Rick’s Cafe: Man U. vs. Barcelona … the best Champions League Final that money can buy?

1. chemicoolio - May 26, 2011 at 8:39 PM

   wow. what hack of a report.

   I completely understand not knowing anything about soccer and still writing a column based on research and a few interactions with people in the know. But this column ain’t it.

   First of all the title: “the best [...] final that money can buy” is so absurdly wrong for anyone who knows anything that it’s insulting by itself.

   Neither Barcelona nor Man Utd. are teams that have been formed by throwing money around. A proper set of teams for that title would have been Real Madrid and Chelsea (or soon Man City) where the respective front offices have thrown money to already-made superstars trying to build up their teams. Think the Yankees.

   Both Barcelona (think a more consistently successful Tampa Bay Rays) and Man Utd. (Think the Phillies) have homegrown talent improved with moderately well paid players formed in other teams.
   For instance: Barcelona: Valdez, Puyol, Pique, Messi, Xavi, Pedro, Iniesta, Bojan – starters 90% of the time- are players formed in the farming system of Barcelona.
   For Man Utd. Rooney, Giggs, Brown, Scholes, all are homegrown. And a few others where bought very young and have been slowly developed by Man Utd. such as Javier Hernandez, Nani, Valencia, etc).

   So in essence their current on-field dominance has little to do with their finances but rather of the excellent work of both of their farm systems and recruiting offices.

   However, there is another point to address… and it is that they are not the only two most powerful teams in the world. As I mentioned before, Real Madrid is one of the mightiest foes any team can have. Milan, Inter, Bayern-Munchen, Liverpool, Chelsea, are other teams as powerful and with similar levels of power that compete with Barca and Man Utd.

   This final, is in reality the best final european club competitions can provide.

   Log in to Reply

   • michaelfranko - May 27, 2011 at 8:27 AM

     Sigh…

     First and foremost, there is no comparable to Barca in sport. They have all three of the best players in the world at the same time. Not three of the best players (they have twelve of the best players in a sport that can only play eleven at a time, actually), but the three single best. All-Star teams in American Sports usually can’t even do that. It’s just unfathomable; even the Miami Heat only sport two OF the best and one additional guy who is just really, really good. And that’s all of planet Earth that they have this in, not just Spain. As best as I can determine, the three best players in any American Sport aren’t from the same conference.

     There was actually a really good article about FC Barcelona as a business model in the most recent issue of The Economist. They pretty much are the most perfectly operating firm in all of civilization, growing their stars through a supreme development program that ensures incredible bonding and skill (think of ancient Sparta, but with less killing), just the right amount of an injection of foreign talent through proven players who fill a need and fit the general culture, such as David Villa, while knowing when they’ve made a mistake and just flat-out signed the wrong guy, such as Zlatan Ibrahimovic (think of the most successful Investment Banks), and a general culture (“Mes que un club”) that creates a real togetherness and attraction for long term growth and stability of their fanbase, run by the people in an incredibly efficient manner (Roman Republic would be a comparable).

     Manchester United really is just the Yankees. But that’s not to sell the Yankees short. They both have a history that is so rich long that it really cannot be recreated anywhere else (same goes for Liverpool, although they’re in a bit of a tough time), which has given them an incredible fanbase and jaw-dropping financial power. They both ideally try to develop their own stars, and do that fairly successfully, but realize that there is enough money to go around and it’s ok to go out and purchase a star when they need one. You don’t get an extra trophy for having all homegrown talent. They’re successful because they do this wisely, though. Man City, for instance, is more like the Mets… They go around throwing way too much money at people who haven’t really earned it, which sets up a bad long-term stability model. Rather, they let Ronaldo go when he becomes too expensive to justify keeping him.

     It’s a very interesting match-up between two of the most successful sports organizations in the world.

     Barcelona is probably too strong to be beaten without a good deal of bad luck for them. They completely dominated the game they lost against Arsenal, but, as with anything, a few bad bounces will do you in. Man U is very likely the second best team in the world and they really aren’t quite in the same class as them. Sir Alex Ferguson is about as good as they come, though, plus they’re still incredibly talented, no doubt about that, so it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that Barca wins, just a very likely one.

     Log in to Reply

     • pedro281 - May 28, 2011 at 8:14 AM

       Just because three Barca players won the popularity contest does not mean they are actually- scientifically proven- the best three players in the world! First of all- Wesley Sneijder deserved to win it- it was shocking that he wasn’t in the top three. Christiano Ronaldo is also in the discussion for claims to be the best. You could probably make an argument for Nemanja Vidic (spelling?) too as he’s led one of the best defenses in the world for the last 5 seasons (not on the merits of last season though, just saying in the discussion of ‘who’s the best?’)…

       I’m not trying to take anything away from Barca. They are truly amazing. Definitely one of the top sides in the world for the last 6-7 seasons (can’t say its been the same ‘team’ throughout that span). But it does bother me when people go over the top about how they are ‘miles above the competition’ ‘definitely going to win’ etc. etc.

