I’ve never understood why the most expensive defender in footballing history is half the price of the most expensive attacking player in the history? Are they not just as important?
Obviously a striker or attacking midfielder will score you loads of goals and grab all the attention, but I can’t see why they are not regarded more equally. The stark contrast between the most expensive footballer in the world being Gareth Bale for over €90 million and Rio Ferdinand the most expensive defender at €46 million after his 2002 transfer from Leeds to Manchester United (I believe the initial deal was around €29 million and rose to around €33 million with a clause in the contract regarding a certain amount of appearances in a season). It amazes me that the entire list of record transfers is all attacking players until Rio crops up, followed closely by Thiago Silva, now of PSG.
I know it’s a given that players who do not play in the same position can not be compared, but surely they can’t be regarded more important than the other? If you’ve got a front three of Messi, Ronaldo and Falcao and a back four containing Zat Knight, Ryan Shawcross, Alan Hutton and Paul Konchesky, you may well score a ton of goals, but you’re going to leak a serious amount of goals that could ultimately lead to the team’s downfall. I’m not sure if I’m looking for a reduction in the cost of attacking players or a rise in price for defenders, but I have always found the massive difference confusing. As a defensive player myself, it hurts to see Fernando Torres cost more than Thiago Silva, who I believe to be the best centre-back in the world. And I think we all know who we would rather have in our team at the moment, right?!