Removal of transfer fees suggested

[nailsy]

I don't think so. If a player leaves one League 2 club to another their wages won't be high but it should be the players right to go to a different club.

Maybe a simple set fee for players so every club knows how much the player will cost would solve a lot of the issues which are stopping players from concentrating on their game.

You would assume that most players would get a pay rise if they moved clubs though? Even if it was in the same division. The "buying club" would obviously need to offer them enough of a pay rise to cover the development tax. If a club released a player then they would have to relinquish any future earning rights on that player.

 

[CosmicHotspur]

I would ban agents as well, except for commercial enterprises for players outside the football clubs.

 

[Misfit]

You would assume that most players would get a pay rise if they moved clubs though? Even if it was in the same division. The "buying club" would obviously need to offer them enough of a pay rise to cover the development tax. If a club released a player then they would have to relinquish any future earning rights on that player.

You're on bloody fire here, nailsy. You should put your lot in for the FEFFUH gig. You'd lose obviously but would be the best candidate.

 

[nailsy]

You're on bloody fire here, nailsy. You should put your lot in for the FEFFUH gig. You'd lose obviously but would be the best candidate.

Cheers. This stuff is easy compared to the challenges of running my works Fantasy League. I'd like to see Fifpro take a crack at that.

 

[dontcallme]

You would assume that most players would get a pay rise if they moved clubs though? Even if it was in the same division. The "buying club" would obviously need to offer them enough of a pay rise to cover the development tax. If a club released a player then they would have to relinquish any future earning rights on that player.

Maybe but I guess it depends on why you feel the transfer fees system should be changed.

I feel a person should have a decent amount of freedom of movement in their job. A transfer window open twice a year allows players that basic choice. I don't think it's right for players to have to spend an extra year or more somewhere they don't want to be due to the transfer fees being too much.

But a player should also be free to move for reasons other than success and finances. As per my example that you responded to if a players want to go to a League 2 club with little finances and the player is a low wage earner then giving a percentage to the selling club is not really an option. It also restricts the freedom of movement which is the reason I am in favour of it.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Transfer fees are good imo. Clubs acquire assets, and should able to buy and sell as they see fit.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the players, and their agents. The only thing that prevents a player from freedom of movement is the player signing a contract. When a player signs a 5-year contract, they are agreeing to play football for one club for the next 5 years, and implicitly, not play football for any other club. In exchange for those promises, the players are guaranteed a sum certain over the life of the contract. This is not the same as you, or I, who are free to quit our jobs and go work for someone else - we have no guaranteed contracts, and we have not agreed not to go elsewhere.

If the players want more freedom of movement, then they only need to agree to shorter contracts. We see it all the time with older players - sign on 1 or 2 year deals. No reason why younger players could not also agree to shorter deals. Most do not want to, because shorter deals would lead to lower salaries - but that is the trade-off in a negotiation - you can't have everything.

Also, compare footballers to any of the major sports in America, and you see that footballers have a very good deal. In America, players are drafted onto teams - meaning they have no say in their first club. In the NFL, player contracts are not guaranteed, meaning the clubs can cut players with no further compensation despite the player being under contract. Players also have to play a certain number of years before they are even eligible to negotiate with other teams - and it starts out with "restricted" free agency, where the team has an opportunity to mach any offers and keep the player. Teams also have the ability to designate certain players as "franchise" players, meaning those players are not free to negotiate with other teams.

The is nothing about getting rid of transfer fees that would shift the balance of power - instead of transfer fees limiting teams, it will be wages. The big clubs will continue to have the resources to out-bid other teams by shifting transfer fees into wages. The only change is that those fees will now be going straight to the players - hence the money grab.

It also could prove to be very disruptive if players were free to move at their leisure. Take Spurs, for example, where we are trying to build a strong nucleus of players who can grow together. If these players were not under contract, and could come and go every season, teams would never build up the consistency that comes from playing together. Football would suffer, but supporters will still be required to pay ever increasing ticket fees to see less attractive football.

And, if we are really concerned about freedom of movement - rules like the limits on the number of foreign players would have to go away - as that is an artificial restriction on player movement. Think the FA is going to like seeing top teams with no English players?