       Truth is, Barca struggled to break down 11-man defensive-minded Arsenal and Real Madrid, but had fun against them when their opposition was down to 10-men. United’s defenders are on par (if not better) than those other two teams, so they have the resources to stifle Barca’s attack (IF they sacrifice their own attacking intent). It’ll be interesting to see the approach Fergie takes and if Pep has any new tricks up his sleeve. Either team could pull this off.

       Also- United and Barca are about even when it comes to the whole ‘home-grown’ thing. Both sides pick up/buy good young players (16-20yo) from other sides and develop them, groom them, in the United/Barca way. For United: Rooney, Nani, Anderson, Fabio, Rafael, Chris Smalling, Christiano Ronaldo… for Barca: Puyol, Busquets, Pedro, Jeffren, Pique (spent 4 seasons with United). Then these players are blended in with true home-grown players (Giggs, Scholes, O’Shea, Fletcher, G. Neville, Evans, Gibson, etc. for United and Valdez, Iniesta, Xavi, Messi, etc.) along with other top-notch players brought in.

   • tantrum56 - May 27, 2011 at 4:00 PM

     You may want to check Pique’s bio: he started at the Camp Nou but left for Man U in 2004 and returned in 2008 so not really homegrown. Also, Chicharito hasn’t been slowly developed by Man U. He was poached from the Mexican Primera Division by Man U this year. To say Man U is responsible for his development is a bit too strong.

     Log in to Reply

   • drmonkeyarmy - May 27, 2011 at 8:56 PM

     Agree 99.9% with what you wrote. Only disagreement is that Rooney was not homegrown. He came over from Everton.

     Log in to Reply

     • chemicoolio - May 27, 2011 at 9:59 PM

       I stand corrected. You are right.

       Perhaps my comment doesn’t apply that much to Man Utd. They do spend some money. (Although they have developed many other players in their own, i.e. Beckham, and at some level Cristiano Ronaldo). They really didn’t poach Javier Hernandez, but they just got him this year and they really were lucky with him.

       The point of my post is that these aren’t really two Yankees v. Yankees teams.

       Barcelona has developed their core players, and Man Utd. for all the money they have they don’t go on their spending ways the way Real Madrid, Chelsea, etc. do.

       And more importantly, they are not the only powerful teams in Europe. There are other historically great teams: Milan, Inter, Bayern, Real Madrid, Liverpool who are big time competition.

       I do still stand with my opinion that the thesis of this report is flawed and wrong.

     • drmonkeyarmy - May 28, 2011 at 10:53 AM

       Oh I agree with your general premise. People look at Manchester United and just assume that go around spending wads of cash. However, that is generally not the case. They spend money wisely and develop the players they do have. I mean, Hernandez cost them all of 6 million euros. Compared to some of the other transfer fees going around, that is nothing. Furthermore, they sold off their top two forwards (Tevez, Ronaldo) a couple years ago and never really re-invested that money. Barcelona has the best youth academy in the world. Even if some of the players (Pique) went elsewhere for awhile, generally those players credit their development to the Barca youth academy. A “Yankees v Yankees” Champions League final would be more fitting if it were Chelsea v Real Madrid. And for all those who are referring to soccer fans as over sensitive wimps, that notion is bunk. In this case, it is a case of somebody with limited knowledge of the European game drawing massive conclusions without really delving into the subject. I don’t think there is a problem with people having a healthy discussion about the fallacy of some of the arguments.

   • letshavealookseethen - May 27, 2011 at 9:00 PM

     You are kidding, right?
     Rooney, homegrown? You mean apart from the GBP 20 Million transfer fee right? And apart from the fact that he was born, raised, learned to play and signed professional with Everton (a Liverpool club) before Alex Ferguson has even *heard* of him? You’re right, apart from those two little considerations, he’s home grown. So is Carrick (GBP 18 Million transfer), Ferdinand (GBP 33 Million transfer, like Rooney). Hargreaves (GBP 17 Million transfer, though admittedly crocked and never played anyway), Anderson (GBP 20 Million), Nani (GBP 17 Million) and so on and so forth.

     Further, the other names you trot out are either crap (Brown) or admittedly excellent homegrown players that are on the cusp of retirement. And there are TWO of them. The only others worthy of a place in the same sentence as Giggs and Scholes are Beckham and the Nevilles, all of whom have either retired or moved on to other clubs).

     Now United aren’t the number one spenders, they certainly have challengers in that department, but to claim they have built on homegrown talent is flat out wrong and demonstrably so.

     What you said about Barca is much more accurate though, so I’ll you to make your own conclusions.

