Football transfer system must change - World Players' Union

[Karl]

Is this not protection against taking with you - a) information that can reasonably be termed your former employer's or company's product or 'business secrets', intellectual or other property ...and or... b) 'stealing of a client or clients'? ...and or... c) opening a competing business within a certain geography area?

Isn't this far removed from being allowed or prevented from seeking employment?

The footballer has a limited window within which to sell his/her labour in particular market(s). That is an entirely different situation from those covered under any 'non-compete clause'.

It is the lifting of restriction on what is legally allowable to others in the job market that the footballers are fighting for. The footballers wish to have access to the same legal options available to others in their job market...the right to move from job to job as long as there is a willing hiring party...or the right to stop playing/retire?

We all recognize that the footballer can be fired under named contract included clauses - including lack of acceptable performance on the job. If that is solely in the purview of the club and its best interests then surely the club cannot also have the right to deny the footballer from seeking employment elsewhere or to stop playing as he seeks what is in his/her best interest?

...and as the rights of the clubs are protected in contracts and applicable law surely players rights should also be?

I do not know...but it seems to me contracts can be agreed where action following on player exercising right to leave - seek new employment or to stop working/retire - can be spelled (spelt) out. What do you think?

[Bricktop]

It's about not being able to break your contract and take your talents to the competitor i.e. another club...

[Karl]

Karl!!! Answer this...............
You have a team that is a good Championship team & there's a very talented 19 year old who's having a break-out year & impressing everyone (all the elite BPL teams want him). This player has been with the club since 5 & you have invested in his growth & development. This youngster & his agent sees the potential for a BIG pay day playing for one of the elite BPL teams + endorsements.

Question - You have no problem with this player notifying you he's leaving for one of those BPL clubs & the only thing you'll receive is the remainder of his contract??? And do you think it's fair compensation for all you have invested in this player???

In this named case -
I may not like his moving on...but -
a) It should be his right subject to 'contractual agreement or agreements previously written in his contract being fulfilled;

b) Once he is in contract, negotiated compensation relative to his market value must be paid to his current club;

c) The protections provided by FIFA's Statutes on training compensation payments and solidarity mechanism payments as same relates to (his) football education provided by his current club must be fulfilled.

See: FIFA.com - FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
•VII. TRAINING COMPENSATION AND SOLIDARITY MECHANISM
23 20. Training compensation ;

NB: In the case you mentioned value must be received for investment in the player's football education.

There cannot be

the only thing you'll receive is the remainder of his contract???

. The transfer of the player cannot take place without satisfying the obligations for 'football education' of the player. The club that wishes to purchase his services would not be able to complete a transfer.

The only dissatisfaction 'selling club'...reluctant 'selling club...would have must be that felt on losing a player that it was determined the club would have rather kept. ...and that would be just too bad. Hush!

[Paul Marin]

I think my example above looked at the average employee who is hired but NOT on contract as is the football player. The club has to plan for its season and therefore wouldn't expect the player to simply jump ship willy-nilly and so I think my comparison is apples and oranges.

So, if the player wants to break the contract, what I'm reading is that the "new " club would simply have to pay the balance of the player's contract as opposed to a "transfer fee". The transfer fee has two purposes, one to compensate the "old" club for losing a player they either consider they developed, or simply in lieu of paying out the rest of the contract AND also as a deterrent to the player from jumping ship at a crucial time.

Given that clubs obviously want some predictability and certainty in planning, having an employee decide to move at any given moment would make things chaotic. So I guess I'm leaning to the status quo.... but I think i need to think this through some more.

I'm running. Hope to actually address your comment later.

The difference is that football players are not employees...they are contractors. Big difference. Even outside of football, a company could "sell" the rights to a contract to a third party, provided there is nothing in their contract with the second party preventing them from doing so. I am not sure how contracts with players are written (mo may know) but I assume there are standard industry assignment clauses and rights to "sell" baked in. As I see it, if this is what footballers want, then one consequence they would have to live with is lower wages as a big part of the revenue generation for a club is in selling players they develop.

[Karl]

As I see it, if this is what footballers want, then one consequence they would have to live with is lower wages as a big part of the revenue generation for a club is in selling players they develop.

That matter of a compensation would not wane!

I think what is being overlooked is the difference between -
i) A player out of contract moving on...in this case it is usually more often that it is the club's refusal to offer "an extension" (really new contract)...rather than player refusing to negotiate on 'extension'...

...and...

ii) what holds when the club decides (e.g. Suarez's recent case) to negotiate an extension with time still available on the current contract.

The point on impasse stems from personal interest clash i.e. club's interest do not move in sync with player's interest. Only when there cannot be a 'meeting of the minds' is there a parting of the ways.

What is wrong with having the player enjoying the same (weighted) rights as the club on ability to move in own self-interest?

What the players are asking is not all that 'earth-shaking'. The club's pay and thus will always have that strong negotiating tool.

NB: Compensation for 'player in contract' sale is guaranteed!!!
...in a real sense once the club allows a contract to expire or the player does so, both parties realize there can be no compensation due the club for the player.

Aside: Gamma: Can straighten me out here.

My memory tells - (hope it is fiyahin rite?) - that the US Major League has some clause in player/club contracts whereby compensation is due to the last club during an earmarked period after the player has been informed a new contract will not be offered.

[Gamma]

karl, i have been trying to straighten you out for years to no avail, is this a gillmer of hope?!!

having said that i am not sure i understand what your question is ..., if indeed there is one.

[Bricktop]

If a club wants to negotiate an extension with time still available on the contract that is straightforward...either the player wants to extend or he doesn't...if a player wants to leave they have to either play out their contract or hope the club moves them...not sure what the issue is

[Karl]

karl, i have been trying to straighten you out for years to no avail, is this a gillmer of hope?!!

Yuh eva gi mi sensible hansa dat mi nuh tek?
Let me answer No!!!

*...but iffen yuh gi mi fool-fool hansa...den

having said that i am not sure i understand what your question is ..., if indeed there is one.

To clarify that contracts...proper contracts...always address how terminated (means by which can be brought to an end)...= in this specific case, how players or clubs can end up 'walking away'.

...and the MLS special case where after a player has been let go there is payment/compensation due to former club being an obligation that the new club has?

*Have to admit I cannot remember any such 'fool-fool' answer

[Gamma]

contract can always be terminated by mutual consent. the otheer ways are for cause (material breach) fluxion of time or upon the occurence of a particular event.

these days there are such things as buyout clauses which are really subject only to the crativity of those of draft them and what the aprties are preared to agree to .... there are also tag along or drag along rights which may come into play as a result of a previous contract (sounds like what happened in the MLS case you are talking about).

[Karl]

Thanks!
...therefore I am thinking what the players are asking for is no big deal. The football authorities should just cave!!!

[Bricktop]

how you reach there now?