As athletes go, footballers have it pretty good. They should tread very carefully here.

 

[yankspurs]

Transfer fees are good imo. Clubs acquire assets, and should able to buy and sell as they see fit.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the players, and their agents. The only thing that prevents a player from freedom of movement is the player signing a contract. When a player signs a 5-year contract, they are agreeing to play football for one club for the next 5 years, and implicitly, not play football for any other club. In exchange for those promises, the players are guaranteed a sum certain over the life of the contract. This is not the same as you, or I, who are free to quit our jobs and go work for someone else - we have no guaranteed contracts, and we have not agreed not to go elsewhere.

If the players want more freedom of movement, then they only need to agree to shorter contracts. We see it all the time with older players - sign on 1 or 2 year deals. No reason why younger players could not also agree to shorter deals. Most do not want to, because shorter deals would lead to lower salaries - but that is the trade-off in a negotiation - you can't have everything.

Also, compare footballers to any of the major sports in America, and you see that footballers have a very good deal. In America, players are drafted onto teams - meaning they have no say in their first club. In the NFL, player contracts are not guaranteed, meaning the clubs can cut players with no further compensation despite the player being under contract. Players also have to play a certain number of years before they are even eligible to negotiate with other teams - and it starts out with "restricted" free agency, where the team has an opportunity to mach any offers and keep the player. Teams also have the ability to designate certain players as "franchise" players, meaning those players are not free to negotiate with other teams.

The is nothing about getting rid of transfer fees that would shift the balance of power - instead of transfer fees limiting teams, it will be wages. The big clubs will continue to have the resources to out-bid other teams by shifting transfer fees into wages. The only change is that those fees will now be going straight to the players - hence the money grab.

It also could prove to be very disruptive if players were free to move at their leisure. Take Spurs, for example, where we are trying to build a strong nucleus of players who can grow together. If these players were not under contract, and could come and go every season, teams would never build up the consistency that comes from playing together. Football would suffer, but supporters will still be required to pay ever increasing ticket fees to see less attractive football.

And, if we are really concerned about freedom of movement - rules like the limits on the number of foreign players would have to go away - as that is an artificial restriction on player movement. Think the FA is going to like seeing top teams with no English players?

As athletes go, footballers have it pretty good. They should tread very carefully here.

Getting rid of transfer fees will make things worse, IMO. Its the only thing that keeps some hit of competitive equality in football and also helps lower league clubs stay afloat. I would like to see player trading become a bit more common place though if theres a fit to be had. The only thing that something needs to be done about is the loan system.

In America, you cant choose your team(unless, of course, you're a Manning, right Eli?) until you hit free agency. But thats not for a while due to different rules that vary by league. NFL contracts now do have guaranteed money, actually. The entire contract isnt though. You have to play to get the full amount. I'd like to see player contracts in soccer look more like this, i think.

 

[Misfit]

Transfer fees are good imo. Clubs acquire assets, and should able to buy and sell as they see fit.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the players, and their agents. The only thing that prevents a player from freedom of movement is the player signing a contract. When a player signs a 5-year contract, they are agreeing to play football for one club for the next 5 years, and implicitly, not play football for any other club. In exchange for those promises, the players are guaranteed a sum certain over the life of the contract. This is not the same as you, or I, who are free to quit our jobs and go work for someone else - we have no guaranteed contracts, and we have not agreed not to go elsewhere.

If the players want more freedom of movement, then they only need to agree to shorter contracts. We see it all the time with older players - sign on 1 or 2 year deals. No reason why younger players could not also agree to shorter deals. Most do not want to, because shorter deals would lead to lower salaries - but that is the trade-off in a negotiation - you can't have everything.

Also, compare footballers to any of the major sports in America, and you see that footballers have a very good deal. In America, players are drafted onto teams - meaning they have no say in their first club. In the NFL, player contracts are not guaranteed, meaning the clubs can cut players with no further compensation despite the player being under contract. Players also have to play a certain number of years before they are even eligible to negotiate with other teams - and it starts out with "restricted" free agency, where the team has an opportunity to mach any offers and keep the player. Teams also have the ability to designate certain players as "franchise" players, meaning those players are not free to negotiate with other teams.