     Just for the record I hope Barca humble United (though the word “humble” is so far removed from Ferguson’s constant spoiled child words and actions that I doubt that will happen even if Barca win 5-0 – it will just be bad refereeing and someone else’s fault).

     Log in to Reply

     • drmonkeyarmy - May 28, 2011 at 10:56 AM

       Humble and Barca shouldn’t go in the same sentence. As much as Sir Alex whines and moans, the Barca players are at least his equal in that department. Neither of these teams is the paragon of “fair play”. It is also always a bit odd how Barcelona opponents always seem to be down a man by the end of the match. For the record, I loathe Manchester United…I just happen to loathe Barcelona a tad bit more.

   • gandamack - May 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM

     Not only do you not know anything about soccer, you don’t know much about history, either. The battle with the Spanish Armada did not take place in the English Channel. Nice reference point, though.

     I’m shocked — shocked!! to learn that these teams and the New York Yankees are profit mongering businesses!! All this time I thought there were charitable organizations operated by hobbyists and other volunteers. Another bubble burst!

     But leaving aside all that filthy lucre for a moment, this game is way more significant than anything we Americans call the “World Series.” Yet I’ve never understood why soccer is not more popular in the U.S. After all it has so much in common with baseball: lots of action, but nothing ever happens. Baseball fans ought to love it.

     Log in to Reply

     • Rick Chandler - May 27, 2011 at 9:48 PM

       Sigh. Not only did the Battle of Gravelines occur in the English Channel (the clues are the words “Battle” and “Gravelines”), there were three other battles before that, all in the Channel. Then the armada escaped around the northern tip of Scotland, which is never advisable (many of their ships sunk in a storm). Please refer to this handy map, and note the X’s.: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Routes_of_the_Spanish_Armada.gif/220px-Routes_of_the_Spanish_Armada.gif Now go to your room, and let us never speak again of your disgrace.

2. cleanslaton - May 27, 2011 at 11:06 AM

   Oh you Soccer dorks and the details you like to quibble over. Be appreciative that he took the time to write a story and try to relate it to people WHO DON’T ALREADY THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING about Barcelona and Man U–with the intention of bolstering the sport’s popularity here in the states. I was in a sports bar last night, talking about the NBA finals and the current MLB season with some friends. I didn’t see a single ad or hear a single mention of the match between Barca and Man U. Translation: MOST AMERICANS DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO SOCCER, so be thankful that someone wrote an article on a major sports blog, intending to promote the gravity of the 2 biggest teams in the sport playing each other for a championship game. I want to like soccer more, and not just as a bandwagon fan during the world cup; don’t ruin it for the rest of us by being a snob over inconsequential details, you DORKS!

   Log in to Reply

   • letshavealookseethen - May 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM

     That’s awesome Elvis, we prefer it when you don’t “pay attention”. You’re so good at it after spending all that time doing it in school. You stick with your sports where the scores are so high that you can spend 95% of the game at the concessions stand and still see 40 points scored, at least you’ll get a couple of hotdogs and donuts in your piehole. There’s a reason American sports are only really popular in America while “Soccer” (it’s called Football really, but you call the game played 99% with hands “football” so we need to give you a codeword you can remember) is popular everywhere else in the world. American sports are tailor made for advertising and selling lard to big, fat idiots, whereas Football (remember, not the one played with the hands) is a wonderful sport.

     Any other observations to make?

     Log in to Reply

   • mqsawyer - May 28, 2011 at 12:55 AM

     I think the objections to this article are very legit and spot on. The article by a professed know nothing attempts to criticize what is a dream final but does so by getting the framing and the story completely wrong or at least at odds with what 95% of the football/soccer viewing public would understand the key story to be.

     For me fans are rightfully miffed. The potential casual or curious observer who might tune in, get’s a negative article about the spectacle, dripping with sarcasm that fails to address any of the basic angles that fans of the sport or teams will be talking about. It is a poor piece of journalism and has a series of facts claims and criticisms that are completely off the mark and in ways that diminish what will be on display tomorrow.

     The worst part is, there are plenty of American journalists (even ones who primarily cover other sports), who could have written an article for the non-soccer fan that would help people understand the spectacle but even include some of the relevant controversies i.e. debt, lack of revenue sharing, looming financial fair play, the power of big clubs in UEFA etc.

     We aren’t asking for a “puff piece”, but one that simply gets facts and the basic story right.

     Given I can off hand name about a dozen American journalists, some not even primarily soccer journalists, who can do the job, I find these kinds of articles really below par for major news organizations. Okay if it is the community newspaper I understand. But NBC? They can do better. And fans of the sport should not simply be thankful for the coverage if that coverage is misleading and in unwarranted ways does not convey what those who know the sport (the author admits he does not), understand to be the core drama unfolding tomorrow.

