Alexander Isak's dissent proves inherent CONTRADICTION in football | OneFootball

Alexander Isak to Liverpool could have been a straightforward transfer move, yet it's been anything but easy.

Of course, given the high-profile nature of the player, and the amount of money likely to be involved in a deal for him to leave Newcastle, it was inevitably going to be a bit of a teething process, but almost out of nowhere, things have turned really sour and two tribalistic fanbases are now going at it.

🔴 Shop the LFC 2025/26 adidas home range

Shop the LFC Store

🚨2025/26 LFC x adidas range🚨

LFC x adidas

Shop the away range TODAY

LFC x adidas

Shop the home range today!

LFC x adidas

Shop the goalkeeper range today

LFC x adidas

Shop the new adidas range today!

In a nutshell, Isak's frustrations appear to stem from a 'promise' or 'gentleman's agreement' if not for a better term, where he believed that a wage package that better reflects his ability would be agreed.

Players considered to be 'world class' earn around £250,000 a week or more and the Swede's status in the Premier League couldn't really be any higher, he's one of the main names in this country.

As such a £150m valuation was put on his head, despite the Magpies not wanting to consider letting him leave this summer. Liverpool approached with a £110m plus add-ons bid to open a dialogue, yet nothing has since transpired as Newcastle haven't made any attempt to negotiate a move for him.

Striker targets to play alongside Isak - and then subsequently to replace him - have come and gone, and after the Reds took over negotiations to sign Hugo Ekitike, it seemed as though a move for Isak was no longer possible, but optimism slowly grew that both players could end up on Merseyside.

🔴 Shop the LFC 2025/26 adidas away range

If we skip forward roughly a month, we've now had a statement from Isak and a statement from Newcastle and the situation has become incredibly hostile. A far greater picture of how football clubs are run has now been painted and it's a fascinatingly contradictory world behind the sport we all love.

Loyalty ceases to exist anymore and the dynamic between players and clubs can be extremely brutal.

Is 'player power' a thing?

In a quick response to this question, the obvious answer is yes. Isak has gone AWOL (absent without official leave) this summer - training elsewhere, refusing to play matches and making statements.

As mentioned earlier, he feels as though he's being refused something he's owed, i.e., a new contract, and so he feels it's his right to essentially go on strike. Anfield Watch has looked at the issue of dissent before, since Yoane Wissa and Viktor Gyokeres also behaved in a similar manner.

It's not right, players are under contract and they should agree to the terms they signed when they initially arrived. At the very least, there are basic standards to be met. We expect them to behave.

But this is where footballers are completely different to us ordinary people. In most jobs, you have a right to strike if you don't feel the conditions you're working in are fair. You can quit with a month's notice and your employers can sack you if they feel you are not doing your job properly. It's brutal.

Well, players don't have the same rights. Their contracts are different and time-bound, the wages are incomparable and they're all doing what most of us dream of... playing football for a living. FIFA has a regulation called Article 17 which could allow a player to leave, in the middle of their contract if a certain criteria is met and a certain amount of compensation is paid - ESPN have more on this.

In general, however, once you're under contract, the player has to serve their time unless it's mutually agreed that transferring elsewhere would beneficial. In the Isak saga, the main reasons why he's been unable to get his wish of a move away has been because of Liverpool's financial offering and primarily because Newcastle can't find any replacements that want to join Eddie Howe's project.

Unlike you and me in our jobs, his chances of leaving are now limited. He could make a transfer request or he could attempt to force some legal action, but his 'freedom of movement' is limited.

Newcastle fans are hoping he's sent to the U21s to 'rot' for the remaining three years of his deal as he doesn't have a release clause that could be triggered and the 'conditions of his sale' won't be met.

Once a player announces their intention to leave, clubs rarely get in the way, although in this case, the Magpies have decided to use their right to keep him - which is dividing a lot of public opinion.

But let's take a look at things from a different perspective. Contracts are rarely fulfilled to their end, since there is the threat of players leaving for free when you get to the last year of their deal, and transfer fees are imperative for a football club's business model - Liverpool have spent a lot on recruitment the summer, but almost £200m has flooded in from sales. It's been an insane summer.

Players leaving mid-way through their contracts is normal, they might fancy a different challenge and the club might want a fresh player in to impact the team in a different way. Details such as their injury record, their age, their wage and all sorts of other things go into assessing a player's future.

The club's make the decisions and while 'personal terms' matter, the players can rarely manufacture a move for themselves, as we've seen with Isak's attempt to join Liverpool this summer. It's not easy.

Whereas, if Newcastle wanted rid of Isak and punished him in a variety of different ways like signing players to play ahead of him and giving him no minutes, making him feel isolated, then he could - in a sense - be held hostage. The club might ship him off if it's in their best interest, and he might agree to leave since he feels he has no other choice, but that might not be looked at in the same way as Isak's actions this summer are being seen. It's here where I feel a contradiction exists in football.

I must add, this is merely a speculative opinion, but I have a lot of sympathy for Nicolas Jackson at Chelsea, who signed an eight year deal in 2023 until 2031 and subsequently agreed a two-year extension in 2024 to take his contract until 2033. The optics of that blow my mind, as you feel like must have been given the impression he'd be an integral player for the Blues across the next decade.

Instead, we've seen Joao Pedro and Liam Delap signed in his place, making him third choice at best in his position and reports are claiming that it's hoped he will leave on a permanent departure, which seems baffling. He's done nothing wrong whatsoever, yet if he had behaved like Isak, then the Newcastle faithful would have him rot for the remainder of his deal. This perspective troubles me.

Players can leave and should feel entitled to push for a move whenever they want. If they dissent in any way, then we enter a grey area about how club's should manage the situation, but Isak has every right to want to move, despite his actions which have now caused hysteria. And this is regardless of the fact that Newcastle can't find a replacement for him, he's entitled to go - in my view at least.

So while aspects of 'player power' exist, it will always be the clubs that have the final say, for the betterment or detriment of the beautiful game. There is hypocrisy and contradictions. There always has been and always will be. It just feels right to reiterate that this is the reality every now and then.

There are constant

Whichever way Newcastle and Isak's saga concludes over the next few years, there really won't be a fair way to judge whether what happened was right or not, but it's certainly helped to awaken me that there's a fine line when it comes to loyalty and in a flash it could be gone. If there even was any.

**🔴 **Shop the LFC 2025/26 adidas home range 🔴