Festive Gifts by Men....

The hectic helter skelter of the festive season is upon us, but alongside excessively regular after work drinks, god awful Christmas jumpers (guilty!) and sugar loaded dessert binges every man is cringing at the thought of what their Christmas shopping list (should) will entail. But which gender really can identify with the Grinch’s morals the most – and do we gentlemen deserve our bad rep of poor present provision?

Unfortunately, and I’m sure you are surprised by this, I cannot solve your Christmas shopping woes’ singlehandedly as, let’s be honest, each and every woman out there is both unique and deserving, maybe they’re a little difficult to buy for but why not take this challenge in your stride? If you get it right, you will be lauded and everyone will know about it – until Christmas next year of course!!

Please note this is merely a guide to help the chronic (male) failures out there, hopefully with Christmas a few weeks away this will give you both time and ideas to be considered in higher regard than Father Christmas himself in your loved one’s books!

Men are, and I think at times rightfully, given a terrifically awful rep at Christmas time (I think back to gifts like the microwave my friends’ Father bought Mum when I was 5 for example?) to realise that being thoughtful when it comes to selection is not high up on many male lists. Males allegedly spend around £200 per year on their better halves and this is trounced by the £400 plus most women dedicate to us lot. If you are going to spend less though, at least make it memorable!

So, as if to prove most men’s lack of thought, guys, I read a post by The NY Post recently stating that popular gift choices from men to women at Christmas time included:

•      ‘Sexy Santa lingerie’ (I can’t even begin with this one…)
•      Chocolates and Teddy Bears (it’s not valentine’s day chaps)
•       Cheap jewellery (if you’re not going to do it right, just don’t do it!)
•       Tool kits (Why and what?)

Sort it out! I don’t believe anybody I know would actually be so careless to give their better half any of the aforementioned items, however there are definitely some rare, and seriously unhappy, cases (excuse the pun) in your friendship circle.

It’s fair enough that men should feel slightly hard done by here – but as much as it should be an equal playing field, what is wrong with treating her for just one day? Exactly, and it doesn’t have to be overly expensive - https://www.notonthehighstreet.com/ has some excellent handmade affordable ideas that combine romance with the festive season (surely a stocking filler, oo-err) and their swift delivery service means it can, almost but be careful, be done a week prior*.

Aside from that why not indulge in a romantic weekend away or treat your loved one to something you can both enjoy? But be warned, it’s always essential to dedicate one gift solely to your partner, lest you fancy being one of the pigs on blankets come Christmas day.

For some incredible, original, sure to make her gasp in awe, get away ideas look no further than Host Unusual: https://hostunusual.com/.

From converted lighthouses to prison cells (yup you read that right), and dainty cottages you’ll be sure to find something both festive and fun to treat both of you to, and it’s UK Wide too so it won’t mean you’ll be stuck in the jarring Winter motorway standstill. Plus there’s a winter wonderland section now to really give her a Christmas experience she’ll never forget – easy now.

Following this, and because natural is all the rage due to well - saving the planet and that, it’s worth having a look through Aesop Cosmetics:  https://www.aesop.com/uk/. I’d recommend getting the gift sets as they contain a variety of real fancy smelling, sure to be good for skin products at a reasonable price (but without being too cheap they come across tacky). They really have done all the work for you here as they have a preset‘Gift Guide’ which you can tailor by price and type. I’d recommend a set like Concord or Proximity which is described as “Observing necessary interaction required in relationships, with a tight-knit trio of facial care” [Obviously make sure that’s in clear view when gift is presented]. Although it seems a bit on the pricey side it’s also real environmentally friendly meaning you won’t annoy David Attenborough when you make a purchase, brilliant.

Unless really special, or for a good reason, I’d probably steer clear of the trinkets and jewels at Christmas – it’s likely there may be quite a lot of disappointment unless you’re presenting it on one knee.. Yes it’s true, a surprise jewellery item can go down about as well as a piece of coal – and for goodness sake do not overload her with 5 Tiffany & Co items or a Michael Kors watch thinking you’ll get an Instagram with ‘the boy done good’ the next day….

#TheBoyDoneGood 

No, this is a chance to prove your thoughtful side as well as showing you (maybe sometimes?) listen to her likes and dislikes (she loves FIFA, right?) and act on them.

