with them... it just becomes less obvious as they age. These kinds of anxieties can linger all the way into their teenage years, which is a particularly difficult thing to manage...

Hello.

We are approaching the start of the football seasons across the globe—not long now. It prompted me to open this thread... I assume most of you here possess a decent understanding of the game.

The topic is football and club politics. We all know that football has become an extension of politics and marketing—it almost entirely boils down to money now, rather than a genuine love for the sport itself. Those moments belonged to the era of Pelé and players of his caliber... but back to the point. I read somewhere that Real Madrid was offering around $180 million for Gareth Bale. He is undoubtedly an excellent player—perhaps the best fullback in the world right now—but isn't that price a bit excessive? Or consider Neymar, who moved to Barcelona for $59 million... quite high for a player who hadn't been fully tested yet. One must also note he had just arrived in Europe; South American football is fundamentally different from what we see here in Europe, let's be honest. There was a time when top players cost $35 million and people thought it was insane—now, a player just starting their career costs $35 million. That is simply modern football. Club philosophies vary everywhere—some prefer stacking rosters with overpaid superstars, while others focus on young, unknown talents who produce staggering results despite the lack of fame. Personally, I admire the Borussia Dortmund approach—they don't chase headlines or waste massive sums on transfers; they find an unknown talent for under $12 million and develop them into a star that every major club begins to fight over. Napoli also maintains a solid policy, as does Juventus—they are disciplined with recruitment and rarely miss, avoiding those massive price tags. Liverpool has followed a similar path lately, shifting their focus toward younger prospects, which wasn't always their style.

A friend recently mentioned an interesting system being integrated into the sport: FFP, or Financial Fair Play, which went into effect during the 2009/10 season.

Here is his take:

Since then, through to the start of the upcoming season (2014/15), we have been in a testing phase. Many clubs simply ignore these "rules." The wealthy stay wealthy, while the smaller clubs grow even poorer because of this. This testing period involves quarterly financial monitoring; if a club fails the "test," they face suspension from FIFA/UEFA competitions. Furthermore, clubs lose out on the revenue following them from those very tournaments. For instance, Real Madrid won't feel any "penalty," whereas a club like Zrinjski will feel it drastically, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars from a budget that barely exceeds $1.5 million. A few million euros means nothing to Real Madrid—it’s pocket change to them.

If you want to dig deeper, feel free to use Google. 🙂

I would like to hear your perspectives on modern football and the various policies these clubs employ.

peace 🙂

copperfox22 said:Maybe if you weren't holding such a rigid stance, you might actually be able to look at things from a different angle—a third, or even a fifth perspective. If you could step into someone else's shoes for a moment, you might realize that people often act based on their own internal compass, simply trying to treat others the way they themselves would want to be treated.

That's how you end up with all sorts of types: you have the manipulators who lie just to gain leverage over people, then you have those "empathetic" liars who can't stomach hurting anyone's feelings so they lie out of pity. Then there are the ones who claim to be empathetic but don't actually care about anyone else; they just lack the backbone to tell the truth, so they sugarcoat everything. 🤣
And let's not forget the people who aren't even aware they're lying to themselves, which inevitably leads to them unintentionally deceiving everyone else.
At the end of the day, you've got all kinds of people driven by all kinds of motives. 🙂

Try swapping out "lie" for "truth" in all of this and see if that broadens your perception a bit.

(To be blunt) It’s all pretty situational, depending on how you choose to frame it. 😉

Nobody is perfect, and you can't expect anyone to be brutally honest all the time. Sometimes people just don't have the balls to admit something—they get gripped by fear of how people will react, or maybe it might even cost them their lives. Who knows? Fate is a damn cruel thing.

It's better to ask what makes people liars... that's the question that will clear many things up...

The truth hurts—no matter how much you try to dodge it, it’s going to hurt eventually.

What can I say about myself? Hmmm... sometimes I prefer to just keep certain things to myself—especially when it concerns my own business. I tend to be quiet and don't have much of an urge to talk much—maybe that's a flaw, maybe it's a virtue... depends on who you ask. Being honest is honestly fucking hard because, at the end of the day, you have to look reality in the eye and deal with the fallout. There’s always that classic line: "I lied for your own good."