Removal of transfer fees suggested

[whitesocks]

"Contractual rights are what is sold between clubs - not players".
What weasely words - I'm sure likewise slaves were not sold - just their contract, which they themselves could pay up at any time if they wished and could afford it...

In practice, any of us should be so lucky to be tied into a multimillion pound contract, but in principle it is wrong, and it is especially damaging in such a high profile arrangement - this would not be so fun on the minimum wage.

But at least players can no longer be sold against their will which they should be quite thankful for - otherwise Adebayor could have just been TUPE transferred to Villa and that would have been that.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

"Contractual rights are what is sold between clubs - not players".
What weasely words - I'm sure likewise slaves were not sold - just their contract, which they themselves could pay up at any time if they wished and could afford it...

In practice, any of us should be so lucky to be tied into a multimillion pound contract, but in principle it is wrong, and it is especially damaging in such a high profile arrangement - this would not be so fun on the minimum wage.

But at least players can no longer be sold against their will which they should be quite thankful for - otherwise Adebayor could have just been TUPE transferred to Villa and that would have been that.

Players can't be sold against their will imo - just ask Ade, or Fazio, or any number of players who did not want to move.


But, make no mistake here - this case is not about freedom of movement this case is about money - and money only. the players want a bigger piece of the pie - particularly with the new TV revenues. What the players, and their agents want is more of that money going into player salaries, and not into transfer fees.

For the supporters, more player movement is a bad thing for almost every club - even the big clubs, as it will lead to greater instability on the team, constantly having player turnover.

I don't mind players getting paid - I am not offended by huge salaries - I think they earn everything they can get - but when it comes to this - allowing players to essentially void contracts, makes the contracts they sign worthless. They have the ability today to increased player movement - sign 1-year deals. If you take the benefit of guaranteed salary, then you have to take the trade off of the long-term deals.

 

[askbnad]

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.

1. Non of those factors translate to a sum of money that can be proved in a court. What is the home-grown status worth? £1m? £2m? The only sum that can be proved is the compensation left on the contract. Harrys contract is worth just that, to him. And Harry is worth just that to Spurs aswell as that is the sum we are willing to pay for him to be our player. I'd say that is a pretty good basis as i can prove my valutation. How can someone prove the value of all those factors that you have mentioned? It's impossible! You'd just be guessing.In that case the same principles should be used if a club terminates a players contract. Is it reasonable that a player gets a £20m payout if the club terminates his contract? Even if he wouldve made £5m otherwise. I understand what you are getting at but I'm looking at a bit more from a legal angle. It's hard to claim that your loses are bigger than what you were willing to invest in a player to begin with. Same sets of principles should apply to both parties.

2. I don't think you understood my point completely. Free movement doesn't mean the player can ignore a contract and go to another club. Lets consider the following scenario where there are no transfers between the clubs: Player X commits to Club Y on 2 year deal worth £20m. If the player terminates the contract, without having any legal basis for it, after 1 year in. The player would in that case owe the club £10m as that is the damages to the club (the compensation left on the contract = value). If the player after that signs a new contract with Club Z worth £10m he will be losing money after taxes. I'm sure about the taxes in UK but i think its around 50% for high earners in most countries. That means the player needs a salary in excess of £20m to even make money. It would take £40m to be making the same amout as in Club Y. Free movement means that there can't be any formal requirements or rules that stop you from taking a job at another club.

3. I have to disagree. Employment is something you can't force upon a person, even if you have a contract with that person. You just cant force someone to take empolyment somewhere else. It's not legal in any line of business nor should it be! It won't put the league at jeopardy considering how much it cost the player to walk away from a contract. (see above)

4. Agree with most here. If you remove the transfer fees more clubs will be willing to go for shorter contracts.

5. It's a good idea in theory but doesn't work very well when put to practice, at least in leagues with less money. Sweden has implemented a set sum for traning compensation depending on the level of club that signs the player. The sums are nothing for the clubs in the 1st and 2nd divison. However few clubs in the lower division can pay the sums that are set and many clubs refuse to let the player go for nothing so people end up not being able to play until they are 24 years. As I'm writing this I've come to realise that this would work very well in England as the teams in England have better economy than most countries. It would probably work without the transfer system aswell. You could even increase the age for when the traning compensation payments stop at 26 years. The reason I say probably is because the compensation itself can be seen as a way to limit the freedom of movement, legally speaking. However its probably an acceptable limitation as its aimed to help clubs with less finincial strength to be able to develop player.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

