Football and huge amounts of money have become synonymous: for example the recent transfer of Spanish footballer Fernando Torres from Liverpool to Chelsea for close on 50 million pounds and Gerald Pique, Barcelona defender's four and a half million outlay for his 'attic' on Calle Muntaner in Barcelona. You can see why parents want their kids to be footballers! There's money, real money for the favoured few who make it to the top. Pop-stars and film stars are less-favoured by parents because of their association with anti-social downsides such as drugs and alcohol. Football with its random medical checks, generally displays a clean-living label which appeals to parents. Managers and trainers keep a tight rein on their collection (team) of players and are not so far removed from in locum parentis figures.
However,one of the La Vanguardia journalists, a woman with a young son recently attended a match between two junior teams and was horrified at the supporters - mostly male parents - who vilified the referees' decisions, jeered at the trainer and egged on their offsprings using expressions more fitting to Colosseum crowds in ancient Rome. She found out that some of these 'hooligan' parents are regularly banned from matches for such behaviour.
Naturally this affects the players too. The aim of such games according to schools is to train youngsters in skills and techniques and to let them enjoy exercise. But egged on by parents, they start playing to win, displaying the 'better a winner than a loser be' attitude. And it's winning in whatever way and using whatever tactics. So they ape the worst aspects of professionalism: hold onto jerseys; do ankle taps on opponents in full flight; threaten smaller players and above all constantly dispute decisions - tactics which they see their heroes doing in high-profile matches on TV.
The bookies would say the odds of their little darlings achieving a position on teams of the calibre of Barca are several zillions to one. Barca's catchment area is not Barcelona - nor is the team we see 'made in Barcelona'. Their son is probably more likely to be eaten by a shark than play at Camp Nou, or to commit hari-kari because he doesn't come up to daddy's impossibly high expectations.For many kids all the joy has gone out of playing due to parental-imposed stress on them to win. When did you last see a professional footballer with a grin on his face most of the game - Messi and the Ronaldinho of old apart?
So what is it about today's parents that we try to force our kids into moulds and then wonder why they lock themselves away in their rooms and chat to their friends? And what is the fastest-growing industry in Europe today? Fashion for kids, turning out three year-old Lady Gagas, five year old Penelope Cruz's, Ronaldo ridge-back hairlines. Puyol poodle-cuts. Kids go straight from the cradle to mini-adults and miss out the pram and childhood on the way. All we seem to want are cut- down versions of someone we would like to have been and never had the talent. Is that really the best we can offer?
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Speed limits around Barcelona: a change of heart.
All change on the roads! The new CiU government as by a grinning Arturo Mas has followed up on its electoral promise of doing away with previous tripartite government's sensible 80 kph limit on approach roads into BCN. From March 1st, speed will only be enforced in intense traffic conditions and on roads which join urban 50 kph areas.
The 80 limit was unpopular and bitterly contested by the motorist lobby - mainly by those who insist on driving into work instead of using public transport -and since you might ask, neither car-sharing nor Park-and-Drive are preferred options here. Removal of the limit does seems a bit odd though, especially as the rest of Europe is solidly sold on reducing speed in large conurbations to lower the amount of contamination and accidents. Sound sense. But not in Catalunya, where drivers prefer a head-in-the sand attitude and a you-can't -tell-us-what-to-do approach to life. (It's not as if Franco had blanketed the country with a speed limit like he did with a Catalan language ban is it?) In other parts of Europe you might use epithets like 'stubborn', 'obtuse or 'selfish' to describe such an attitude. Just like opposition to limits on drivers drinking alcohol, or people smoking in a bar. It seems that as soon as you start putting limits on Catalan behaviour - of any kind - sparks start to fly.
Councillor Puig, who has the dubious honour of lifting the 80 limit, flies in the face of all logical argument. His reported arguments deny all scientific research about the amount of pollution that will be produced and he refutes well-documented research showing accidents increase with speed. He knows there isn't enough money around in this cost-cutting government to put up adequate digital signing to inform motorists about speed variations. Instead he insists that common sense will prevail!! In Catalunya on the roads? Does he work from home all the week? Give me a break! Putting Catalans at the wheel of a car is like giving them a lobotomy.
