Emilio Andreoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

On the eve of A.C. Milan’s European Champions League match with F.C. Zurich in Switzerland, and days after his thunderous goal against Sampdoria, midfielder Clarence Seedorf answered New York Times readers’ questions. This is the latest installment in a monthly discussion series with Seedorf. Previous discussions can be found here.

Q.

In your opinion, what are the five most pressing concerns plaguing football today? As players, are your opinions heard or even considered? How may the fans help out?

Rick Olivaries, Manila, Philippines

A.

1.Lack of transparency.

2. Resistance to use more technology.

3. Market value destruction, with all the high amounts of money to pay for players and there are no ratings, no way to value.

4. Too many games. Lots of quantity, but less quality of the games in general. And this is also linked directly to…

5. Increasing injuries.

These are the five aspects I’m worried about.

I think there’s still a lack of awareness even from players, but sooner or later things will start changing. Players will speak out a little bit more. But first they need to be more organized, to add value to the beautiful game.

Fans show by the questions they’re asking me, that they are already aware. I would encourage them to keep on connecting with their favorite players and myself to spread the word. And be a voice for them. The game is not only about football players but especially who is watching us because they made the sport what it is today.

Q.

Hi Clarence. Thanks for your time.

Given the widespread and well-documented use of steroids in other sports (American baseball, for example), do you worry about their impact on professional football?

Second, much has been made of the ongoing investigation into match fixing in Europe. What, if anything, can be done to ensure that the game is an honest competition of 11-a-side?

–

– Michael Miller, Mexico City



A.

No, I’m not so worried about that. I think in football, it’s not very common to use drugs, and you definitely don’t play better using drugs in football. Maybe other sports where its much more physical.

In football, it’s about the health in general that players should be worried about.

I’ve heard a few interviews about the match-fixing investigation. It’s difficult to control everything in football. The football market is a big market. So to be able to control everything it should be a smaller market. Smaller and, in many ways, better, is what I have been saying for quite a while and what I see in the future is there will some day be a European league – the N.B.A. of football. Right now, it’s just too big to control everything in football.

If they want to control it more, and eliminate corruption, then the government should enter in the game, because as it happened in Italy, in the Calciopoli case in 2006, it went on at the highest stage, and it was eventually a legal case.

If government authorities get interested to help this beautiful game become more transparent, then they are the ones that need to help because I have a feeling it will be very difficult for FIFA and UEFA to investigate things that are not their own home. They can just do so much.

Football is one environment. That it happened in Italy it is not a big surprise that it has happened in other places too. But it goes to my first point I mentioned — a lack of transparency. When there is a lack of transparency, there is space for corruption. The more lack of transparency, the more space for corruption. More and more transparent, less and less chance to be corrupt in this world.

Q.

Mr. Seedorf,

It is indeed a beautiful game, and your play has made it even more so over the years.

Some thoughts on the game from an American:

Do you find the system of yellow and red cards to be draconian? Two yellows in one world cup round = a one-game suspension in the next game? Is this fair?

And when a player is red carded and ejected, must the entire team be penalized by having to play with 10 men on the field for the rest of the game?

Thoughts?

— Leigh, NJ

A.

I think that you can discuss these things and come up with a lot of solutions. I think it is O.K., two yellow cards and you miss a game. In the World Cup, there are only seven games, maximum, so I think it is good. It is better for the game because you will see less hard or stupid tackles and it will protect the offensive side of football. So I don’t have any problems with that really. I don’t see anything that is really negative on this, even the red card.

I think it depends. Is it direct red? Is it double yellow? Is it a tactical foul, or is it a hard tackle? If I just hold the shirt of a guy going for a counterattack — a tactical foul – and I did it twice, and got caught twice, it would be two yellow cards. I would give the guy one game not two games. If it is a hard tackle and a direct red, I would give the guy two games or three.

Here you should have a committee of referees who watch the game on TV and consider the replay and decide with a clear conscience the gravity of the tackle. I would do it during the game, but then we come back to the need for the use of technology. I would do it during the game, because some tackles seem harder than they are at the time. Sometimes you think he didn’t touch the ball, but he touched it completely.

Referees should be helped by technology. It only takes three seconds. I watch football and sometimes you have to wait 5 or 10 seconds just for the ball to be thrown back in the game again when it goes out of bounds. So I think we can wait three seconds to check with this committee of referees who use technology or video replay to help the referee make the best decision possible.

When I talk about technology, video replay, yes, but not only. There is Goal Fantasma (sensor technology) that should be applied for all the lines, but especially goals and off sides. Look at tennis, they’re even using technology more and more in other sports. I go crazy when I see certain sports applying such simple things that add value to the game.

Even let the coach decide when. Give him three calls in each half that he can request to get the replay. Use the moviola, that’s what we call the video replay in Italy. That’s what they do all week on TV. What they don’t use during the game, that’s all they do on TV all week, over and over again. It’s putting pressure on the referees. The referees don’t have an opportunity to defend their judgment or their choices. If it can be justified by video replay or the referee can explain what he’s whistling for, it is an educational opportunity.

If I were a sponsor, I would want them to use some of the things that can be added value to football. I would go crazy as a sponsor, for example, that I have to depend on the eye of the referee, when I spend millions of dollars on a team and the referee can miss something. Fans too. We play with people’s feelings and we play with people’s money. We should try to play less with it.

Q.

Hi Clarence, I love the flow and beauty of soccer; however, I’ve recently become exasperated with all the diving, faking injury, and rolling around on the ground in agony. I’ve often commented to my wife that many players, when tackled, react as if they’d been shot by a sniper in the stands. The histrionics have gotten to such an extreme that it becomes distracting. I begin to doubt the game’s authenticity, like watching a pro wrestling match.

Many people want to know what soccer can do to change this. But I want to know how all this is seen by those who play the game. When a player is rolling around on the ground trying to draw a whistle, a card or a penalty, are you as exasperated as I am? Do you think it demonstrates a lack of respect for the game, or — as my wife argues — is it as essential to the game as the ball itself?

A.

I totally agree. I feel the same way. And this is not in all countries the same. In England it is much less.

I think it would help to use some rugby rules here. When someone is lying on the ground, let the doctor enter, remove him and let the game go on. It will help because a team will be left right away with 10 players and nobody wants to be at a disadvantage.

And with the diving, even if they were caught by the camera, the referee may miss it. Nothing happens to that player. That is the reality of the game today. If a player is a good actor and he does it at the right moment, he can take it and get an advantage. These are possibilities in the game today. You can’t always blame the player if those are the rules, even if I think the players who do this are wrong and we should be as sporting as possible. It is not part of my game. I get quite irritated even when my teammates do it.

But the diving, it can happen sometimes because you expect a tackle. You sometimes go down to minimize the impact. Sometimes it happens that you dive, but not to get the guy a yellow card, but to avoid a hard tackle. It has to do a lot with the reaction after the diving. When you stand up, move on, and don’t ask for anything, it’s not a problem. But I think it’s quite clear when a player gets up and is trying to get a foul called or get the player a yellow card.

In the last game with Juventus and Inter Milan, I was quite disappointed at one point when both players were hit in one spot and they were both keeping their hands on their faces even though they were hit elsewhere. It is a bit of a lack of respect of the game. It is like you’re acting like a wimp. Don’t be a wimp.

Q.

Hi Clarence, When discussing with friends about the Henry’s handball, I tend to get two polarized reactions: one kind of fans says that is unacceptable and they feel the integrity of soccer is at stake; another kind of fans holds that that is “part of the game”. What is part of the game and what is not, from a player’s perspective?

Thank you very much,

Alberto

A.

This is definitely not part of the game. I think Thierry Henry is one of best players in the world, but I didn’t like his reaction after the goal was scored. He could have at least enjoyed it less. I think the integrity of the game has been touched heavily, even by the decisions made afterward. I don’t want to make a statement on the decisions that should have been made, but it was definitely very questionable for the credibility of this game to have a whole country not being able to make the World Cup. Maybe they wouldn’t have gone to World Cup either way, because France would have scored another goal in a moment, but it made a difference.

I felt an injustice was made and I think the game should have been played again, or something should have happened in that sense. I don’t think it is right for the game. It’s not about France or Ireland anymore. It’s about the game.

I can understand that Henry did what he did because you don’t really think of those things when the ball is so close to your body like that. But it would be something if Henry said to the referee, “I took it with my hand.” Because, it didn’t just touch his hand, he took his hand to it. I would have expected something different from his perspective. But talking afterward is difficult. This situation would have been solved easily with more technology applied to the game at the time.

Let’s just say I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed with everything that happened. I can only see what I can see. It was disappointing and could be prevented. In my opinion, it’s not going to help to put more people out there, even two people on the goal line. You can only see what you can see with the eye. And it costs more to have more people on the ground. Technology would cost less in the long term. The most important thing is keeping it fair.

Q.

As a member of the Dutch squad for many years I was hoping you could talk about some of the turmoil that has plagued Oranje in the past, specifically the infighting and rumors of racial tension between players of Suriname descent and the coaching staff. If any of this is true, do you think it kept the Dutch from winning the World Cup? With their recent run of form and the label of the best team never to win what do you think their chances are this year, and are there any of the problems of the past in this squad?

Hartelijk dank,

Nick



A.

No, these type of problems never existed. Simply never existed and still don’t exist. And yes it is a team that could potentially have won much more, and they could potentially win more in the future, but it depends on what they do on the field.

They’ve always tried to make it a racial issue but it has never been a racial issue. The Dutch have performed quite well. World Cup 1998, semifinal. 2000 European Championship, semifinal. Euro 2004, semifinal again. It’s not that they performed badly, it’s just that last step to the final that they’ve not made.

Q.

What are your thoughts on implementing a salary cap, or at least closing the financial gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs in European leagues? Honestly, I get sick of seeing the same three to four teams at the top of the standings every year (La Liga, Serie A, E.P.L., etc.). Don’t you think league play would be more interesting if the top players were more evenly distributed around each league?

Thanks, Jeremy C.



A.

No, not in football. You have to create a European league and then apply what you’re saying.

And it’s not just salaries. Living in Milan or living in Catania are two quite different things. I don’t think it is something you can apply across the board because it’s not just about the contract, but about where you live. You don’t want to go to places if you can avoid them if there are no international schools for your kids. But if you had a European league, I think, with the big cities that should be involved, and it should be the best of the best, then it can automatically happen, because you can have even competition.

I think if A.C. Milan, Inter and Juventus were playing in the European league, and then you still had the Italian league, you could have something like that. It would be more competitive because A.C. Milan and the others aren’t involved any more and it would be more the same level.

I think that sort of thing could be applied automatically when you have a European league, the N.B.A. of football.

Q.

The World Cup draw was held last week. What do you make of the Group of Death?

A.

We have seen the group with Brazil and I think that is the tough group. Ivory Coast, if they come out good from the group, we have to keep an eye on them to do quite well. They are not lucky, because last time, in 2006, they were with Argentina and Holland. This time, they have another tough group with Brazil and Portugal.

Also, Italy, on paper, have an easier group, but Paraguay can be difficult. The Dutch have an easier group on paper, but Denmark can be tough. And Cameroon is one of the better African teams. The Americans and the English squad, I think they are the favorites to go on.

Q.

You told me that you thought the Africans would play like they have wings. Who are the best African teams?

Ghana and Ivory Coast are the better ones, with the most quality. And Cameroon are a very good team. And Nigeria had been good, but I haven’t followed them very close.

It’s going to be very interesting because I know they will be flying all over the field and rightly so. They have to make their people proud and make the continent proud. And they have the responsibility and joy – I say joy because it really is a joy to make their people proud and play the World Cup on their own continent for the first time.