Tweet
The Gael Kakuta Case: FIFA Is Wrong
Posted by Ilan Liebner
I wanted to offer a comment on the Gael Kakuta case. This is a follow-up / extension of a post from fellow writer Cameron, so hopefully he can comment on my thoughts.
To give some background on Kakuta, in 2007, when the player was just 16 years of age, he transferred from RC Lens to Chelsea. This transfer was subject to a FIFA investigation that ruled the player had breached his contract with the French club. Chelsea were found guilty of having induced the player to breach his contract. Finding Kakuta and Chelsea guilty, FIFA fined the player €780,000 and banned Chelsea from signing any new players until January 2011.
It is not doubted that RC Lens were hit hard by the departure of Kakuta. He was their prized asset and Chelsea took him for minimal compensation. The small club, RC Lens, suffered damage at the hands of a richer club, Chelsea.
But at the highest echelons of FIFA as well as UEFA, the argument has been made with strong language that it was Kakuta who was exploited in the transfer to Chelsea. FIFA President Sepp Blatter labelled the transfer "child slavery" and Uefa president Michel Platini called it "child trafficking".
Clearly a dual message is being preached by FIFA. The organization claims that it wants to help both small clubs, as evidenced by the investigation, and young players, as evidenced by Blatter's statement on Kakuta.
My take on this is that FIFA is lying rather than properly addressing the tough issue of the signing of underage players. Cameron wrote regarding the Paul Pogba signing, "We can see from this story that any regulations of [the signing of underage players] are likely to hurt those everybody professes to want to protect: the children. See, for instance, UEFA's Michel Platini: "The question of minors is above all a moral and ethical issue. We have a duty to take concrete steps to protect young players and training clubs.
Platini's heart seems to be in the right place, but you simply can't protect [the clubs] without endangering [the children]."
To take on the matter of the investigation first, FIFA found Kakuta guilty of breaching his contract with his former team. The problem here lies in the fact Kakuta was just 16 years of age at the time of the transfer and hence a child, and FIFA have now made it the law that 16 year old kids are accountable to contracts. The question Cameron previously raised rings true, "Do we really think we are helping him, or the thousands of exploited footballing prospects flown in from Africa or South American by shady agents, if we create enforceable contracts for underage players?"
"Countries around the world recognize that children shouldn't generally be held to enforceable contracts, particularly on things like education, housing, and employment." So I would want to know why FIFA just opened this can. The repercussions of this case could be severe for thousands of underage players across the world. Now that kids are accountable for their contracts, how many shady agents and owners have suddenly licked their lips and run off to Africa to screw a kid? What if the kid decides he doesn't want to play football the following month? He's 16. Shouldn't this be allowed? What if the kid decides he'd rather live somewhere else? He's a kid. Shouldn't this be allowed? FIFA has now opened this issue. Of course small clubs will now be protected, but kids will suffer.
Now onto whether the inducing of underage players to sign for a club is detrimental to the kids? To steal from Cameron again, as I'm basically running his Pogba story but applying it to Kakuta, taking the Kakuta case in point: notwithstanding the shadiness of the deal, Kakuta made a lot of money out of his deal with Chelsea that RC Lens could not match. I don't see this as detrimental to the kid. I see this as benefiting the kid.
FIFA need to decide who they want to protect: the small clubs and shady agents or the children. If FIFA wants to protect the small clubs and shady agents, the kids will lose out on offers that will provide financial security to themselves and their families while potentially being locked into contracts that hold them to unkind terms. If FIFA wants to protect the kids, small clubs such as RC Lens will lose out on millions of Euros of potential cash. What FIFA cannot do is help both the small clubs and shady agents alongside the kids.
Ideally a resolution will come about, a resolution that helps smaller clubs but acknowledges that 16 year olds are kids. But this is not within my capability at the moment. What is clear is that FIFA is not moving toward a resolution of this issue; instead its leadership is stating that it is caring for both the small clubs and the kids when that is clearly far from the case.
Source: Plain Soccer
The source for in-depth soccer analysis.
