|
Post by dingodile5 on Jun 24, 2012 8:55:55 GMT 8
Fair Play: Thumbs down on PFF's compensation planEVER since I read about the PFF’s plan to compensate European clubs for the services of their players who play for the Philippine national team, I’ve wanted to get Dan Palami’s take on it. The plan, I think, is iffy at best and would be a waste of money that would have been best suited to, say, development of local referees? If the PFF pays Fulham or the other European clubs so they’d be more inclined to release Neil Etheridge, Stephen Shrock, Dennis Cagara, Jerry Lucena, Paul Mulders and the rest, what does that tell clubs like Kaya, Global, Stallions and Loyola, who have always been more than willing to release their players? Sure, Fulham and the like are miles apart from the local clubs but I think the UFL clubs suffer more than the European clubs when they release their players for the national team, especially when the league is ongoing. So I asked Dan his take on that. I got a grimace. Admitting that it sets a bad precedent as local clubs would be asking “What about us?” Dan said, “What he (PFF president Nonong Araneta is saying is that the PFF is willing to do everything to make sure the players will be able to participate in this tournament.” This tournament being the Suzuki Cup, when all these things started. And the Europe-based players’ participation is going to be a touchy subject, that the PFF, national team management, players and local clubs will have to deal with. Everybody knows these guys bring a different level of football in the national team, but for events like the Suzuki Cup, if we’re lucky, they show up a week before the tournament and of course, will take the spots of those who have been with the camp for weeks, or months even. And if they don’t show up, well, we miss that bit of competitiveness. “Yes, there is some resentment,” Dan said, “And it’s understandable because you train for a long time and you hope that you get to play. But it’s also obvious once they (Europe-based players) play, why they get to start.” In a 23-man team, there are 23 guys who want to be in the starting list, and three wishing to be the sub, if the coach makes a sub. If you keep warming the bench for so long, it gets to you. (Unless of course, if you’re the sub keeper and it is understood only an injury will get you on the field). Dan hopes that those who make the training camp realize the value of their contribution in the scrimmages, training. He hopes they realize that the competition for spots, is in itself valuable. I agree. That’s true. But it’s also true that sitting on the bench in every game sucks, especially since this is the national team and everyone in the 23-man pool is a starter in their clubs. So Dan is cooking a compromise. “In games when Fifa ranking points are at stake, we are going to field our best lineup, but in friendlies against clubs, like in Chicago, we will let them play,” he said. Them, of course, being those guys who we don’t see when the national team plays at home, unless of course, the camera pans on the bench. Aside from that, there is something brewing that the clubs should be really concerned of—the planned changes in the PFF charter that would enable them to be members of equal standings with the FAs, who are, as of now the only members of the PFF. That is strange considering Philippine football is now powered by the clubs. I asked Dan what’s happening with the move but he said there’s resistance from some FAs, who are reluctant to admit the clubs into their fold. The PFF has the most unique set-up—an FA-based membership—and that’s something the AFC Vision Asia wants changed. And of course, those who don’t want any changes, or are afraid of them, are FAs who’ve done nothing for years except ask when’s there next doleouts from the PFF? Like I told Dan, “We’ve had this same setup for years, it’s time for a change.” Don’t you think? cebufootball.blogspot.com/2012/06/fair-play-thumbs-down-on-pffs.html
I moved this post to its own thread because it is definitely a very important subject and is a good discussion point. I don't think we should pay, it'll set a bad precedence. But more importantly I think there was a disconnect with the PFF President and Dan Palami. I hope this happens: "So Dan is cooking a compromise. “In games when Fifa ranking points are at stake, we are going to field our best lineup, but in friendlies against clubs, like in Chicago, we will let them play,” he said."
|
|
|
Post by fadzki on Jun 24, 2012 9:55:29 GMT 8
Maybe Dan Palami can ask him if he could find a UFL Gk with the skills of Etheridge and Muller or any UFL player with the skills of Shrock, Cagara, Mulders and Lucena... His got a point but I think it is too risky for that... we have to remember that football is still a growing sport in our country and one failure could bring our football back to the dark ages and why would UFL clubs suffer when Aff Suzuki cup runs during UFL off season..