On the other hand all is not bad! DGT, the pan-Spain traffic organisation, have decided to lower the fining tolerance level on motorways from 138 to 135 kph to cut down on accidents. Thus if you are driving at 135 (15 over the limit you now will get fined. Plus100 more radar cameras will be installed to catch speeding motorists. Maybe the people at DGT read the right journals?
The 80 limit was unpopular and bitterly contested by the motorist lobby - mainly by those who insist on driving into work instead of using public transport -and since you might ask, neither car-sharing nor Park-and-Drive are preferred options here. Removal of the limit does seems a bit odd though, especially as the rest of Europe is solidly sold on reducing speed in large conurbations to lower the amount of contamination and accidents. Sound sense. But not in Catalunya, where drivers prefer a head-in-the sand attitude and a you-can't -tell-us-what-to-do approach to life. (It's not as if Franco had blanketed the country with a speed limit like he did with a Catalan language ban is it?) In other parts of Europe you might use epithets like 'stubborn', 'obtuse or 'selfish' to describe such an attitude. Just like opposition to limits on drivers drinking alcohol, or people smoking in a bar. It seems that as soon as you start putting limits on Catalan behaviour - of any kind - sparks start to fly.
Councillor Puig, who has the dubious honour of lifting the 80 limit, flies in the face of all logical argument. His reported arguments deny all scientific research about the amount of pollution that will be produced and he refutes well-documented research showing accidents increase with speed. He knows there isn't enough money around in this cost-cutting government to put up adequate digital signing to inform motorists about speed variations. Instead he insists that common sense will prevail!! In Catalunya on the roads? Does he work from home all the week? Give me a break! Putting Catalans at the wheel of a car is like giving them a lobotomy.
On the other hand all is not bad! DGT, the pan-Spain traffic organisation, have decided to lower the fining tolerance level on motorways from 138 to 135 kph to cut down on accidents. Thus if you are driving at 135 (15 over the limit you now will get fined. Plus100 more radar cameras will be installed to catch speeding motorists. Maybe the people at DGT read the right journals?
Sunday, 23 January 2011
The naked truth: keep yer kit on!
This week two newspapers (La Vanguardia and El Pais) ran articles about a proposal by the PSC and CiU parties soon before the City Council which would ban nudity and near-nudity from streets near the beach, including the infamous Las Ramblas area. (see link to El Pais.) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cataluna/Barcelona/chastened/elpepueng/20110121elpcat_1/Ten
La Vanguardia suggested that the proposal would certainly be passed in March, just in time for this year's tourist hordes hitting the city at Easter. (Presumeably tourists are the main offenders?) This is pure speculation of course but that's newspapers for you.
It seems there could be several 'grey' areas here - as well as pink ones! A definitions of what is 'nude' (and therefore attracting a fine of up to 500 euros) shouldn't be too difficult for the lawmakers. But deciding what is 'semi-nude' (attracting 300 euros) could more problematic. El Pais suggests that being shirtless for men and wearing a bathing costume for women could come under 'semi' or 'near-nude'. But what about bikinis, or shorts with a tiny top or bra? No bra? And doesn't a short dress with buttons undone, or a mini-skirt reveal as much of the human body as a bathing costume? In any case would feminists be right in protesting here that any definition is, de facto, biased against ways in which women habitually dress in summer -. in any country? And after all don't you see men repairing the streets who aren't wearing shirts, don't you? And statues only wearing paint? Are they nude or semi-nude?
So far few voices have been raised against the idea - which suggests the law will be doomed to failure. El Pais quotes one: Jacint Ribes, chairman for the Association for the Defence of Nakedness (Yes, it does exist !) who feels a new wave of 'nudophobia' has arrived. He suggests proposals like this only come up at election time. He states that the City Hall used to be a defender of personal freedom. Now it's favouring people who want to be free not to suffer others' lack of respect!
Another criticism is that police have enough to do to keep abreast of the rising 'normal' crime in the city without checking out what people are - or aren't wearing. A police spokesperson was reported to have they would insist on people getting dressed properly before officers took down their details, and that they would not keep photos on police files to catch consistent offenders (liable to a 600 euro fine). Would patrols be organised so that a policeman and police woman work together to make for a more objective decision? One cynic thought that the whole thing was just a ruse to get more recruits into Barcelona's Guardia Urbana police.
