As a man who appreciates beautiful women, my oft-wandering eye is regularly met with disapproval and remarks such as "She's not a piece of meat!" or "There's more to a woman than her looks!" or "She's probably a bitch!", such is society's general perception of physically attractive women.

The average spectator's first reaction to any display of visual desire for something - human (sexual), material or natural (not so much) - is always one of haughty disapproval coupled with a self-righteous, indiscriminate labelling of the 'looker' as nonspiritual, superficial, heartless and 'shallow'. But what does it mean to be shallow? A dictionary definition enlightens, as usual:

Lacking depth of intellect, emotion, or knowledge.

So to prejudge someone as being shallow in light of an admirer's approval of someone for their good looks is to assume that this is where the qualifying of a potential partner stops. As the definition states, to qualify someone based solely on their looks is to be indifferent toward that person’s personality, the looks being enough to satisfy one’s evident lack of intellectual depth and emotion. To the humanpreneur, though, having good looks is merely a foot in a door - a big foot in the door for an attractive woman, and a minor step for a good looking man.

When it comes to physical beauty, men and women are similar in that they are attracted to it, but that's where the similarities end. If a woman is physically attractive, it's a big plus in the eyes of admiring men. Further, interestingly, generally, a woman's self confidence is directly proportionate to her looks. The more beautiful the woman, the more life-smart she is likely to be.

Women of beauty, from an early age, have had a lot of attention growing up which they quickly build upon and turn into self-awareness, self confidence and guile. With good looking men, there is no such correlation. Handsome men are not as sought after professionally or emotionally as beautiful women. For men, a strong, dominant, ambitious personality, along with humour, social intuition, wealth, good health and good social value - are more vital characteristics for life progression and the attracting of women.

For an attractive man, when he approaches an attractive woman, his good looks are merely a foot in the door and that's it. If the man hasn't got the chops to back it up, he's toast - and the more beautiful the woman, the quicker he'll likely fry, since her value will likely be superior to his. Value attracts equal value, so a high value male will likely attract equally high value females.

And, interestingly, since beautiful, feminine looks are important as far as men's idea of their ideal women are concerned (for evolutionary reasons of their likelihood of bearing beautiful, healthy offspring), and since women of beauty generally 'have their shit together', a man of high value will most likely be seen with a beautiful woman/women. So the level of beauty of a man's female partner is a good barometer of his self confidence and value.

Conversely, when a good looking man has a female partner whom isn't particularly attractive, he is labelled as not being shallow - the ugliness of a woman serving as as an indicator of the level of a man's genuinity: the uglier the woman, the more genuine the man is perceived to be. Meaning that he must actually be with the woman because of her personality, since she is ugly enough not to be attractive to men.

But this would be to assume that he was in fact attracted to her personality. Who's to say he is not with her for another reason entirely? Such is the prejudice of the ignorant. The truth is that the man with the unattractive partner is most probably unconfident, or has low self esteem.

Some men will often say they are not attracted to overly attractive girls - often referring to them as 'Barbie girls' - as a defence and unwitting admission that they are not high value enough for these girls and, in fact, are intimidated both by them AND the attainment of higher value. They settle for an average, unattractive girl, and hence concede - lying to themselves - that the beauty and brilliance out there that they desire deep down is for 'the lucky few' and not for them.

Men and women tick boxes when sizing up potential partners, whether they know it or not. Looks are generally top of the list for men - including me - when qualifying women. I mean, in a crowded room - and with limited time - a woman's obvious good looks allow me to immediately tick the first box before then moving on to the next criterion.

Next on the list of what men look for are things like age (a man's genes have more chance of replicating with a younger, fitter woman), hip-to-waste ratio, femininity, among others. Women place leadership and social status top, so she - and any potential offspring - will be adequately protected. This is why you can find ugly men with beautiful women. Thus answering that age old question, "What is she doing with him?"

