Good watch on the beeb an insight into possible psychological harm footballers can have from the dream like profession.
To put things in perspective, in my opinion, it's a great minority that may have suicidal thoughts due to being a footballer. Lee Hendrie, although understandably devastating, screwed things up by his own actions and just made some stupid decisions so had to live with the consequences.
Simon Jordan featured and didn't really make a tit of himself as expected, surprisingly.
It had a part where Clark was talking about how strange, surreal and or heartbreaking it can be when people you don't know are giving you obscene abuse from the stands when you have an under par performance. Over paid yes, but also only human. That was the intended message.
Also interesting when he said how starting off playing the game you are manufactured or media trained like a robot and told exactly how to behave in every way so you almost don't feel like yourself. Safe to say that's premier league level.
0
Comments
For lower league pros that fear of failure means getting shown the door at the club, for the Wayne Rooney's of the world the fear is that your best days are behind you and the next big thing will take your place.
This can affect young pros and old pros alike, its an absolute cut-throat profession because, lets face it, 90% of people in football are totally unqualified to do anything else, so they are terrified of getting thrown off the gravy train.
You get the same thing in most sports, pro cricketers are very prone to suicide compared to other sports, its the nature of the beast.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/aug/13/tears-defender-fortuna-dusseldorf-fans
Agree with comments on here about some of our past and present players. Dale Stephens gets a lot of abuse, which I think is totally unwarranted, as does Danny Green. Do the idiots who abuse our players think it makes them have a better game?
Sadly ignorance is bliss!
Find these people are very helpful:
http://blurtitout.org/
http://www.sane.org.uk/
While I'm completely on board about the abuse and pressure I believe that footballers should be treated the same as normal people. The suicide rate is actually very low. It's terribly sad when it happens, but there's been a handful of cases. The rate for marine engineers, dentists and people in the finance industry is much higher. The BBC is unlikely to bother to make a show about that because some financial advisor offing himself isn't going to get the interest and outpouring of praise that a show programme about some silly bollocks like Lee Hendrie that squandered his talent and cash, having a bit of a cry for help and a whinge about how difficult it is if you got forty grand a week and assumed that you were on that for life. I suppose it's a good thing if it makes people think about the abuse that they hand out to players, but there's a paradox in centring a programme around the inequitable way that footballers are treated, treating them inequitably.
Few professionals are 'roboticised' and disciplined as much as soldiers, they just get on with a very dangerous and sometimes messy job. Even warehouse and factory workers must carry out the same repetitive tasks day in year out for minimum wage. How potentially demoralising is that.
I am totally against 'scapegoating' and the almost ritual humiliation that some players must go through. When this comes from their own fans it must be very disturbing. Once more, if you can't take it find another job.
I believe that Carlisle had some personal issues as a younger man and has overcome them. I am sure that he means well and could be a great help to some young professionals. However, Carlisle is in danger of becoming football's resident 'amateur' yet well paid psychiatrist as well as a deep thinking and erudite media pundit now that he has left his role as PFA chairman. I wish him and all young professional footballers well, but there are far more pressing problems in society than the woes and pitfalls inherent in professional sport.
I thought the people that Clarke interviewed were very good, including, it must be said, our friend from Crystal Palace. The only one who fell short of the mark was David Bernstein who tried to bluff that the FA had programmes for these sorts of things when he hadn't the faintest idea.
What came over clearly was how he felt after losing a play off final and the emphasis he put on missing a chance to win the game.
Interesting stuff and much food for thought.
But Clarke's erstwhile manager, Aidy Boothroyd, came across as lacking in gorm too.
Odd though that Clarke needed Leon McKenzie to suggest that the PFA should set up a dedicated hotline to provide an immediate point of contact for players.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b036x8d2/Footballs_Suicide_Secret/
Seeing as he was the narrator and main focus for the programme of course it all came back to him. He was speaking first hand about his experiences, and in doing so has become the first footballer to try and challenge the taboo of mental health in sport. The cases of Enke and Speed demonstrated that this can affect anyone...even those at the absolute peak of the profession.
