Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The end of transfer fees?

From BBC Sport website

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/25418135?SThisEM

Football faces a legal challenge that could result in the end of transfer fees and have as big an impact on the game as the landmark Bosman ruling.
World players' union Fifpro claims the existing transfer system contravenes law and infringes footballers' rights.
And it is preparing to challenge the system in the European courts.
"Footballers are workers, and only when they enjoy the rights enjoyed by all will Fifpro be satisfied," said the union's president, Philippe Piat.
The Frenchman added his organisation would not "stand by and watch from the sidelines as football players' rights around the world are systemically disrespected and the football industry dismantles itself".
If successful, the move could allow players to serve notice on their contracts as other workers can.
In theory, that would mean a player would be able to tell his club he wanted to leave and hand in his notice. Another club could then pay up the remainder of the player's contract and he would be able to join them without a transfer fee being paid.
Fifpro wants the European courts to review the entire football transfer system and says it has told both world governing body Fifa and its European counterpart Uefa of its intentions.
The union claims the regulations impede players' freedom of movement. It is also against third-party ownership and what it claims is the unfair distribution of wealth, with clubs able to make huge amounts of money from transfer fees and compensation payments when players move.
Fifpro argues only agents and the richest clubs benefit from the transfer system. It also claims thousands of players around the world are not paid on time and become vulnerable to criminals looking to fix matches.
Piat said a review of the transfer system was his "top priority" when elected Fifpro president in October.
"The transfer system fails 99% of players around the world, it fails football as an industry and it fails the world's most beloved game," he added.
Fifpro, which represents more than 65,000 footballers, said it would take its recommendations and complaints to the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and human rights courts if necessary.
"Despite football enjoying record amounts of revenue, football's regulatory and economic system fails miserably on numerous fronts and drives the professional game towards self-destruction," said Bobby Barnes, president of Fifpro's European division.
"Destruction through a systemic disrespect for those on the pitch. Destruction through a failure to achieve competitive balance and financial stability. Destruction through an absence of responsible governance, which invites criminals to abuse our game."
In 1995, the Bosman ruling - named after Jean-Marc Bosman, the Belgian player who brought the case before the European Court of Justice - had a major impact on football in the European Union (EU).
It banned restrictions on foreign players from the EU within national leagues and allowed players in the EU to move to another club at the end of a contract without a transfer fee being paid.


Could be interesting I think...

Comments

  • Blimey, that will put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    Presumably that would drive player wages even higher, then that surely plays into the hands of the richer clubs at the detriment to the less well off clubs?

    Could that almost destroy the football pyramid as we know it?
  • That IMO would put a lot of clubs out of business, through having to pay higher wages to try and keep the player and also a lot of clubs rely on transfer fees of their players in order to keep afloat
  • edited December 2013
    I honestly believe this is how Transfers should be dealt with to be honest... Transfer Fees are just getting silly now and if a club want a player then it should just be the Contract that they buy out.

    I think if this was to go ahead then some kind of Salary cap should come in because as said, the rise in wages will then just become stupid.

    Does sound a bit strange though... A player handing in his notice, signs for another club yet still has to represent his parent club until that notice has been served?? - Would that go down well with the fans, would the player put in 100% effort and risk injury?? - And it sounds exactly the same as a player handing in a transfer request.

    I certainly dont agree with "Footballers are Workers" though Im afraid, once they were when they use to work in the Factories during the week but for me, Business and Sport are two things that dont go together and shouldnt go together

    EDIT - Something I've just considered... I've worked in Recruitment (especially with Contracts) and many temp workers dont have the right to give notice (especially if they dont ask for it to be included), I cant imagine a Footballer or his Agent being that stupid but what would happen if they signed a two year Contract without that? :)
  • Just let all the contracts run down = end of transfer fees. Da-dahhhhh!
  • Davo55 said:

    Just let all the contracts run down = end of transfer fees. Da-dahhhhh!

    TJ is clearly ahead of the curve

  • If the players are allowed to leave then, presumably, the cubs can make the players redundant as well. I can't see many Agents signing up to that.