     It would be as if a foreign journalist writing about the NBA called the Bulls a franchise that had won nothing before and the Heat a franchise trying to regain their title winning prowess. An NBA fan would rightfully be upset because it gets the story so wrong.

     These are not “inconsequential details”. They are the stuff that makes people decide if to tune in or not, and frames how they understand what they are watching. If they are wrong the “journalist” has failed. Further, the criticism (not that there aren’t to level at UEFA, the Champion’s League, both clubs, players and managers), is just baseless.

     The role of a journalist is to inform and enlighten. Not to offer poorly informed opinions as “facts”. We have enough of this in the world of punditry etc. If they wanted to run this article as a side car to an informative piece about the match, fine. But as front page, it doesn’t even come close to par. If I was a casual observer, I honestly would be angry, not attacking “soccer nerds/dorks.” . We trust news organizations to offer us informed analysis, not half witted rants.

     And like I said it isn’t as if there aren’t very qualifies American journalists who can speak to an American audience about this amazing match. The game has come father in the US and the US soccer fan and many casual fans and journalists here are more sophisticated than 5,10 or 15 years ago. You can’t and shouldn’t write these kinds of silly articles anymore with a reckless disregard for the game as if the American audience won’t know that you really don’t know what you are talking about. We shouldn’t and wouldn’t tolerate this anymore than articles about the World Series, Super Bowl or NBA playoffs that are similarly misinformed. We have standards and so should MSNBC when it comes to the beautiful game.

     Log in to Reply

     • drmonkeyarmy - May 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM

       Wonderfully written comment. It expresses my opinion on the subject perfectly.

3. arch56 - May 27, 2011 at 2:53 PM

   Just a suggestion to the writer…check your math….£798 million (about $14 trillion in U.S. dollars)
   Thats not even in the ballpark (or stadium).
   Though it would cover the US debt to China quite nicely

   Log in to Reply

   • Rick Chandler - May 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM

     I’m not saying it worked, but that figure was pretty clearly not meant to be serious. On the bright side, however, my research into whether soccer fans are incredible humorless nerds is now complete.

     Log in to Reply

     • arch56 - May 27, 2011 at 3:36 PM

       Too bad you got that one wrong too…..I’m no soccer fan…You could call me a nerd but then that would just be mean and uncaring on your part…..but back to my MATH 101 lecture:
       1 Euro = 1.4259 USD
       798 Million Euro = 798,000,000*1.4259 USD= 1.14 Billion USD

       Percent Error Calculation:
       (14 Trillion USD – 1.14 Billion USD)/(1.14 Billion USD) = 99.99185%

       Better luck on your next assignment

     • hamstergram - May 27, 2011 at 3:52 PM

       arch: You leave a comment with dozens of math equations and claim that you’re not a nerd? Nice try. He told you the figure wasn’t serious, and you respond with percent error calculations. You must wear a pocket protector during, well, I was going to say sex, but let’s not get into fiction.

4. menjamer - May 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM

   It’s not much different from MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. Basically all just millionaires playing against other millionaires for championships (or in the case of the NFL currently, millionaires fighting against other millionaires over who gets more of my money…. the best answer: Neither, ’cause I won’t be spending any more of it on your product ).

   @Cleanslaton: the ‘soccer dorks’ can try all they want to bolster support for their game in the U.S., but it’ll never happen. Everyone here has ADHD and can’t stand to sit through a 30 second commercial during whatever “reality-based” crap they’re watching (where’s that fwd button on the DVR??), much less a 90+ minute chess match with live pieces that ends in a “nil-nil” tie. (easy soccer dorks, I’m one of you… I enjoy watching/playing the game, but I also have a sense of humor about it).

   Log in to Reply

   • pedro281 - May 28, 2011 at 8:25 AM

     I think soccer could be really big in the US…but several changes would have to be made.

     They’ve gotta take a big time stand against the cheats in the game. Punish diving, play-acting, cynical and persistent fouling. Similar to how the NBA instituted the hand-checking rule and (big suprise!) scoring and watchability of games both went up! Americans don’t realize how tough and physical soccer actually is, that it is a manly sport, because they see players throwing their bodies to the ground and rolling about like they’ve been shot. I think this disgusts American sports enthusiasts.

     If FIFA stopped living in the past and installed instant replay, punished divers/floppers, protected attacking players by having harsher (and enforcing!) penalties against ‘destroyers’, you’d see a more attacking, free-flowing, and MARKETABLE game!

     Log in to Reply

     • drmonkeyarmy - May 28, 2011 at 11:02 AM

       I do agree with some of what you stated, but why should FIFA try to specifically market the game to Americans? It is already the largest, most followed sport in the world. Increasing the fan base would be great, but fundamentally changing the way the game is played might hurt it in other countries.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!