The more boxes someone ticks, the higher their value. Value attracts equal value. A beautiful woman climbs into the passenger seat of a man's expensive sports car - is she after his money? Is he after her looks? Of course, he is after her looks. But as long as he is a humanpreneur, he'll be with her for more than just her good looks.

The expensive sports car is a symbol of the man's wealth and a reflection of his likely high social position and with it signals to the woman his probable ability to provide for a potential family and therefore represents high value to the woman. That's why the woman can be found getting into the sports car - unless she is a golddigger, of course. Similarly, an ambitious man that is at the early stages of his path to success, striving to tick his boxes, can be of equally high quality, since he's on his way. This, too, is attractive to women.

In conclusion, then - yes, it is shallow if looks are your only criterion in assessing your potential intimate partners. But it is also an admission of low value. I've said it many times - VALUE ATTRACTS VALUE. Build your value, and attract what you then deserve. Because there really is more to looks. If you're willing to look.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

If you ask most people what it means to be spiritual, they'll tell you that it means to believe in God. They'll tell you that it means to pray in times of desperation and need. They'll tell you that it means to talk to angels. They'll tell you that it means to be in contact with the 'other side'.

I used to spend time meditating and visualising and drawing 'Angel Cards' and muttering mantras in an effort to 'be in touch with my spiritual side'. I read books on the soul, love, angels, etc. I referred to myself as a spiritual person. I fooled myself, with the aid of the books, into believing that by being in touch with my spiritual side in this way, I was laying the foundation for a solid and moral philosophy that would lead me into a life of integrity.

But after years of living in this way, at the end of it all, I was left looking into a vacant hole where a little thing called happiness should have been - and with it the stark realisation that the stuff doesn't work. It's literally just a waste of time. It's just an alternative for action. Intelligent action. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not completely condemning any form of introspection.

On the contrary, it's intelligent contemplation of my thoughts, feelings and direction that lead me here, to the discovery and undertaking of a life purpose that consumes my entire soul. But there's a big difference between intelligent, rational thinking and reasoning - and the emptying of one's mind or the conversation between invisible fairies and your soul.

So what IS the soul? The soul is not just some ghost that flits from one incarnation to another. But at the same time, we're not simply lumps of flesh. In that respect we, as humans, are no different to any other animal on earth; a butterfly is not simply a lump of flesh. Where we DO differ is the fact that we have a mind capable of choice, or free will. The soul is really the composite of your mind, body and emotions. When one of these dies - you die. End of story.

As I've grown as a person, I've come to realise that, actually, everyone is spiritual. Everyone sane, that is. The reason for this is that to be spiritual is to be in touch with your soul. Your soul - you, your self - can tell when it's happy or not. When you do something wrong by your mind, body, or emotions - it makes you feel bad.

When you do something right by your mind, body or emotions - it makes you feel good. And every sane human seeks to be happy - it's their number one goal. To live otherwise is insane. Everyone seeks to be happy by pleasing themselves - everyone is therefore selfish.

Anyone who practises a life of selflessness - that apparently lives to ignore their soul (mind, body, emotions) - i.e., who lives to deny their own happiness, is either a liar or masochistic (and hence won't live long). These types of people are not spiritual, no matter how adamant they wail that they are.

So, then, if everyone sane is spiritual and lives to be happy, then they welcome - they strive for that which makes them feel good. Anything that makes them feel good. Laughing, good sex, rollercoasters, football matches, fast cars, beachfront properties, a good book, the theatre, sky diving, etc.

With that said, being spiritual does not mean going to a haunted house every Sunday to kneel on a mat and pray to ghosts. It does not mean sleeping on the floor in a mud hut, wearing a loincloth and swatting flies. It also does not mean living in world where money doesn't exist. The mystics would have us believe that to be spiritual is to denounce money and the 'material' as evil. But what is the 'material' exactly? The dictionary definition of 'material' is:

Composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be perceived by the senses.

So, then, the material is anythin that can be touched with your fingers, smelt with your nose, heard with your ears, seen with your eyes, and tasted in your mouth. Anything material you wish to own costs money - clothes, fast cars, good books, beach front properties, mobile phones, cutlery, etc.

So to denounce the 'material' is to denounce not only those things which make you feel good, but also those things that make your life comfortable. To denounce the 'material' is to opt out of a life of comfort and advancement, and in to a life of the Neanderthal. And there's nothing spiritual about that.

Ideally, the solution to a rewarding, spiritual life is to figure out exactly what it is you want to do with your life, shut out everything else that detracts from that, and just do it. So why not just live ideally? Well, if you're anything like I was, you may have qualities, traits and beliefs that you know are not congruent with your purpose, yet are proving just too damn hard to shake-off.

I've shaken-off some of mine. I still have some - sometimes the programming goes deep. But I reasoned that burying my head in an angel book, or meditating, or repeating affirmations until I'm blue in the face - are all not the answer.

No. The answer is smart work. Just like anything in life that you want to become good at. You work out what's holding you back from becoming who you want to become, and you go to work on improving these weak areas. With action. I physically work on my fears everyday, and I can honestly say they are disappearing. No angels. No 'ohm'-ing. No closing my eyes and picturing that which is invisible to me. No tricks. No gimmicks.

Sure, I have pictures and images of my dreams and goals in my line of vision at my desk, but these merely serve to constantly remind me of the prizes waiting for me during my journey. Their attainment will be realised by nothing other than intelligently conceived hard work. Not meditation or affirmations.

It's good to be spiritual. Just not in the way you were thinking.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A few years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine, and he was lamenting about how he was hating being single, and how he wished he could attract a girl into his life. I gave him a couple of tips and suggested he read some books and sign-up for some free email information about how to become more attractive to women.

He immediately dismissed the idea, leaning back and folding his arms, Buddha-like, remarking that he didn't want to - and didn't believe in - "trying to be someone you're not." And that was that. In my life so far, if I've heard that line once, I've heard it a million times. It comes from the same doctrine as classics like, "just be yourself" and "be thankful for what you've got."

So what does someone mean when they say they 'just want to be themselves' and what makes them say it? When is one being someone they're not? What makes someone who they are? Is it right to strive to be 'someone you're not'? What makes someone feel threatened at the mention of striving for something more?

There's a great line from the film, "Batman Begins". I love this film. I love the whole cool, superhero thing. Fighting evil, and being cool with it. Kind of like what I'm doing, here… At one point, our hero, Batman, with dramatic, over-the-shoulder effect, eulogises, "It's what we do that defines us." I have to admit that this line made me think. Is it what we do that defines us?

In some ways, it is. The manner in which someone spends their days says a lot about them. It speaks volumes about their goals, pride, ambition, personality, home life, address, etc. Imagine a road sweeper, for instance. Do you think your typical road sweeper has designs on becoming a surgeon? Probably not. Do you think he can command a room? Probably not. Do you think he lives in a big house? Probably not.

Now consider your average stockbroker. What about him? Do you think he dreams of picking up crisp packets from the motorway? Probably not. Do you think he's a shrinking violet in a public gathering? Probably not. Do you think he lives in a council (producer-funded) property? Probably not.

So with two people at opposite ends of the spectrum, how does one go from spending their days picking up litter, to making a client a cool million in a strategic investment deal? Is it possible to just throw down your broom, squeeze into your one suit that you save for special occasions, march down to the city into the first mirrored skyscraper you see, and get on with your new job of creating millionaires? No.

So whilst 'what we do' does define us to a certain extent (and trust me - it really does) - it's only half the story. It really comes down to VALUE. I've spoken about this before in terms of relationships - business, friends and lovers - and the same philosophy exists when concerning yourself.

Value attracts value. In everything. Anything of a higher value will naturally steer away from that of a lower value, and likewise, anything of a lower value will repel that of a higher value. A person's value is determined by their morals, values, goals, life purpose, ideals, pride and self-respect. A person's material wealth, lovers, friendships, business partners, home, etc, are the physical manifestation of their value.