The programme was not about seeking sympathy for the sufferers but a plea for understanding. The case in point is when Boothroyd told the rest of the squad that Carlisle had flu as the reason for not training. That typifies the current thinking and if programmes like this and people like Clark Carlisle change that then it can only be a good thing.
To suggest that the PFA should set up a special telephone line for suicidal footballers is just insane, how would they pay for the experience needed to handle maybe one or two calls a season? They suggested they had no one they felt they could call I found myself thinking that the Samaritans are good enough for the rest of us.
Event when they talked about their new facilities for sufferers they announced with grandoise that they now allowed other sports professionals to use it and not just footballers.
I'm ashamed to say but I thought it was a bit 'poor little rich boy'.
First, Sporting Chance is a charity: it was set up by Tony Adams initially for footballers and although it receives significant funding from the PFA it is not now football-centric but for professionals in sport generally.
Second, you mention people in other occupations having to put up with the regular run-of-the-mill services like the Samaritans and wonder why footballers can't use their services. Well, your assertion might look good on the front page of The Mail or Sun but is just not true. Many, many professions have dedicated help teams for people working in their specialism. Why should footballers be different? For example for your list of professions there's the Guild of Benevolence of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology; the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust are "currently offering a confidential, psychotherapeutic service tailored to the needs of doctors and dentists"; and the Bank Workers Charity look after, well, bank workers. But I'm sure there are very many others. If any professionals are feeling left out of having their own in-house shrink, I'm sure they are free to set up their own charities to provide accordingly. Why should professional footballers who have a very particular set of issues to deal with not have something similar? Particularly as, in my experience, enlightened employers in all fields provide for mental health issues amongst their staff.
Third, you wonder how the PFA could afford a hot-line service. Well, the PFA pays its Chief Executive iro £1mn a year, so I don't suppose the cost of the phone and someone to answer it is either here nor there.
I understand Sporting Chance is a charity, in my opinion there seemed to be - in that programme - a condicending attitude to the fact that they now allow other sports in, like they want to be totally special but are now allowing ther people that they consider 'just special enough'. I have nt met anyone who runs the charity and have no idea if this is an attitude felt by many. It is simply the way it was put across by Clarke Carlise.
The charities that you mention are charities providing a number of services to people in those fields. The PFA also has a charity which does a large amount of work, including funding the service above. It also provides councilling for their members (although this is centered around youngsters being dropped which I personally feel is a bigger issue). They also run a lot of training courses for people who didn't make it.
What was asked for was an emergancy helpline specifically for footballers, specifically in the event of urgent suicidal thoughts. I simply pointed out that this would not be finacially viable in a field where it is not such a big concern. I note that in some of the other fields you mention suicide is a much bigger issue and therefore they may well provide a service specifically for this.
I happen to agree with jdsd that providing funds to the samaritans, and widley distributing their contact details would be a much better way of dealing with this.
Of course all professionals are entitled to have their unions or professional organisations set up whatever services they feel their members need. However, how many times has the Guild of Benevolence of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology, the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust or the Bank Workers Charity had their services featured prime time on BBC 1?
As for your third point, I feel you have exposed yourself a bit there. Do you have any idea what it takes to set up and run a helpline for people with sucididal tendancies, you don't just bung someone a few quid, install a phone line and off you go. You have to provide training, 24/7 cover and support for the people receiving the call. It is a very complex service which can be disaterous if not done properly.
But that aside the PFA is a union, it is like any other union - run by its members. They will agree the chief execs salary and how they want to run their organisation. If the members wanted a 24/7 helpline run they would simply instruct on their union to do so, and the union would have to do so. The answer to this problem is firmly in the hands of the players themselves - it does not need public opinion on their side to acheive it.