So you may now recognise him as the head of U.E.F.A. and the man that moved the Champions League from a Wednesday night to a Saturday night. What you may not know is that Platini, for 3 or 4 years, was the best player in the world. A fabulous midfield play-maker of the highest level, Platini could destroy teams on his own when he was in the mood. The French side of the early 1980′s was a fabulous flowing football machine that perhaps should have won a World Cup but for one problem. West Germany.

Both in 1982 and 1986, France got to the semi-finals of the World Cup and both times they failed to get past West Germany. In between those semi-final heartbreaks, the French had won Euro 84 on home soil and were one of the best sides in the world. Platini’s artistry on the ball saw his country achieve heights they hadn’t matched for nearly 50 years but they fell short when it really mattered. During this period the French midfield were known as the “magic square”.

The only real issue the French had was the lack of a top quality striker and the teams tactics were designed to allow Platini to switch from midfield play-maker to centre forward with ease. It seems odd these days, but it sometimes falls that a country simply miss a player of real ability in a particular position for years. England had problems with both full back positions in the last few years but it was probably the lack of a top quality striker that held the French back on the world stage.

Of course, psychologically, West Germany had the Indian sign over the French especially after the horrific Schumacher challenge on Patrick Battison in the 1982 semi-final and whilst they were 3-1 up in that game, in 1986, the Germans never let them have a sniff at goal and won 2-0. Platini would join the ranks of players who never managed to win the World Cup despite being probably the best player in the world and is also in a select band of players that scored in 3 different World Cups, 1978, 1982 and 1986.

Platini was such a beautiful player, he never looked rushed whenever he was in possession. World Class players always seem to have so much time on the ball, but that’s what separates them from the rest. They just have that something else that allows them to achieve more than their contemporaries. Platini, for a midfielder scored so many goals and is currently France’s second highest international goalscorer, with 41 which he looks likely to hang on to for some considerable time.

His club career as well saw him leave the confines of the French League, after playing with AS Nancy and St. Etienne, to join Juventus in 1982 and he continued to deliver excellence after a difficult first 5 months in Italy. Playing in tandem with the Polish maestro Zbigniew Boniek who also joined the same year, Juventus were a force of football throughout the mid-1980′s. Under a youthful Giovanni Trapattoni, Juventus challenged for titles both at home and abroad, all built on the abilities of Platini.

Ironically, when Zidane retired immediately after the 2006 World Cup, it reminded me of when Platini bowed out in 1987, still only 32. No fuss, no real reasons, they’d just had enough of the game. Yet for the last 15 years, Platini has climbed the ladder in Eurpean football since being involved in running the 1998 World Cup and has been head of UEFA for 3 years now. From the footballing king of Europe in the 1980′s to the ruler of European football is some ride, but Platini never turned away from hard-work and dedication. A true World Cup legend of the modern age.

Please leave me your comments below or find me on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/paulbestall

The inexplicable is often the standard in football.  The £14 million pounds Man City paid for Wayne Bridge is inexplicable.  Florent Malouda’s protean hairstyles are inexplicable.  Arsene Wenger’s ability to see zero penalties against Arsenal is inexplicable.  Yet even bearing this in mind, I could not help but rubbing my eyes to make sure I had read the headline correctly:

Abramovich keen to stop big-spending City

The gist of the article is that Abramovich feels that Manchester City have spent too much and need to be reigned in.  Michel Platini agrees and suggests that clubs only should spend what they earn in revenue and failure to break even would result in a banning from European competition.

Yes, the hypocrisy is obvious.  Yes, the irony is wonderful.  Beyond this, the proposal has some positives, namely that the astronomical fees of this summer might return to earth.  Real Madrid has a revenue of about 350 million euro, but even they would not splash out 250 million of it per season like they have most recently, given that operating costs would surely put them in the red.

It’s also not as if this would be disastrous for the Real Madrids of the world, given that large clubs already have large revenues, world-class players, and the ability to attract top talent.  It would just promote smart business, in theory.  It might even allow a well managed smaller club to break into European football more easily.

Despite these boons, Platini’s idea should not be taken seriously.

Whether one likes it or not, it usually takes money to assemble a side capable of playing attractive football, and almost always takes considerable money to create a side capable of competing for trophies.  Even in competitions taken much less seriously than others, such as the Carling Cup, cash seems to be the key to success.  In the past 5 years, only large spending teams (Tottenham, Chelsea, and Manchester United) have won the trophy.

While single-elimination tournaments like the FA Cup can always produce the shock of a Portsmouth, Millwall, or Cardiff in the final, the long term trend is once again teams that spend money win.

Results aside, big money also tends to lead to better football visually.  Let us look to the example of Liverpool.  Two seasons ago, Torres arrived for £20 million.  Gerrard and the Spaniard linked up wonderfully, often with eye-pleasing results.  Glen Johnson arrives this season for  £18 millon and the added quality on the right is even more entertaining.

While I don’t believe that money always buys attractive football, or that attractive football requires money, there does appear to be some connection between the two.  Even if Chelsea are criticized for playing “negative” football, it would be difficult to watch an entire Blues match without some excellent play.  The same cannot be said of some lesser spending teams, particularly the recently promoted ones.  This is not a criticism, however.  I accept they do not have the money to spend on players of that calibre.

When it comes down to it however, I would rather watch FC Barcelona (with the 40 million euro right back Dani Alves and 65 million euro Ibrahimovic) and their fantasy football over a more “fair” version of the sport any day.

So if money is the food of football, spend on.