The road sweeper lives in a council house, drives a spare part patchwork of a car and lives on burgers because he devalues himself by aiming low, and hence his 'career' and subsequent living conditions reflect this. He is not living as a humanpreneur.

The stockbroker, on the other hand, lives with a beautiful woman of clean teeth, drives a Maserati, with a gym membership card in his Valentino suit pocket - all because he values himself highly. He became the high value man that he is, from whatever value starting point (determined by his formative year programming) he was left in, and consequently attracted a lifestyle of equal value.

Value attracts value. EVERYTIME.

Humans are born to search for - and undertake - a life purpose. You can read about mine on the 'About Us' page. I created the word, 'Humanpreneur' to describe the perfect existence of a man: to honour his potential as a human, to strive for something great that asks of him his all, and to validate this with the undertaking of said life purpose.

It took me a while to find my life purpose. A lot of soul-searching. Much trial and error. Multiple discoveries. It wasn't until I was twenty-two - raw from the break-up of my first real relationship - on waking-up the following morning in the bed of strange girl after my first one night stand, and with a new business awaiting my sculpting - that I learnt of another world. A world where I was the boss.

But with the discovery that there was more out there than the society-preached mediocrity, came the realisation that I was a million miles away from the man that was to achieve it. With every two steps forward, came a step backwards. I sometimes didn't like what I found. But I was moulding a vision, and it was too powerful to let go to a fear.

It's far too valuable to sacrifice; and I won't. Anything that surrounds me now is the reflection of my current value, and will be replaced accordingly with alternatives of higher value as I, myself, increase in value. This is surely what being a human being is all about. Anything less is self-sacrifice, is ignoble AND is a concession of defeat to fear and/or laziness.

It's a sad fact that the nearest most people get to increasing their value is the qualification for, and pursuit of a career they don't really want, the justification for which is verbalised with yet another classic nil by mind idiom, "Nobody likes their job, anyway." Yep. Most people will spend years and thousands on a career they forced themselves to undertake because they 'know how it works' and it pays all right. This is not a life purpose, and therefore does not increase your value as it should.

But why will someone happily trip over their pride in their acclamation that it's noble to 'be yourself'? Is it fear of striving for something better? Is it laziness? Consider my friend who waved away the suggestion of becoming the man who would attract the women he wanted, opting instead to remain the same, honouring that time-weathered maxim befitting a tree, "If it happens, it happens."

Yet, conversely, these same people will happily, lovingly spend good time and money increasing their value in 'video game world' blasting cartoon aliens, or down the local pub on their favourite, gold-plated barstool, OR in the town bookkeeper’s, picking a winner from a pack of twenty mutts.

But in reality, these are not overall increases in value, since they do not form part of a life purpose. They are merely pursuits specialised in the act helping one to forget the importance, or indeed the need, of a life purpose. So they ultimately detract from your ultimate value, making you less valuable and bringing you closer to death in the process. Awesome.

As human beings, we have the capacity to be brilliant. We did not build skyscrapers, hospitals and computers by swinging from trees whilst eating bananas. To strive for anything less than what you're capable of is just lazy. Fear may be a reason for your short-shooting thus far, but to concede defeat to it is babyish. I've had my fears throughout my life. I still have some. But I refuse to lay down and let them urinate all over me.

Quite simply, the life that I choose and the life purpose I am pursuing, require me to be a man far in excess of the man I am now. And that's fine. Every day is another battle with my fears, and another step in the direction of becoming that man. I look forward not only to the achieving of my goals, but also of the man that I will have had to become in their realisation.

When someone says to me, "I don't want to be someone I'm not" it never usually fails to invoke anger inside me. My annoyance is down to a complete bemusement at how another human being can happily denounce any pursuit of greatness, in favour for a life of mediocrity. To live below your capability is a complete lack of respect of yourself and your time on this earth. There is no second life waiting at the hands of a scythe-wielding, hooded skeleton.