Posted by Ilan Liebner
I wanted to offer a comment on the Gael Kakuta case. This is a follow-up / extension of a post from fellow writer Cameron, so hopefully he can comment on my thoughts.
To give some background on Kakuta, in 2007, when the player was just 16 years of age, he transferred from RC Lens to Chelsea. This transfer was subject to a FIFA investigation that ruled the player had breached his contract with the French club. Chelsea were found guilty of having induced the player to breach his contract. Finding Kakuta and Chelsea guilty, FIFA fined the player €780,000 and banned Chelsea from signing any new players until January 2011.
It is not doubted that RC Lens were hit hard by the departure of Kakuta. He was their prized asset and Chelsea took him for minimal compensation. The small club, RC Lens, suffered damage at the hands of a richer club, Chelsea.
But at the highest echelons of FIFA as well as UEFA, the argument has been made with strong language that it was Kakuta who was exploited in the transfer to Chelsea. FIFA President Sepp Blatter labelled the transfer "child slavery" and Uefa president Michel Platini called it "child trafficking".
Clearly a dual message is being preached by FIFA. The organization claims that it wants to help both small clubs, as evidenced by the investigation, and young players, as evidenced by Blatter's statement on Kakuta.
My take on this is that FIFA is lying rather than properly addressing the tough issue of the signing of underage players. Cameron wrote regarding the Paul Pogba signing, "We can see from this story that any regulations of [the signing of underage players] are likely to hurt those everybody professes to want to protect: the children. See, for instance, UEFA's Michel Platini: "The question of minors is above all a moral and ethical issue. We have a duty to take concrete steps to protect young players and training clubs.
Platini's heart seems to be in the right place, but you simply can't protect [the clubs] without endangering [the children]."
To take on the matter of the investigation first, FIFA found Kakuta guilty of breaching his contract with his former team. The problem here lies in the fact Kakuta was just 16 years of age at the time of the transfer and hence a child, and FIFA have now made it the law that 16 year old kids are accountable to contracts. The question Cameron previously raised rings true, "Do we really think we are helping him, or the thousands of exploited footballing prospects flown in from Africa or South American by shady agents, if we create enforceable contracts for underage players?"
"Countries around the world recognize that children shouldn't generally be held to enforceable contracts, particularly on things like education, housing, and employment." So I would want to know why FIFA just opened this can. The repercussions of this case could be severe for thousands of underage players across the world. Now that kids are accountable for their contracts, how many shady agents and owners have suddenly licked their lips and run off to Africa to screw a kid? What if the kid decides he doesn't want to play football the following month? He's 16. Shouldn't this be allowed? What if the kid decides he'd rather live somewhere else? He's a kid. Shouldn't this be allowed? FIFA has now opened this issue. Of course small clubs will now be protected, but kids will suffer.
Now onto whether the inducing of underage players to sign for a club is detrimental to the kids? To steal from Cameron again, as I'm basically running his Pogba story but applying it to Kakuta, taking the Kakuta case in point: notwithstanding the shadiness of the deal, Kakuta made a lot of money out of his deal with Chelsea that RC Lens could not match. I don't see this as detrimental to the kid. I see this as benefiting the kid.
FIFA need to decide who they want to protect: the small clubs and shady agents or the children. If FIFA wants to protect the small clubs and shady agents, the kids will lose out on offers that will provide financial security to themselves and their families while potentially being locked into contracts that hold them to unkind terms. If FIFA wants to protect the kids, small clubs such as RC Lens will lose out on millions of Euros of potential cash. What FIFA cannot do is help both the small clubs and shady agents alongside the kids.
Ideally a resolution will come about, a resolution that helps smaller clubs but acknowledges that 16 year olds are kids. But this is not within my capability at the moment. What is clear is that FIFA is not moving toward a resolution of this issue; instead its leadership is stating that it is caring for both the small clubs and the kids when that is clearly far from the case.
Source: Plain Soccer
The source for in-depth soccer analysis.
Comment