The is nothing about getting rid of transfer fees that would shift the balance of power - instead of transfer fees limiting teams, it will be wages. The big clubs will continue to have the resources to out-bid other teams by shifting transfer fees into wages. The only change is that those fees will now be going straight to the players - hence the money grab.

It also could prove to be very disruptive if players were free to move at their leisure. Take Spurs, for example, where we are trying to build a strong nucleus of players who can grow together. If these players were not under contract, and could come and go every season, teams would never build up the consistency that comes from playing together. Football would suffer, but supporters will still be required to pay ever increasing ticket fees to see less attractive football.

And, if we are really concerned about freedom of movement - rules like the limits on the number of foreign players would have to go away - as that is an artificial restriction on player movement. Think the FA is going to like seeing top teams with no English players?

As athletes go, footballers have it pretty good. They should tread very carefully here.

I was thinking more about since posting and was beginning to mildly annoyed the more I thought about it. I think you've touched on many points that were responsible for my feelings.

And hey, if a footballer wants to go to anther from year to year they surely could do so. Even the Messi and CROnaldo of this world. Of course, they'd likely see their wages plummet. Or who knows, maybe they'd actually get a bump what with the signing on fees etc. But players want security and there's nothing wrong with that. Clubs deserve some too though and in reality transfer fees could be argued as merely compensation for a breach of contract by the player.

Good post anyway. Given me more to think about. The footballers are slaves guff has never sat with me.

 

[Misfit]

Getting rid of transfer fees will make things worse, IMO. Its the only thing that keeps some hit of competitive equality in football and also helps lower league clubs stay afloat. I would like to see player trading become a bit more common place though if theres a fit to be had. The only thing that something needs to be done about is the loan system.

In America, you cant choose your team(unless, of course, you're a Manning, right Eli?) until you hit free agency. But thats not for a while due to different rules that vary by league. NFL contracts now do have guaranteed money, actually. The entire contract isnt though. You have to play to get the full amount. I'd like to see player contracts in soccer look more like this, i think.

Also a good point. Obviously barring injuries and the like but in cases of a player pushing for a move or "acting up" the financial penalties could be a little harsher. After all if a player doesn't want to leave a club then the club can't just "act up" and stop paying him his money or offer to pay him in instalments of £5 a month for 100 years.

Agreed on the loan system. I reckon one possibility is that clubs could only be able to loan club trained players out. Would stop this hoarding and actually serve the purpose it is meant for.

 

[Xeeleeyid]

The issue I have with this is all the money will just go straight to the players and then there is no benefit for a club to develop its own players

That system in itself would be against EU law too, the European Commission said to FIFA any transfer rules would have to maintain stability of European football clubs and values and ensure even distribution of wealth throughout the game.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

I've been saying for years that the current transfer system was essentially illegal.

In the Bosman case, AG Lenz said that a transfer fee would only be compatible with EU law if it represented compensation for a club's training and developing of a player. However he also said that a club is in many ways compensated in training and developing a player by improved performances on the pitch and developing and training a player was in a club's own interests.

For example, do we think West Brom spent £25m on training and developing Saido Berahino? Absolutely no way.

Basically, Berahino had an offer of employment and according to EU law he should be free to accept that as a worker within the EU and to travel freely within the EU for that purpose.

West Brom releasing a statement announcing they were not interested in selling him and will not be entertaining any offers, is a breach of the law and as noted by the poster above, it reduces a footballer to the level of a slave.

But at the same time, if a team is losing a player that has the potential to deliver something long term for their existing club, surely there should be some form of recompense?!
For example, let's look at someone like Harry Kane. We've done our bit to develop him, but under proposed new rules, he could walk away and join United etc. without us getting a penny. However, we would look at him as a player who could fire us into the CL and the financial benefits that brings.

Likewise, WBA would look at Berahino as a player who can keep them in the PL. They will lose a lot of money if they were to be relegated, so again it's a form of compensation that the clubs are looking for.