I have no time for those that wail that the 'good life' is for the 'lucky other half' rebuffing any suggestion that this 'good life' of which they speak is fairly earned, and choosing instead to celebrate a life of self-sacrificial breadcrumb-scrounging. And if you have any respect for your life and time, you should be equally as scrutinous of your human interaction partners.

So, in conclusion: who are you? You are what you value yourself. And your degree of value can be measured by how closely you are living as a humanpreneur, defined as:

1. One who celebrates his being human, respects its potential, a logician, who disregards the supernatural - living only by the objectively proven, and who validates his existence with the choosing and undertaking of a purpose designed to grow himself mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically, with the exercising of his brilliance, thereby enjoying his life in the pursual of a happiness not experienced by other life forms on this earth. 2. One who fights for the freedom of human beings, and who preaches that this is the key to the survival of the human race, its advancement, and, hence, continuation into further generations.

Any step forward as a humanpreneur is an increase in value. Simple as that. If you want the fast cars but don't want to do the things you have to do to attain them, you are admitting low value and the therefore the concession of a life without them. If you want a life of beautiful women, but refuse to change to attract them, you are admitting low value and therefore the concession of a life without them. If you want to speak in front of crowds, but lament that you are too scared to do so, you are admitting low value and therefore the concession of a life without the fruition of this dream.

With the increasing of value comes the losing of some personality traits, and the gaining of others new to you. If you want to be a speaker, and you are shy, you will have to quash the shyness with a new-found strength and confidence. Yes, this means becoming someone you're currently not. This is what life is. Grow or wilt. Be 'yourself' and you're basically admitting that you are not the right person, accepting that you choose to stay the same and thus will live a life devoid of that which you desire.

There is no shame in changing yourself - as long as it's in the right direction - to become something better. You will always be yourself. You may not be the same person at fifty years old as you were when you were ten. But you'll be a new and better version of yourself.

The man was the outspoken one in his class at school, the leader, the house captain. At fifty years old, he now runs his own company with a large staff that all answer to him. His old school friends say, "John's the same man now as he was at school. He never tried to be anyone he was not."

His friend was the shy kid in class, who used to sit at the back of the room, too scared to utter a word lest he turned heads his way and was put on the spot. His school reports documented his failure to participate in class discussions, his inability to lead a group and subsequent poor report grades. As a man, he decided he wanted more out of life, realising that the man he was currently was not going to get him there.

He strives to become the man that will get him to where he wants to get to, enjoying himself in the process, and his friends say, "Why is Scott trying to be someone he's not? Why doesn't he just be himself to get what he wants?" If it were that easy, everyone would be living their life purpose. Thankfully, it isn't easy. Every day is a battle against the fears. But with each fight comes the healing of tougher skin. So everyday is a success, and another step in the right direction. This is what life should be all about.

Take what you've got, keep the bits you want and replace the bits you don't want. Build yourself. Value yourself highly. I promise you, it'll be the best thing you ever do.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A friend of mine recently commented that he believed he was living his life more in accordance with my philosophy that me. This took me aback. But when he went on to explain that I contradict myself by playing by the very rules I denounce, that he was more lawless than I, and therefore more humanpreneurial, I realised how his incomprehension had occurred. And it led me to think that some clarification of my philosophy was due; this rectification will form part of this article.

First off: with my indictment against government control with rules and regulations - I am NOT promoting lawlessness. Personally, I do break some rules where I believe I'm right. In England, it's the law to wear a seatbelt when driving a car - sometimes I don't want to because I don't feel in enough danger to warrant putting it on. It's illegal to overtake on the left hand lane on highways - sometimes I do when a car is hogging the right hand lane and it's unnecessarily slowing me down.

Sticking with the whole driving theme, you're not allowed to use a mobile phone when at the wheel - sometimes I do if I have to make or take a call and I don't feel it will put myself in danger to do so. Like most developed countries, there are speed limits, here - I happily break them when I want to get somewhere quicker and I'm not putting anyone in danger.