    Also I think the fear about players wages will soon be sorted out. The top clubs will have all the best players and the players left will be scrabbling around looking for contracts. My prediction is that with complete freedom to move the differences in wages will grow between those at the top of the game and those at the bottom. With no transfer fees clubs will not offer players with potential long or rewarding contracts. They will be paid what they are worth today, not what they might be worth in two or three years time. This will, no doubt, reduce wages outside of the Premier League.

    What many people seem to forget is that even the massive clubs can only play eleven players at a time. Those players on big money that are not worth it will be jettisoned and replaced. Players like McLeod, Mou2 and to a smaller extent Kelly Youga (who I had heard was never going to get back to his best months before his contract expired) will just be pushed out without the need to give them a massive payoff.

    It might even work out better for smaller clubs. The clubs will be able to set up a fee charging system for their Academies, rather like the student loans system we have. The players agree to pay the club, let's say, £10,000 a year to benefit from the coaching etc. and that money is only ever paid if the player earns above a certain income. Thus the Academies would still be financed from the players that go on to be successful, but just not in the form of transfer fees.

    As always this change will make the rich richer, and will remove protection for those that most need it.

    Sad but true.
  • How would it work the other way though.

    If a club signs a player on £5m a year for four years and then he gets injured or just isn't very good can they say "Cheers, he's your P45" after 6 months.

    Would have been handy for Charlton when we got relegated but is that fair?

    In non-league players seem to move in and out of clubs all the time. I presume that is because the contract situation is different.
  • If it's to buy out a player, whats to stop clubs putting the top players on ridiculously long contracts. If they want to leave the club would say "sorry, you've got a contract and no one's met £200 million that they'd need to buy out your contract, our hands are tied."

    Are we eventually going to have an american/MLS style draft system in which the league ultimately owns the player and the clubs have an "allocation fund" they can use to buy out player contracts? Could equally swing and hit the players harder than the clubs as people have suggested.
  • If it's to buy out a player, whats to stop clubs putting the top players on ridiculously long contracts. If they want to leave the club would say "sorry, you've got a contract and no one's met £200 million that they'd need to buy out your contract, our hands are tied."

    Surely then thats the players fault for being stupid enough to sign such a long Contract in the first place
  • edited December 2013
    Good

    Hopefully then if players are under achieving, not hitting pre arranged targets they get the sack and not get paid a silly amount of money when you don't contribute, just like in the real world of work, you can;t only have it one way. It would not surprise me if this was the real driving force

    Sorry @kingshilladdick - I should remember to actually press post once type things , your explanation is a lot more coherent than mine
  • Sponsored links:


  • If it's to buy out a player, whats to stop clubs putting the top players on ridiculously long contracts. If they want to leave the club would say "sorry, you've got a contract and no one's met £200 million that they'd need to buy out your contract, our hands are tied."

    Surely then thats the players fault for being stupid enough to sign such a long Contract in the first place
    Yes but if the player signs a £200m contract and is then injured and can't play for four years he wouldn't feel too stupid then.

    There will need to be some kind of obligation by both parties for 'breaking a contract'. Basically if all contracts are going to be a months notice on both sides then long term injury could well mean bankruptcy for the player, and there would be no job security.
  • If it's to buy out a player, whats to stop clubs putting the top players on ridiculously long contracts. If they want to leave the club would say "sorry, you've got a contract and no one's met £200 million that they'd need to buy out your contract, our hands are tied."

    Are we eventually going to have an american/MLS style draft system in which the league ultimately owns the player and the clubs have an "allocation fund" they can use to buy out player contracts? Could equally swing and hit the players harder than the clubs as people have suggested.

    The player would just and in their notice, surely.
  • How would it work the other way though.

    If a club signs a player on £5m a year for four years and then he gets injured or just isn't very good can they say "Cheers, he's your P45" after 6 months.

    Would have been handy for Charlton when we got relegated but is that fair?

    In non-league players seem to move in and out of clubs all the time. I presume that is because the contract situation is different.

    I agree with this I have thought so many times if you don't do your job properly you get sacked so surely if a attacker does not score for say 20 games he is not doing his job and should be sacked
  • How would a "selling team" like Crewe or Peterborough ever cope?