1. Non of those factors translate to a sum of money that can be proved in a court. What is the home-grown status worth? £1m? £2m? The only sum that can be proved is the compensation left on the contract. Harrys contract is worth just that, to him. And Harry is worth just that to Spurs aswell as that is the sum we are willing to pay for him to be our player. I'd say that is a pretty good basis as i can prove my valutation. How can someone prove the value of all those factors that you have mentioned? It's impossible! You'd just be guessing.In that case the same principles should be used if a club terminates a players contract. Is it reasonable that a player gets a £20m payout if the club terminates his contract? Even if he wouldve made £5m otherwise. I understand what you are getting at but I'm looking at a bit more from a legal angle. It's hard to claim that your loses are bigger than what you were willing to invest in a player to begin with. Same sets of principles should apply to both parties.

2. I don't think you understood my point completely. Free movement doesn't mean the player can ignore a contract and go to another club. Lets consider the following scenario where there are no transfers between the clubs: Player X commits to Club Y on 2 year deal worth £20m. If the player terminates the contract, without having any legal basis for it, after 1 year in. The player would in that case owe the club £10m as that is the damages to the club (the compensation left on the contract = value). If the player after that signs a new contract with Club Z worth £10m he will be losing money after taxes. I'm sure about the taxes in UK but i think its around 50% for high earners in most countries. That means the player needs a salary in excess of £20m to even make money. It would take £40m to be making the same amout as in Club Y. Free movement means that there can't be any formal requirements or rules that stop you from taking a job at another club.

3. I have to disagree. Employment is something you can't force upon a person, even if you have a contract with that person. You just cant force someone to take empolyment somewhere else. It's not legal in any line of business nor should it be! It won't put the league at jeopardy considering how much it cost the player to walk away from a contract. (see above)

4. Agree with most here. If you remove the transfer fees more clubs will be willing to go for shorter contracts.

5. It's a good idea in theory but doesn't work very well when put to practice, at least in leagues with less money. Sweden has implemented a set sum for traning compensation depending on the level of club that signs the player. The sums are nothing for the clubs in the 1st and 2nd divison. However few clubs in the lower division can pay the sums that are set and many clubs refuse to let the player go for nothing so people end up not being able to play until they are 24 years. As I'm writing this I've come to realise that this would work very well in England as the teams in England have better economy than most countries. It would probably work without the transfer system aswell. You could even increase the age for when the traning compensation payments stop at 26 years. The reason I say probably is because the compensation itself can be seen as a way to limit the freedom of movement, legally speaking. However its probably an acceptable limitation as its aimed to help clubs with less finincial strength to be able to develop player.

1. I am going to guess you have never been to court - you can "prove" what ever you need in court - you bring in economists, accountants and other "experts". Of course its all subjective - but the "value" of the contract to the club is certainly not what ever the club has left to pay - the contract is worth whatever a club is willing to pay for it - this is basic contract/economic stuff here.

2. You miss the concept of a contract - yes employees have rights. But, with a contract, you bargain away certain rights in exchange for your own rights. Again, not breaking new ground here - people are free to bargain away almost all rights so long as they reach an arm's-length agreement, and not under coercion. These players are represented by agents and lawyers - they are on equal footing with the club in that respect. They are free to bargain away their rights to free movement.

And, I will reiterate - don't lose the forest for the trees here - this is only about money, not player movement. The players, and more specifically, their agents, want more of the money that is coming into football. Every pound not spent on transfer fees, is a pound that should go to the players and agents. There is soon going to be a lot more money in almost all european leagues as broadcast rights continue to rise around the world - the players are angling to ensure they get those new funds, and not the clubs. In reality, clubs and players will need to figure out an appropriate split - but the only thing I can be sure of, is that supporters will be the only ones losing money on this deal...

 

[Xeeleeyid]

Players can't be sold against their will imo - just ask Ade, or Fazio, or any number of players who did not want to move.