To decide questions of taste and fashion is always a tricky and subjective thing. 'Beauty - (and in this case semi-nudity) are in the eye of the beholder'. I suspect that the originator of that much over-quoted phrase, Keats would not have objected to the sight of over-exposure of the female body. Byron might unless the shirtless perpetrator was handsome. In any case a softly-softly approach rather than a hardline one might be a better policy, since strutting your stuff (in a semi-nude state in the streets) is only a seasonal occupation.
This weekend it's minus 5 degees out on Las Ramblas. Not a chest hair, bare leg or plunging neckline in sight.
La Vanguardia suggested that the proposal would certainly be passed in March, just in time for this year's tourist hordes hitting the city at Easter. (Presumeably tourists are the main offenders?) This is pure speculation of course but that's newspapers for you.
It seems there could be several 'grey' areas here - as well as pink ones! A definitions of what is 'nude' (and therefore attracting a fine of up to 500 euros) shouldn't be too difficult for the lawmakers. But deciding what is 'semi-nude' (attracting 300 euros) could more problematic. El Pais suggests that being shirtless for men and wearing a bathing costume for women could come under 'semi' or 'near-nude'. But what about bikinis, or shorts with a tiny top or bra? No bra? And doesn't a short dress with buttons undone, or a mini-skirt reveal as much of the human body as a bathing costume? In any case would feminists be right in protesting here that any definition is, de facto, biased against ways in which women habitually dress in summer -. in any country? And after all don't you see men repairing the streets who aren't wearing shirts, don't you? And statues only wearing paint? Are they nude or semi-nude?
So far few voices have been raised against the idea - which suggests the law will be doomed to failure. El Pais quotes one: Jacint Ribes, chairman for the Association for the Defence of Nakedness (Yes, it does exist !) who feels a new wave of 'nudophobia' has arrived. He suggests proposals like this only come up at election time. He states that the City Hall used to be a defender of personal freedom. Now it's favouring people who want to be free not to suffer others' lack of respect!
Another criticism is that police have enough to do to keep abreast of the rising 'normal' crime in the city without checking out what people are - or aren't wearing. A police spokesperson was reported to have they would insist on people getting dressed properly before officers took down their details, and that they would not keep photos on police files to catch consistent offenders (liable to a 600 euro fine). Would patrols be organised so that a policeman and police woman work together to make for a more objective decision? One cynic thought that the whole thing was just a ruse to get more recruits into Barcelona's Guardia Urbana police.
To decide questions of taste and fashion is always a tricky and subjective thing. 'Beauty - (and in this case semi-nudity) are in the eye of the beholder'. I suspect that the originator of that much over-quoted phrase, Keats would not have objected to the sight of over-exposure of the female body. Byron might unless the shirtless perpetrator was handsome. In any case a softly-softly approach rather than a hardline one might be a better policy, since strutting your stuff (in a semi-nude state in the streets) is only a seasonal occupation.
This weekend it's minus 5 degees out on Las Ramblas. Not a chest hair, bare leg or plunging neckline in sight.
Your second home is not your castle.
In Spain second-home owners have long trembled where lawmakers tread. Since the 80's I recall local governments and builders taking advantage of foreign owners who clearly didn't know the ropes. Or they did know them, but the Town Hall kept changing the goalposts. OK, I know that's a mess of mixed metaphors but not such an ugly mess as a heap of rubble which was your house and which represented all your savings. It's difficult to win when bent local government officials, lawyers, estate agents and builders are in cahoots, all after a big slice of your money for some building that isn't legal - or is only half-finished as is the case today with builders going belly-up so often. And then once you've spent it, they want to knock it down 'cos the law says they can. In this case it's not Spain's law but sod's law when this happens so often.
