Brazilian national team picked by Coke and Brahma

Not incredible AT ALL. England pick their team based on commercial value for the most part, what is required or who is in form is bottom of a long list of factors. If commercial partners pick our team directly or indirectly. IE do our major sponsor actually say pick say Rooney, or do we pick Rooney because we know our sponsor will give us more money because we pick him... honestly it doesn't really matter does it.

England sponsors will be very buddy buddy with all the senior people in the FA and who they think should be in the team will be extremely well known even if they don't say put Gerrard and Lampard in the line up together.... the England team still manages to pick and start two players who don't work together well for a decade. There is a reason why and none of the reasons are performance/footballing based.
 
All countries do this to an extent. It's just there isn't an explicit contract.

Having certain players play regularly will get you better sponsorship contracts.

Beckham was good so I won't take that away from him, but do you really think he didn't have his marketability going for him?
 
Moses said:
Marketability and ability usually go hand in hand, no? No one likes a loser... everyone loves a winner.
Click to expand...

They do go together but it can have an impact and most people will say it is a perverse impact.

Real Madrid have brilliant players and can buy brilliant players.

So when you hear about the below you can justify it with the above. However, that doesn't mean marketability (above or below the talent level) doesn't have an impact.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-winger-di-maria-was-too-ugly-for-real-madrid
 
Having seen the dross they put up front at the World Cup (Fred and Hulk I'm pointing at you) I can't say I'm surprised. The only player who seemed to care was Oscar, most likely because of the way he's been managed by Mourinho.
 
This isn't a new story at all.

~15 years ago it was widely reported, and confirmed as true, that Nike had a contract with the Brazil national team under the terms of which Nike could choose the opposition for a stipulated number of friendlies and insist upon the team selection including a minimum number of recognised first team players.

Less officially, rumours persist that it's due to Nike's sponsorship that Ronaldo was picked for the '98 world cup final despite having a seizure about 12 hours before kick off.

EDIT;
Covered in these articles...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1118247.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jul/09/marketingandpr.worldcupfootball2002

In early 1999 details of the contract were leaked to the press. They seemed to vindicate previous fears. A clause stipulated Nike's right to organise five international games a year with at least eight first team regulars.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
muon said:
They do go together but it can have an impact and most people will say it is a perverse impact.

Real Madrid have brilliant players and can buy brilliant players.

So when you hear about the below you can justify it with the above. However, that doesn't mean marketability (above or below the talent level) doesn't have an impact.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-winger-di-maria-was-too-ugly-for-real-madrid
Click to expand...

That article is rubbish, Real are always buying and selling expensive players..

Also you can't take a daily fail story seriously, sure money plays a big part but teams being picked directly is just utter nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom