Football has lost its heart

John Terry, the legendary Chelsea defender, played his last game for the club against Sunderland this past weekend. He has served his team and country faithfully for 20-odd years and it is now time for him to move on.

But what should have been a momentous occasion turned into a bit of a firestorm. Terry, whose team number was 26, requested to be withdrawn from the match in the 26th minute so he could go out in a blaze of glory. His manager, Antonio Conte, agreed and worked out an arrangement with Sunderland coach David Moyes so that Sunderland would allow the ball to exit the field at the stipulated time, allowing the game to be stopped for the substitution to occur. It should be noted here that Moyes and Sunderland were amenable to the idea.

The plan went ahead. In the 26th minute, the Sunderland goalkeeper kicked the ball out. The Chelsea players lined up into a guard of honour to salute their captain, leader and legend. Match referee Neil Swarbrick held the ball under his arm and joined in the applause.

Any fan will tell you that loyalty is a rare thing in football these days. One-club men like Ryan Giggs and Steven Gerrard are a dying breed in a world where players change hands as fast as club owners can write the cheques (or click the button on the online transaction platform, but "write the cheques" has a nicer ring to it). And who can blame them? Anybody would go where the money is.

So the truth is that Terry deserves some respect for staying on at Chelsea all the way to the end of his career. We commemorated the retirements of Giggs, Gerrard and others with misty eyes. Sure, they had arguably less of an ego and didn't ask for a grand send-off gesture like Terry did, but after all the guy has done, I think he's entitled to a little song and dance.

But now people are up in arms, saying that the whole affair epitomises how football has turned into a soap opera. I'm not a fan of Terry or Chelsea, being a lifelong supporter of Manchester United, so I think it's fair to say that my view that the detractors are overreacting is impartial. These people need to ask themselves: Why do we watch football? We watch because we want to be entertained. When we watch, we forget all our problems for those 90 precious minutes of escapism. And which parts of football do we find exciting? Apart from seeing a perfect team move or solo display of brilliance, we love it when passions boil over and managers and players create dramatic scenes on the touchline. We get a thrill from the rollercoaster ride of elation and anguish when our teams go through good and bad spells of form. In short, emotions drive football.

Isn't this exactly that? Simply a harmless spot of emotional expression in a sport which thrives on it. What is so bad about indulging one guy's ego for a bit, when that guy has done so much? After all, the game had nothing riding on its outcome. Chelsea were already confirmed as champions the week before and Sunderland had been mathematically relegated for weeks.

Maybe it's because Terry never had the cleanest of noses. He was racist and had sex with his friend's wife. But still, we should compartmentalise our negative feelings for him because of these transgressions. He served his sentences for those sordid deeds. Now go lightly on him will you?

And now to make matters worse, the Football Association is talking about punishing the parties involved for match fixing. This is one of the stupidest trumped-up charges I have ever heard of. If a goalkeeper fails to save a shot on purpose so that his team will lose, that's match fixing. If a striker deliberately smashes the ball over the goal from a metre away, that's match fixing. For a player to orchestrate a minute-long display to celebrate his own achievements... I don't think it's match fixing.

The FA argued that some bookmakers offer odds on when throw-ins are awarded during matches, and by putting on this show for Terry, the clubs have unfairly affected the result of those bets. What, are we protecting gamblers from their own silly decisions now? They chose to play on those particular types of bet, and they should bear the consequences fully.

This whole ordeal reminds me of those times when a player scores a goal and celebrates by revealing an undershirt with a slogan in support of some cause, and receives a yellow card sanction from the referee. By the letter of the law, referees are required to issue yellow cards to players who lift up or remove their jerseys to show off a slogan hidden beneath. But what if the slogan isn't inflammatory or commercial in nature? Shouldn't players be allowed, indeed encouraged, to use their fame and global appeal for a positive impact? Let's say there was a natural disaster or major terrorist attack. I think footballers are the perfect platform to disseminate a rallying call, getting people to know about the problem and help to solve it. Unfortunately, lawmakers don't see it that way, so the rule remains a blanket one and players continue to be penalised for doing good.

As in many arenas which have grown too large and flush with too much cash, football, or rather the people in charge of overseeing it, has lost its heart. It no longer has compassion, wistful sentimentality, and soul.

And that is a shame.