 

[askbnad]

Transfer fees are good imo. Clubs acquire assets, and should able to buy and sell as they see fit.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the players, and their agents. The only thing that prevents a player from freedom of movement is the player signing a contract. When a player signs a 5-year contract, they are agreeing to play football for one club for the next 5 years, and implicitly, not play football for any other club. In exchange for those promises, the players are guaranteed a sum certain over the life of the contract. This is not the same as you, or I, who are free to quit our jobs and go work for someone else - we have no guaranteed contracts, and we have not agreed not to go elsewhere.

If the players want more freedom of movement, then they only need to agree to shorter contracts. We see it all the time with older players - sign on 1 or 2 year deals. No reason why younger players could not also agree to shorter deals. Most do not want to, because shorter deals would lead to lower salaries - but that is the trade-off in a negotiation - you can't have everything.

Also, compare footballers to any of the major sports in America, and you see that footballers have a very good deal. In America, players are drafted onto teams - meaning they have no say in their first club. In the NFL, player contracts are not guaranteed, meaning the clubs can cut players with no further compensation despite the player being under contract. Players also have to play a certain number of years before they are even eligible to negotiate with other teams - and it starts out with "restricted" free agency, where the team has an opportunity to mach any offers and keep the player. Teams also have the ability to designate certain players as "franchise" players, meaning those players are not free to negotiate with other teams.

The is nothing about getting rid of transfer fees that would shift the balance of power - instead of transfer fees limiting teams, it will be wages. The big clubs will continue to have the resources to out-bid other teams by shifting transfer fees into wages. The only change is that those fees will now be going straight to the players - hence the money grab.

It also could prove to be very disruptive if players were free to move at their leisure. Take Spurs, for example, where we are trying to build a strong nucleus of players who can grow together. If these players were not under contract, and could come and go every season, teams would never build up the consistency that comes from playing together. Football would suffer, but supporters will still be required to pay ever increasing ticket fees to see less attractive football.

And, if we are really concerned about freedom of movement - rules like the limits on the number of foreign players would have to go away - as that is an artificial restriction on player movement. Think the FA is going to like seeing top teams with no English players?

As athletes go, footballers have it pretty good. They should tread very carefully here.

Hi, i've been reading the discussions on SC for a couple of years now and here is my first post. I find this development really interesting as I'm almost done with my law degree and work within the football sphere in Sweden.

Football players are employees like anybody else that perform services for an employer. Employees are assets for any business but there are differences between a football player and, for example, a share in a company. If a buyer want to buy a share and the seller agrees to sell, money and ownership changes hand. The same doesn't apply for employees. In football the player must agree to the sale in order for it go through. It just shows, even though both are considered assets, that there is a an fundemental difference between the two that you have to take into consideration.

The contract is not the only thing that limits the freedom of movement. The transfer window for one makes it almost impossible for a player without a contract to get work if he is released after the transfer window is shut. Furthermore, even if there is a contract between a player and a club, a party can choose to not complete their obligations that arise from said contract. The club should in that case be compensated for the damages that arises from the players action. The only way to determine the damages from an objective position, in my opinion, is the value of the remainder of the contract. The consequences should stop there and the player should be free to start working anywhere he wants in the EU. That is not the case right now. The player would get suspended and fined for that kind of action which, again, is limiting the freedom of movement. That fact can also be compared to when the clubs choose not to fullfill their part of the contract by not paying the player any salary. The player needs a court decision, that can take up to 2 years to get, to force the club to pay out the remainder of the contract. However if the player signs for another club the compensation from the first club will decrease with the player recieves from the new club. In most cases that means the club suffers no economic consequences. Compare that to the players situation and you realise that the cliche "players got all the power nowadays" couldn't be more wrong.

Also football is the only line of business where you can buy employees. Usually if a company wants someone they up their salary offer and thats it. There is no compensation for the employer. Why should footballer be any different? Also the fee that is requried to buy a player can be viewed as something that limits the freedom of movement.

The salaries will probably increase due to this and thats why I'm hoping for a salary cap in the future, That way players won't be priced away from smaller clubs as easily. However you can never achieve a completely level playing field for the clubs. Some will have more resources and thats just the nature of it.

The FA really can't do much about the freedom of movement. They have been allowed to implement the home-grown rule, which also is a limit of the freedom of movement, to protect the domestic players. However that rule had to be non-discriminatory which is why its connected to geographics rather than nationality. Otherwise Dier would've been a home-grown player while Bentaleb wouldn't

 

[TheBlueRooster]

The contract is not the only thing that limits the freedom of movement. The transfer window for one makes it almost impossible for a player without a contract to get work if he is released after the transfer window is shut.

