Home » Atletico Madrid » The case of Courtois vs. Chelsea

The case of Courtois vs. Chelsea

The hottest debate in the Champions League this season is if Thibaut Courtois should play against his parent club Chelsea or not? Courtois is a Chelsea player loaned to Atletico Madrid for the past three seasons. The most important detail this season is a clause in the deal that is believed to mean Atletico has to pay Chelsea $2.5 million for every game Courtois plays against Chelsea. For a sport, this is outrageous.

Players are professionals and there should be no question of their commitment for the team they are playing for. No one should question that the own goal scored by David Luiz against PSG in the Champions League quarterfinals is borne out of his frustration against his coach Jose Mourinho for benching him often and the possibility that Luiz could be sold by the end of the season. A football player has the right to change clubs and his loyalty is to the club for which he plays at the moment. These commitments should be outside suspicion and if they are up for debate, football will cease to be a sport and football players will cease to be professionals.

The big argument forbidding players appearing against their parent club is the conflict of interest – that they would play poorly and miss key chances. Even though that situation is possible it has to be remembered that players live and play in the present. Players will take all their chances and win the Champions League this season rather than expect to win it with their parent club the next season. The parent club may not decide to promote them to the starting eleven. There is no guarantee that the parent club will win the championship next season. There is no guarantee that the player will not sustain an injury that may end his career.

Courtois himself has a precedent in this situation playing for Atletico against Chelsea in the SuperCup. He appeared in the match and Atletico beat Chelsea to win the cup. There was no question of Courtois’ commitment or conflict of interest at that time and as a professional player there is no issue about his commitment this time as well. In fact all questions should be asked about Chelsea’s intent as the club clearly doesn’t want Courtois to play against it but wants him to play against other competing clubs in the Champions League.

Questions should be asked about the validity of such a clause in the Chelsea-Atletico loan deal that discourages a specific player playing against a specific team by the provision of a monetary benefit. If Atletico are to rest Courtois, they are set to save $5 million over two games. This is not small change and is grossly disproportionate to the fee Atletico pays for the player appearing in other matches. This monetary benefit gives Chelsea a distinct advantage in those games and improves the odds of it going to the finals of the Champions League. If this is not unsporting behavior, then what is? In fact, UEFA should penalize Chelsea for inserting that clause by fining the club of the amount in debate in the clause; nothing less.

It all questions about the validity of the loan system and how it works. Arsene Wenger has been very vocal against the current EPL rules that prohibit loaned players playing against their parent clubs. Imagine a club under the EPL rules that has about 50 great players – due to its immense wealth – and loans two of them to every other club in the league. These players will be instrumental in demolishing every other club except their parent club. These players are ineligible to play against their parent club. The parent club will have a great year and has the potential to win all the games since all the games are fixed to its advantage. Arsene Wenger is right, there should be no provision prohibiting a player from appearing in a specific game against a specific club. It is unsporting behavior and handicaps every other team. The argument that the rule is the same for every team is flawed. This provision favors the rich teams and penalizes the poor ones.

The loan system is flawed because it is fundamentally unsporting unless the loan recipient has no scope of playing against the loan provider. Loaning players to a team that can potentially play against it at a competitive level is akin to match fixing. The ideal solution is to ban loaning of players to any team, failing which, there should be no restriction for the players to appear against any specific team.

Thibaut Courtois should appear for Atletico Madrid in the Champions League semifinals and Chelsea should not receive any monetary benefit for that. In fact, Chelsea should be fined for inserting that clause into the contract and trying to fix the outcome of a match and bringing the Champions League into disrepute.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s