What if the money matched Sterling's ambition?

Jun 19, 2014; Sao Paulo, BRAZIL; England forward Raheem Sterling (19) passes the ball against Uruguay midfielder Cristian Rodriguez (7) during the 2014 World Cup at Arena Corinthians. Uruguay defeated England 2-1. Mandatory Credit: Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports /

With Manchester City and Liverpool agreeing to a £49m transfer fee for 20-year-old England winger Raheem Sterling, one of the Summer’s biggest dramas had finally played itself out.

Initial reports by the Mirror have the youngster earning £180,000 per week, a substantive hike in pay compared to his salary at Anfield (£35,000/week). While it’s likely that Liverpool were determined to hold out for a fee closer to their £50m valuation, it’s equally as probable that City were pushed back to the negotiating table a bit earlier than they had hoped when Fabian Delph had change of heart, choosing instead to stay with Aston Villa.

More from Man City Editorials

After becoming the most expensive English player currently playing in the Premier League, this has led to spirited debates on the motive behind Sterling’s departure from Anfield.

One of the loudest camps claiming to have telepathic insight as to why Sterling became a Citizen are the “he did it for money” truthers. They are as ubiquitous as they are boisterous. The claim from this crowd is the same with any player leaving a club; he did it for the riches, as if all other footballers are doing it for altruistic and humanitarian reasons. You know, like FIFA has done for so many years.

This rather reductive argument goes conveniently unmentioned whenever a player signs for a club supported by this hero for unpaid labourers. But given that so many others have driven this point home with reasoned analogies, it should be assumed that supporters will stop blindly accusing people of accepting something as evil as a pay-raise in the very near future. But on the off-chance that one or two people refuse to accept anything other than the idea that grown adults should remain beholden to billion-dollar conglomerates and businessmen, it seems prudent to go over why the concept of loyalty has never really existed in sport.

Hear this cry coming from the mouths of supporters, it rarely has any real world application or reality. Loyalty in sports ought to be seen through a different lens than people view their day-to-day relationships. The very personal nature of supporting a club tends to be guided by tenants we use in our personal relationships. This largely explains why fans feel betrayed by signings or frustrated by long periods of silence during signing windows. By invoking the help of relationships past, supporters protect themselves against the inevitable trials that involve spending the rest of your life sharing a singular focus with an abstract concept like sport.

The reality ignored by those espousing loyalty is inherently incongruous with the nature of the business. A shining example of the hypocrisy in the loyalty argument is Real Madrid’s handling of (now) FC Porto and Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas. Madrid president Florentino Perez didn’t even bat an eyelash moving the legend to Portugal when it became apparent that Manchester United goalkeeper David De Gea wouldn’t consider a move back home to Madrid until Los Blancos had cleared the way for him to be the first-team keeper. Even though a deal with United may not be forthcoming, Perez knew what it would take to solidify the future of Real Madrid’s final line of defense and he did it. While holding up Perez as a model of loyalty is certainly displaying the lowest-hanging fruit, so is lobbying the idea that a player should be loyal to a future they might not see for themselves.

If you looked hard enough, you could probably find a glaring example of disloyal behavior across every single club in Europe. It would probably be equally as easy to find many examples of player or club showing grand gestures of affection for one another over entire careers, but these players are not the norm and it’s unreasonable to expect every player or club to show loyalty for the sake of loyalty.

If loyalty were the fuel of football’s engine, development teams would reign supreme while honor and integrity would be auctioned off before the naivety of Santa gave way to the fists of time. Unfortunately for many, loyalty is not the order of the day and hasn’t been on the menu for quite some time.

Even if we accept the fact that someone like Sterling did leave for money, does that somehow lessen his ambition? Money and ambition share a symbiotic relationship. They are essential to both club and player, but they do not always work in concert. Sometimes the ambition does not match the money and sometimes the money does not match the ambition. In either case, it’s important to remember that both exist in equal measure.

Survival in the Premier League for both player and club depend upon their ability to adapt and change. Tough decisions are required to obtain championships and those decisions will invariably upset someone, it’s in the job description for being a tough decision. Ambition does not come easy and it rarely comes cheaply. Whether it’s made before or after a championship, a club will have to invest or they risk windows of opportunity closing for myriad reasons, not the least of which is key personnel departures.

The money invested into the Blues since the takeover of City Financial Group would suggest that Sheikh Mansour’s ambitions are matched by the resources he provides to see them through. Sterling saw an opportunity to grow his personal brand with an organization whose ambitions matched his own. Most people would call this taking a higher-paying job with an exciting and new company built for long-term success and sharing a similar vision.

It’s just called ‘disloyalty’ in sports.

What if the money matched Raheem Sterling’s ambition?

By Josh Webb | Jul 15, 2015