|
WARNING: This is a long post; it's more than 2500 words. Get a drink before reading, and if you can't be bothered reading, then don't post.
At the time of writing, Weapon of Choice has just concluded. I caught the last half of what was, well, a fairly fiery argument.
But a lot of important topics came out of the discussion that deserve its own topic and also some thought about where eSports is going.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WHXgr.jpg) This is what came up when I googled "killing esports".
Anything purporting to be "professional" cannot exist on a system of handshakes and verbal agreements.
If we want to take eSports to the level where it is a sustainable, healthy sport, there needs to be some legally binding method of allowing players to move about in the market.
Let's be realistic. Once players get into the situation where they are getting paid and organisations are competing for them: it's a market.
It's a business. This isn't kid's stuff anymore.
People are getting butthurt about the transfer of Puma, but let's keep in mind this is all to the benefit of Puma; whatever happens, he is going to benefit. Most likely, he would have gotten some form of contract or improved conditions at TSL. He could probably still acquire that if a deal with EG cannot be worked out. And, obviously, EG want to secure him as a player.
But let's think of the reverse.
Give some thought to the players who are on the B-teams, with no formal contracts and are struggling to get by. Eventually, one day, the team decides to cull them. That's it - you're off the team. You can't stay in our house anymore, you can't practice with us. It's just not worth it, you're not good enough.
Get out.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aT2kU.jpg) Not everyone gets to win Dreamhack. What happens to the hundreds of players that don't make it?
This situation is not unrealistic at all. Some of you might be saying that the "Korean culture" would prevent such an undesirable situation from occurring. But the reality is that should events line up in a fashion where this could happen: it will happen - because this is a business, a cut-throat, no-holds barred, sport.
A lot of teams would act with more integrity than this, I'm sure, but the point is that there needs to be security for the players. Teams are formed up of players that are essentially no more than children and teenagers devoting some of their best years that could be spent working towards a lucrative career in law, engineering, finance, or hell, even professional sport.
If this was any other industry, any other "sport" - there would be some form of regulation. ESports has no regulation, as Garfield pointed out, although I would argue the generally defined standards on dealing with cheaters is effectively self-regulation as everyone plays by the same book.
But the life-blood and potential growth out of this industry is impossible without the groundswell of players required to make it happen. If kids are in the situation where they get thrown out on the streets, eventually the media is going to find out about it and do one of those "horror" stories that makes everyone shit their pants. You want to talk about killing eSports? Watch what happens to sponsorship dollars when companies run like crazy to avoid the bad PR associated with wasting young people's lives.
We must do everything as a community to avoid the worst case scenarios. This is cut-throat competition. Let's not kid ourselves. Every team wants the best players and wants to win everything. That's what gets them sponsorship dollars and lines people's pockets.
But the only way we can safely navigate all of the treacherous waters is with legally binding agreements that protect everyone. That's a fact.
A worldwide recreation of KeSPA is not, and will never be, possible.
Milkis asked Garfield a few times why this wasn't the case. It works in Korea, so logically, why can't it apply elsewhere?
djWHEAT said it was a "utopia", and I tend to agree. But let's get realistic: we're dealing with humans here and not everybody is going to agree on everything. Players want to play the game a certain way. Teams will want certain players on their teams.
And just like everyone else, organisations will want to do things their way.
Garfield is right. It's all one massive competition. Organisations ARE competing with other teams. Why, do you ask? Because organisations are just as capable of hiring people and running their own sponsored events. Do you think sponsors give a shit about how it plays in the community? That's not what they're in it for. I'm not saying they're evil bastards looking to scam people. They're simply making an investment and they will go where they can get the best return.
That might be sponsoring a player like IdrA or Destiny. It could be sponsoring a particular team so players and websites can sell their products. It might just be a tournament.
But the idea is that everybody is trying to fight for a piece of the same pie. Ideally we want that pie to grow so there's a slice for everyone. Real life, however, is never that kind. Especially business.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fucGj.jpg) What otaku think of when you say "utopia"
Organisations have their own interests as stake, chiefly being their continued existence as an organisation. A Korean company can't extend into Europe unless it already has an established foothold there or it takes over a company with an existing presence. That's how business works: if you over-extend, you either get punished for your troubles or you just simply collapse outright. (ABC Learning is an example for Australian readers of what happens when you expand too aggressively.)