But, make no mistake here - this case is not about freedom of movement this case is about money - and money only. the players want a bigger piece of the pie - particularly with the new TV revenues. What the players, and their agents want is more of that money going into player salaries, and not into transfer fees.

For the supporters, more player movement is a bad thing for almost every club - even the big clubs, as it will lead to greater instability on the team, constantly having player turnover.

I don't mind players getting paid - I am not offended by huge salaries - I think they earn everything they can get - but when it comes to this - allowing players to essentially void contracts, makes the contracts they sign worthless. They have the ability today to increased player movement - sign 1-year deals. If you take the benefit of guaranteed salary, then you have to take the trade off of the long-term deals.

It's not about money, FIFPro represent over 70,000 players, the vast majority of which earn around the living wage or below. The cases that go to court are almost always at the lower level, as players are fighting for their livelihoods. Bosman was fighting for the right to join a French second division team when he took his case to the European Court of Justice. His existing club was withholding his registration after his contract expired, but wasn't prepared to give him a new contract or let him play or even train for them. He was put in an impossible situation and treated like sh**.

Many of FIFPro's members have brought complaints forward about being subjected to violence, intimidation, bullying. Players in some countries like Malaysia, Russia, Serbia etc have had their wages withheld by their clubs for months because they have missed a penalty in a play-off and the owners have banned them from the training ground and then refused to release them from their contracts effectively ending their careers. These are the players this action is being brought on behalf, not the top 1 per cent of players you see on TV.

 

[Xeeleeyid]

1. I am going to guess you have never been to court - you can "prove" what ever you need in court - you bring in economists, accountants and other "experts". Of course its all subjective - but the "value" of the contract to the club is certainly not what ever the club has left to pay - the contract is worth whatever a club is willing to pay for it - this is basic contract/economic stuff here.

2. You miss the concept of a contract - yes employees have rights. But, with a contract, you bargain away certain rights in exchange for your own rights. Again, not breaking new ground here - people are free to bargain away almost all rights so long as they reach an arm's-length agreement, and not under coercion. These players are represented by agents and lawyers - they are on equal footing with the club in that respect. They are free to bargain away their rights to free movement.

And, I will reiterate - don't lose the forest for the trees here - this is only about money, not player movement. The players, and more specifically, their agents, want more of the money that is coming into football. Every pound not spent on transfer fees, is a pound that should go to the players and agents. There is soon going to be a lot more money in almost all european leagues as broadcast rights continue to rise around the world - the players are angling to ensure they get those new funds, and not the clubs. In reality, clubs and players will need to figure out an appropriate split - but the only thing I can be sure of, is that supporters will be the only ones losing money on this deal...

You can't bargain away your rights in a contract. Well you can, but the contract will be unenforceable. There is a whole raft of legislation, such as Unfair Contract Terms Act and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations as well as judicial precedent that demonstrates this.

You cannot enter into a contract that agrees to part with your rights under Freedom of Movement and Employment law, or the Human Rights laws etc.

 

[askbnad]

1. I am going to guess you have never been to court - you can "prove" what ever you need in court - you bring in economists, accountants and other "experts". Of course its all subjective - but the "value" of the contract to the club is certainly not what ever the club has left to pay - the contract is worth whatever a club is willing to pay for it - this is basic contract/economic stuff here.

2. You miss the concept of a contract - yes employees have rights. But, with a contract, you bargain away certain rights in exchange for your own rights. Again, not breaking new ground here - people are free to bargain away almost all rights so long as they reach an arm's-length agreement, and not under coercion. These players are represented by agents and lawyers - they are on equal footing with the club in that respect. They are free to bargain away their rights to free movement.

And, I will reiterate - don't lose the forest for the trees here - this is only about money, not player movement. The players, and more specifically, their agents, want more of the money that is coming into football. Every pound not spent on transfer fees, is a pound that should go to the players and agents. There is soon going to be a lot more money in almost all european leagues as broadcast rights continue to rise around the world - the players are angling to ensure they get those new funds, and not the clubs. In reality, clubs and players will need to figure out an appropriate split - but the only thing I can be sure of, is that supporters will be the only ones losing money on this deal...

