A famous saying from Bill Shankly is “If you are first you are first. If you are second, you are nothing.” This just shows the importance of winning that Shankly believed was necessary within football. Years later, it can be argued that footballers are still being disciplined into the significance of winning; this can start from an early age where winning is all that matters.
But how far are footballers willing to go to win? There are countless occasions where footballers have taken it upon themselves to win or save football matches. Arguably the most famous incident is still the ‘hand of god’ performed by Diego Maradona, but in recent memory we’ve also had the Thierry Henry vs Ireland and Luis Suarez vs Ghana incidents involving handball.
These players have decided to take it upon themselves to win at all cost by gaining an unfair advantage. Suarez of course received his punishment with a red card, but Gyan missed the resulting penalty and Uruguay famously won the match on penalties. However, gaining an unfair advantage happens all the time, from footballers diving, stopping a quick free kick being taken or intentionally pulling back an opponent to stop an attack, often known as a tactical foul and often seemed acceptable in football. These are all factors in which players are attempting to gain an unfair advantage.
Of course, the handball incidents involving Henry and Maradona are extreme cases of gaining an unfair advantage but can we really blame these players for their actions? Some will question their morals and argue about the best interest of the sport. Should these individuals have admitted to handling the ball, inform the referee, award a free kick to the opposition and face the punishment of gaining an unfair advantage? Easier said than done under the circumstances – both were captains and star players of a country depressed for World Cup glory. These players took it upon themselves to increase the teams’ chances of success by gaining an unfair advantage. Not only did they have pressure from themselves to succeed, they had external factors as well such as team mates, coaches and supporters all applying additional pressure on them to succeed. Could it be argued that these external factors influenced his decision making? Perhaps pressure can influence a player’s decision making, but it can be argued that ego and a win at all cost mentality were the main influences for their actions and maybe an after-thought was the fact that their actions not only helped themselves, but others too.
On the other hand, if these players are gaining an unfair advantage to win – is it because these individuals could not win just based on their own ability and have to bend or break the rules of the game to win? Does this mean they wanted people to believe they were the best and feed their own ego but in fact they had to gain an unfair advantage to do so and gain a positive result? Of course, we can call Maradona and Henry elite athletes based on their whole career and not just these two incidents. However, officials are trained and paid to make the decisions as to whether an individual has gained an unfair advantage by performing a handball, diving or tactical foul by providing the appropriate punishment. A saying that is often said about this topic area is “play to the whistle”; let the referee make the decisions. Of course, sportsmanship could be an issue here, which would suggest that you should play to the spirit of the game, but that’s another topic of discussion concerning athletes.
I often hear people say things along the lines of “he’s being a poor role model” by attempting to gain an unfair advantage by having a win at all cost mentality. It is something I do not tend to agree with. This mentality has led to these players being elite players, where children have the opportunity to watch, enjoy and learn the vital skills that are required to be an elite footballer and the mentality that is required to be successful. I firmly believe that having a will to win can set elite athletes apart from very good athletes. This mentality can easily be the difference between winning and losing. Of course, this may lead to attempting to gain an unfair advantage, even to the extreme of ‘cheating’. But again, I will ask you, can you blame them? With so many rewards now associated in football where winning and losing can come at a cost of over £40 million, with three points easily being the difference between staying in the Premiership and being relegated to the Championship. As mentioned above, external factors could influence a player’s decision-making; no professional athlete wants to be the reason why a team is relegated as this affects fans, managers, coaches, team mates and owners. I will also mention ego again here, no one wants to get relegated which could harm the players’ livelihood and pride. With all these factors involved, could these control whether a player decided to go down easily in the 90th minute to win a penalty to save a club from being relegated or are his morals of acting within the rules going to sway his decision making?
I believe it is vital that the occasion of these matches should be noted. It can be argued that with the extreme pressure of the situation, the players’ decision making could have been influenced. Would these players have attempted to gain an unfair advantage in a friendly or if their team is comfortable winning 3-0? Not likely. However; what about a relegation dog fight, World Cup qualification or a place in a World Cup final? I am a firm believer that the circumstances of a match affects players’ decision making on whether to gain an unfair advantage. People are quick to judge these athletes and say they would never have performed those actions in that situation. Of course, we will never know, because most of us will never have the opportunity. But I do think people forget what players sacrifice for being an athlete. Of course, we know all about the extrinsic rewards such as money and fame, but lets not forget the hours of training and dedication to get to the level of an elite athlete where it can be argued that winning at all cost becomes more natural as the years go on, knowing that their identity is focused on winning. As mentioned earlier, if you are first you are first. If you are second, you are nothing.
Down to the Wire 