Son Heung-min scored a hat trick Saturday in a convincing 6-2 victory against Leicester City. To be specific, it took Son Heung-min just 13 minutes and 21 seconds to score his hat trick.

What made the trio of goals by Tottenham Hotspur‘s Son Heung-min special was that he scored them after coming on as a substitute. Playing at the new White Hart Lane, the South Korean international came off the bench in minute 65. His performance was even more impressive considering he had been scoreless in his last eight games for the Tottenham Hotspur.

Son Heung-min scores hat trick; Leicester in trouble

Despite losing 6-2, Leicester City were actually the first to score in this match after converting a penalty. But from there on, mistakes were made aplenty by both sides before Son Heung-min put the game well out of reach for the Foxes.

Leicester City’s defeat means that the club are rooted to the bottom of the Premier League. Brendan Rodgers’ side has just one point out of a possible 21. And with Premier League clubs entering the international break, it’s very likely that Rodgers may get sacked.

What is most worrisome for Leicester City is their goal difference. While the club has had no problems scoring this season, Leicester City have conceded 22 goals. That’s the most number of goals conceded by any team in the league so far this season.

Leicester City’s next match is against Nottingham Forest on October 3. With both clubs at the bottom of the table, it’s a must-win game for both sides. It’s a relegation six pointer as early as October.

Todd Boehly has been in charge of Chelsea Football Club for less than four months, and he’s already trying to Americanize the Premier League.

Speaking at a conference on Tuesday, the American businessman who is new to the sport of soccer, talked at length about the changes he envisions for the English league. As a co-owner of the LA Dodgers baseball team and minority owner of LA Lakers basketball team, it appears that Boehly thinks he’s well equipped to suggest improvements to the world’s most popular sports league.

“Ultimately, I hope the Premier League takes a little bit of a lesson from American sports,” said Boehly. “MLB did their all-star game in L.A. this year. We made $200 million from a Monday and a Tuesday.”

Boehly’s concept for his all-star game is a north versus south battle in England. In addition to the all-star game, Boehly suggested a playoff system to determine relegation from England’s top flight.

Jurgen Klopp’s reaction to Todd Boehly’s comments

After Tuesday’s UEFA Champions League match against Ajax, Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp was asked by a reporter what he thought about Boehly’s wacky ideas. At first, Klopp thought the ideas were a joke.

Klopp raised several reasons why Boehly’s ideas are dumb.

First, professional footballers already play too many games, so there’s no time in the schedule to fit in an all-star game.

Second, the concept cheapens the sport by creating a meaningless, inauthentic game. Like Klopp said in the press conference (see below), “Does he want to bring the Harlem Globetrotters as well and make them play against a football team?”

Third, the Liverpool manager explains that no one wants to see an all-star game, let alone a northern versus southern all-star game.

Obviously, Boehly has no idea what he’s talking about. Instead, his ideas are driven by how he can, in his mind, help the league’s clubs make more money, including his own.

Many of the Americans who are owners of Premier League clubs in the United Kingdom have worked hard for years to earn credibility. For example, just a few months ago, 50% of Premier League clubs were owned by Americans (including minor ownership).

From here on out, hopefully Boehly will focus his attention on improving Chelsea’s results on the pitch instead of trying to talk about Americanizing the game of soccer.

Photo credit: IMAGO / Eibner

The number of people killed worldwide by the coronavirus is now more than 3,000, with every continent expect Antarctica affected by the outbreak.

With no specific treatment currently available, there are fears that many more people will die as a result of contracting coronavirus.

The spread of the virus is having a significant knock-on effect throughout society, causing significant disruption to many aspects of daily life.

Juventus instigate coronavirus lockdown

Juventus have put their entire Under-23 squad into quarantine after some players and officials from their most recent opponents, Pianese, tested positive for coronavirus.

The club instructed their players to remain at home until March 8, although none of them have shown any symptoms to date.

The game between Juventus and Inter Milan was one of five Serie A fixtures postponed over the weekend and more are expected to be cancelled over the coming days.