    Doesn't make sense to me, suddenly you will have players on 500k a week wages as they didn't have to pay £80mil to sign them in the first place
  • sam3110 said:

    How would a "selling team" like Crewe or Peterborough ever cope?

    Doesn't make sense to me, suddenly you will have players on 500k a week wages as they didn't have to pay £80mil to sign them in the first place

    Isn't Gareth Bale on £300k a week even after Madrid paying £80 for him?

    Even if some of them get that kind of money it will be limited to the very best players as there will be alternatives that will cost so much less.
  • "If successful, the move could allow players to serve notice on their contracts as other workers can.

    In theory, that would mean a player would be able to tell his club he wanted to leave and hand in his notice. Another club could then pay up the remainder of the player's contract and he would be able to join them without a transfer fee being paid."

    Had to check the date to confirm it wasn't April 1st when I read this. What planet is this guy on? Why can't footballers simply serve notice on their contracts like the rest of us can? Could it be that it's because they are on two, three or four year deals?

    If a footballer wants to be able to "tell his club he wanted to leave and hand in his notice" there's an obvious solution, sign a contract with three or six months notice on both sides. Simple. Wonder how many players would sign up for that?

    The idea that current contractual arrangements work against the players is completely absurd. Fact is they seem to want their cake and be able to eat it too.
  • Ha! Like employment law is consistent across the globe. Would have its advantages though, we could have held a competency hearing for Simon Francis back in the day and dismissed him. I wonder if you change formation from 4 4 2 to 4 5 1 you would have the grounds to make one of your strikers redundant :)
  • Yes, this really has potential. If you thought your strikers were really hopeless you'd announce that you are switching to a 4-6-0 system with a false number 9, you'd then inform the hapless front men that they were "at risk of redundancy", which would be followed by a period of "consultation" and the opportunity to apply for jobs elsewhere in the company, all of which have to be advertised. This way, a has been centre forward might end up assistant manager in the Club shop and perhaps even vice versa.

    Once appropriately constructed confidentiality agreements have been signed, the Manager would be free to revert to 4-4-2,

    Just like an ordinary worker!!

    Hmmmm. Perhaps a two year deal with no performance conditions isn't so bad after all? God forbid that the Club which has that liability (and that's often what these long-term contracts turn out to be) actually wants something in return.

    If Mr PhilIppe Piat succeeds the players almost certainly won't thank him.
  • Yes, this really has potential. If you thought your strikers were really hopeless you'd announce that you are switching to a 4-6-0 system with a false number 9, you'd then inform the hapless front men that they were "at risk of redundancy", which would be followed by a period of "consultation" and the opportunity to apply for jobs elsewhere in the company, all of which have to be advertised. This way, a has been centre forward might end up assistant manager in the Club shop and perhaps even vice versa.

    Once appropriately constructed confidentiality agreements have been signed, the Manager would be free to revert to 4-4-2,

    Just like an ordinary worker!!

    Hmmmm. Perhaps a two year deal with no performance conditions isn't so bad after all? God forbid that the Club which has that liability (and that's often what these long-term contracts turn out to be) actually wants something in return.

    If Mr PhilIppe Piat succeeds the players almost certainly won't thank him.

    One or two might but, as you say, the rest would be very disappointed. Not only would they have to perform to keep their jobs but with the migration of the best players to the top clubs for no transfer fees the wages of those that are not 'let go' would fall through the floor.

    As clubs will have less income they will carry much smaller squads and 'recruit' new players as and when. Assuming the transfer windows are removed there will be no restriction, so a club will not need a full squad of reserves, they will be able to go out and employ a new player on the Monday after their regular player breaks his leg - after, presumably, 'sacking' the player that can't play for ten weeks.

    I also wonder what will happen to the rule that limits the number of clubs a player can play for in a season (or is it a calendar year?). It is conceivable that players could play for all of the top ten clubs in a division in the same season - I do wonder what impact that will have on the perceived integrity of the competition.
  • Would there be a minimuum length of contract? OR, could players hire themselves out on a match to match basis?

    stuffbypaulbrown.com/jon-stark-footballer-of-the-future/
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!