|
|
|
Post by narko on Jun 24, 2012 18:47:21 GMT 8
Mods, may I suggest a change to the title of this thread. "Pay for our Euro Players" can be misleading. Perhaps it would be best to be more precise, just in case. I suggest "Paying Clubs for the Release of our Euro Players"
My question on this issue, is this the practice? Do clubs ask for compensation in order to release their players for national team duty? The only debate I have read about concerning compensating clubs was with regard to injuries suffered by club players on international duty and even this issue isn't resolved yet. Haven't heard of instances clubs required financial compensation in order to release players. From what I know it is about a club's decision if they can afford to have the services of their player unavailable for a number of matches for their league campaign. If the player in question plays an important role in the team, I don't think offering financial compensation will convince them to release if the club feels the player in question is vital to their league campaign, especially if there is no obligation on the part of the club to do so (non-FIFA calendar match dates)
This might be a non-issue to begin with, but then again I would think the PFF President knows what he is talking about and I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cjeagle on Jun 24, 2012 19:38:10 GMT 8
On the issue of paying European clubs to get them to release our players, there is a reason why FIFA has denied similar requests from professional clubs in the past.
I think this will set an expensive precedent that will make it even harder for us to obtain players from clubs abroad without compensation. Once other clubs realize that the the PFF is willing to compensate to have their players released, those who have been willing to do this in the past for free, will now see a new source of revenue for their clubs and will start demanding similar compensation.
I can even see a time when the UFL becomes stronger when their clubs might start doing the same, especially in cases where the owners might not be in good terms with the current management of the national team. This is already happening in basketball, where San Miguel led teams are not cooperating with the MVP led national teams by not making their players available.
|
|
|
Post by mrbiik on Jun 25, 2012 5:22:28 GMT 8
"So Dan is cooking a compromise. “In games when Fifa ranking points are at stake, we are going to field our best lineup, but in friendlies against clubs, like in Chicago, we will let them play,” he said."
i agree with this pero wag naman sana simulan sa chicago:-) minsan ko lang makikita mga premier league players hehehehe...i guess this is a good problem to have dati halos wala magaling maglaro, ngayon naman namimili na kung sino mga dapat maglaro ayus lets go azkals
|
|
|
Post by teddyandtimmysdad on Jun 25, 2012 10:56:21 GMT 8
If FIFA has denied requests in the past, why is this even a topic? Wouldn't this apply to us as well ie deny any future efforts to compensate teams for the use of their players?
Re the compromise, I feel this should not be a hard and fast rule. When we are building up for an important tournament, ie the Suzuki Cup, AFC qualifiers, etc etc, we need every game possible to try and build cohesion with the players.
|
|
|
Post by veryfatchocobo on Jun 26, 2012 13:01:03 GMT 8
Last I heard, the Spanish fed paid Barcelona and Real Madrid 1 million each per player to keep playing for them... Especially Barcelona, apparently most players value their clubs much more than the NT. Of course that opinion mostly changes during major tourneys, with the exception of the Catalonians (Puyol, Pique, Xavi, etc.) and Basques (Xabi Alonso, Javi Martinez) playing for the NT.
IMO, Philippines shouldn't follow this model at this moment. Sadly, the country isn't fully behind the football team (despite massive popularity and money into the bball team and PBA...). However, we will have to do this eventually. All big football NTs are controlled by their domestic clubs, just like in my Spain example. I only feel justification for this only when we pay the UFL teams as well as the European teams though. I can see us paying the UFL teams only when it's become a true pro league, and that's only when the UFL: (in order btw) 1) truly becomes nationwide, especially around the Visayas, and 2) when we get a spot in the AFC CL.
|
|
|
Post by cjeagle on Jun 26, 2012 13:54:33 GMT 8
Individual Federations might do this, but FIFA has a long standing policy of not requiring their FA's to pay clubs for using them in international competitions. This was a big issue when the group of G14 top European clubs demanded that FA's pay for the players salaries and time lost to international injuries. I think FIFA finally relented and recently set up a worldwide insurance policy that will help compensate clubs for injuries and agreed to share the revenues from the World Cup and Euro Cup. As a result the G14 group of clubs disbanded apparently to be replaced by a new European club association. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14Here is an article by FIFA sharing revenues and setting up the insurance policy: football.thestar.com.my/2012/03/22/fifa-to-pay-for-national-team-players-insurance/I think the Philippines will set a precedent for a non UEFA FA paying clubs outside of the World Cup and Euro Cup, if they proceed with this plan. In both instances above, it was FIFA and UEFA who shared the proceeds and not the individual FA's.