Valencia seems to be one province (but not the only one) which has a reputation for being unfeeling when dealing with what is and what isn't legally built, and one which seems to have it in for foreign residents. On numerous occasions its municipalities have demanded bulldozing of properties, appropriation of land, payment of fees for new roadways, extra taxes for services and utilities etc. So much so that many affected residents banded together (in a group called PNALC) and took their complaints successfully to Strasbourg. Everything seems to hinge round how one interprets the 1988 central government environmental law (La Ley de las Costas). Theoretically it imposes restrictions on new building after1988 and declares illegal dwellings or parts of dwellings if they infringe this law. Today the socialist central government seems to have decided to apply more severely this law which is putting the fear of God into anyone with a house within sight of the sea. La Ley's aim is to allow access to the entire length of the Spanish coast to you, me and the dog. Secondly it seeks to stop erosion and mass building.(see footnote link for a full explanation)
Good, I hear you say. Illegal building and the resulting speculation has been rampant far too long in Spain. There are far too many places where ugly hotels and blocks of flats label a nice strip of sand 'Private Beach' and put up a razor-wire fence to stop you passing through. Far too many huge private villas whose snarling Dobermans snap hungrily at the muscled bottoms of hikers as they walk the coast. Teach them a lesson. Give Spain back to the people. Agreed. But its hardly the scenario as when in good faith you've invested your life savings in a modest place on the coast after being assured by both the builder and the Town Hall that everything was kosher and then ten years down the line one morning you find a bulldozer revving outside backed up by the Guardia Civil waving a court order for demolition of 'Casa Mia', your bolthole to the sun.
And, as in the case of Ampuriabrava, a Venice clone (canals not buildings) on the Costa Brava, things get complicated. La Vanguadia this week ran an article about how owners of houses built canalside would have to demolish parts of their property to allow people access to walk along the canals. Now that would be bad enough if it only meant the public walking through a slice of your ex-garden, but in many cases it's more than that. It's a question of say, the shallow end of the swimming pool, or half the boat garage you built, or in the worse case scenario your extra bedroom where, in the future, Joe Public will be able take a shortcut on his morning walk to get his Daily Mail or Rheinische Post and croissants. It's also not clear who would pay for the removal of any such 'obstacles'. You, the owner, or the Town Hall .
Another complicating factor in the Ampuriabrava case is that many owners over the years, pre and post 1988, without consulting either lawyers or the Town Hall, have taken it for granted they could extend their properties 'just a few metres' and join their moorings up to the gardens - and naturally local construction companies were 'glad to help'. After all Helmut from Hamburg and Gunter from Giessen on either sides of the house have done it and they've been here for years so it must be OK, mustn't it!
Lots of things seem to be unclear with regard to the application of La Ley but what is certain is that it looks like the Battle of Ampuriabrava - and any others like it - will be long and drawn out, since the vast majority of these prime properties are owned by people who can pay afford to pay lawyers so they are not going to take invasion of their privacy lying down. You can sympathise with both owners and the public. Both sections have rights but both want the opposite. The owners want privacy and the public access. Whose side are you on?
Footnote/Link Mark Strickland's site in English which explains the main clauses of La Ley de las Costas and which shows how open to interpretation many clauses could be.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/buff/spain/faq/ley-de-costas-coastal-law/
Valencia seems to be one province (but not the only one) which has a reputation for being unfeeling when dealing with what is and what isn't legally built, and one which seems to have it in for foreign residents. On numerous occasions its municipalities have demanded bulldozing of properties, appropriation of land, payment of fees for new roadways, extra taxes for services and utilities etc. So much so that many affected residents banded together (in a group called PNALC) and took their complaints successfully to Strasbourg. Everything seems to hinge round how one interprets the 1988 central government environmental law (La Ley de las Costas). Theoretically it imposes restrictions on new building after1988 and declares illegal dwellings or parts of dwellings if they infringe this law. Today the socialist central government seems to have decided to apply more severely this law which is putting the fear of God into anyone with a house within sight of the sea. La Ley's aim is to allow access to the entire length of the Spanish coast to you, me and the dog. Secondly it seeks to stop erosion and mass building.(see footnote link for a full explanation)
Good, I hear you say. Illegal building and the resulting speculation has been rampant far too long in Spain. There are far too many places where ugly hotels and blocks of flats label a nice strip of sand 'Private Beach' and put up a razor-wire fence to stop you passing through. Far too many huge private villas whose snarling Dobermans snap hungrily at the muscled bottoms of hikers as they walk the coast. Teach them a lesson. Give Spain back to the people. Agreed. But its hardly the scenario as when in good faith you've invested your life savings in a modest place on the coast after being assured by both the builder and the Town Hall that everything was kosher and then ten years down the line one morning you find a bulldozer revving outside backed up by the Guardia Civil waving a court order for demolition of 'Casa Mia', your bolthole to the sun.