Fans have been forced to cancel their travel plans, with many relisting their match tickets on SeatPick, the ticket search engine, as well as other ticket resale sites, as they will be unable to attend the rearranged fixture.

Inter Milan’s Europa League tie against Ludogorets was played behind closed doors and the club joined AC Milan in telling all office staff at the San Siro Stadium to work from home.

Six Nations in a state of flux

England’s hopes winning the Six Nations are still alive after the tournament’s organisers confirmed that they wouldn’t be postponing any further matches due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Ireland’s fixture against Italy has been cancelled, although all other games are set to be staged as per the original schedule.

Six Nations’ bosses have stressed that they will follow government directives as the situation unfolds, but they remain confident the competition will be completed.

A new date for the Ireland versus Italy game has not been set, although some pundits have suggested October is a possibility.

Postponements would potentially cost rugby authorities millions of pounds in revenue, potentially threatening the future sustainability of the sport.

Minor sports face uncertainty

In addition to impacting top level sport, the coronavirus is creating huge problems in many other popular sports.

For instance, sports such as ice hockey are having to give huge consideration to whether they will continue playing.

The National Hockey League has said it has no plans to postpone matches at the moment, but other competitions are coming under increasing pressure to take action.

In the UK, the Elite League has confirmed it will continue to play despite many other leagues in Europe edging towards cancelling their seasons.

With big events planned over the coming weeks, it is clear that UK ice hockey has some major decisions to make in the near future.

Most fans of the Premier League in the United States want the game to grow, and broadcasting games on a major network is a tremendous step forward. Unfortunately, this means soccer is jeopardizing one of the major areas where it breaks from every American sport. In a country where almost every televised game is sandwiched by balding men shouting declarative presumptions of questionable logic, where animated robots jump around 30-foot television screens flexing metal-muscles, we have to ask ourselves, is this the path we want the EPL to follow?

Soccer is a graceful and beautiful game to watch. For the most part, FOX Soccer’s coverage reflects that. They tend to have two people talking rationally (relatively speaking) before every game and briefly at half, otherwise letting the game absorb the majority of the spotlight. FOX Soccer tends not to make itself the center of attention, recognizing people watch for the game, not for the production.

All of this is in direct opposition to the broadcast of every other American sport. Pregame shows for the NFL and NBA are laden with grandiose former stars with opinions to match, massive digital screens to make the seven-foot analysts look human, and mind-bogglingly inane pre-filmed segments. During FOX’s most recent NFL-pregame show, the host interviewed two fictitious talking babies created by a company’s marketing department. Networks like TNT, FOX and ESPN want the pregame to be a spectacle in itself, at the expense of the game’s dignity.

FOX has already begun to follow this formula with soccer. If you think my fears of soccer broadcasts getting Americanized is farfetched, you needn’t look any further than Piers Morgan. By bringing in the “noted Twitter antagonist” as a third-wheel for the main FOX broadcast, the network is following the big personality-big declarations formula, and he didn’t disappoint in that regard. Aside from Piers, the network used the same theme music as the NFL broadcast, and consistently tried to market to the NFL crowd. Not only does this demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about NFL audiences, but it shows FOX’s aspirations consist of applying the NFL broadcasting formula to the EPL.

First and foremost, we all love and appreciate the game of soccer. I have tremendous respect for the game, and want it to remain the central theme of each and every broadcast. I want the EPL to grow in the US, but I want it to lure people with its subtle complexity, beauty, and exuberance. I don’t want it diminished by big screens and shouting dolts.

All I ask is, when championing the growth of soccer in the US, be careful what you wish for. We might be getting it.

Corporations are taking over soccer, right? If you believe this, then the renaming of St. James’ Park is surely incontrovertible evidence on your behalf. Kristan Heneage already wrote about this, saying that the name is irrelevant since the ground will always be St. James’ Park even if the sign outside says otherwise.

