In your opinion, to what extent do club teams have a duty to rely on home-grown players (players eligible for the national team of their respective association) in order to provide a variety of options for the national team? For example, do you frown upon very international clubs (and more concretely, their managers) like Inter Milan or Arsenal London, as they hardly benefit the Italy and England national football teams?
To be frank, as much as most fans wish clubs would put more emphasis on playing home-grown players, if it comes down to a choice between their national team or their club, they'll chose their club.
I don't know if this answers your questions but I know someone who was in Barcelona around August 2006. He said he was shocked that the people didn't seem to care about Spain losing early at the WC, this was because Barca had just won the Champions league. Even though Catalonia has a team (Non FIFA obviously), he told me that the people treated Barca like a national team and cared more about players being developed for them than Spain. Don't know if it the same for Espanyol fans though.
Some clubs are international (Real Madrid, Chelsea, Inter) while others are nationalistic (Atletico Bilbao, CD Chivas, Saprissa.) Others have a name for developing young talent (Eindhoven, Danubia, etc.) Isn´t really a one size fits all deal.
Thanks for the responses! Personally, I think that a certain level of representativeness is important for most fans, so that they could identify with the team. @RichardL, I have to agree, especially in countries with strong domestic leagues, where quite a few clubs have a strong following. @(TxT), good point, if I recall collectly, the motto of Barcelona is "More than a team!", it seems to be almost like an institution for all Catalans. The the tradeoff between success and greater representativeness (not necessarily polar opposites) may not be applicable in that case. @Antonio81, indeed, many Eastern European clubs are quite nationalistic, more international ones are perhaps more typical for Western Europe as a whole.
well i think with the extreme focus on wealth and and other shallow motivations in society i think it's unrealistic to believe Country comes before club. There's just too much money in club football right now ,and every player wants to be part of the glitter culture it seems. I think the countries like England who's population on one hand don't believe in their homegrown talent on the whole ,and rightfully so,they lean towards their local team rather than the national one. Countries like Argentina,Spain,Italy,Brazil and Germany actually believe they have a good shout at winning the world cup are more driven to that tournament and value their participation 100%.
That's totally untrue, signifcantly more people in Germany believe they have a good shout at winning the World Cup? England are massively supported in England, much more than say Spain are supported in Spain where regionalism means there's antipathy in many quarters to the national team. I'm English and with apologies to RichardL (we support the same club) personally my club comes a distant second to the national team. If you asked the average fan at the Madjeski stadium if they'd rather see England win the World Cup or see Reading win the Prmeiership I'd agree that most would opt for latter in my experince. Not because they're in someway against the national team, rather because they've got a tighter bond through watching the team play year after year. If you ask the armchair fan or the more casual fan who only attends club games occasionally, I think you'd get a different response
club comes waaaaaaaaay before country, but clubs should respect national team commitments a lot more imo.
I think most of us (particularly the 98% our teams who will never get close to it) would rather watch our nation lift the World Cup than watch our club win the league title.
Club teams have a duty to national teams only if they're smart. While at times a great imposition, national teams have an incredible emotional reach that draw in new fans to club teams. This is especially true in the US and Asia, especially after a World Cup. I have a female friend who got obsessed by the 2006 WC and ended up a hardcore Arsenal fan (going to the Emirates twice- obviously immune to my advice). This happens alot. National teams grow the game, and individual teams benefit.
It may be especially true in those countries/regions but in smaller countries such as my own (Scotland) that simply isn't true. If anything, clubs supporters have an aversion to the national team over the way their players have been treated by their country in years gone by.
Would this be because Scotland is a small country, or because of the long history and rivalry between teams like Rangers and Celtic? In regions like North America and Asia where the game is relatively new and club football minor, national teams tend to outweigh club football, considering many leagues are just barely getting off the ground. South Korea´s K-League - founded in 1983 Japan´s J-league - founded in 1993 USA/Canada´s MLS - founded in 1996 Trinidad´s Pro League - founded in 1999 Iran´s Pro League - founded 2001 Australia´s A-League - founded in 2004 China´s Super League - founded in 2004 Even the Mexican and Costa Rican leagues, which have much more tradition, were founded in 1943 and 1921 respectively. They can´t be compared to many European and South American countries who had professional football dating back into the 19th century.
The majority of it has to do with the two Glasgow clubs. They are the dominant clubs by some distance and the fans tend to look upon their club first and the national team a distant second. A large part of the Tartan Army is made up of supporters from the smaller clubs in the country. And of course Celtic fans have long memories of when their players were treated as second class citizens by both the SFA and the Scottish fans. Players such as Davie Hay have mentioned of the booing and general abuse they would receive from the stands, which seemed purely due to the fact that they were players of Celtic FC. Other players such as the legendary James McGrory were continuosly passed over for caps. Times have changed though and this is no longer the case but football fans have long memories and continue to bear grudges.
I think the only countries with 19th century professional teams are England and Scotland. Some countries didn't get professional leagues until quite late (e.g. the Bundesliga wasn't founded until 1963).
In an ideal world, yes they should. But in reality their duty is to stay in business and win championships. There is just too much money involved in club football. National team is an after thought for the clubs.
Germany´s first club was formed in 1874. Similarly the Premiership wasn´t established until 1992, but the game was around long before. The game had been around around in Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Wales, and several other places in the 19th century. In North America for example, the oldest club is Cartagines, while the Costa Rican league was founded in 1921. Most of the rest in the hemisphere are much younger, while the game was already thriving in Europe and South America, and the Olympics was already an established international competition.
Point is though that there wasn't a national league in Germany before 1963 and the teams generally were semi-pro before the Bundesliga. Obviously there had been a national professional leagfue in England for 100 years before the Premiership was founded. Mexico have had a national professional leeague for 20 years before Germany and infact the formation of the Mexican League was going on about the same time professionalism and national leagues were arriving in continental Europe. So from that point of view Mexico doesn't seem like it's behind Europe at all.
Back to the question at hand; Do club teams have a duty to the national team? No. But you might see some clubs being more cooperative than others. A club like Chelsea, which has a Russian owner and an Italian manager probably don't really care too much for what happens to England. A club like Dortmund, with German owners and managment would more than likely want to see Germany succeed and might be a little (just a little) more understanding when it comes to releasing their German players.
It's hard to argue that clubs in established leagues have a duty to national teams. After all, the national teams don't really do much for the clubs except take their players away in the middle of the season and occassionally get them injured. In countries with a younger footballing culture, as noted the national team can be a key marketing strategy for the game as a whole, driving growth. In some, like Australia, a successful national team can indirectly provide revenue for fledgling clubs through the national football association (and sometimes bundled TV rights). In football-saturated markets these benefits are nonexistent. If the FA in England folded tomorrow, the Premier League and its clubs would probably just be even better off.
It depends on the clubs. Antonio mention Chivas and yes they only play Mexican born players but that does not mean that they will provide quality players. Club America is known for having international players but we still provide the best players in the NT (memo ochoa.)
Chivas and America both provide a bulk of the MNT´s players (being the two big clubs,) but America doesn´t have the patriotic feel of Chivas, that was the point.