A few years ago, I was driving about twenty five miles over the seventy miles an hour speed limit along a motorway - the M25 for those that know it. It was 1.30am; it was dark, and there were hardly any other cars on the large, open road. I'd just dropped some people off at Gatwick Airport, and I was irritably tired and ready for my bed. I reasoned that since the road was practically empty, it was safe to put my foot down.

Needless to say, eventually, flashing lights were following me, beckoning me to pull over. The officers that wrote out my ticket told me that it was my kind of 'dangerous' driving that caused accidents. Probably one of the most irrational things I'd heard, since I was nearly the only road user on that vast expanse of tarmac. The only person that I could have been a danger to was myself. Yet, I was travelling well within the realms of my skill level, and therefore was not a danger to myself.

When breaking rules, I only do so within the scope of my own ability. I.e., I wouldn't drive faster than I have to the skill to control - that is dangerous. And I only break them if the punishment is not so big that it would hinder my life purpose; i.e., imprisonment or a hefty fine. What good can I do from a jail cell? How would a big fine help me when I'm investing all my capital in my business?

I just know that when I tell you I use my mobile phone when driving, your immediate reaction is, "Oh my God! What a lawless, selfish, dangerous criminal!" But, to paraphrase what I have been saying all along: I only break laws I believe are ridiculous and that have been passed on the assumption that all humans are irrational. I only break them if the punishment is small enough to yield good value for my breaking it. I act rationally with my law-breaking. I am not a libertine, nor am I a lawless anarchist.

To use the 'mobile phone while driving' example, I will point out that a very tiny amount of car accidents have resulted in a fatality when a driver was using his phone. But it wasn't the phone that caused the accident: it was incompetence - the driver choosing, irrationally, to make a call at a bad time and not paying due attention to his driving. Yes, it takes a lot more concentration to use a mobile phone and drive at the same time, but guess what? Humans are actually capable of doing it! Yes! We are actually skilful enough to do so.

Driving fast is a skill that can be learnt. Time is limited, so it makes sense that the faster you can drive from A to B, the more time you will have there. Yes, there are irrational humans that would choose to drive faster than they are capable of doing. But they are a tiny minority. And by climbing into your car, you are making the conscious choice that you will share the road with the good and the bad. Remember what Bilbo Baggins said? "It's a dangerous business stepping out of your door, you step into the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to."

Someone also recently reasoned that I must have believed that anarchy is the answer. But this couldn't be further from the truth. Unfortunately, there is a minority of irrational human beings that seek nothing other than to make the lives of the rational a misery.

It is for this reason that we need some objective laws to protect the freedom of the rational from the irrational - not what we have now, which is subjective laws that free the irrational to attack the rational in any way they please.

Ideally, we need laws to protect the rational from the irrational, not bundle them all into the same box of incompetent, violent, lawless animals, so that we end up as we are nearly experiencing now: Living a life shooting through a pinball machine, where, if you buffet the sides, it's 'game over'. Humans are brilliant. We have the power of choice over every action we can take, but the rules we are forced to adhere to mean we live with a gun to our head at the face of the 'wrong' choices - all just to feed the power-hungry bureaucrats.

And to assume a society would become anarchic without the control of rules and regulations is to have no faith in humans, assuming they are irrational. It is only because of the abundance of laws catered for every instance of human endeavour that creates more criminals, since there are too many rules to abide by to live a normal life without inadvertently - innocently - breaking a few of them.

With the passing of every law that assumes humans are by nature, irrational, comes the stripping away of freedom, and an extra ounce of permission for the government to fulfil its power-hungry desires by legally using brute force to enslave the free at the point of a gun. If you don't believe me, try breaking any of these laws and proclaiming your innocence with any amount of vigour. See what happens, then.