The point here is, don’t get her something she can buy herself – because it’ll be ordinary. There’s plenty of gifts out there that at least make it look like you went the extra mile, something personalised for example or something even more outrageous like a holiday (you never know!)

Do not fear, it really doesn’t need to be a desperate run around Boots’ perfume isle on the 23^rd of December! Men of the world – do yourselves a favour, but be subtle!  Drop a hint a few months prior, ease off being, well a ‘man’, for a few weeks and really give it some thought, you know it’s the right thing to do to make sure you’re not being asked for the receipt come Boxing Day.

Happy hunting,

Kuzzy

*not recommended 

The Kaepernick Effect

The man who defied a Country by taking a stand, on one knee.

Sport is unique. It is platform for masses that both emphasises and portrays social and economic issues and just sometimes, only sometimes, humanitarian and racial ones too. Look no further than 2017’s biggest sporting talking point – undoubtedly – Colin Kaepernick and his stance against social injustice in America. GQ have, in ground-breaking fashion, this month recognised Kaepernick as the ‘Citizen of the Year 2017’ which gives you an idea of how big he has now become, his new ‘fame’ off the field now trouncing his Footballing ability – and the Superbowl XLVII appearing Quarterback was some player too… More importantly, what does this in turn now mean in the ongoing saga that is has at times been Colin Kaepernick vs America?

Kaepernick has galvanised a complex issue that before lay dormant for many. The media’s (who were initially so unwilling to run with this story) portrayal of this matter has been littered with contrasts and wildly opinionated fables, many initially dismissing his protests as ‘disgracing the American flag’ until they realised, gradually I may add, that this was not just one man’s struggle, it was the struggle of so many, for so long. The struggle of a race in a country that proclaimed itself as The Land of the Free. It’s ironic that taking a knee has made many rise up against an issue that was both accepted and swept so swiftly under the star spangled banner, time and time again (see The 13^th).

Bear with me, I’m going to go full throttle here and give you a brief background in a rather controversially familiar 240 characters: 

Former Superbowl QB takes stand vs America with display during National Anthem. America divided by realisation of racial injustice. Unity of players shunned by President and his anger towards protests. Kaepernick is dropped.

Well, if that reads like a Trump Tweet it would only serve to heighten the irony behind this whole narrative. Kaepernick’s year started with him in his now infamous stance, being vilified by the media and fans alike and has now ended with worldwide recognition on an, albeit unusual, scale.

This in turn leads to a conundrum – arguably America’s favourite sport is commanded by Athletes from minority backgrounds – but the response has been alarming from so many. As a response many other players joined in, catalysing a movement that clearly has got under Donald Trump’s skin. Rather than pushing the issue the protest is being ridiculed by the politicians that can truly force change. Instead of taking note it seems they would rather have the players seen and not heard:

What attitude can the average American be expected to hold if this is how their nationwide spokesperson influences them? Instead of open talks to address key matters there is a playground response with childish insults being thrown back at a silent, thought provoking response. Drawing parallels with Ali who stood against the Vietnam War and Olympic Champion Jesse Owens who was shunned by then President Franklin D Roosevelt (not to be seen shaking the hand of a black man during his presidential campaign in 1936), Kaepernick has become the afro-bearing, commanding figurehead for a war (to put it extremely lightly) that has been ensuing since the birth of America itself.

So why is this cover star feature for Colin Kap such a big deal? For some that run in the against crowd it’s a tasteless insult to their military, however this could not be further from the truth. This protest is about race and race only – the flag was brought into the debate externally. Many do not know that it was Nate Boyer, an ex-Military Serviceman and NFL Player who convinced Kaepernick to kneel during his protest as a mark of respect. Coincidentally this sub-plot has all but been removed by many media outlets and thus the whole argument has become misconstrued. Or has it?

Kaepernick now has to convince a cynical, somewhat oppressed audience of doubters that he is promoting a worthy cause, something that many of us in the United Kingdom will find hard to believe. Such is the media stranglehold of this story that the whole reasoning behind this has yet to be properly articulated, save for this GQ article…

So what does GQ doing this really mean?

