

The Case Against Alonso
By: Matilda | July 6th, 2011We were all shocked when the story initially broke. If you were living under a rock at the time, it surfaced in early May that Marcos Alonso was involved in a crash. One woman died and three other passengers of the car were seriously injured. Alonso, the driver of the car, escaped relatively unscathed but also with a hefty amount of alcohol in his system. He was allowed to return to England until a court date was set, but even though he came back to Bolton, he did not come back to the team sheet. In fact, I believe the club didn’t even release an official statement on the incident. Because of all this I had assumed Alonso would stay quiet, and we wouldn’t see him in a Wanderers shirt again. Then, after months of silence, he tweeted first this then this. He’s back, as the photo of him at pre-season training from the official site confirms, but should he be allowed to play? There is very little doubt that he did wrong, but how much should a player’s personal life interfere with their professional?
It’s a tough question, and responses will be highly varied, but to me there’s something that just doesn’t feel right about him wearing that crest again. There is always the cliché argument that players serve as role models for children across the country, and really across the world. To a certain extent this is true, especially in one of the most high profile leagues in the world (although admittedly not a terribly high profile team). There is an image that the team try to project, putting an emphasis on the charity work of the players, and the Alonso incident does not fit that. While I doubt any impressionable young children came away from this thinking that it’s “cool” to drink and drive, there is something unsavoury about his return, especially as everyone is acting as though nothing happened.
The yucky feeling argument aside, there is a bigger issue with Alonso’s actions. While I am no expert about the ins and outs of football contracts, I know there is an obligation on the part of the player to take care of their body. This obviously means eating right, exercising, showing up at training, but it also includes not putting that precious body in perilous situations (Tamir Cohen isn’t allowed to have his motorbike). Marcos Alonso blatantly disregarded this, and all moral qualms aside, he put his body in danger by making a stupid decision. That body is an investment made by the club, and based on that decision he made, perhaps it is no longer wise from a business point of view to indulge in that investment.
I will admit that my gut reaction was Anti-Alonso. The whole situation is unpleasant, and I resent it even more as it caused me to use “yucky feeling argument” in a blog post, but there are more serious implications of the incident. We have a fairly shallow squad as it is, and there is no room (and no money) for players who do not take their safety seriously.
Disagree? Stay tuned as Mark will be posting why we should let Alonso play shortly!
Comments
-



Very dubious application of contract law in relation to putting your body into perilous positions. Of course, there are some limitations, as you point out there are often restrictions on using motorbikes or doing things like skiing, for the obvious risk factor of serious or long term injury. These are usually insurance based concerns and are unlikely to be severe enough to invalidate his contract. That being said, we dont know the particular details of the contract.
One potential issue is that if he is jailed for his alleged offences then this could terminate the contract under various contractual means.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the punishment prescribed by the law should be sufficient and he should not be shunned by the club. If anything it would be an opportunity for the club and Marcos to show the family spirit at BWFC. Through the club and his a great deal of personal effort he may go some way to making amends for his mistakes and contribute some positives.
I think Alonso will feature next season in some capacity and then any future involvement will be down to how his case progresses in the Spanish courts.


-



Yeah I wasn’t saying it was necessarily a direct violation of his contract, I was using the contract thing to make the point they do need to take care of their bodies and not put themselves in risky situations.













