Comment Metro Sport ReporterTuesday 21 May 2019 2:32 pmShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link768Shares UEFA hit back at Arsenal over decision to leave Henrikh Mkhitaryan out of their Europa League final squad Henrikh Mkhitaryan has made 11 appearances for Arsenal in this season’s Europa League (Picture: Getty)‘We have thoroughly explored all the options for Micki to be part of the squad but after discussing this with Micki and his family we have collectively agreed he will not be in our travelling party.‘We have written to UEFA expressing our deep concerns about this situation. Micki has been a key player in our run to the final so this is a big loss for us from a team perspective.‘We’re also very sad that a player will miss out on a major European final in circumstances such as this, as it is something that comes along very rarely in a footballer’s career.‘Micki will continue to be part of our preparations until we depart for Baku at the weekend.’More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing Arsenal Henrikh Mkhitaryan will not feature in Arsenal’s upcoming Europa League final against Chelsea (Picture: Getty)UEFA have hit back at Arsenal over their decision to leave Henrikh Mkhitaryan out of their Europa League final squad, claiming the north London club received assurances regarding the Armenian’s safety from ‘the highest authorities’ in Azerbaijan.The former Manchester United star has played a prominent role in Arsenal’s run to the final against Chelsea, which is scheduled to take place in Baku next Wednesday, but the 30-year-old will take no part amid safety fears following discussions with his club.UEFA, however, insisted they helped devise a comprehensive plan but respect Arsenal’s reluctant decision to leave out one of their highest-earning players.AdvertisementAdvertisementA statement read: ‘Working alongside Arsenal FC, UEFA sought and received assurances regarding the player’s safety in Azerbaijan from the highest authorities in the country.ADVERTISEMENTMore: FootballRio Ferdinand urges Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to drop Manchester United starChelsea defender Fikayo Tomori reveals why he made U-turn over transfer deadline day moveMikel Arteta rates Thomas Partey’s chances of making his Arsenal debut vs Man City‘As a result of these guarantees, a comprehensive security plan was developed and given to the club.‘While the club acknowledges the efforts that UEFA and the Azeri government have gone to in this matter, we respect the personal decision not to travel with the player.’Arsenal had earlier said in a statement of their own on the club’s official website: ‘We are very disappointed to announce that Henrikh Mkhitaryan will not be travelling with the squad for our Uefa Europa League final against Chelsea. Advertisement Advertisement
Flag Order, Press Release Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf has ordered all commonwealth flags on the Capitol Complex and throughout the City of Philadelphia to fly at half-staff to honor fallen Philadelphia firefighter Lieutenant Kenneth Greene.Lieutenant Kenneth Greene passed away on September 14th from injuries sustained while working in the line of duty on September 3rd.The Commonwealth Flag shall remain lowered at half-staff until his interment. The United States Flag should remain at full-staff during this tribute. September 15, 2017 Governor Wolf Orders Flags at Half-Staff to Honor Fallen Firefighter Kenneth Greene SHARE Email Facebook Twitter
Q: Do you think college athletes deserve to unionize?Nourian: I don’t believe they have the right to unionize because, at the end of the day, they are student-athletes of the university, not employees. Players unionizing to collectively bargain calls into question the aspect of amateurism among these athletes and jeopardizes the integrity of college athletics. These players were initially recruited to play for their respective schools and represent their colors loud and proud, while receiving a discounted and quality education simultaneously. This is an opportunity that is rare and not given to everyone, so student-athletes should take advantage of it and embrace their four or five years, rather than trying to “change the game” by forever altering the scope of college athletics.Burton: I’m torn. My first reaction is sure, why not? They work very hard and really do have some extra responsibilities from “normal” students. I do not think they should be paid, however, and I do believe unionization sets us down that path.Hanley: Absolutely. Even if you feel that NCAA athletes should not receive salaries for their play beyond a scholarship, you can still accept their unionization. According to the National College Players’ Association’s website, the group has five goals. Interestingly, as Jason Kirk of SB Nation notes, not one of these goals mentions salary for play. Most of the union’s goals deal with keeping college athletes medically and academically sound, areas in which the NCAA is seriously lacking. Because of the limitations of even a “full” scholarship, many former college football players are left out in the cold when dealing with post-career injuries. All the union seeks to do is improve