On one hand this shows recognition to a global audience of a matter that had been pushed back firmly in America’s closet yet on the other hand there’s a sinister edge to proclaiming Kaepernick as a pop-culture figurehead, the movement loses its potency and instead becomes a trend.

Albeit for the right reasons, as an audience and in fact as authors and storytellers of this movement we must ensure clarity that the issue is not hidden behind the aforementioned matters. Trump’s campaign to belittle has in fact become the story at hand for many in America and it’s distasteful that some media outlets choose to run with this as the narrative.

I don’t think there is a more serious issue than racism, how can we be expected to conquer and advance with issues such as gender equality when we cannot even respect and tolerate the very minute differences in our own human race? It seems petty that such a simple difference could divide so many, but this is the world we now live in and the rhetoric of many influential figures surrounding this is also worrying to say the least.

Don’t believe me? The media’s portrayal of Charles Manson’s death has been sickeningly celebratory in comparison to the constant put down of the hero of a movement that promotes racial equality in his own country. Charles Manson has been lauded for taking lives whilst Kaepernick has been ridiculed for taking a knee.

Irrelevant to my own opinion on this equality should be a given not earned, I just hope there is an end in sight.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Kuzzy 

The age of man?

It’s not easy being male, expectations are distorted at best in our current climate. Whilst traditionally we are told we should be headstrong and direct, there is an overwhelming expectation to be at one with our emotions. Whilst our female counterparts tirelessly proclaim and debate their place in the modern world (and why wouldn’t they?), disappointingly there is an honest lack of discussion of the meaning behind being a man. Instead, we are constantly bombarded with articles about how men should look, how they should dress and that ever so popular topic; what they should earn. It seems the male identity has become more shrouded than ever in 2017, but why?

The theory of man in today’s world is an interesting one – bringing to light matters like how ‘boys think they’re breaking the man contract if they cry’, to how the constant male obsession with building a Spartan body just means there is far more to hide behind (Grayson Perry). It’s a fact that male suicides are at an all-time high and more concerning is the identity crisis that may be behind this.

So what does it mean to be a ‘man’ – traditionally (and I say this lightly) the breadwinner of the household, it was a man’s job to provide tireless labour to provide for his family whilst coming home to his dodgy cardigan and tartan slippers (sorry Dad!). This of course had its distinguished drawbacks and obviously, no longer in the Victorian age, we have swapped the coal mines for Spin Classes and bowlers for new eras.

The male image is a conundrum of late – with all life’s glorious freedom and ever-growing choices it was inevitable that our image has evolved over time. Realistically though, are we doing this portrayal justice? Should we be expected to even fit an image? The mind boggles. So, from the hipster, in his Carhartt Dockers riding his fixie bike, to the ‘gym guy’ everyone knows, always seen in low cut vests and ankle tight bottoms, we certainly are presented with a real variety, but what does being a man really mean? There was only one thing to do, ask them:

A 25 year old male I spoke at length with describes being a man as ‘never being afraid, from a traditional standing’; but ‘it’s far deeper than that in this day and age’. He went on to describe how the male figure suddenly appears to be more image conscious now, more brand aware. It’s true – I can’t remember a time where men were so quick to care for their appearance (every No7 advert is matched by a Nivea for Men, for example), but by no means is this negative. ‘I was raised just as much by my mother as by my father though, so perhaps that’s why I care. I’ve been raised to give a good account of myself at all times, the downside is perhaps the emotional discharge that comes with it.’

‘If being male means providing protection then that in itself needs to evolve with society. Instead of relying on weapons, one must channel this through words and actions and I believe this is where the line is blurred with most men my age.’ Being the provider now means more than just putting food on the table, you have to be reliable at all times whilst ensuring openness.

One thing is for sure, it’s a repetitive and interesting topic to see males so disappointed with their emotions, as if society expects them to keep a lid on it all? ‘Men don’t cry’ is an often used statement (unless you’re the President of America, or Gazza) - how many times have you truly seen a man cry compared to a woman? It seems for example there is a worldwide Dad-code to not cry in front of your children, yet men are quicker to release anger than sadness and that’s something that is evidently instinctual via societal influences – not by evolutionary traits. We are just as genetically programmed to cry as much as women even by the same triggers, but we do not!