So you will have the situation that we have now where different organisations control different sectors of the market. For a KeSPA style model to arise, all of those companies have to give a little and sacrifice to make it work.
Now, you tell me: who's going to give up their money, power and appeal to sponsors first to make this a reality?
No-one will. Because that's business, and the key tenet is that you look after numero uno first.
Defamation is something that needs to be seriously approached - but not in the terms that Garfield framed it.
I'm not using the word defamation lightly here. In essence, Garfield was insinuating that Milkis was partially responsible for the damage caused to EG by translating content without doing proper justice to the "facts".
Garfield's question was an argument - and it would be highly disingenuous of Alex to claim that he wasn't making a point with his "open question" - that the community should apply stricter standards to their content; ie. hold the story until EG had time to prepare a response.
Sorry Garfield, but time waits for no man. If the internet isn't going to wait for major airlines to announce that a plane has been grounded, what on God's green earth makes you think it's going to wait for you?
This is just reality. The author published an article on PlayXP based on the information he had available. There's nothing wrong with him writing from just "one" side of the story, because it's a community contribution. They've done nothing more than write an article about comments from a key industry figure (one of the coaches of a pro-gaming team) about a situation that the community has massive interest in.
EG didn't get time to publish their side of the story. That happens. It's no different from a government withholding press conferences until an hour or two before the news bulletin at dinner time. In that scenario, ministers do that so there is no time to disseminate the information beyond reporting on what's been released.
It doesn't make the reporters irresponsible for not having read the hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. All they've done is their job with the time limited to them.
There's an important line to draw here in what's been reported. Coach Lee has come out and said EG have signed Puma, which EG has denied. The reports are just running headlines off that information. It's not illegal, irresponsible, and nobody in the community is to blame. This. Happens. In. Business. All. The. Fucking. Time.
How many news websites have you seen that update a story after its been published? Hell, some newspapers will update their websites without even notifying readers of the changes. More commonly though, breaking news will often have an Update: This Shit Just Happened above or below the body of a piece. That's what we're talking about here. A story goes to press and the story is later edited with contradictory information. Whoever is writing has a responsibility to report as honestly as possible, which is what PlayXP and Milkis has done. Garfield is unhappy about it because it doesn't reflect his side of the story (or the facts - but this isn't about who's right or wrong).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1oF9v.jpg) Qantas plane gets grounded. Passengers tweet about plane failure. Airline shits itself until PR department can produce a statement. Morale of the story? Write faster.
In that case, the onus then shifts to organisations to "control" the story as much as they possibly can. That's how PR works. This is why I mentioned airlines beforehand. Qantas, the largest airline in Australia, now has a Twitter account that they keep updated 24/7, because it is the fastest possible way of disseminating information that they can control. That way, companies give themselves a hedge against journalists who run stories.
(NB. Here's a story about Qantas getting butthurt by social media. Keep in mind, you can't prosecute people for sharing an opinion in the Western world. Thank fuck for that; Twihards are idiots.)
But let's not forget - we're talking about JOURNALISTS here, paid professionals who adhere to a certain code of ethics and particular procedures. Communities don't do that. TeamLiquid doesn't have a set of Terms and Conditions that requires me to talk to all parties involved before I make a post flaming someone. I'm not supposed to ask casters for a comment if I believe their analysis to be batshit-stupid. That's not what a forum is.
So what do companies like EG do then? Are they to be left without any protection whatsoever, for people to disparage their players, procedures and damage their brand freely?
The nature of the internet says this will happen regardless. But what is not unreasonable is for teams to have their own Twitter accounts, their own Facebook accounts and their own ways of getting information out quickly. If you move to correct a story that you believe to be wrong, you can then at least paint something as being in dispute. If someone continues to blindly argue otherwise, despite evidence to the contrary - which you have spread into the public arena - then I think you can have an argue for a case.
This isn't the print media. If you're an hour behind on the internet, you're effectively a day behind in the real world. In situations where things are happening rapidly, you may as well be a week behind. The ability to hold stories for both sides of an argument, sadly, has vanished - because the value of that story diminishes exponentially with every passing hour.
One easy solution is that administrators of websites have an understanding that all "news" posts are open to being edited by a moderator so that more information can be added in the future to reflect the reality of a situation. That might not fit the business utopia that Garfield wants, along with a hell of a lot of other businesses, but that's how the internet works.
Finally:
This could eSports version of the Bosman ruling or the World Series Cricket battle.