|
|
|
Post by narko on Jun 27, 2012 1:29:14 GMT 8
Last I heard, the Spanish fed paid Barcelona and Real Madrid 1 million each per player to keep playing for them... Especially Barcelona, apparently most players value their clubs much more than the NT. Of course that opinion mostly changes during major tourneys, with the exception of the Catalonians (Puyol, Pique, Xavi, etc.) and Basques (Xabi Alonso, Javi Martinez) playing for the NT. IMO, Philippines shouldn't follow this model at this moment. Sadly, the country isn't fully behind the football team (despite massive popularity and money into the bball team and PBA...). However, we will have to do this eventually. All big football NTs are controlled by their domestic clubs, just like in my Spain example. I only feel justification for this only when we pay the UFL teams as well as the European teams though. I can see us paying the UFL teams only when it's become a true pro league, and that's only when the UFL: (in order btw) 1) truly becomes nationwide, especially around the Visayas, and 2) when we get a spot in the AFC CL. I doubt the Spanish Fed paid Real Madrid and Barcelona so they will release their players to play for the NT. If Barcelona FC did that the pro-Madrid media would waste no time to bash the Catalans for their lack of patriotism. I haven't heard of anything like that and I follow Spanish football quite closely. Given that a factor to Spain's recent success is the harmony within the squad between the Castillians, Catalans, Basques, Andalucians, etc, this would have been a major issue and plastered all over the media. If you think we have problems about having a stronger regional identity (Ilonggo, Bicolano, Waray, Ilocano, etc) than a national one, where do you think we got that? The Spaniards are just as fractious as we are when it comes to this issue. I think the matter of compensation is how cjeagle described it. Some sort of compensation fund that is pooled by UEFA and FIFA and not as payments by Federations to individual clubs for players. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that we don't go down this path, not only at this moment but never at all. PFF shouldn't compensate clubs directly, whether its foreign or UFL. Build a relationship and work at compromises. Playing for the country is a privilege, clubs should understand that. League results could make or break a club, FAs should understand that too. In this situation, I don't think money should be the solution.
|
|
|
Post by cjeagle on Jun 27, 2012 3:28:50 GMT 8
Actually narko I have heard that some of the richer and more established European feds and FA's, who have established relationships with their clubs, have recently started doing this, but none outside of UEFA as far as I know.
Unlike in the PFF, in Europe and the Americas, the professional leagues have representation in their federations and are considered voting members. Some of them therefore in Europe at least, were able to influence their own feds into conceding on this point.
FIFA by the way when they came to make an organizational review on the PFF, also recommended to the PFF that they also open up membership to local clubs and leagues, referees organizaions and to women's representatives, like they do in the more developed football countries and not just to the local regional FA's. Apparently, some of the local FA's are apparently resisting this changes in the PFF charter, as they will now not only lose power, but might be afraid of losing their take from the PFF like Mike Limpag mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by narko on Jun 27, 2012 9:41:43 GMT 8
Actually narko I have heard that some of the richer and more established European feds and FA's, who have established relationships with their clubs, have recently started doing this, but none outside of UEFA as far as I know. Unlike in the PFF, in Europe and the Americas, the professional leagues have representation in their federations and are considered voting members. Some of them therefore in Europe at least, were able to influence their own feds into conceding on this point. FIFA by the way when they came to make an organizational review on the PFF, also recommended to the PFF that they also open up membership to local clubs and leagues, referees organizaions and to women's representatives, like they do in the more developed football countries and not just to the local regional FA's. Apparently, some of the local FA's are apparently resisting this changes in the PFF charter, as they will now not only lose power, but might be afraid of losing their take from the PFF like Mike Limpag mentioned above. cjeagle, I think this is the latest development on this issue: Will Wenger be Satisfied with FIFA’s new Insurance offer? By Ian Palmer 2012/03/24 1 Author: IAN PALMER Over the years, Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has done his fair share of complaining over international fixtures. This is mainly because many players are injured while playing for their countries and return to their clubs on crutches. You can’t really blame him, but he also says young players need to gain experience and what better way to do so than playing in major football tournaments. However, you can’t have it both ways. You either support international football or you don’t. Wenger might be a little more accommodating from now on though when it comes to releasing players to their national teams. The main reason for any turnaround in attitude would likely be due to FIFA’s recent announcement that will see football’s world governing body pay for the insurance policies of players who are representing their countries. FIFA met with the top football clubs from Europe on March 22 at the UEFA Congress and things worked out well for the teams since they were promised to be paid an extra 100 million euros from this year’s revenues of the European Championships and