Wu Lichuan WenOn February 4, Miami International played an exhibition match with the Hong Kong Star Team at the Hong Kong Stadium, and the "ball king" Messi failed to play, as if he released a pigeon in full view, causing great dissatisfaction among fans. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) issued two statements expressing "extreme disappointment", saying that "the organizers owe fans an explanation". The organizer held a press conference on February 5 and said that it would withdraw the application for the HK$16 million** subsidy. This means that the organizers have suffered a huge loss, but for the American team of which Beckham is the owner, it is difficult to say that they have been "punished".
Messi is a superstar with global appeal, and fans naturally come to him to buy tickets. But Messi didn't appear for a minute, which made the fans who spent a lot of money to watch the game become "wronged", and suffered a double loss of material and emotion. After the game, Messi left the field with his hands in his pockets and did not interact with the fans, which further aroused the resentment of the fans. It is regrettable that the ball game, which was originally full of "two-way running", has evolved into such a situation.
Messi did not play, and the reason given by the Miami International coach was injury. But on February 6, Messi's latest response said: I had done an MRI before, which showed that there was no injury, but I still felt uncomfortable.
Out of ethics, no one can force players to play with "injuries", but the reason why Messi's absence was not condoned by the public is mainly because Miami International rejected a workaround. The Hong Kong SAR Bureau of Culture, Sports and Tourism revealed that it had proposed remedial measures to the organizers, including whether Messi could personally explain to the fans, or accept the trophy on behalf of the team, etc., but it did not materialize. In addition, Inter Miami could also consider postponing this match, which is a case to follow. Last month, Ronaldo's Riyadh Victory team was scheduled to play two exhibition matches in China, but it was announced that it would be postponed the day before the start of the match due to Ronaldo's "physical reasons". The organizers and Ronaldo himself publicly apologized, and the organizers also took aftermath measures such as ticket refunds.
Some have interpreted Messi's absence as a disdain for Chinese football. It is not difficult to understand from an emotional point of view, but from a rational point of view, such accusations are not founded. Just last month, Messi was absent from the Footballer of the Year award ceremony and was replaced by Henry to receive the award; Many South Korean fans also remember that Ronaldo did not play in a friendly match with Juventus in South Korea in 2019. This kind of behavior is indeed controversial, but can it be said that Messi despises FIFA and Ronaldo despises South Korean football?
The Messi case still fundamentally does not go beyond the scope of "contract conflict".
Hong Kong's director for culture and tourism revealed the details of the contract for the exhibition match: Messi will have to play 45 minutes except for safety or health reasons. According to this contract, Messi should naturally not hang up the "free card", otherwise there will be a suspicion of breach of contract. But the problem is that the contract is not very tight. What counts as "health reasons"? Does "not hurt but not feeling well" count? In other words, there should be strict provisions on how to define, identify, and respond to "health causes".
In the case of Messi's previous injury and only came off the bench at the end of the Saudi exhibition match, if the contract can explain the "health condition" in more detail and think of a few more plans, it will help to take the initiative. But now it seems that there is probably no follow-up and refinement in the contract, otherwise the organizer will not be at a loss.
In fact, the consequences of an overly general and insufficiently rigorous "health cause" clause were quickly manifested. Before the start of the game, the organizer confirmed that Messi would play in the second half, and after halftime, the SAR ** found that Messi did not play, and the SAR ** coordinated and communicated with the organizer many times to ask Messi to play, but 10 minutes before the end of the game, the organizer confirmed that Messi could not play due to injury. This kind of temporary change of mind in the face of pressure shows that Miami International is "confident" in making the decision not to let Messi play. Messi's "successful" absence can only show that the loophole in the contract has been caught and exploited.
In addition, if the contract stipulates that even if Messi is injured and cannot play, he must explain and interact with the fans, otherwise it will be a breach of contract and he will have to accept the corresponding "penalty", what will be the result?
The commercial competition has the rules of the game of the commercial competition: it is a responsibility and obligation to ensure the appearance of celebrities and create the best sexual effect, and no participant can be special. The most important lesson to be learned from the Messi incident is how to hold similar events in the future to improve the contract more professionally and avoid the absence of key figures that can lead to a farce in the spotlight game.
(The author is a senior ** person).