Michel Platini is making a fool of himself again this week after his tirade against the prominence of English teams in European football. If you caught his interview on Sky Sports, you wlll have seem him ramble on and on, venting his anger and seeming quite unfocused and unpresidential — especially for someone who is supposed to be the figurehead of UEFA.

Here are some of the idiotic statements he made:

“If you bring people from Qatar and there is no-one from Liverpool or Manchester at the club, where is Liverpool or Manchester? I think it is not good. I think the Qataris should invest in Qatar.”

Monsieur Platini, no one from Qatar owns Liverpool or Manchester City, and no one from Qatar has expressed interest in buying either club. Manchester City’s owners are from Abu Dhabi and Liverpool’s potential new owners are from Dubai. Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi are cities in the United Arab Emirates, not Qatar.

Besides, Platini may not have noticed yet, but Liverpool and Manchester City are already owned by foreigners — from the United States and UAE respectively. And before the Abu Dhabi United Group took over City, the owner was Thai.

The other disturbing thing about Platini’s quote is that he’s preaching isolationism. Qataris should only own teams in Qatar? What next? Outside of football, companies should only own businesses in their own country? What about French company Vivendi? Should they pull out of their 20% ownership of NBC Universal?

“Do you want in Liverpool an Arab sheikh as president with one Brazilian coach and nine or 11 African players? Where is Liverpool in that? We have to make some rules. What is football? Football is a game and this game has become popular because of the identity. You have to have identity, that is where football’s popularity lies.”

Platini is living in the past. If Rafa’s form with Liverpool went down the tubes, Liverpool fans would love to have a Brazilian coach, an Arab owner and nine or 11 African players — nine would be perfect along with local Liverpool heroes Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher.

What’s so different about that than what is already happening at Arsenal where Theo Walcott is the only English footballer playing regularly for the Gunner?

Football used to be a game that had an identity. The only identity that remains in football is at the international level. And even that identity has been lost somewhat with players being able to play for a country even if they weren’t born there but they have a great grandfather who came from that mother country.

“When you buy Ronaldo or Pele or Maradona or Robinho, I have no problem. But when you buy players at 13, 14 or 15 years, I don’t like that. One player aged 11 is coming from Marseille to Chelsea. For the mother you think that is good?”

The mother would actually be quite ecstatic especially if it means that her son would have a tremendous opportunity to become a millionaire, make his dreams come true and help support his family and parents. If Chelsea didn’t sign the player at 11, some other club would snap him up so why blame Chelsea?

The statements made this week by both Michel Platini and David Taylor illustrate UEFA’s deep frustration with Premier League clubs and how they want to limit their power. To me, this is too little too late from Platini. The balance of power has already shifted to England where the Premier League is the global league that’s watched by hundreds of millions of people each week, while UEFA only comes into the picture every few weeks for the Champions League and every four years for the European Championships.

I wonder if Platini would be so quick to criticize the top clubs in Europe if they weren’t English? Would he rant and rave as much if French football clubs were dominant again like they were in the mid-nineties when teams like Paris Saint Germain and Olympic Marseille did so well at home and abroad?

The best thing that Premier League clubs could do is simply ignore the raving lunatic, Michel Platini. Like EPL Talk reader Bishopville Red put it best, UEFA is writing its own obituary. Bishopville believes that UEFA’s actions this week will bring the concept of a European Super League into vogue. While that’s quite possible, I believe UEFA will be writing its own obituary when the Premier League decides to take the game global by playing league matches overseas.

By doing this, the Premier League will have set the precedent for other European leagues to follow suit such as La Liga and Serie A. At that point, what’s to stop a global super league from happening? Imagine Barcelona against Chelsea played in Hong Kong? Or, Liverpool against Real Madrid in New York City? The possibilities are endless.

Say what you will about Maradona — he never put on a suit.  Michel Platini on the other hand is on one hell of a roll at the moment.

Earlier this week, he went off Arsene Wenger as if the man had murdered half his family, instead of appointing youngters to play at the highest club level pupportedly ‘before their time.’

Now, he’s introduced us to a league named after the sixth moon of Jupiter, appropriate because both have the same relevance to fans of European football.

Listen to this exciting promotional double-speak: “The new name and logo will help underline the tournament’s special character and unique sporting appeal. The fresh format will encourage teams from emerging countries or lesser-known sides to challenge the old order, and the new identity will seek to reflect that.”

Ah yes, ‘challenge the old order,’ tapping into every football fan’s nascent, Leninist revolutionary leanings.  It’s going to take a lot more to get fans interested in fixtures featuring clubs named after Soviet Rail factories or obscure Bulgarian cable networks than the prospect of hoping they overcome Euro ‘giants’ like Tottenham, or Aston Villa.

The cherry on top of all of this is UEFA’s atrocious decision to expand the Euros to twenty-four teams, as if deliberately undermining the success of Austria-Switzerland which most observers noted was entirely accidental i.e. in spite of UEFA’s constant meddling.  Looks like they won’t make that mistake again.

What is most galling about all of this is UEFA’s refusal to acknowledge that these decisions are based on money rather than some sort of footballing pseduo-egalitarianism.  It’s as if Platini wants to have his socialist cake and eat it too.

And it’s a fairly rich cake; Platini seems to have no problem railing at Wenger for being a ‘business man’ in the same week he pours money into a second-rate competition in the hopes that Europe’s lesser lights will take the bait and pay up.  Having sat through the four and half trillion UEFA Cup fixtures last year, I think it’s safe to say that we’ve had enough of ”the thrill of European club football,” as Platini put it.  Many of us have had enough of football adminstrators as well.