In fact, an awful lot of N.F.L. club owners have practically no influence on their players at all, simply because they're not full-time working owners.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
People talk about loyalty of players to clubs. But in the everyday world, you don't see people being loyal to their company when they're getting offered considerably better deals elsewhere.
There's a tacit understanding among clubs that a good player shouldn't miss out on the big break of his career or a chance at exponentially improved earnings.
It's not uncommon for a big free agent to come to a new club with a big contract and not perform up to his standards.
The reasons why a player is better on one club than on another are many. I certainly am not an expert and can't explain.
Teams buy players and change managers if they feel they need change at the club.
The managers are getting paid very well by their respective clubs to do a job for their clubs not the country they are working in.
Players don't usually like anybody who makes more money than they do.
And historically the owners have used loyalty to a team or a city to hold players as opposed to always paying their worth.
I think sometimes managers like to buy players because they're more experienced from abroad or when they've got players under their nose that will give everything to the club they've been brought up with.
The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.
No opposing quotes found.