I'm not saying TSL and EG are going to end up in court over this.
Here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket
The basic idea was that in both situations, the end result was a transfer of power from the teams and governing bodies over to the players. In the Bosman ruling, Jean-Marc Bosman was denied from playing for another team even though his contract had expired.
World Series Cricket was eventually resolved in Britain's High Court. There, the world governing body (the ICC) had tried to prevent players from participating in the 50-over, World Series Cricket, by banning players from Test cricket and first-class cricket had they played in Kerry Packer's tournament. The court eventually found that banning players amounted to preventing citizens from plying their "trade" and that the ICC could not prevent professional cricketers from choosing what leagues they wanted to participate in.
Puma, no doubt, held a very powerful position. He could, and may still be able to, play TSL and EG off against each other for the best possible offer. This is essentially what happens in most professional sports today, just with a shitload more money - and better representation.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TzBtz.jpg) Sadly, this man is not in a position of power.
But however it plays out, TSL has now recognised that they have to contract ALL of their players - lest they lose them to foreign organisations. Fact of the matter is, they could lose them to Korean teams as well, because there's nothing legally stopping one team from securing a free agent.
To me, this raises another question: should players be allowed to represent themselves? As eSports grows bigger, I think it is inevitable that some players will remain in the scene as agents, using their experience to help other players navigate a world of contracts and obligations that many, quite frankly, are too young to understand.
I'd imagine parents would act as the "agents" for many players, but that's simply not sustainable if you want to seriously grow eSports. An organisation like the GSL, or KeSPA, could arrange to have some former players or someone acting in an independent role that can oversee the legalities for players concerned.
Should eSports attract the eye of governments, which is inevitable if its grows to the point that we want it to, this type of regulation will be forced upon us anyway. That's another reason why contracts are absolutely essential; sooner or later, eSports is going to have to conform with the labour laws of their respective organisations.
So rather than have the fat foot of governments sort shit out for us, we'd best move our asses and start thinking and developing our own methods of representation. Remember, this is to safeguard all parties involved. Obviously, most financial dealings and contracts are done honestly and in a secure way.
But if we want to really grow this scene so that there's something left behind when we're 40, this is the kind of ballpark we're playing on. Like it or lump it kids, it's time to grow up.
-dippa
|
On July 22 2011 12:03 k!llua wrote:
So rather than have the fat foot of governments sort shit out for us, we'd best move our asses and start thinking and developing our own methods of representation. Remember, this is to safeguard all parties involved. Obviously, most financial dealings and contracts are done honestly and in a secure way.
Who's "we"? Don't worry, these organizations will act in their best interests. But I'm sure they appreciate your concern.
|
I don't see why things are so different with Starcraft 2 teams compared to teams from Brood war. Was there many/any conflicts like this in the past?
Why all of a sudden is this all important to people?
|
Skimmed through, seems like good points. Will read it in detail later. Btw, lol tevez picture.
|
On July 22 2011 12:07 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 12:03 k!llua wrote:
So rather than have the fat foot of governments sort shit out for us, we'd best move our asses and start thinking and developing our own methods of representation. Remember, this is to safeguard all parties involved. Obviously, most financial dealings and contracts are done honestly and in a secure way.
Who's "we"? Don't worry, these organizations will act in their best interests. But I'm sure they appreciate your concern.
Everyone: organisations, tournaments, writers, players, commentators - everyone.
That's how governments handle regulation. One-size-fits-all, unless there's a better working system is already in place.
|
I think the only thing you're missing from that post is mention of the Korean Starcraft 2 Association that was created last year to provide
Protection of rights for the gamers and teams
If the association has some terms protecting the teams, then EG may very well have stepped into a pile of mud with this deal.
|
better bunker down for the winter, this is a long one
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Here's a snippet of an old post Mr. Garfield wrote 9 months ago that might shed some light on his point of view.
A lot of you guys are saying that my criticisms are invalid because so much of TL's coverage (this thread, for example) is community-based and generated by community members who aren't officially part of TL. This is not a valid counterpoint to my arguments - but it is, however, a very important observation about the nature of "coverage" and "news" on TL. We're now in an era of journalism and reporting in which a piece doesn't have to be "official" to be coverage. So, while some of you guys are essentially saying, "This isn't coverage - it's a forum thread and therefore you're wrong," I'd make the simple point: the two are not mutually exclusive anymore. It's both a forum thread and a coverage piece. I'd like to think that anyone in this community with enough dedication and passion to contribute to it via doing this kind of forum-based coverage would also apply that kind of dedication and passion to their approach to said community-based journalism.
|
I posted this in another, similar, thread and want to throw it into this thread. Great OP.
