HERE'S the deal, Spartacus. You get £120,000 a week, get to date some of Europe's most glamorous women, have houses in posh Cheshire and Portugal, and drive fast cars.

Oh, and the nearest you'll get to being sliced in half in gladiatorial combat is a tangle with Lucas Neill when your team plays West Ham.

If that kind of "slavery" had been on the table, I doubt if old Spartacus would ever have led a slaves' revolt, and Kirk Douglas would never have got to play him in the great sword-and-sandals epic film.

And yet Sepp Blatter, the man charged with bossing world football, has associated Manchester United's treatment of Cristiano Ronaldo with "modern slavery".

Listening to the latest oddball broadcast from Planet Blatter - and Ronaldo's backing of his stance - is enough to make you despondent for the future of the game.

Now, his ill-judged rant at the terrible treatment handed out to our poor, down-trodden mega-rich superstar footballers is tiresomely dumb.

Trying to follow Blatter's logic is like trying to follow the plot of an Uzbekistani soap opera, without the subtitles.

He was once described as a man "who has 50 ideas a day, and 51 of them are stupid."

In February he attacked the Court for Arbitration in Sport's decision to back Andy Webster's decision to walk out on his Hearts contract and join Wigan.

Utterings

He said it was damaging to the game, and that "the principle of contractual stability... has been deemed less important than the short-term interests of the player."

Given his track record, it should come as no great surprise that his suggestion to make women's football more attractive was "tighter shorts."

There are a fair few men out there who would agree with that sentiment, but few would have the lack of tact to say it out loud - unless they happen to be the most powerful man in the world game, who feels free to utter every piece of bird-brained tosh that floats into his head.

His latest hare-brained utterings take the breath away. The matter is quite clear - Ronaldo signed a contract with United which made him a very wealthy young man.

In doing that, he made a pledge to the club. Nothing has changed. Sir Alex Ferguson isn't asking the Portuguese star to scrub toilets at Carrington. Not yet, anyway.

Great survivor Blatter's response to the situation implies that contracts mean nothing. His numbskull words appear to be an argument for complete freedom of movement, a recipe for chaos and disloyalty on a gross scale.

To suggest, as Blatter does, that a player should be allowed to transfer his services on a whim, regardless of his contract, is bonkers.

The reality is that it happens. If Ronaldo really does have his heart set on Madrid, no amount of stubbornness and strong posturing from Fergie and David Gill will make any difference.

But for Blatter, the man in the seat of power, to back sulking footballers and suggest they should be able to rip up contracts and move here and there is outstandingly crass.

Footballers, quite rightly, have moved on from the days when they were, in effect, wage slaves, thanks in no small part to two of Ronaldo's predecessors as United stars.

Charlie Roberts and Billy Meredith set up the first successful footballers' union in 1907 to fight the FA's decision to set a maximum player's wage of £4, a brave stand against injustice which finally bore fruit nearly 60 years later.

Since then, players have, again rightly, seen many barriers against their self-aggrandisement removed, with the Bosman ruling giving them unprecedented freedom of contract.

Blatter should remember that. He should also remember during his presidency the kids in Pakistan and India, who made footballs day in, day out, to the detriment of their health and education, some of the balls carrying the FIFA logo.

If he wants to see what "modern slavery" truly is, he needs to look under his nose.