Would it happen under fergie?

"Fergie wouldn't stand for it", "Imagine that happening under fergie" and "Player Power is too much nowadays, this wouldn't happen under Fergie". These are all statements that we've heard a number of times since Sir alex ferguson's retirement in 2013. such statements have become even more prevalent in recent weeks and months amid talks of dressing room leaks and unrest. but what if i told you that while Sir alex ferguson wouldn't have likes to, he would probably have had to stand for it.

nostallgia can be a wonderful thing at times. Thinking back to the glory days of yesteryear is what many manchester united fans have fouind comforting in these uncertain times, post fergie. listening to most fans they would have you believe, United; never lost a game, never conceded a goal, played every team off the park with eye catching displays and won every trophy under the sun for 27 years. Which are quite obviously not true. While things on the pitch were, terrific and sir alex's dreams were fulfilled in the form of a united empire that boasts 38 honours, player power did need to be kept in check.

during the time where the united empire, ruled these shores and conquered europe on two occasions, sir alex ruled with an iron fist. those that strayed from discipline, quickly knew about it, and wouldn't dare try cross the scotsman again. the stories of his spies catching party boys Lee Sharpe and Ryan Giggs, as well as his itchy trigger finger when handling his famed hairdryer. also not to mention a wand of a left foot that could accurately make stray boots find his target. Those that crossed fergie, never really lived to tell the tale, metaphorically of course as many since have...

But what about times fergie let things slide?

It's been well documented that fergusoin had favourites. it was credit to the mans genius man management that Sir alex knew when and on whom his tactical outburts should be used. Eric Cantona was the man that got away with it all, rarely if ever feeling the might of fergie's wrath - but why? it's simple.

With the ability to win games on his own, Fergie recognised the importance of cantona. as was with the frenchman's temprament, Cantona needed special treatment. kick a fan? no problem, deserving of the hairdryer? nope you'll just get a pat on the back and someone else can feel it. the genius is that it paid off. four league titles including two league and fa cup doubles, is a just return for letting a few things slide. the key with cantona was his importance to the club.

In the modern game, the harsh reality is that players are brands that sometimes superceed the sport. therefore especially at a club that arguably values profit margins over points accumulated you might suggest that the brands are more important to the club. players are more powerful than managers and their words hold more weight. where in the past, the managers were the most important employee in terms of decisions and respectabnility, this simply is'nt the case anymore.

So would fergie accept some of the things we've seen from united players? players contradicting managers on social media would only continue, players now have a voice and now have a right to use social media. players opting to "take breaks" at will rather than play, would also continue because the player's health means alot more to the club, so the club has no choice to cater to the whill and whim of individuals.

The answer to the question is in the difference in times. Fergie oversaw a united team in a different era of football and society. so would sir alex in his hayday let these things slide - no. But would a modern day fergie, hve to put up with the current climate of footballers with no protest - yes.

a simple case of a different time in football.