Males are also now just as under scrutiny for their appearance as women (who traditionally have fallen victim to expectations in society) – the internet is littered with ‘Max Powers 60 second-ab workout’ (other workouts are available) to get you ‘shredded like Rocky in 4 weeks’ (oh please). Not only is this literally unachievable, it also heaps pressure on the average Joe – who assumes that is the only way to look! This is really nothing new though as the Greeks and Romans loved a good statue of the male form (complete with, ahem, bits) and portrayed their Gods as having dench chests and ripped abs leading them to create the world’s first two hashtags in 1000BC - #GreekGoals and #GodGains (if you travel to the Acropolis of Athens you can still see them etched on the walls) – I jest, I jest!

It’s important though to acknowledge an older generations point of view alongside this, often hindsight is 20/20 and I also asked the wisest man I know (a 57 year old) about his opinions on the male in modern society. He went on to say,’ The modern man is related to what year we live in and the environment that surrounds that man’ noting our evolution, ‘We live in 2017, where the man’s role is very different to what it was in 1967, 1977, 1997 or any previous year in our history.’ Reinforcing the idea that our evolution by describing how males were hunter gatherers, then solider workers and now fathers and partners. The clear theme here is one of a robust man developing to a caring figure for those around him, but is this now universal?

‘What makes men today ‘modern’ is a question of how much they have evolved or developed from what history has taught them.’ I stumbled with what to follow this with, for how many times has history truly repeated itself via man’s failures? Perhaps we as men have learned the wrong values previous to this age and only now our freedom has allowed for true choices to be allowed in society? He recognises that ‘the modern man has evolved over the years to become a more caring, friendly, and sensitive person than any time in history’ but also notes that this is largely in the developed world too, reinforcing how privileged we are to be able to now choose our own paths.

Perhaps then it is not men that have the choices, its society that allows these life choices to be made?

Men are under pressure to fit a stereotype in the western world – it’s more important than ever to have an image and this to some is totally new. Did your Dad wear skinny jeans and a snapback - I mean, maybe yes, but it’s unlikely. The expectation to be in good shape, eat fruit, and dress like you deserve 50 Instagram likes on your outfit at all times has never been so true! Gone are the 3 piece days where men were confined to their rigid pinstripes, a male’s uniform can quite simply be anything and everything, but does this freedom really reflect flexibility in male attitude?

It seems the alpha male behaviour – akin to our Greek ancestors - is still applauded by our own gender, but claimed as too bravado by others (fair enough given the ‘lad culture’ it can arouse) and although we’re told women want a ‘real man’, we also need to be ‘emotionally aware’ (I try my best to read cosmo at least once a month).  Equally, men who are neither ‘type’ are lambasted for not ‘fitting in’ – it has become harder than ever to understand what we should aspire to be.

I won’t preach – everyone is quite simply different, but it’s interesting to really hear what real men think their own gender should encompass. It’s inevitable that any post discussing gender will never end with one answer, in this case because it’s impossible in reality to fit just one type.

Men with a cover star midriff, short hair, angry attitude and a love of sports are just as likely to cry when Marley dies in Marley & Me as a pianist dressed in drainpipe jeans wearing Windsor glasses with a cowlick. Fact is, male or female, everyone’s appearance will usually be a stark contrast to what’s inside (aww). 

When I grow up I want to be (Instagram) Famous....

Always ahead of the times, oh the mirth, I must admit I jumped on the Instagram bandwagon in 2012 when it was purely a photo sharing site and a real contrast to the nosey likes and comments that Facebook presented on a daily basis. For a newly-turned 20 year old at university I found it exciting to show off my latest drunken escapades (sorry Dad, although now you follow me on Instagram I'm sure you know) with some amazingly tragic hashtags to accompany them. 

Since then social media and the world we surround ourselves in has evolved to obsess over these sort of platforms with pretty much every man, woman, the LGBT community and their dogs having an Instagram account (there are plenty of dogs I can assure you) - but why? Social media in the last few years has ballooned out of proportion and has become both an extremely useful and viable tool for many to create and gain support, whilst also shrouding secrets and awful truths behind its Valencia filters (other filters also available). 