FIFA boss Sepp Blatter finally caved in and agreed to take care of players’ insurance policies. The European Club Association (ECA) is run by former German star Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and consists 200 clubs that come from 53 UEFA nations. The German has been after FIFA to cover insurance plans for quite some time and has often criticized Blatter in public over it. As usual, it took Blatter ages to realize what’s best for the sport, and finally said FIFA will pay the entire costs for insurance coverage. He said the coverage is for all FIFA matches and the players’ and clubs’ interests need to be taken into account. However, if Blatter really felt this way the matter would have been taken care of long ago. Like video replay in football, he always fights against improvements to the sport until he simply has no choice but to agree with them. The 208 FIFA-member nations still have to approve the move and they’re expected to do that at a meeting in May. Of course, Blatter only decided to pay insurance costs after UEFA had already agreed to it back in January. This will see all of the teams being covered for Euro 2012 by UEFA and FIFA will start covering the costs when the World Cup qualifying games return to action around the world. The European qualifying for Brazil 2012 gets underway in September. UEFA said all players with European clubs will be covered until FIFA takes over later in the year. The fuss started when Dutch winger Arjen Robben returned to German club Bayern Munich after the 2010 World Cup in South Africa and was injured. He then missed six months of action with Bayern, where Rummenigge is the chairman. Rummenigge said it wasn’t fair for clubs to lose their top players and also have to pay the bill for it. He asked Blatter to loosen some of the strings on the billions of pounds that FIFA has in reserve and asked him to start paying for players’ insurance. Of course, he didn’t get anywhere with Blatter until UEFA boss Michel Platini agreed to fund an insurance scheme for European teams. With the plan, clubs are paid a daily rate for each player who is way with their national teams. For instance, if the Gunners had seven players away on national duty they’d receive daily payments for each player until they return to the club. In addition, Platini promised to share more of the money made from the upcoming European Championship tournaments and said the clubs will split 150 million euros from the Euro 2016 event in France. In comparison, FIFA and Blatter only offered about 30 million euros to the clubs who supplied players to the 2010 World Cup. Rummenigge said that Bayern received just 57,000 euros from FIFA for the entire time Robben spent with Holland in South Africa, which is far less than one week’s wages. While Wenger might feel a little bit better about the new offer from FIFA, you have to remember it’s just a monetary figure. Sure, it helps things out when somebody is offering to pay for insurance policies and time spent with national teams, but players are still going to be injured during games. Unfortunately, all the money in the world can’t guarantee against that. Read more: www.arsenalinsider.com/5014/will-wenger-be-satisfied-with-fifas-new-insurance-offer/#ixzz1yxBkCkWB
|
|
|
Post by stellarboy on Oct 16, 2012 0:24:41 GMT 8
Brought this up again. As the Suzuki Cup draws near, I think the PFF will have a hard time convincing the clubs in lending their Filipino players in the tournament, risking injuries and everything in between. To quote a poster from another forum website: "The lead up to Christmas is always important to European professional clubs. They will use the August to December period to break away from the rest of the other teams. Then use January to May to sustain that momentum. However, for clubs not in the chasing pack by January, will now be in a dangerous relegation battle. So, they too will use the January to May to improve their standings in the table. All clubs can be categorised as either being champions, staying away from relegation or fighting not to get relegated. In all cases, all clubs will want all their players available for the team. This will be the case for Schrock, whose club Hoffenheim will be battling to finish in the top 5. Etheridge, who is on loan to Bristol from Fulham FC, will try to help Bristol fight off relegation." azkals.com/showthread.php?tid=922I understand these things and no amount of money will be enough to insure the players who are important players for their clubs being lent for NT duty. These compensation programs by FIFA are OK, but that doesn't remove the fact that there are clubs that do struggle in league play.
|
|
|
Post by Wiking on Oct 16, 2012 11:23:52 GMT 8
The way it looks we'll never really afford to pay anyway. Palami is the bank roller for this whole thing with assist from PFF and money isnt really coming in when we play friendlies(stadiums not getting filled). The only teams we(maybe) can afford to pay off are Angels I-League team and even this is suspect as he is a "star" in that team.
Slight OT, I few weeks ago, I met a staff member of the Azkals(pretty low ranking member) and through chit chat he offered to me that the current rumor in the camp was that Angel was offered about $7,000 a month for his services with Salgaocar.
|
|
|
Post by veryfatchocobo on Nov 29, 2012 10:36:21 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by brainsalad on Dec 6, 2012 10:40:23 GMT 8
Just a thought... How come clubs allows African players to take leave from their teams during Africa Cup of Nations/CAN ? It's totally in the middle of the European season? Just wondering why AFC Federations are not allowed to pull out their players during this AFF Suzuki Cup and also during Challenge Cup? These are FIFA sanctioned tournaments right? Are we seeing double standards here, anyone care to enlighten the topic? Thanks.
|
|