And, as in the case of Ampuriabrava, a Venice clone (canals not buildings) on the Costa Brava, things get complicated. La Vanguadia this week ran an article about how owners of houses built canalside would have to demolish parts of their property to allow people access to walk along the canals. Now that would be bad enough if it only meant the public walking through a slice of your ex-garden, but in many cases it's more than that. It's a question of say, the shallow end of the swimming pool, or half the boat garage you built, or in the worse case scenario your extra bedroom where, in the future, Joe Public will be able take a shortcut on his morning walk to get his Daily Mail or Rheinische Post and croissants. It's also not clear who would pay for the removal of any such 'obstacles'. You, the owner, or the Town Hall .
Another complicating factor in the Ampuriabrava case is that many owners over the years, pre and post 1988, without consulting either lawyers or the Town Hall, have taken it for granted they could extend their properties 'just a few metres' and join their moorings up to the gardens - and naturally local construction companies were 'glad to help'. After all Helmut from Hamburg and Gunter from Giessen on either sides of the house have done it and they've been here for years so it must be OK, mustn't it!
Lots of things seem to be unclear with regard to the application of La Ley but what is certain is that it looks like the Battle of Ampuriabrava - and any others like it - will be long and drawn out, since the vast majority of these prime properties are owned by people who can pay afford to pay lawyers so they are not going to take invasion of their privacy lying down. You can sympathise with both owners and the public. Both sections have rights but both want the opposite. The owners want privacy and the public access. Whose side are you on?
Footnote/Link Mark Strickland's site in English which explains the main clauses of La Ley de las Costas and which shows how open to interpretation many clauses could be.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/buff/spain/faq/ley-de-costas-coastal-law/
Friday, 7 January 2011
Tit for tat: WikiLeaks in Spain
Long live John le Carre! May all my favourite espionage novel-writers like Robert Ludlum, Len Deighton, Frederik Forsythe, Ian Fleming ( Oh, right he's dead isn't he?) come out of the cold. There's plenty of work for film stars that played their characters too - the spy specialists of whom we never tire - the Pierce Brosnans, Michael Caines, Matt Damons, Tom Cruises, George Clooneys and the like. And why? Cos the Cold war is back! In El Pais newspaper today we read about a reverse Spanish Xmas Log gesture where the Russian Government have just sent home on Xmas Eve two Spanish diplomats for activities 'over and beyond their official brief', ie spying? In fact political adviser Ignacio Cartagena and First Secretary, Borja Cortes-Breton, were expelled probably for nothing more than the fact that in November the Spanish Government on the advice of the Spanish CIA ( the CNI or the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia) sent packing two Russian diplomats accused of dire offences of a similar vagueness. In other words a-tit-for-tat expulsion. But then who knows what goes on in the grey and murky area of diplomatic intercourse between countries of once opposing ideologies.
It's incidents like these that make increasingly complex espionage films so popular and even make for 'Spy 3' sequels - think of Bourne and Bond for example. They also give rise to spoof spy films which take the piss out of not only the 'espionage' type films but also the concept of ever taking spying seriously. It might as well be Mars where the action is played out, the whole thing is so alien to normal life. Complex plots used to be played out in Berlin before The Wall came down, the divided city which separated the Western from Eastern bloc countries, then the action shifted to any countries which were vaguely near to China or North Korea. London, Washington and New York even Dubai and Delhi have always been favourites and of course Paris, the most sought after location for agents and ex-agents and killers of agents and ex-agents. particularly of a Middle East background or affiliation But Spain? Not really.
But yet perhaps there is a link with Madrid and this film world spy thing. It's in the 'spoofers', the spy films that satirise spy films. And let's face it many of which have been as highly successful. as the films they satirise even their titles strive to be amusing. I mean take the French 'The Tall Blonde Man with One Red Shoe' and its sequel and equally intriguing 'Return of the Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe' or surely the longest title for a (spoof) spy film, 'How to destroy the Reputation of the Greatest Secret Agent in the World' as played by Jean-Paul Belmondo. Full of cliches was the punniest of all, the American 'Spy Hard' with its hero, Dick Steele or Agent WD-40 playing out as so many do the myth of the irresistible sexual potency and attraction of spies.