It's astounding from speaking to peers and colleagues of their true interpretation of this site, to some it's an obsession to others it's pointless. I see daily posts of people actually making money - can you believe that? - making money via Instagram likes and traffic through their pages and in all honesty, fair play to them. The damage, however, that these 'fake' profiles are doing to our daily lives is undeniably evident though and slightly scary when put into context. Far from simply viewing pictures of our friends, colleagues and heroes, time and again searches through Instagram lead us to countless snaps of unattainable edited models or videos of swanky clubs with every Grey Goose or Ciroc bottle under the sun on the tables. The problem here is that whilst most of us know of the sheer abnormality of these 'lives' we are given a sneak peek into, thus we fall victim to desire a mirror image of that exact ‘picture-perfect’ life. Clever marketing some may say - or is this just a trap for most? My point being that, our expectations of our own lives become shrouded behind a fantasied game where the only way to gain satisfaction is by receiving likes from, in the most part, total strangers. What do we stand to gain from this murky gratitude?

An incredibly unwise person once said to me; “Instagram is not real life” and quite ironically (although I'm sure he didn't mean this) this was also his Instagram bio so it probably wasn't all that smart, but the mind does wonder to what degree the things we are presented with are real, and what is purely fantasised and quite frankly unattainable. Why, if we feel we want the nice things we see do we simply sit there and put a love heart on a picture (I thought we all grew out of Bebo years ago), rather than actually being motivated enough to be our own people. Instagram both creates and ruins trends, one day you're looking at a blue dress (it definitely wasn't white/gold!) then the next you're five pages deep into an account about fitness in the Maldives (not from experience I promise).  

Our senses are engaged more when we are given vibrant colours and images - it's been proven - yet sitting behind a phone seems so futile when each and every person doing this could be actually spending their time far more wisely and productively. Alas we are a generation of dreamers and Instagram provides us with the escapism that so many desire. Given previous articles findings, Ford's 2014 consumer trend report theorised that: 

"62% of adult’s worldwide report better self-esteem after positive social-media feedback."  

What originally started for many as perhaps vanity showmanship (we are all guilty of this) has now become a deep desire for validation for so many? Most would prefer ten likes on their latest post rather than a real human actually telling them that they are beautiful, and by doing this we have become a society that is afraid of presenting real emotion [but that is another kettle of fish entirely].  

My point here is that the very characteristics of social media are flawed yet so addictive - why do we care about our latest follower, Andy from Luton? We never knew Andy but being another number on our followers list brings joy - why? Well, I believe it's the factor of distance, we like to be alone while remaining connected (it's a paradox I'm still trying to get my own head around) where they are quick to judge anything and everything on the internet but won't comment in person whatsoever. We are fast in danger of becoming far distanced from the ones we should truly love and care about while prioritising things and people who will never have any real impact on our lives.  

Choose your family over the next five picture Instagram photoshoot; choose to walk your dog over taking 15 pictures of them, choose spending time and making real memories rather than a forced message conveyed through a ultimately artificially-intelligent platform that we have all been guilty of glorifying.

With time perhaps people will grow out of these obsessions, perhaps not - but the real pictures and comments that will truly change your life, and we will only realise this in time, will always and always have been there - just not on an app

Nothing Was The Same - Debut Album Review

Rather unbelievably this month saw the release of only Drake's third (yes that's right, third) album. Nothing Was The Same was initially shrouded behind rumours  of delay due to remarks from Kendrick Lamar on Big Sean's Control and with many expecting a come-back, the finished product was certainly a surprise, and rendered anything Kendrick had previously said as irrelevant. Drake certainly does declare himself at the pinnacle of his profession, at times citing how he's 'not doing it the same he's doing it better' in the final song on the album (Pound Cake/Paris Morton Music 2), but it is the general tone and message conveyed throughout which is striking.