Pros of Having a Contract System
- Contracts provide stability for both the players, and the teams. If a team and player come to an agreement on paper, it protects the teams investment, while guaranteeing the player that there will be some type of return for their services (whether it be monetary, living conditions, things of that nature). With contracts, teams will be more willing and at ease with investing their resources into their players, who are legally bound to fulfill their obligations
- It creates an infrastructure to really see how teams can shine. It erases alot of the ambiguity involved with having X players on a team. You better believe teams will be wanting return investments from guys they've contracted, because we're talking about business here now. The business of running a successful Starcraft II team that turns profit, or at least, operates above the red. Teams will need to consider if they're willing to commit, just as players will need to make intelligent decisions on what team they join. Say X player is a Terran Mech enthusiast. Does EG need another Terran Mech player? If yes, then it may be a good business decision to go where a slot is open. If no, then it may be best to look elsewhere where the player will be utilized to their maximum potential. Or, maybe this T-Mech player is ok riding the bench on EG while still being sponsored, having a team to grow with, and still having the opportunity to be consider a professional.
- It creates an interesting potential in that if players are contracted, there needs to be an even more large scale system. Teams will A) Wait for players to come off contract then go after them in an open market (Free Agency), making it a huge intrigue as to who is going where. Imagine the hype hearing iDra or other top tier players are going to test the open market once their contracts expire. Imagine the competition for the services. Will money pull guys? Or will sponsor potentials? Play styles? Competition? So many new meta games to consider outside of the game that is SC2.
- It protects players - to an extent. Knowing you will be paid because of this contracts existence alleviates the pressure of being dropped in a moments notice because of A) Performance B) Outside Factors. It's always good to know guys like "us" can eventually get into a contract where we make money, guaranteed, to support playing a video game professionally. Living the dream.
Cons of a Contract System
- Creates potential for strict guidelines, limiting freedoms of players to play carefree (more so than before, at the very least). What if teams require practice logged hours (I'm sure they do already - but not sure its by contract)? Required logged games? Required wins? Required tournament appearances? What if someones brother is getting married the same weekend of an MLG event, and the team has deemed it a breach of contract to miss an MLG event? These are lives we're talking about here, not just the time they spend playing the game itself.
- Creates a mercenary styled system where players can be contracted for wins, and contracts are accepted solely for money. E-Sports is innocent in the sense that it's like college, people play (majority) because they enjoy playing. Some have made it their lifestyle and career, thus being their only "trade skill" so to speak, but the vast majority play competively to play competively. The money just happens to be following, and its undoubtedly a motivational factor just the same.
- Can create an environment where teams take advantage of players. When there is no voice that represents the players as a whole, the disarray leaves the players unprotected since theyd have no other alternative than to comply with owners since they'd essentially control the market. Thus, the players would -need- to create a union that protects them and lays out basic terms that the teams/owners would need to comply by as well. While that could be advantageous, it takes time to tweak such complex matters to a point where both sides are happy just the same.
This is just a starting point for me, looking forward to discussing this and seeing what comes of it.
|
A worldwide recreation of KeSPA is not, and will never be, possible.
Kespa has been screwing over players since it's beginning. Why would you even want this? KESPA has functioned to protect the interests of the sponsors, not the players. IE, Kespa vs GOM drama for the GOM booster tournaments, etc. etc.
|
On July 22 2011 12:15 motbob wrote:Here's a snippet of an old post Mr. Garfield wrote 9 months ago that might shed some light on his point of view. Show nested quote +A lot of you guys are saying that my criticisms are invalid because so much of TL's coverage (this thread, for example) is community-based and generated by community members who aren't officially part of TL. This is not a valid counterpoint to my arguments - but it is, however, a very important observation about the nature of "coverage" and "news" on TL. We're now in an era of journalism and reporting in which a piece doesn't have to be "official" to be coverage. So, while some of you guys are essentially saying, "This isn't coverage - it's a forum thread and therefore you're wrong," I'd make the simple point: the two are not mutually exclusive anymore. It's both a forum thread and a coverage piece. I'd like to think that anyone in this community with enough dedication and passion to contribute to it via doing this kind of forum-based coverage would also apply that kind of dedication and passion to their approach to said community-based journalism.