So it's here that the link with Spain and Spy movies is, in the spoof variety. The meeting of the two 'Mr Beans' one called Atkinson and the other called Zapatero, the A-Z of the spy world as it were. One of the unfortunate aspects of the Spanish leader is his remakable ability to look like he's an understudy for Rowan Atkinson when the latter is playing the role of Johnny English in the film of the same name - a spy hero who commits incredible gaffes yet gets away with them (mostly). The film satirises the way that 'serious' films project for the public what they think 'real 'spies do. Spain has politicians who commit the most incredible gaffes too and in general get away with them. One wonders if this is what real politicians do?
You could say then that PM Zapatero has about as much chance of lifting Spain out of the current mess it's in as Johnny English had of exposing and defeating Britain's spying enemies, the film's baddies, off his own bat. However it's important to both to keep things appearing 'complicated' as it is the key word that joins the two. I have watched 'Syriana' twice, once in Spanish and once in English and decided that in neither version was I able to decipher what the hell George Clooney and Matt Damon were doing. When I read the Spanish newspapers I get a similar view of political leaders whether they be Spanish, American - or Russian.
Ronaldinho: a footballer more sinned against than sinning
Certain overpaid -and underworked - categories of people keep the tabloid newspapers filled with their detrius and drivel: their marriages, infidelities, divorces and their tantrums. Pop stars and professional sports stars are two glaring examples - witness the Tiger Woods Story of recent months and the endless George Michael saga. Both categories spawn latter-day gods who make obscene amounts of money, yet too often they reveal themselves as humanly flawed, less than God-like with their unsuccessful attempts to reconcile private selves and public obligations. And when that happens the paparazzi pounce. As we ordinary mortals all know, happiness doesn't sell papers, dirt and disasters, whether public or personal, do.
This week's Spanish newspaper sports pages are no exception. Most featured a new episode in the checkered career of ex-BCN resident and player, the 30 year-old Milan club's footballer Ronaldinho who is rumoured to have been a bad boy yet again. Not too long ago he was a Barça player and in trouble with their Christ-reborn figure, trainer and saviour Pep Gardiola, for not training hard enough and enjoying the Barcelona night life too much. Despite his obvious talent as a footballer (and entertainer) after a couple of seasons as the club's rising star, he was starting to fit the new Barca team philosophy like the Lion King would Lady Gaga's bikini. Eventually Milan (or Berlusconi the club's owner) decided he might have a future in Italy after he gave the businessman/politician a promise to play there 'till he hung up his boots'. As with Barça he initially fitted in well even regaining some of his old flair, but latterly he had been seen more on the bench than the pitch, a non-starter for most of the important Champions League matches and he's reportedly had several arguments with Milan's trainer, the aptly misnamed Allegri. A case of deja vu!
This week when in Dubai for the club's winter training sessions he not only missed training (for stomach problems again!) but was also reported coming back to the hotel late after going to discotheques (hardly Barcelona or Milan quality but enough to keep him out till 7am.) He reportedly (!) left the team without even saying 'goodbye' and boarded a plane to Brazil. He was last seen sunbathing at a beach resort. Rumour has it he wants to play for a Brazilian team, probably Gremio, where he first started his career.
Ronaldinho's case is an example of a young red-blooded man whose personality doesn't fit a hardline approach, (known as the 'philosophy') of a club, in the case of Barça and Milan ones that are making a lot of money out of him. If off-field exploits make players perform less well, teams start to lose matches and shareholders money for after all football is a business. It's not easy for an individual with such talent and flair as Ronaldinho to accept being treated like a schoolboy and being told off by the 'headmaster'. Some players can take it, realizing that their careers as footballers don't last for ever. Ronaldinho can't. Messi his equally brilliant Argentinan ex-teammate at Barca seems to be able to. I suspect much of the problem hangs on your personal relationship with your trainer. If that's bad you may as well leave.