The half Jewish, half African American rapper displays a perception of himself for his listeners that's entirely new to many ears. His confidence leaks out of every other verse he's ever produced, but here we see a very human side to him, he's not invulnerable even if he is a superstar. If the album Take Care was Drake surrounded in a room of riches and starting to show emotion, then Nothing Was The Same is Drake's apparent response to the realization that he can be above all of that materialism and still let the emotion pour. The album cover of his head is in the clouds shows that it's his actual content and not his appearance that seems to matter most now. In addition to this the intimacy of the album is exceptional, Drake grabs our attention by being... real. The album becomes diary-like and we feel as if he's confessing and repenting to us, stating he's still the 'furthest thing from perfect'. The whole album is carried with this empathy, we are locked experiencing his memories with a man who wants to 'make love' and not 'f*ck' whilst instead of just talking, wanting to 'trust'. It is the way we become someone for Drake to confide in that makes the album so different, yet so brilliant. 

Any cases of 'arrogance' seem warranted though as they are closed in with an air of insecurity put across by Drake presenting himself as having weaknesses and being human. We are introduced on the first track to an almost Messiah like figure 'on a mission trying to shift the culture' but this quickly changes through songs to him wanting to be back as 'that kid in the basement' and it's this contrast that further emphasizes his insecurities and leads us along a story of him trying to battle them, to little avail. Even on the first listen, the centerpiece to the whole album, Hold On We're Going Home is a starting point from which the rest of the album can flow from. With a harder beat and no rapping at all, it differs from the rest of the album but his voice delivers exceptionally and the song becomes a metaphor for him wanting to take the listener 'Home' by giving them his album. 

From this we are taken on a tour of Drake's emotions and memories, with him addressing his sternest critics in intelligent, subtle ways. In response to criticism of his upbringing he states how he 'feels peace knowing it's harder in the streets' and how 'luckily' he didn't have to grow up there. It's these memories that unlock Drake further as an artist injecting the album with real personality. Yes, there certainly are times where his lyrics almost preach but they maintain their relevance to the theme of the album and it produces a character who still doesn't know quite who he is yet. Ironically it's this indecisiveness that makes the album so unique too, as Drake shows he is not afraid to put himself on the line by sharing 'some thoughts' and exposing his vulnerabilities for all to listen to. 

The tracks themselves are seamless in their ability to intertwine throughout, in particular where Wu-Tang Forever runs into Own It, delivering a hard message of love, ownership and their effects that spans two songs, suggesting that Drake believes his love will continue even if everything is now different. This ability of the album to simply flow isn't an accident and credit must be due to the producer Noah "40" Shebib. If the tracks on the album are Drake's emotions running wild through verses, then the way they also drip across from song to song resembles a web that Drake has constructed to trap us in. By the time we are faced with the revelation-like Too Much (a personal favourite) his lyrics are poured at us and we're now facing a man who's totally done with being compared to everyone else. The album ends on a crescendo with Jay-Z, the only A-List collaboration (rather surprisingly) that is present. Drake no longer needs help though, he perfectly relays his story throughout to us and it's fitting that on the last track he completely overwhelms Jay-Z, who ends up rhyming 'cake' with 'cake' a number of times. Nothing Was The Same appears to be a revelation in Drake's music where he's truly been able to express his identity to his listeners, without fear of any repercussions.

FASCIST FOOTBALL

A quality deemed fairly oblivious from modern day football currently is passion. It would seem, however that our society is one where individuals cannot win. As if every quality is analysed far too eagerly by those who wish to make bad press. In specific I raise the recent appointment and then absolute shambolic nature of stories surrounding Paolo Di Canio. A dazzling player in his former years he has recently gone on to claim acknowledgement as a manager for his ‘passion’ and in particular the way he conducts himself via his interviews and press conferences.

As a player Di Canio’s passion was evident on and off the pitch, but at his appointment the talking points were far from football, more the political beliefs he is supposedly meant to harbour. In the past he has been reported as saying he held ‘fascist’ beliefs causing a country-wide uproar and a subsequent resignation of a certain David Miliband from the Sunderland board. In all honesty I don’t think so many people throughout the country have ever taken such an interest in Sunderland Association Football Club. The question is, why?