the lives of these student-athletes in basic areas.Q: Do you think NCAA athletes will receive some form of compensation in the near future?Nourian: No, just simply because it’s not feasible or possible. Like in professional sports, there are big markets (big schools) and small markets (small schools) and there is no universal dollar amount that will make all schools happy.Burton: First of all, a full (or partial) scholarship is a fairly significant form of compensation in and of itself. At USC, the value of a four-year full scholarship is probably in excess of a quarter-million dollars. In the near future, I don’t see that changing.Laws: Yes. The Ed O’Bannon case was one of the first big steps in casting a poor light on the NCAA, which has created a unique situation for itself. The extensive media coverage of college athletics rakes in millions of dollars for the NCAA — but it also has created high-profile personalities out of athletes who were not compensated for their accomplishments in college. Pro-reform advocates and former student-athletes such as Jay Bilas now have enormous platforms on ESPN and other broadcast networks to reveal the hypocrisy of the NCAA and pressure them into paying the college athletes of the future.Selbe: I think that NCAA athletes deserve the freedom to pursue their own personal interests outside of payment from the schools. Players should be able to receive payment for game-used jerseys, tickets or having their likeness used in video games. Punishing players for selling things that belong to them doesn’t seem right to me. Q: Do you think college athletes should receive additional compensation, aside from scholarship benefits?Nourian: I’m all in favor of additional or increased stipends to student-athletes since their job is basically playing varsity athletics and they don’t have time to partake in a separate money-making job. I feel that this would be beneficial in allowing students to make a better and more comfortable living while at school.Selbe: I don’t think schools should have to give athletes more than a scholarship. When people advocate an increase in pay for college athletes, they mostly point to the huge profits that schools make on athletics. But this profit comes almost entirely from football programs (sometimes men’s basketball), and these profit-making programs fund all other athletic programs. I don’t think that schools should have to pay more for athletes of programs that cost the school money in the first place.Hanley: I do, to an extent. A large portion of the obscene amount of money that a university makes from its athletes should be allocated to beefing up the medical and academic resources given to those student-athletes. The question of whether college athletes deserve a pure pay-for-play system, however, troubles me. Whatever its limitations, and there are many, an athletic scholarship is an incredibly valuable resource that should not be taken lightly. At a private school like USC, the monetary value of a full scholarship is $184,000 in tuition alone over four years. At a public school like Arizona State, a four-year full scholarship would be worth $40,000 or less in tuition. I can’t say I’ll ever really know if a college football player deserves more than this for their play. Last week, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that a group of football players at Northwestern had the legal right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, reigniting the age-old debate about whether or not college athletes deserve to be compensated. Daily Trojan sports columnists Nick Selbe, Will Laws, Darian Nourian and Nick Burton as well as Sports Editor Will Hanley gave their opinions on the complexities of the issue regarding paying college athletes.Pay-for-play · Athletic Director Pat Haden has previously stated that student-athletes at USC are treated well and have no reason to unionize. – Ralf Cheung | Daily Trojan Q: If so, would some athletes deserve more than others?Nourian: No, this is exactly why it’s not plausible to actually compensate athletes in the first place. All athletes would have to receive the same benefit or stipend should the system be considered to be fair and nondiscriminatory.Burton: This is actually the very reason I don’t believe college athletes should be paid. It would be logistically impossible. If some make more than others, it’s unfair. If everyone makes the same amount, that is also unfair.Laws: I don’t think so. That could create a hyper-competitive culture within college teams that just wouldn’t feel right among the “purity” of college sports. If college athletes are to be paid for attending a school, they must receive the same amount. And if they’re going to reap the royalties from profits gained from jersey sales and other merchandise that use their likeness, I’d think that there would have to be some sort of revenue-sharing system created to make sure that there’s not any animosity between star players and their lesser-known teammates. Otherwise, the benchwarmers who are still living paycheck to paycheck could grow to harbor feelings of jealousy and inadequacy compared to the big-time players that might have just caught a lucky break where they didn’t.