He becomes a free agent and can get another club at any time. Ade was released by us and can go where he likes. His only problem is he may have apply to FIFA to play in this country this season as he was already registered with us.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

@askbnad Too long to respond - welcome to the forums though!

But, players out of contract can sign outside of the transfer window - that is not an impediment.

Players themselves are not really the assets - it is the player's contract that is the asset. The contract rights are what the clubs sell and buy.

It is true that the contracts prohibit free movement - but that is the essence of the contract - one side agrees to pay a certain sum, in exchange for the other side agreeing not to work elsewhere.

As an attorney - you could be sacked tomorrow (sorry mate), and you would have no recourse against your employer. At the same time you can quit your job tomorrow for a better job elsewhere (congrats mate). You do not have the same contractual arrangement with your employer that a footballer has with a club.

So, to recap - contracts are the key here. Contractual rights are what is sold between clubs - not players - and contracts, freely entered into, are what define the rights and responsibilities of the clubs and players. If players want more movement, they can sign shorter contracts, and gain freedom of movement in exchange for less compensation - everything is a quid pro quo.

 

[Xeeleeyid]

But at the same time, if a team is losing a player that has the potential to deliver something long term for their existing club, surely there should be some form of recompense?!
For example, let's look at someone like Harry Kane. We've done our bit to develop him, but under proposed new rules, he could walk away and join United etc. without us getting a penny. However, we would look at him as a player who could fire us into the CL and the financial benefits that brings.

Likewise, WBA would look at Berahino as a player who can keep them in the PL. They will lose a lot of money if they were to be relegated, so again it's a form of compensation that the clubs are looking for.

Yes, there is a balance to be found. One of the requirements of the Commission's complaint back on 2000 was that FIFA had to find a system that maintained stability and competitiveness within European football, but also moved away from the 'modern slavery system', whereby a player tends to go where he is told, not where he wants to go.

The worries that you have with abolishing the existing system are only real if it isn't replaced with something.

The Commission did ratify FIFA's new transfer rules in 2001, but the problem was that FIFA never enforced the new rules so nothing in effect changed.

For example, technically, a player is able to walk away from his contract after 3 years (if they are under 28) or 2 years (if they are over 28). If the player is under 24 when this happens, then the club that developed them get some compensation that is decided by a tribunal.

However, the compensation should be limited to compensation in training and developing a player and should not be something that is solely dictated by the player's current club - that is what amounts to a restraint of trade.

The problem is that clubs are still refusing to release registration certificates for players after 3 years without a fee and FIFA have not been enforcing their own system. Also, the tribunals in recent cases have been awarding very high compensation, which is in essence likened to a prohibitive fee, which has meant players and buying clubs have been put off of letting the matter go to tribunal.

In terms of you worrying that the likes of Man U and the richer clubs would just buy all the best talent from the clubs that developed the players, I don't think this would happen if the new rules were sensibly worded and enforced.

After all, any club can only field eleven players in any game.

If you introduced agreed salary caps linked to income (which they already do in the Bundesliga for example), the actual attraction of joining one of these clubs becomes less and with no transfer fees and by making transfers easier, the role of agents and intermediaries in arranging these transfers becomes either unnecessary or much reduced and so the incentive for these intermediaries to push players into leaving their clubs diminishes or disappears. Many players are happy to just play football, contrary to what many believe and it is the agents and intermediaries and often family members that push hardest for transfers.

I know of at least one transfer that was pushed through by the players' parents because they wanted to use a cut of the money to buy a buy a new house.

 

[askbnad]

He becomes a free agent and can get another club at any time. Ade was released by us and can go where he likes. His only problem is he may have apply to FIFA to play in this country this season as he was already registered with us.

The problem that you refer to IS a limitation of the freedom of movement. Also i dont believe he was ever registered in the squad.

@askbnad Too long to respond - welcome to the forums though!

But, players out of contract can sign outside of the transfer window - that is not an impediment.