Di Canio’s managerial track record is somewhat of a rollercoaster ride. True football fans adore him, others begrudge him, and those who have only just joined the debate seem to have their message very clear; That they don’t want such political beliefs in football. At Swindon this went as far as a major sponsor of the club, GMB union, withdrawing from their deal when Di Canio joined the club. His response probably proved them wrong though. He led Swindon Town to promotion to League 1, but then left in February of this year with his team teetering on the brink of Promotion to the Championship. He cited the uncertainty of the takeover of the club as a key reason for his departure and also claimed the sale of winger Matt Ritchie was a reason, saying he was never ratified or acknowledged the deal. Prior to this he had been a figure of media spotlight with the manner in which he conducted himself in the technical area after being sent to the stands in a match versus Huddersfield last year. He then went on to say he would do ‘what he wanted in the technical area’ and that if officials wanted to send him to the stands every game they could as his team would ‘win the league anyway’.

So, yes, in a nutshell the media have unlimited ammo to throw at the former Sheffield Wednesday player but the real issue is where exactly do his political beliefs come into concern? I see no reason for a manager to hold any beliefs they wish, just like any player and with such recent onus being placed on equality in football I feel the media have treaded about this issue about as carefully as a stampede of elephants. Due to so much media pressure he has now come and renounced himself as a ‘fascist not racist’, but the idea of racism should never have been brought into this matter. It’s evident that at a time of real tension in English football (an apparent uprising of racist fans/chants) the media have very cleverly made a scapegoat out of Di Canio using past actions to suggest his current nature. It’s ironic then that the best managers in football have a certain dictatorship about them. Messer’s Fergurson and Mourinho are never outspoken and certainly know how to lay the law on both the media and their players.

So surely the burning desire and passion Di Canio wishes to portray through his players is only natural to a man who never gave less than one hundred percent on a football pitch? Unique characters in the game are what make football so particularly popular worldwide. We as fans want a multicultural league, and thus we have to respect the views that both players and managers from other countries bring to said league(s). For example, has there been a serious issue regarding Demba Ba’s ‘prayer-like’ celebration (due to his Islamic beliefs)? No, and rightly not. Surely this is not entirely dissimilar to Di Canio and any beliefs he has? In any case, it did not stop his appointment as manager and it certainly doesn’t stop any ability he has as a manager. It seems the only people who have a real issue with any political views he may or may not currently have, have absolutely no place in football, or any power (thankfully). It’s terribly ironic that this sort of issue in football becomes plastered on every breakfast, day and evening show available above all else, just another media tool it would seem to try and tarnish a sport that’s in a state of suffering.

It’s unfortunate for a man who has produced success at first attempt at Swindon Town, but it really does seem that Di Canio will have to prove the doubters (and there are a lot of them) wrong. His recent statement about how the upcoming derby against Newcastle ‘counts for 1,000’ games speaks volumes for his managerial intentions; that of really delivering to a vast number of fans. I’m sure his passion will please every Sunderland fan out there and if he manages to beat The Magpies in the next Tyne – Wear derby then the fan to manager relationship will increase drastically. Di Canio wins any battle of passion hands down, but once again his players’ football will have to do the talking. 

Money is: power, success, fame, notoriety and the worst thing to happen to football.

The transfer window closed amongst a sigh of relief for many football fans this summer. It's ironic that the very window brought about to help clubs build and maintain their squads is now fast becoming a destructive force. At any point if you pick up one of the shoddier tabloids you find their back page laced with large sums of money being splashed throughout the world of football. Much as a reflection of the world today, whilst the richer clubs continue to get richer, the poorer (for use of a lesser word) clubs fail to catch them. 

So what's the solution? Well, unless you know a Sheikh or a Russian oil baron there's very little other option. In any case, where does the line of control between the owner and manager end, or for that matter start? The whole situation of ownership is problematic in its very ideals. It seems almost pathetic that football has in fact become closer to it's American counterpart sports, where franchise clubs rule all and consistent movement of players is a given (Something too I will later address). In June 2003 Roman Abramovich initiated this ownership trend by buying Chelsea Football Club. His initial spending the next summer was close to £90million. Incredible figures, yet we have become accustomed to see far superior from the blue side of Manchester. 