In the United States, the stadium boom of the last three decades has resulted in virtually every stadium being replaced, so nobody makes much of a fuss about stadium renaming. It’s generally acknowledged new structures auction off their naming rights, but the few older ones remaining ought not to be for sale (Fenway Park and Lambeau Field for instance). But even if Fenway Park became Hancock Field, it will always be called Fenway. Corporations can pay all the money in the world for new signs and lettering, but they cannot mandate what a stadium is actually called in the bars.

In fact, the outrage over the St. James’ Park renaming seems arbitrary. I understand the stadium has been in existence for a century and the perceived corporate takeover of top-flight football seems unstoppable if the historical St. James Park cannot be salvaged. But decades ago, European fans accepted sponsorships on their uniforms, something Americans still largely reject. The names of English soccer leagues begin with companies; it’s not “The Premier League, brought to you by Barclays Bank”, it’s “Barclays Premier League” and “Npower Championship League”.

If sponsorships are so rampant in English football —truly, in all sports everywhere— then why is St. James’ Park the line in the sand for some? As The Gaffer commented on Kristan’s article, “for a club to rename their ground in favor of stadium rights to a current ground is an injustice in my opinion.” Yes the grounds are old and there is an aspect of tradition in concern. But if the underlying issue is inflicting an impurity on the game, then surely having a corporate logo on the very uniforms the players wear would be the ultimate impurity. After all, the words “Fly Emirates” are front and center and the Arsenal patch occupies but a tiny piece of jersey space. Who are the players actually playing for?

If you think that’s a foolish question, that’s because it is. In the modern sporting world, players do not play for Love of Club, and to think otherwise is to be shrouded in a fog of disillusionment. But, it’s also true the quality of the game and passion of the players has, if anything, increased since sponsorships became involved. Shockingly enough, professional footballers are by and large competitive creatures — a Carlos Tevez incident or two aside — and a large contract is more enticing than an abstract association with a sporting club. (To test this hypothesis, do you think international friendlies offer superior quality than club matches?)

The same debate is coming to fold in the United States about college athletics, where players are poorly compensated—relative to the profits universities make off their skills—under the guise of being “student-athletes”. This is nonsense. But it further reveals the myth of athletic purity, that somehow games competed under the notion of pride are superior to games backed by billions of dollars or pounds.

Once you can shed the myth of athletic purity, any outrage you may experience over Sporting Direct Arena will be revealed as inconsequential. Call the grounds whatever you desire, stare directly into the large Northern Rock lettering in the middle of the striped kit—with a Puma logo equal in size to the Newcastle patch in the corners—and realize this whole corporate takeover of sports is only important if you want to make it so. Otherwise, let the games commence.

There is a lot of ardent disagreement right now regarding Arséne Wenger. As a fervent Wengerist, I dismissed the calls for his sacking as the siren call of narrow-sighted supporters.  But as the losses pile together and the hopeless future becomes a depressing present, I cannot disregard the demands for Wenger’s release as easily as before.

A manager’s job description is both infuriatingly straightforward and condemningly complex. On the surface, it’s absurdly simple to explain what managers do: their success and failure is measured only in championships. But, detailing what steps a manager ought to take to achieve that championship is where the disagreement begins, and differing opinions can often be construed against the manager.

For some clubs, tossing their managers into the parking lot isn’t a big deal. Either their tenure was short-lived, their successes few and far between, or a combination of the two. Arséne Wenger’s scenario is the precise opposite; he’s been with the club for fifteen years and experienced unparalleled triumphs.

The term “sacking” has always sounded to me like putting the manager in a bag and pretending he was never there in the first place, an attempt to erase a manager from the club’s history. This would be impossible with Wenger. I remember — jokingly — when I first became an Arsenal fan wondering if Arséne changed his name (since it’s so close to the word Arsenal) to bind himself with the club for eternity.

For many clubs and managers—but particularly for Wenger—it’s difficult to know when the time for a sacking is upon them. So, for this conflicted Gooner, I compiled the Sacking Checklist, a set of logical progressions that, if affirmed, allow a supporter to feel at peace firing a longtime—and previously successful—manager. This list will hold for any manager of any sport, but I will use Wenger as an example. If all the conditions are fulfilled, firing the manager is justified. If they’re not, then you’re creating a scapegoat.

****

1. What has changed since the more successful times?

In North London, the shift has been seismic. Everyone has their own analysis, but personally I believe Arsenal is no longer on the same financial plane as the top clubs of the league, and therefore can’t afford to retain their best players long enough to build a consistent roster. There are tradeoffs to remaining financially stable, and most of those tradeoffs seem to be exemplified on the pitch.

Some believe the cause of Arsenal’s rapid decline also includes Wenger’s refusal to modify his tactics. He still insists on passing continuously around the box, waiting for the perfect pass, which more often than not results in a miscue.

2. Are these changes the manager’s fault?

If you place the blame on the shifting financial climate in the EPL, then you must draw a link between the financial climate and Wenger’s faults within that reality. Financial stability is an admirable goal, but considerably less so when it isn’t accompanied with silverware. Ultimately, if a club is going to declare an oath to financial stability, they must find a way to make it mold with the goal of winning championships, since that’s the fundamental function of the modern sports team.

However, if you believe Wenger is tactically stubborn, and his frugality is nothing less than penny-pinching, then you’re more likely to place the blame squarely on Wenger’s sinking shoulders.

3. Does it seem highly unlikely things won’t improve soon?

When you’re with a club as long as Wenger, there necessarily will be ebbs and flows in the business cycle of competition. The manager must be given an adequate opportunity to effectively countermeasure.

No matter where you place the blame for the current situation, the manager—especially Wenger—has a lot of say in the youth system. Wenger sold experienced stars at a high premium, this we know. But does the youth system have promise? I think with Arsenal we can answer in the affirmative, or at the very least acknowledge Wenger has earned the benefit of the doubt in this area. Despite the dismal present, the future likely holds promise for Arsenal.

4. Would another manager do better?

The ultimate purpose of sacking a manager is to replace him with someone who will do a better job. If you don’t think someone else will do a better job, then sacking is completely pointless. As owner Stan Kroenke recently detailed, it’s hard to argue anyone can do a better job than Arséne Wenger. But, things can get worse, and if they do, that argument will become ever easier.

5. If someone else could do better, who could the team hire?

With any managerial crisis, the media always floats possible successors. This round, we’ve heard names like Carlo Ancelotti and Dennis Bergkamp as possibilities. I’m certainly biased due to my affection for Wenger, but I cannot envision Ancelotti finding equal—or greater—success at Arsenal where his payroll has a ceiling. As for Bergkamp, he has no managerial experience—his initial foray into top-flight managing is currently in its first year as an assistant for Ajax—so it’s hard to envision he could equal Wenger’s expertise, despite his intimacy with the North London club.

****

If you cannot answer questions 2-4 in the affirmative—and provide a decent option for 5—but you still believe Wenger should be canned, then you’re simply after a scapegoat. You’ve been unable to determine the current state of affairs is the manager’s fault, or whether a viable option for improvement exists. This is the admission you are simply out of ideas.

Now, there’s inherent value in change. Sometimes, clubs stagnate if under the same regime for too long. As I’ve written on this site before, Wenger might be the victim of his own success to a degree, where his innovations have been replicated by many others in the unforgiving market for improvement. Still, turning a manager like Wenger—who has achieved so much and is so vital to the organization—into a scapegoat simply because we don’t know what else to do is not only patently unfair to Wenger, but more likely to result in further failures. As Andrey Arshavin has so often demonstrated on the pitch, running in the wrong direction is not preferred to standing still.

Engineers build things, economists study efficiency, and kids who live above pubs learn a lot about soccer. These three backgrounds are the source of Arsene Wenger’s managerial success at Arsenal. He builds clubs, finds players from every corner of the world in a cost-effective manner, and teaches them the art of soccer. After the sales of Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri, combined with the humiliating defeat at Old Trafford, Arsene Wenger’s professorship is under question.

Traditionally, true brilliance reveals itself in repetition. Wenger had proven his brilliance before, but recently it has been called into question, with the 8-2 lashing at the hands of Manchester United serving as a punctuating question mark. However, the question mark wasn’t invented by his critics; it was drawn by Wenger’s own actions. Pundits and supporters can debate Wenger’s decisions all they please, but over the last decade and a half, Wenger must have forgotten one of his basic economics lessons.

People often include Wenger’s background in economics as a side note, an interesting tidbit about a man who was clearly destined to become a world-class manager. This preoccupation with the sport itself misses a key insight into Wenger’s managerial success. One could even argue he has been primarily an economist, with a secondary expertise in soccer. Like the best economists, he discovered a market niche and exploited it.

Although Wenger’s nickname is famously “The Professor,” he’s more of a practitioner than an armchair economist. By now, you probably know the Wenger story. Patrick Vieira, Thierry Henry, Kolo Toure, Nicolas Anelka and the aforementioned Fabregas and Nasri are a handful of Wenger’s most successful ventures. Under Wenger, they excelled on the pitch, but they also excelled in the boardroom books; they were astoundingly successful investments for the club. All of the above players were sold at massive profits. Overall, Wenger was the only Premier League manager to strike a profit on transfers from 1996 to 2007, which is infinitely more impressive when considering the hardware that complimented the profits.

Unlike Billy Beane who essentially identified one market niche and then fizzled out, Wenger was constantly revealing inefficiencies in the global player market. First, it was simply an intricate knowledge of his home country. Then, it was nutrition experts to get the most out of his players. He then evolved to tactical adjustments and expanded his scouting prowess well beyond France and North Africa. The question evolved from “Why is Wenger so good?” to “When will others catch up with him?”

Some believe that time is now. Wenger is constantly pointing out the increased competitiveness across the EPL in postgame interviews. To be sure, there are fewer easy victories now than in Wenger’s prime at the turn of the century. This confirms any belief that Arsene Wenger is primarily an economist; brilliant tactical soccer minds rarely get out-innovated. After all, a brilliant tactical mind is always one step ahead of all the others. To imply a tactical expert could be out-smarted on the pitch is akin to saying Albert Einstein’s theories could be proven false by a rising star in quantum theory.

Instead, economists are constantly getting lapped, because economics isn’t a science. Once e=mc^2 is proven true, no quantum theorist in the world can supplant it. In economics, a market efficiency is revealed, and the rest of the world catches up to it in a flash, often times surpassing it while the innovator is still patting himself on the back. Scientists and tacticians are ladders, constantly building off their own ideas. Economists are animals in the wild, feeding off the success of others.

Wenger now finds himself bidding with other smart managers who recognize young talent when they see it. Young talent is harder to come by, and more clubs are looking to North London for their youth, willing to pay a premium for Wenger’s scouting and tutelage. Others are feeding off the success of The Professor.

It was clear even before the 8-2 thrashing that Arsenal didn’t have a championship caliber squad. Calls for a roster upgrade were abound. Wenger may have been actively searching for the right transfer, but evidently didn’t find it. The economist in him wanted the perfect deal. Instead, he waited too long. After the rout, every manager in the world knew Arsenal was desperate to buy, like a man whose house was just blown away in a storm. He needed water, food, a generator, a defender, midfielder and striker. Every manager in the world raised their asking price.

Wenger likely could have had the resultant transfers for much less, had he simply taken advantage of asymmetric information. The rest of the world suspected Arsenal wanted to acquire veteran players, but nobody knew for sure except for Wenger. After the destruction at Old Trafford, there was no more asymmetric information. Wenger’s role switched from the used-car dealer to the customer.

The Professor was no longer the teacher, and the engineer saw his creation collapsing. Instead of home-grown talent evolving into loyal Arsenal minions, he’s allowing inexperienced teenagers to roam the field in an aimless display of raw skill, not the technical and cerebral superiority The Professor has become accustomed to seeing in North London. Is this a sign Wenger is no longer an economist, but a believer in Wengerism? As long as they’re his investments, they must be wise investments?

Perhaps time will prove Wenger was indeed one step ahead, still innovating ahead of the others. But I fear Wenger has subscribed to the religion of his own genius, and like most religions, it’s either proven false or never proven at all.