Using the 'UK smoking ban' as an example, recall the acclaim that the law was met with - from the non-smokers. Their jubilation was centred around the 'fact' that freedom had been granted to the non-smokers, in that they could no longer be 'forced' to breathe someone else's smoke. How they can reason that extra control constitutes freedom is beyond me.

The real solution is individual rights, accountability, self-responsibility and freedom of choice. Ideally, every human would have a choice as to what he wanted to do. Smoke? Not smoke? Drink where there's smoke? Drink where it's smoke-free? And if there were no state-run institutions such as free health care, schools, etc, there would be no problem, since noone would be forced to hand over his hard-earned money to pay for someone else's lung cancer treatment.

We are slowly being cajoled into living our lives unconsciously. The government is slowly pilfering our choices. With laws such as mandatory motor insurance, there is no conscious choice allowed in the decision of whether you feel it's financially viable to have it or not - if you drive, you are forced to have the insurance. We don't have to think. But we really must. We musn't become robots. We musn't become nil by mind. We musn't lose our fight.

But the solution is not to break the rules arbitrarily. Doing so will only allow them to exert their punishment and dump you in a jail cell for your trouble. The solution will have to be something more intelligent, more planned and rational. Breaking the rules is akin to rolling out the red carpet for them.

It's time to pull the rug from underneath them.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

I bet that shocked you! English Premier League footballers, the target of so much jealousy and vitriol because of their 'spiralling' wages - and I'm telling you they're underpaid? That does it! You're never going to read my stuff again, right?

Much has been said about there being too much money in football, or about the exaggerated salaries of English Premier League footballers and those of the other big European leagues. The reason for the negativity is unclear, although the cries of 'inflated contracts, undeserved fast cars and mindless celebrity' bear the hallmark of an anti-capitalist philosophy.

But the outspoken commentators and all-round vilifiers of top-flight footballers have so far failed to ask the question: Where is all this money coming from? And by failing to ask the question, they have failed to learn the answer: From their own pockets - of their own volition.

Yesterday, Sunday 8th March, I travelled to Old Trafford, Manchester, to see my team, Manchester United play an FA Cup game. Six hours there, six hours back, in the pouring rain, to see my team get beaten by, ironically my local team - Portsmouth. Enough about that. But I still saw men do things with a football that I could only fantasise about doing - things that they have worked years to be able to do. But as I scanned the panorama that was to embrace me for the next ninety minutes, the answer to the money was everywhere I looked.

Seventy six thousand ticket-holders, young and old, all dressed in their club's replica shirts, carrying bags of gladly-paid-for merchandise, hats sporting the club crests, jackets, scarves, footwear, match day programmes, magazines, brochures, advertising hoardings, television cameras broadcasting the game to millions of people worldwide. For ONE match.

People will lament how someone can get paid such a lot of money for kicking a pigskin around the park, but, in reality, it's just another form of entertainment. It's something to do after a hard day's work, like having a drink down the pub, watching a film at the cinema, or going to the opera. Your footballers are your heroes. They're inspiring and inspirational, like WAR heroes - they fight for something you believe in - your football team.

It's for this reason that a man - like myself - is compelled to put his hand in his pocket and hand over his hard-earned money to the football club. It is because of people like these - including myself - that there is so much money in football. It starts with us. If we didn't put our hand into our pocket, there would NOT be the money in football that there is, since nobody would be spending any money. Football is no different than any other profession in this respect.

The marketplace determines the cost of a product or service (in this case, a football team), the price that the consumer (fan) is willing to pay, and the wage of the producer (footballer). All are related to one another. One factor cannot change independently of another without adversely affecting the others.

People complain about the cost of tickets to the game (to use this as an example), yet Premier League stadiums are sold out week-after-week. The stadiums are full because thousands of people have decided - of their own choice - that the ticket price fairly reflects the value of the experience. If the value of the experience were to decline - if the football team were to underperform, for instance - the tickets would stop selling.