The point I'm trying to raise is how this spending has actually started to affect the modern world of football. In fact the reason I was finally persuaded to write something on the matter lay in the hands of a certain Zenit St. Petersburg and the Brazilian, Hulk. He was quoted saying to various media sources earlier in the summer that the door was open for a transfer, fair enough. What he also mentioned, however, is that he wanted to play in either England or Spain for what he reasoned to be their global audience and popularity. Ironic then, that after Chelsea were reported to have chased him all summer (which could possibly be rumours) he ended the summer being a 50million euro signing for Zenit. Try telling me it's not about the money. Unsurprisingly the figures for his new contract have yet to be released, ground-breaking as I'm sure they may be; what baffles me further is how his dream move can suddenly change so vividly. In some way this proves how far, backwards perhaps, football has come. When a matter of money alone can solely determine a players intention then a real problem is truly at hand. It's all well owners offering the money but it's something else for the players to actually grab at it, and how. How can a player of Hulk's obvious talent turn down the European Champions' interest for position in an albeit lacklustre league in Eastern Europe. Where, can you tell me, is the real ambition there? Apparently he has yet to rule out a further move, and this somewhat makes the whole situation worse. Far from developing a loyal bond with fans, he wishes to use Zenit as some sort of leapfrog. To be that big fish in the ultimately tiny pond that he has now joined. 

This recent move encompasses almost everything wrong about the modern ideals of football. Has player power truly got to this stage? Money rules now, that's evident for after Abramovich came the Sheikh revolution at Manchester City. As a United fan even typing the rival name stings still; for what they 'achieved' last season is built on false ideals. The current argument against United supporters claims that the Red Devils spend just as much money as their big budget-ed rivals. This, according to recently released figures is far from the truth though as a recent 'BBC Sport' article shows: 

• 1. Chelsea 673

• 2. Man City 572

• 3. Liverpool 414

• 4. Man United 352

• 5. Tottenham 350

• 6. Arsenal 214

• 7. Aston Villa 201

• 8. Sunderland 187

• 9. Newcastle 174

• 10. Everton 129

• 11. West Ham 123

These are the spending figures for Premier League clubs over the last ten years. Now, as you look at it one can assume that money directly equals success as the leaders of this table would suggest on last seasons Champions League winning form. Yet, does one title and an FA Cup for City really justify spending £572million pounds? In that time Manchester United spent £352million and have won several League titles, a Champions League, one World Club Championship, one FA Cup and three League Cup titles too (I won't mention the various Charity Shield victories). True United had Ferguson, and it has only been recently that City have finally settled on a manager in Mancini, something they appear to be sticking by too. Looking at the list in third position we encounter an incredible anomaly in the form of Liverpool. The Merseyside club show that money definitely is not everything (Aquilani for instance). Okay, that was a bit of a tangent, but you see the point. Chelsea's success can only be accounted for by their spending, with exactly the same going for City. 

Does money, therefore equate to success? Without the case of Liverpool, it could be apparent. It's hard, however to call something that has had so much money thrown at it in some cases a 'success'. Does winning so little in such time make the situation any better? I think not, others would strongly disagree. It's true there has been a turnaround at Manchester City, but could any manager with a seemingly endlessly deep pocket to pick out of achieve exactly the same, if not better? What City have done has, in many senses ruined football for true football fans. Money shatters 'loyalty' and drives forth the greed from inside. Take Nasri and Clichy, were they fazed to move after Wenger brought them onto the world stage? Not a chance, not a bit grateful. How many players in that City side could you truly call loyal? Joe Hart, Micah Richards perhaps, yet in the case of Adam Johnson his loyalty was his downfall as he postponed his move away from the Etihad in the pursuit of an eventual breakthrough. It would seem that, although it attracts superstars, money makes the very grass roots system largely ineffective. Why bring up hot prospects when you can buy anyone you want.

So where does this leave us? This post is fragmented in itself but maybe that reflects the nature of the game today. I would, for one, never have thought players would be going for £30million plus on such a regular basis. Shocking, is probably the easiest word to use for this whole scenario. When money is thrown around at will by various billionaire's simply to satisfy their real life game of 'Football Manager' then we truly have hit rock bottom. Maybe I'm just being idealistic in my points, but the various cash injections all over Europe have created this money grabbing trend. Why did Lucas Moura go to PSG and not United? He may argue the style of football, or the manager or even that he wanted a different challenge; but I feel the extra £9million paid out to him probably softened his will in the end. So with such young prospects choosing money over success, surely somewhere somebody really got it all wrong.