However there another side to this coin to consider. Money. There's a strong arguement that top football players morally should give 120% on and off the field since they are paid such huge salaries. In sport unlike with pop stars who also earn huge amounts, wide differences in character and attitude are frowned upon. Pop stars are expected to ruffle the establishment's feathers, to wear outrageous clothes, to take drugs, to wreck hotel rooms, to fuck fans. The bad-boy image sells disks. Sports stars wear suits and blazers when they travel together as a team. They eat together, play together while the Big Daddy manager takes care of everything. Step over the line and party too much however and you get slapped down.
Legal contracts bind players to clubs and their philosophy. In Ronadlinho's case at Milan we're talking an eight million euros a year contract. Maybe like Barça, Milan have a right for that amount of cash to expect him to toe the line more. English Premier Club team Blackburn Rovers are said to have offered him 20 million over three years if Milan would sell him in the January sales or 'transfer window' as they call it. Milan want eight million euros since he has one year left of his contract - not out of the question for Blackburn's ebulliant chicken based economy but certainly too much for lowly Brazilian club like Gremio who he seems to want to return to even though he'd play for a fraction of what he now gets at Milan.
Football has always had and will continue to have its casualities and its successes. George Best spent all his money on whiskey and women and died broke. Paul Gascoyne had his fight with alcohol and Madona his with drugs. Stars like Ronaldo and Beckham have their heads screwed on better and have remained successful. Or have agents with their heads screwed on better to make sure they remain so. Ronaldinho's agent is his brother and he also has his sister and mother working for him. Perhaps it's a mistake to mix family and business. Maybe he's made enough money and at thirty wants to enjoy himself before settling down. Maybe he was just an example of a player who wanted to samba through life and the football field was just another dance hall for him. Kinda sad though to see the end of a player who enjoyed playing. His goofy smile and brilliant individualism will be missed by the fans but not by trainers who wanted to wipe it off his face. Adios amigo.
This week's Spanish newspaper sports pages are no exception. Most featured a new episode in the checkered career of ex-BCN resident and player, the 30 year-old Milan club's footballer Ronaldinho who is rumoured to have been a bad boy yet again. Not too long ago he was a Barça player and in trouble with their Christ-reborn figure, trainer and saviour Pep Gardiola, for not training hard enough and enjoying the Barcelona night life too much. Despite his obvious talent as a footballer (and entertainer) after a couple of seasons as the club's rising star, he was starting to fit the new Barca team philosophy like the Lion King would Lady Gaga's bikini. Eventually Milan (or Berlusconi the club's owner) decided he might have a future in Italy after he gave the businessman/politician a promise to play there 'till he hung up his boots'. As with Barça he initially fitted in well even regaining some of his old flair, but latterly he had been seen more on the bench than the pitch, a non-starter for most of the important Champions League matches and he's reportedly had several arguments with Milan's trainer, the aptly misnamed Allegri. A case of deja vu!
This week when in Dubai for the club's winter training sessions he not only missed training (for stomach problems again!) but was also reported coming back to the hotel late after going to discotheques (hardly Barcelona or Milan quality but enough to keep him out till 7am.) He reportedly (!) left the team without even saying 'goodbye' and boarded a plane to Brazil. He was last seen sunbathing at a beach resort. Rumour has it he wants to play for a Brazilian team, probably Gremio, where he first started his career.
Ronaldinho's case is an example of a young red-blooded man whose personality doesn't fit a hardline approach, (known as the 'philosophy') of a club, in the case of Barça and Milan ones that are making a lot of money out of him. If off-field exploits make players perform less well, teams start to lose matches and shareholders money for after all football is a business. It's not easy for an individual with such talent and flair as Ronaldinho to accept being treated like a schoolboy and being told off by the 'headmaster'. Some players can take it, realizing that their careers as footballers don't last for ever. Ronaldinho can't. Messi his equally brilliant Argentinan ex-teammate at Barca seems to be able to. I suspect much of the problem hangs on your personal relationship with your trainer. If that's bad you may as well leave.