1. I have been to court, dont worry. Actually had a case in both FIFAs DRC and CAS so I have some experince. I don't what if you are a lawyer or have some form of knowledge of the law (you sure do sound like an economist, i must say) but it's not that easy to prove things. Having the burden of proof is the hardest thing in law as the other party can simply just sit there and not say anything. I agree that the contracts value is based on what a club is willing to pay but, and this is where we have different opinion, its the club which is a party to the contract that is relevant. The value of salary and other benefits is what that club is willing to pay a certain player. A third party can consider the player to have twice the value but that doesn't change the valuation of the club that concluded the contract.

2. I don't miss the concept of a contract. You miss the fact that there can be changes along the way that makes either party to wanna cancel the agreement. The problem isn't that a contract runs its full length. The problems occur when a party decieds not to fulfil their obligations according to the contract. The first problem when that happends is to determine the damage caused to the club by the players action. The second problem the arise from this is that the player, with the current regulations, isn't allowed to work in another club. That is a limit on the freedom of movement and therefore not allowed in EU. You don't bargain away your freedom of movement by signing a contract with a football club. You just commit to train and play football for a club, Even if you would sign a non-compete clause, there is no way that clause is enforcable. Non-competes are accepted only if neccessary to protect the business. A CEO for example has knowledge of both short and long term plans in a company and can therefore have a non-compete up to 5 years iirc. You can never bargain away the purpose and the cornerstone of the EU unless it's absolutely necessary to protect a business. That is hardly the case with football players.

As for the agents want money, read @Xeeleeyid 's post. He is spot on!

 

[nailsy]

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

It does seem a bit ridiculous to compare a football player to a normal employee. I don't remember my agent negotiating a signing on fee for my job.

I do think the system should be looked at. It surely can't be right that clubs can refuse transfer requests. A player signing a five year contract could easily see his life circumstances change significantly during that time and may need to move at some point during that time.

 

[worcestersauce]

Surely the simple outcome will be back loaded contracts so that a player gets paid £100k per week as an average over a five year contract but actually earn only £20k per week in the first year £50k in the second year and earn the big money in the final years.
If the club wants to release the player they have to make up the full five year contract but if the player wants to walk after two years he would only have earned the equivalent of around £35k per week, his loss but he is free to go, and so his employment rights would be protected.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Surely the simple outcome will be back loaded contracts so that a player gets paid £100k per week as an average over a five year contract but actually earn only £20k per week in the first year £50k in the second year and earn the big money in the final years.
If the club wants to release the player they have to make up the full five year contract but if the player wants to walk after two years he would only have earned the equivalent of around £35k per week, his loss but he is free to go, and so his employment rights would be protected.

I doubt it would work that way even though it sounds sensible.

Why would any player agree to it when there are so many other ways of negotiating a contract that gives the players a better deal? Players and their agents wouldn't listen to it. They have no need to.

The players are in such a strong position I can't see anything much different from even higher salaries, shorter contracts and loyalty payments as you suggest, but not to such an extent that they reduce the monthly wages.

 

[worcestersauce]

I doubt it would work that way even though it sounds sensible.

Why would any player agree to it when there are so many other ways of negotiating a contract that gives the players a better deal? Players and their agents wouldn't listen to it. They have no need to.

The players are in such a strong position I can't see anything much different from even higher salaries, shorter contracts and loyalty payments as you suggest, but not to such an extent that they reduce the monthly wages.

You may be right but if they became universal what club would buck the trend knowing the player could walk any time he liked.
I guess you may be right and it would be more likely done as loyalty payments but that would surely lead to lower salaries wouldn't it.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

You may be right but if they became universal what club would buck the trend knowing the player could walk any time he liked.
I guess you may be right and it would be more likely done as loyalty payments but that would surely lead to lower salaries wouldn't it.

I doubt it.

The players are 100% in the driving seat here. It's the clubs chasing the players that is driving salaries up, and until the TV income starts falling (no time soon) the clubs will be in no position to dictate terms or argue the logic of lower salaries.

If one club tries it on, you can be sure another will jump in with a bigger salary, and the clubs all know this. Even if our club sometimes makes it look as though they don't!