Players themselves are not really the assets - it is the player's contract that is the asset. The contract rights are what the clubs sell and buy.

It is true that the contracts prohibit free movement - but that is the essence of the contract - one side agrees to pay a certain sum, in exchange for the other side agreeing not to work elsewhere.

As an attorney - you could be sacked tomorrow (sorry mate), and you would have no recourse against your employer. At the same time you can quit your job tomorrow for a better job elsewhere (congrats mate). You do not have the same contractual arrangement with your employer that a footballer has with a club.

So, to recap - contracts are the key here. Contractual rights are what is sold between clubs - not players - and contracts, freely entered into, are what define the rights and responsibilities of the clubs and players. If players want more movement, they can sign shorter contracts, and gain freedom of movement in exchange for less compensation - everything is a quid pro quo.

No, that's true but that is not the problem. The problem is that a player that had a contract when the window closes can't work for another club after it closes which limits the freedom of movement.

If the contract is the assest one can question the value of that asset. The value should be the amout the player would recieve because that is what the club is prepared to pay for that particular contract. With that in mind, look at the Sterling transfer. How much was his contract worth when he signed for Man City? Not even in the region of £5m.

Sure contracts limit the freedom of movement but in the legal context of this discussion. The rights given by the EU are not aimed at the relationship between employer and employee primarily. The freedom of movement right is aimed at legislators so that they can't use formal requirements to limit the right for anybody in the EU. Adebayors situation comes to mind here. Employers could of course use non-compete clauses but I'm not sure that would be accepted by EU either.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

The value of any asset is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller - no more, no less.

It has nothing to do with the amount of compensation left on the contract - for the club, the value is an intangible asset based on the worth of having that player under contract, and unable to play for another team.

So, in your Sterling example - a willing buyer, paid an amount to a willing seller - based on the perceived value of having Sterling under contract.

Also - of course a player under contract can't move after the transfer deadline - that is the point of the contract, and as determined by the leagues, the least intrusive on the operation of a sporting league. Remember, the leagues in essence are promoting an entertainment product. If players are constantly coming and going thoughout the year, the leagues cannot present an adequate product to the public. Imagine a scenario, where every player on a team opts to leave the club on a Friday, before a Saturday match - can't have a product when you can't provide some reasonable guarantee that the teams can operate. The entire system would break down - not just one team. So you have to make reasonable accommodations to the leagues - a summer long trnasfer window, and a secondary January window. If you ask the clubs, they would eliminate the January window, and shorten the summer window - but those are accommodations to the players.

 

[Gbspurs]

Get rid of signing on fees and contracts too. All players on pay as you play.

 

[askbnad]

The value of any asset is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller - no more, no less.

It has nothing to do with the amount of compensation left on the contract - for the club, the value is an intangible asset based on the worth of having that player under contract, and unable to play for another team.

So, in your Sterling example - a willing buyer, paid an amount to a willing seller - based on the perceived value of having Sterling under contract.

Also - of course a player under contract can't move after the transfer deadline - that is the point of the contract, and as determined by the leagues, the least intrusive on the operation of a sporting league. Remember, the leagues in essence are promoting an entertainment product. If players are constantly coming and going thoughout the year, the leagues cannot present an adequate product to the public. Imagine a scenario, where every player on a team opts to leave the club on a Friday, before a Saturday match - can't have a product when you can't provide some reasonable guarantee that the teams can operate. The entire system would break down - not just one team. So you have to make reasonable accommodations to the leagues - a summer long trnasfer window, and a secondary January window. If you ask the clubs, they would eliminate the January window, and shorten the summer window - but those are accommodations to the players.

What if the player just refuses to train and play for the club? Whats the contract worth then? The amout of compensation left on the contract is the only figure that is reasonable. Everything else is just guessing. Lets say that Sterling terminated the contract without just cause. Should he owe Liverpool £49m and some change for that? Is there any basis for that valuation?

The point of the contract is not to be able to move after a transfer deadline. The contract is an employment contract and nothing else. The rule of not being able to represent two teams is a competion rule that is accepted due the nature of sports where one is expected to give his best at all times. Representing two teams might create conflict of interest and the rule is therefore accepted.

