Football’s commodity market is one thing but fan fury at Isak and Wissa is a part of the game

Alexander Isak forced his move to Liverpool (Picture: Getty)

If you’re a Newcastle fan I’d assume the Alexander Isak move is still raw. Five minutes ago he was your phone background, thrusting the Carabao Cup into the air, scoring in a final to break a domestic trophy drought lasting 70 years.

Now, he’s gone and joined the side you beat that day after a one-man strike, some strident social-media activity and a belligerent focus on getting exactly what he wants.

Liverpool are champions of England, and this summer they’ve behaved like it. Their target for 2026 is to win the European Cup and League double – Isak is key to that ambition, so Newcastle’s aversion to the switch was nothing but a petty obstacle.

Liverpool are the best team in the country right now, and the Sweden international has claim to being one of the two best strikers in England. You don’t get to either position by being a wallflower. Much like a striker sighting a goalscoring chance – the player ruthlessly used the influence he possessed to get the outcome he wanted.

And – detaching ourselves from our own feelings as fans for a moment – why shouldn’t he? Special talents have always had the capacity to command disproportionate reward in industries where disproportionate reward is available. Over in the latest tech bubble, Meta has been luring engineers to lead their AI teams with pay packets featuring eight zeros. Count them.

Marc Guehi will remain in a Crystal Palace shirt (Picture: Getty Images)

Thirty years ago Jean-Marc Bosman fought to establish a player’s right to change teams on a free transfer once his contract had expired. His then-club RFC Liege wouldn’t accept the fee offered by Dunkerque. Trapped and not playing, he took the case to the European Court of Justice and won. It was a decision that took five years and came too late for the player himself, but led to greater opportunities for players like Steve McManaman, Sol Campbell and, more recently, Trent Alexander-Arnold, to move where they liked.

Ignoring the emotive power of such transfers and the huge sums involved – admittedly, that’s hard – the principle feels sound. Surely it’s right that individuals can decide how to exploit their talents? No longer are workers generally indentured, and the world is better for it. No one is calling for the implementation of Qatar’s Kafala system in the UK labour market – the legal framework whereby workers are tied to their employers and have to apply to them for permission to change job or leave the country.

The privilege people like Isak and Yoane Wissa enjoy might blind us to the principle at the heart of it. It is beneficial in this instance to be a commodity, but the disadvantages are equal and opposite. Something we see even more clearly in other sports, where the debate around player power is very different.

Yoane Wissa celebrates for Brentford but got his move to Newcastle (Picture: Getty Images)

In cricket as an example most high-profile recruitment happens through drafts and auctions, meaning the world’s most sought-after players can neither decide who they play for nor demand a particular wage. Ben Stokes could yearn to be a Mumbai Indian, but if Chennai bid most, that’s where he’s going. Even worse, if he has a bad season or gets injured he’s released, getting nothing.

I am not saying cricket’s approach is preferable. Sure, footballers have it vastly better but they are valuable assets for a reason – they are exceptional at what they do, in a sport awash with cash. Perhaps what irritates you is the disrespectful way Isak went about securing his aims. I’m with you. And yet, Marc Guehi – still of Crystal Palace, you’ll notice – toed the line, maintained his work-rate, and was denied his own Liverpool move. He may yet be able to secure higher wages when leaving in future on a free, but the turbulence of his deadline day is hardly an advert for doing as you’re told.

So yes, it is irrational to be put out by millionaires wanting more money and status. It’s irrational to believe billion-dollar companies are going to behave with compassion and empathy. Those covering the game should be expected to analyse the vested interests and strategies with calm, cold objectivity. But fans are still allowed to be irrationally furious – because that’s the game.

Comments