Arthur Crabtree wrote:There seems to be a disconnection between younger players who are criticised for maximising their potential while they still have the opportunity, and older players who are given diminished contracts the second they falter. It's not practical to keep on players beyond the point where they weaken the side, which is pretty ruthless Darwinism for the individual concerned. But surely given that harshness, the players should be morally free to seek the most advantageous environment for their skills, prosperity and longevity. That's a liberty we all exploit, though thankfully in more forgiving circumstances.
The disconnection is because they're entirely different circumstances. Young players are free to further their career wherever they wish nor can older players expect to be retained out of loyalty. The loyalty compensation comes with the awarding of a benefit.
There's a perfectly justifiable bone of contention, call it bitterness of you wish, in that clubs aren't adequately compensated for developing the young player. Whether a player owes a degree of loyalty to his parent club after being nursed through several periods of inactivity is an entirely personal decision. I'm of the view that perhaps he does but recognise that such a view is old school to many.