The only time a scenario of that kind could come into question is if the club doesn't pay the players the salaries. It's only fair that an employee can change employer if he or she isnt getting paid. You can't get to the scenario you are describing in any other way. If you move from club to club, like you've described, you'll just end up breaching contract after contract for which you will owe money. These changes will lead to shorter contracts and in most cases make sure the contract run it's full length. I don't believe that the aim is to create a market where players, unilaterlly, can terminate a contract and change employer. I can't see how they would win that claim in court.

The view that the transfer window is a accommdation for the players is based on the premise that a transfer is legal in the first place. Its that view that is being challanged by FIFPro.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

What if the player just refuses to train and play for the club? Whats the contract worth then? The amout of compensation left on the contract is the only figure that is reasonable. Everything else is just guessing. Lets say that Sterling terminated the contract without just cause. Should he owe Liverpool £49m and some change for that? Is there any basis for that valuation?

The point of the contract is not to be able to move after a transfer deadline. The contract is an employment contract and nothing else. The rule of not being able to represent two teams is a competion rule that is accepted due the nature of sports where one is expected to give his best at all times. Representing two teams might create conflict of interest and the rule is therefore accepted.

The only time a scenario of that kind could come into question is if the club doesn't pay the players the salaries. It's only fair that an employee can change employer if he or she isnt getting paid. You can't get to the scenario you are describing in any other way. If you move from club to club, like you've described, you'll just end up breaching contract after contract for which you will owe money. These changes will lead to shorter contracts and in most cases make sure the contract run it's full length. I don't believe that the aim is to create a market where players, unilaterlly, can terminate a contract and change employer. I can't see how they would win that claim in court.

The view that the transfer window is a accommdation for the players is based on the premise that a transfer is legal in the first place. Its that view that is being challanged by FIFPro.

1. Contract value - the value of a contract is ALWAYS worth what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. No exceptions. That value will fluctuate based on a number of factors - including the players dissatisfaction with his club, the length of time left on the contract, his current form, his HG status, his standing with the national team, the position he plays, and the budgets of the various teams, etc. Every club has their own valuation of their own player contracts - what is it worth to them to have a certain player on the squad, and also the valuation of other player contracts. There is no basis to say the value of a contract to a team is only what the club has left to pay. Harry Kane is worth far more to Spurs than the total payments left on his contract.

2. The scenario I laid out is what you seem to be advocating - free movement for the players. Sporting leagues simply cannot have complete free movement of players and continue to exist. Sporting leagues only exist for the entertainment/competition (and to make money from said entertainment/competition) - if they cannot guarantee competition, they cannot exist. So, unlike most industries, they require player contracts to ensure that teams have players. The contracts are employment contracts, but what you seem to ignore is, they are contracts. The team promises to pay, and the player promises to play. The team and player are free to negotiate the length of that contract - but, in the end it is a valid contract where the player gives up the right to move jobs when the spirit moves them, and in exchange, the clubs agree to pay them for the length of the contract. Most people do not have similar employment contracts - where their employer agrees to pay them a set amount, for a set period of time. Most of us coudl be sacked tomorrow, with no recourse against our employer. Players have no such worries, but they give up the right to move - its a quid pro quo.

3. So once you accept the validity of the employment contract - which players do when they sign, then yes, the transfer windows are an accommodation to the players to allow some movement. Players, more than teams, control the transfer market. As we saw this summer, if a player does not want to move, they do not have to move. The clubs are bound by their contract with the player, and can only assign those rights with the permission of the player. And, just as the Clubs are bound, so too are the players - they can't simply walk out on their club and go sign a contract with another team. Allowing that, as I noted earlier, puts the very notion of the leagues in jeopardy.

4. Players are free to move after the expiration of their contracts. So, they can sign shorter contracts, if they can find willing teams, and give up greater financial security, for greater movement. There is a reason clubs and players don't do this now - clubs would pay less knowing the player can leave sooner. Players want more, and agents want even more still.

5. The one area where the player can get some help, is in the tribute payments to developing clubs. The players can't get rid of them altogether as that would lead to unjust enrichment, and eventually you would see clubs stop spending money on developing players. But, they can make that process more transparent - and a little more objective in terms of what the compensation will be.