There's a difference between making a post - hey, I couldn't find any threads on topic X, so here's
some news - as opposed to regular posters and writers.
People tagged as "writers" definitely carry a different level of reputation among the community. But Garfield made no attempt to draw that line, which would be important legally (particularly if your hinting at the loss of reputation for a business) and ethically, as well.
For example, you can moderate stupid posts and ban people for being morons. But a stupid post doesn't equate to a ban. Someone who represents TeamLiquid, however, is held to a different standard. In that scenario, it's entirely reasonable to apply some standards: spell-check your posts, make sure you use proper grammar, fuck, follow a style guide if you have to.
But my point is that even traditional journalism has instances when only one side of the coin gets out. It happens all the time. It's not the fault of the writer and it's not a breach of any type of ethics. One key value of being a journalist is ensuring that your story gets published while it is still of interest to the public.
Online journalism demands that you publish early and continually add to the story with new information as it becomes available. That's the scenario here. EG's side of the story WASN'T available at the time of posting. SirScoots alleged that they weren't contacted until after something was rushed to publication, but keep in mind the original story on TeamLiquid was a translation. Milkis is not the author here, and it's highly unreasonable to demand he act like a "journalist" when the reality of the matter is that he is just a translator.
Should the original author have contacted EG? Certainly, but if EG couldn't produce a response in time then there's no reason to have withheld the story. In these cases, you just add a note at the bottom: EG was not able to comment at the time of writing. When they do comment, you edit the story and add it in.
A simple solution, and one that befits the mutually exclusive standards Garfield is aiming at. The key here is to identify what Garfield really wants deep down - which was the withholding of the story entirely until EG could get a statement out - with how things operate in practice.
I'm not holding anything against Garfield: his stance is perfectly normal, but the standards he is asking about are far less stringent than what he was intimating at.
|
On July 22 2011 12:20 Kaal wrote:Kespa has been screwing over players since it's beginning. Why would you even want this? KESPA has functioned to protect the interests of the sponsors, not the players. IE, Kespa vs GOM drama for the GOM booster tournaments, etc. etc.
I'm not calling for a recreation of KeSPA. Milkis was asking Garfield on WoC why the Korean model couldn't work overseas, which is what I was addressing.
|
I like Koreans a lot.
And I respect their culture and customs without holding any preconceived notions of how they should act.
On July 22 2011 12:03 k!llua wrote:
Anything purporting to be "professional" cannot exist on a system of handshakes and verbal agreements.
But I also completely agree with this quote. This is what every employer should know.
|
5003 Posts
I think one of the points I really failed to bring out was that it *is* unprofessional for SC2 in Korea to not have contracts. I just wanted to provide the background on why that was the case, and I guess it didn't go through very well. In no way does the Koreans do not want contracts -- this is what they want to aim for as the SC2 scene grows.
So I do apologize for butchering that. Very, Very, badly.
|
Grimsong raises some very good points. One question I have is about how contracts or other agreements are enforced when there are so many parties involved. For instance say ByteByByte is from the Ukraine and gets signed on by a team in Australia (EvilDingos) with a $100 breech of contract clause. But a British team (LiquidTea) decides that they can lure EDByteByByte away with a much larger contract, and manage to steal him away, breaching the contract. Now LTByteByByte skips down and is living in Britain. Obviously, team ED wants their money for breached contract, but LTByteByByte will never be in Australia again, and so decides to just ignore them. What legal options does team ED have to recover their money? How expensive is it to pursue?
|
Finally finished. Great job on telling everyone how stuff works on the real world from a neutral perspective. Great post!
|
On July 22 2011 12:34 Milkis wrote:
I think one of the points I really failed to bring out was that it *is* unprofessional for SC2 in Korea to not have contracts. I just wanted to provide the background on why that was the case, and I guess it didn't go through very well. In no way does the Koreans do not want contracts -- this is what they want to aim for as the SC2 scene grows.
So I do apologize for butchering that. Very, Very, badly.
You went up against a guy that has professional PR as part of his job. And yes, what usually happens when a professional goes up against an amateur happened. I wouldn't even give it a second thought. The community's view of you hasn't changed.
|
On July 22 2011 12:34 Milkis wrote:
I think one of the points I really failed to bring out was that it *is* unprofessional for SC2 in Korea to not have contracts. I just wanted to provide the background on why that was the case, and I guess it didn't go through very well. In no way does the Koreans do not want contracts -- this is what they want to aim for as the SC2 scene grows.