However there another side to this coin to consider. Money. There's a strong arguement that top football players morally should give 120% on and off the field since they are paid such huge salaries. In sport unlike with pop stars who also earn huge amounts, wide differences in character and attitude are frowned upon. Pop stars are expected to ruffle the establishment's feathers, to wear outrageous clothes, to take drugs, to wreck hotel rooms, to fuck fans. The bad-boy image sells disks. Sports stars wear suits and blazers when they travel together as a team. They eat together, play together while the Big Daddy manager takes care of everything. Step over the line and party too much however and you get slapped down.
Legal contracts bind players to clubs and their philosophy. In Ronadlinho's case at Milan we're talking an eight million euros a year contract. Maybe like Barça, Milan have a right for that amount of cash to expect him to toe the line more. English Premier Club team Blackburn Rovers are said to have offered him 20 million over three years if Milan would sell him in the January sales or 'transfer window' as they call it. Milan want eight million euros since he has one year left of his contract - not out of the question for Blackburn's ebulliant chicken based economy but certainly too much for lowly Brazilian club like Gremio who he seems to want to return to even though he'd play for a fraction of what he now gets at Milan.
Football has always had and will continue to have its casualities and its successes. George Best spent all his money on whiskey and women and died broke. Paul Gascoyne had his fight with alcohol and Madona his with drugs. Stars like Ronaldo and Beckham have their heads screwed on better and have remained successful. Or have agents with their heads screwed on better to make sure they remain so. Ronaldinho's agent is his brother and he also has his sister and mother working for him. Perhaps it's a mistake to mix family and business. Maybe he's made enough money and at thirty wants to enjoy himself before settling down. Maybe he was just an example of a player who wanted to samba through life and the football field was just another dance hall for him. Kinda sad though to see the end of a player who enjoyed playing. His goofy smile and brilliant individualism will be missed by the fans but not by trainers who wanted to wipe it off his face. Adios amigo.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Tobacco Road: the smoking ban
Ten days to go and the puff-smoke-in-yer-face game will be over. Spain is set to bring in the La Ley del Tabaco, making it one of the last countries to be a bastion for smokers in 'old' Europe to do so. January the second will be 'T Day'. Like all changes it has been fiercely resisted to the bitter end by bars and restaurants who deny surveys that show they won't lose clients and revenue. For God's sake if the Italians can do it, anyone can!
The immediate effect of the law - apart from a less-polluted atmosphere all round - will be that barmen and waiters for example will be able to breathe more easily and live longer - 1,000
of them a year die through tobacco-related illnesses. No longer will they confront a crowd of dragon-like patrons puffing obnoxious fumes in their faces. More importantly future generations may also survive longer - smoking will seem less the norm if totally banned in public places, including children's playgrounds.
Over the last five years the Spanish government has dragged its feet over implementing Brussel´s recommendations. It's almost taken pride in being the last to make changes, citing possible loss of earnings for interested parties: tobacco sellers, kiosks, bars, pubs, eating places and inveterate smokers all protested and you could count on one hand the places displaying No Fumar stickers on their doors when the smoking ban was 'voluntary'. Really though it was all about votes. Offend one section of the population too much by tampering with their freedom of choice and come election time you're burnt toast - appropriately so in this case!
And true to form even with the new law in place it will still allow certain sections to smuggle in fags through the back door as it were, although there could be some method in this madness. Prisons and psychiatric institutions will be able to designate 'smoking rooms' since so many of their clients are addicted - (and if deprived of tobacco could be violent?). Smoking Clubs - whatever they are -will also be exempt as long as they restrict smokers to members and guests. Having many years ago got a whiff of the atmosphere in the smoking room in Singapore's Changi Airport (one of the anti-smoking pioneers) I feel the allowing such exemptions are a subtle way of exterminating problem people - a kind of societal euthenasia or 'ethnic cleansing' as it's termed in some countries.
Some things are not clear about the new law ban, however. Who for example who is going to check on whether businesses are sticking to the law - will we see a huge army of civil service workers come into being, called 'Smoke Detectors' perhaps?; what do you do if a customer who might be paying a huge bill for a blowout in your restaurant whips out a fag and lights up? If you turn a blind eye you're liable to get a heavy fine, particularly if 70% of the clients eating are likely to be non-smokers and might rat on you.
Write in and say whether you feel Barcelona will overnight become smoke-free and where smokers will now go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)