How the transfer window became such A CESSPOOL

My mate Adam Clery - taking a rare break from his usual output of insightful tactical breakdowns on players and teams - just put out this rather fascinating video about how the transfer market operates in the modern game: not so much about the Isak saga in particular, though that, of course, provides the main illustrative example, but rather about how the evolving media landscape of the last few years has led to this toxic soup of disinformation in which we now find ourselves drowning.

Two of the key takeaways I found in this (which, if I'd been previously 'aware' of them, I'd not fully taken onboard and appreciated their significance) are that this toxic soup has got very much worse just in the last few years since Elon started to monetize Twitter/X; even 'respectable' journalists can't now resist the allure of easy dosh for circulating inflammatory transfer gossip that may garner millions of 'views' and 'shares', while a few ludicrous vultures like the notorious Fabrizio Romano can now manage to make a fat income from peddling this kind of crap 24/7. The second vital point is that whereas players in the past would generally utilize the 'legitimate' means of putting in a formal 'transfer request' if they were really desperate for a move, in recent years that has become almost unheard-of, as modern contracts heavily disincentivize this 'nuclear option' with a range of financial penalties (Isak and Wissa - and others who are known to 'want away' but haven't made such big waves about it - haven't dared to pursue this option, despite their alleged determination to leave their present clubs).

With the effective removal of this key piece of leverage players formerly used to be able to employ to lobby aggressively for a transfer, they - or rather, in the great majority of cases, their management teams - have felt obliged to resort to flame wars via social media instead. We see almost daily dribbles of news about how a player doesn't want to join in pre-season training, feels that his relationship with his present club has irrevocably broken down, that 'trust has been broken', that he couldn't possibly play for them ever again, etc., etc..... just to affirm his eagerness about a possible move and to try to keep some pressure on interested clubs to keep plugging away at the negotiation.

Much of the time, this stuff is at best grossly overstated, at worst entirely bogus. Isak - although he's done terrible damage to his relationship with the Newcastle fans, and possibly with some of his teammates too - would surely continue to play for his present club, and do so quite 'happily', if the mooted transfer to Liverpool were not to be completed in the next 11 days. And if the club are potentially open to such a lucrative transfer going ahead, they probably won't want to jeopardize it by having the player take part in competitive matches, or even in the often intense team training that precedes them; if negotations are ongoing, the prospective buyer typically imposes such a stipulation on keeping the player out of harm's way. So, I'm not convinced that Isak has really 'refused' to join the squad; I doubt if Newcastle would want him taking part while transfer discussions are happening.

A question remains, though, HOW, WHY does any of this nonsense work?? Surely the clubs aren't fooled, football insiders know that this is all smoke-and-mirrors, PR tomfoolery. I suspect that, if it does have any impact (perhaps it doesn't), it operates indirectly through fan pressure. Fans tend to feast on this regular diet of tweet and counter-tweet rather undiscriminatingly, and can become very emotionally invested in their perceptions of an unfolding narrative around a particular player. Perhaps it feels a little harder for the Liverpool leadership to back away from signing Isak now that their fanbase has got so excited about the idea? Just a thought. Perhaps Newcastle are going to be more open to letting him go, now that so many of their fans have turned against him as a Judas? That is perhaps even more likely.

It is very sad that things have come to this. It is yet another instance of the corrupting influence of the social media, an untrammelled, unfiltered torrent of titillation and provocation gushing into people's brains every hour (if you own a smartphone; I never have!). The blame rests ultimately on the great reading public; if they didn't gobble up this diet of shite so gleefully every day, there wouldn't be the incentives to produce it.

I would also venture that perhaps the game's authorities - either the Premier League or the Football Association, or perhaps, for once, both of them working in concert - should intervene to try to stop this sort of unseemly behaviour before it gets any worse (can it get any worse??). Players who refuse to honour their contracts - or even publicly threaten to do so (and if statements are put out in a player's name, they should be challenged immediately to personally confirm or deny their contents) - should be heavily sanctioned under the rules of the game. It is probably already within the power of the clubs to suspend wages and/or impose fines for such behaviour, but they'll be reluctant to take such extreme action if it might jeopardise their relationship with a player who might yet stay with them. But the game's authorities could surely take action under the umbrella of the 'bringing the game into disrepute' offence - imposing fines, banning someone from playing, perhaps even suspending their registration to effectively block any possible transfer.

That sounds extreme, I know. But if such measures were to be announnced, I'm quite sure they would never need to be used. Players and clubs would simply find a new - and hopefully, more civilized, and perhaps more private - means of working through their disagreements. Well, a man can dream.

[I wonder if the frequent mention of interest from other clubs - 'interest' which often evaporates suspiciously quickly, and is sometimes never corroborated by the club in question - is perhaps one of the most overused and most hollow of these Twitter-wars ploys. Does it really seem plausible that Ebere Eze was on the brink of signing for Spurs today,.... and then only an hour or two later would sign for Arsenal instead??  Hinting at interest from such a hated rival would be a guaranteed means to amplify the emotional temperature of the Arsenal fans, and thus perhaps intensify the pressure on the negotiating team to close the deal quickly....  And Spurs might not feel inclined to deny the story, even if completely unfounded. If there were in fact a chance of Eze being available, they wouldn't want to write themselves out of contention for him, would they? And even if they weren't interested, they wouldn't want to rouse their fans' ire by stating as much publicly - that might suggest poor judgement on their part, or a lack of ambition, or a shortage of funds. If Eze's agents say he nearly signed for Spurs, that's quite flattering and exciting for Spurs - even if it came to nothing. And it adds that little bit more fuel to the fire of their implacable enmity towards their North London rivals. All good.  I really don't think Spurs were ever in talks with him; though they might have wished they had been...]