So I do apologize for butchering that. Very, Very, badly.
No matter the mistakes I am thankful for your dedicated contributions. Milkis fighting!
|
I really liked the OP. It conveyed exactly what I wanted to in the other thread, but a lot more concretely.
I don't know if the part about screwing over the people is as appropriate to the discussion as it could be. There is no system afaik to stop football players from getting washed up if they can't make the big leagues. They use their talents (physical fitness) to do some other jobs such as construction. They aren't earning $300,000 dollars a week, but they will survive.
It's the same thing I think needs to happen here. Players need to have something to fall back on if their dream doesn't come true, which is more than possible. From what I see, many of these players have or are in the process of obtaining university degrees. It is this that I believe would help make a sustainable scene.
Now, about the signing of Puma, I don't like it from a respect POV, and I don't think it was the best timing either. Yes, I am not going to say that EG isn't allowed to sign him, and yes, TSL should've started contracting a bit earlier. However, I will bring in the banking world, as that is the one I have the most experience with due to my family. Star talent, including some of the best risk managers etc... are poached by other banks offering bigger salaries. That is similar to what is happening here. Then they break the contracts, and the bosses do get hurt, and a large majority take it personally. The reason I think this happens is that the time invested into training the others, and the connections you make with them, at the end of the day the player is basically saying "Fuck you, I want more money". Nothing wrong with the ideology, but the other manager has nothing to show for his efforts. This is what the TSL coach is drawing an issue with. All of his efforts were basically thrown down the drain, with someone else profiting from his loss.
If I am to bring a sport into this argument, professional football has the same situation. It is not acceptable for a team to go directly to a player without talking to the manager and agreeing on a transfer fee. There is also a system in place to protect clubs for training players, and stopping those players from bailing from training academies straight to the big clubs. I think this needs to happen in SC2.
I agree with pretty much everything else in the article.
My own opinion on this trade, I think it will hurt Puma in the long run. I don't think he will ever be able to reach the same level of TvP with only Incontrol/Axslav etc... to practice with, they are not GSL level imo, and not GSL 2-time winner calibre by any stretch of the imagination. His TvZ may be the only match-up he can maintain.
EDIT: Milkis, I liked what you did there. I only saw a bit near the end, but you were kind of a sacrificial goat in Alex's eyes imo, which wasn't fair considering you only translated the article that you saw. Wasn't a fair fight.
|
What I took most offense too was this:
I'm not using the word defamation lightly here. In essence, Garfield was insinuating that Milkis was partially responsible for the damage caused to EG by translating content without doing proper justice to the "facts".
Basically he was telling Milkis to do EG's work for them, and that's ridiculous, let's not forget this is the team that only represented their point of view (with intentional misinformation) regarding why TL was not participating in their team league. Now they're saying these kinds of threads on TL are damaging and should be done better.
The thing is, I can only see this going badly for Puma, without TSL he won't have the coaches, the practice partners and the training schedule that allowed him to fully harness his skills that allowed him to win the NASL. EG say this is good for Korean esports and that the SK deal is bad:
The SK deal benefits all of oGs and is a far better way forward than acquiring a single player.
1. Foreign Teams get represented in foreign markets by Korean players
2. Korean players don't lose skill outside of general lack of practice during travel since they keep their support structure
3. Korean teams get more money to spend on gaining sponsorship, adding more players or sending other players to international events (they no longer have to pay for MC or Nada's travel although I believe MC contributed a bit to his own travel too)
Now in an ideal world player acquisitions (permanent) on foreign teams should result in the player being brought into the foreign practice house (currently non-existent) with a head coach and suitable practice partners in the form of similarly skilled teammates (also non-existent).
Compare this to:
1. Buy Player disregarding the players native culture
2. Either leave him in Korea or bring him to an incomplete team house without coaching or suitably skilled practice partners (eg says they have something planned not sure what)
3. Have player represent you either in Korea (good luck) or foreign events where he will be beaten by Koreans on real teams.
I just don't understand what EG is thinking with this kind of move Puma will be terrible in 3 months if he stays outside of the Korean practice ethos with coach and partners. And they'll be left where they started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vtxHW.jpg)