The club would be forced to reduce ticket prices in accordance with the lower value performances, and the stadium would sell out, again. Lower ticket prices would mean lower profits, which would mean lower wages. The adverse is also true. Which is why players from the best teams drive Aston Martins. Just another example of the (nearly) free market economy, my friend.

Another barb thrown by the tongue of the Premier League haters is that footballers are only playing the game for money, and that if they truly loved the game, they'd play for free. This comment is so naive it worries me of the sanity of those that utter it.

Footballers are no different to any other high-paid professional - doctor, film star, therapist: They do what they do because, at some point in their life, they realised they enjoyed doing it, and they strove to become great at it. Their service is in high demand, and people are willing to pay good money for it - with wages being based on ability, which equals the value they offer. The argument is continued with moans such as, "Why, then, do the best players always go where the money is? The Uniteds, Chelseas, Milans and Madrids?"

If you were an architect, wouldn't you want to ply your trade with the best in town? And do I have to ask the question, which is the better team - Manchester United or Macclesfield Town? I can answer that for you. Objectively, United are the better team. They're leagues apart. Literally. You might say that the smaller teams sometimes play with more passion. But passion won't win a bean without ability. Passion alone doesn't win a football match, a war, or even an argument. Ability wins football matches, wars AND arguments.

These are the best teams, and the money they generate is the result of the market compensating them for their superior skill level - the reason for that being the collective ability of their individual players.

So why did I say that footballers are underpaid? Well, like all tax payers, they're forced to hand over a portion of their income to the government for services they likely didn't ask for - some of which include paying for the work-shy demographic to sit in front of the television they paid for, on the couch they paid for, for getting lunch-drunk on the beer they paid for, at the home paid for by, yet again, Mr Premier League Footballer, Esquire.

Well, we can ALL empathise with footballers on this point - all of us producers, that is. And if wage caps were ever introduced, they'd be underpaid further, still, since the capping of a salary is to negate the market value of the footballer, funnelling the money to another area of the market that wouldn't deserve it. Yet another example of the earned falling into the hands of the unearning.

I can already here some of the more socialistic readers wail, as they dust-off the popcorn after watching the latest millionaire-Tom Cruise, sky-high-contract-paying blockbuster, "But football is hardly a noble profession! Teachers/nurses/social workers should be paid THEIR kind of wages!" But I ask you, when was the last time you tuned-in to watch the Premier League Nurses top of the table clash at the seventy thousand, sell-out Nurse Stadium, on premium-pay television, wearing your replica Nurses United shirt?

I'm not knocking these professions - funnily enough, all public sector jobs - for their low wage level. If anything, these professions are poor examples to use since salaries in these fields are not set according to the market but, instead, are based on a government economic policy of trying to appease as many people as possible in an effort to gain more votes to feed their power-hunger. Were these jobs equivalently represented in the private sector, the wages may - and probably would - be higher than they are, now. But that's a whole other article.

And all this before we've even thrown reputedly 'greedy, extortionate' football agents into the mix. Not to go deep into this one, here - a topic of much, recent debate - but guess what: Even with football agents operating, top footballers are still playing football for top football clubs and billions worldwide are still paying to watch it. Go figure (?)

If you really do have a problem with top footballer's wages, take a long, good hard look in the mirror, my friend. You are a walking, talking specimen of that which you denouncing: Capitalism and the free market economy. The market is not cheatable; it is a mirror that clearly reflects value: sought and offered. Look into that mirror. Observe the jeans you wear, the shirt on your back, the ring on your finger, the phone in your pocket. Who forced you to dress in this garb?

You see, along every step of the way lies a choice made by an individual. A footballer. A fan. An agent. A football club owner. To disparage the market is to defame the individual who made a decision under his own philosophy based on what he wanted at that time AND what was available to him - all by his own free will.

So the next time you denounce footballers for their 'unearned' fame and fortune, just remember it's YOU who's paying for them to drive that Ferrari. I'm trying to put my team's weekend loss out of mind until their next game. They're my heroes, and I hate it when they lose. I pay them to win. This is life. I love life.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens