When does "loyalty" become unreasonable?

If you had to summarize this offseason in one word, "money" would be a fitting choice. For the last three months, money has set the backdrop of the global economic downturn, and it has created the summer's major sensations, Manchester City and Real Madrid. Naturally, as most of the world become ‘have-nots’, the influx of talent towards the few 'haves' spurs many accusations of greedy betrayal. In many cases we are justified in identifying greed, but as fans, we might want to reconsider how we misguidedly judge loyalty.

It's difficult to fault players like Roque Santa Cruz for advances in both wage and prestige, but other transfer stories from Manchester City have shown that the paycheck is all that matters to some players. Emmanuel Adebayor not only left the club that made him a superstar, but he essentially scorned European competition, leaving a Champions League semifinalist for a club that would be ecstatic at even qualifying. John Terry's potential transfer was higher-profile, and as 'Mr. Chelsea' waited to commit his future to the wildly successful club, we began to wonder what else he could want, other than more money. Even nice-guy Gareth Barry turned out to be disingenuous, since his only stated reason for leaving was a lack of Champions League football, and then left a club that almost achieved those ambitions while moving to one that hasn’t yet proven anything abroad. It's not awful that players want better wages, but it’s disheartening when some totally abandon their loyalty and competitive instinct to achieve it.

However, we've started to unfairly generalize every transfer to 'rich' clubs as motivated by greed. Despite making the same move as Adebayor, shouldn’t Kolo Toure be able to escape a broken relationship with William Gallas? If Carlos Tevez feels like he wasn’t shown enough respect or playing time at Manchester United, can’t he choose to go somewhere else and find playing? Joleon Lescott has been portrayed as jumping the Everton ship, but if he feels that City's goal of the Champions League is something that his current club isn’t working towards, isn't it natural for him to look after his own career? In the end, money isn’t a deciding factor in leaving, only in deciding where to end up.

The David Trezeguet saga perfectly summarizes why these perceptions are flawed. He's a legend in Turin, and yet after their busy transfer season, Juventus told him that he would likely play limited minutes this year. Seeking consistent playing time before the World Cup, he asks for a transfer and finds out that AC Milan might be interested. Juventus, understanding that it’s a bad business decision to equip a rival with a needed resource, refuses to sell him. All of these are sound business decisions, on both sides.

What rings hollow then is Trezeguet’s explanation for staying, that he decided a move would be “a betrayal of the fans". Since he had totally endorsed this exact possibility just days earlier, it seems more likely that this was a gesture to placate the fans upset at his original statement. Which begs the question: why are players frequently berated for looking after their own careers as professionals? “The fans’ passion is irrational” is the obvious answer, but outside the terraces and pubs, nobody ever seems to back the players, even in the media. It’s an issue confounded by the fact that clubs make the same business-like decisions without much criticism. In the end, 

the double-standard creates too much pressure on players to make lame excuses.

Just ask David Beckham, one of the most honorable men in football. He’s caught balancing his World Cup ambitions with the anger from his club’s supporters. His recent ESPN interview is incredibly revealing, as he gives still-happy-to-be-here answers while telling stories about goodwill gestures towards fans. It’s meant to convey that he understands why the fans are angry, and that he wants to make nice. But to see the most revealing response, watch his failed attempt at smiling at the very end of the interview. In that moment, his pain at feeling the fans’ negativity is so open, because he’s giving of himself in spite of his World Cup dream, and yet he’s learning that it will never be enough for them until he completely abandons his personal ambitions.

For better and for worse, soccer has become more corporate in the last 20 years, to the point where another Giggs, Raul, or Maldini will be rare. Beckham doesn’t need to do this juggling act: he’s famous enough that he could decide to abandon America. He would still make millions, and multiple European clubs would still be happy to sign him. Beckham could force a move, and that would certainly help his case for 2010, but he stays because he feels like it’s his duty. As fans, we can’t be so quick to put him, or any other player, in a position where they have to choose so absolutely between the two. From experience in the real world, we know how that will end.