| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... 11:00 - Oct 4 with 1806 views | Ifonly |
Today the European Court found that FIFA's transfer rules are illegal in the EU. It said that “The rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club,” which basically means that players who fancy a pay rise by moving to a bigger club should be able to break their contract without compensating their old club. I'm no legal expert but this seems to me to be an even more fundamental change than the Bosman ruling.
This, like Bosman, is an EU ruling but it seems to mean that FIFA will have to change the transfer rules to allow players to move mid-contract without compensation. So, if we had Tyler Dibling, for example, on a 5 year contract but he decided he'd rather play for Man City, he could just leave and start playing for them. He would not have to compensate Saints and Man City wouldn't have to pay a transfer fee.
People aren't yet making a big deal of this and it may take many years for the implications to work through, but at the end of it, I can't see any legal basis for transfer fees existing at all. Ultimately any player could move when they wanted to and claim that any transfer fee was a restriction on their freedom of movement. It may take another test case to make it happen, but that seems to be where we're going. There may also be other implications. For example, transfer windows would now appear to be illegal too as they also impede free movement of workers.
As with everything else in modern football, this ruling would benefit the players and the biggest clubs at the expense of everyone else. The Bosman ruling was a kick in the teeth for small clubs, this may be a death knell.
The legal case was brought by Lassana Diarra, an ex skate. |  | | |  |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 11:04 - Oct 4 with 1785 views | saintwizzler |
Games gone |  |
| We thought that we had the answers,
It was the questions we had wrong. |
| |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 11:24 - Oct 4 with 1742 views | kingslandstand1 |
Can we not use Brexit to our advantage with that? Just asking like ............... |  | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 13:42 - Oct 4 with 1548 views | UTS1885 |
Yeah this would mean contracts are worth nothing and a player could leave with say a months notice or even resign and leave i suppose. There would be no trasnfer fees. [Post edited 4 Oct 13:45]
|  | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 13:47 - Oct 4 with 1539 views | PatfromPoole |
Final nail in the coffin for football as a competitive sport if it takes effect. |  |
| |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 14:22 - Oct 4 with 1514 views | Ifonly |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 11:24 - Oct 4 by kingslandstand1 |
Can we not use Brexit to our advantage with that? Just asking like ............... |
I believe the situation is that if we want to be involved in international football, then we need to follow FIFA's rules. And if FIFA want to exist in Europe, then they need to follow the EU's rules. So, in other words, Brexit makes no difference unless the FA withdraws from FIFA which won't happen. | | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 15:05 - Oct 4 with 1475 views | saint901 |
We're not of course in the EU so the ruling of the European Court makes no difference.
There will be a problem with players moving from/to Europe and the UK.
The ruling is based on freedom of movement of people and capital. Those rules can override terms and conditions in contracts to a certain extent but if the contract is "fair" and written in compliance with the rules, it's hard to see how club/player could walk away from it.
Some contracts will not comply of course - perhaps those between a player a feeder club to a larger club - and these may fall. | | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 15:14 - Oct 4 with 1456 views | kingslandstand1 |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 14:22 - Oct 4 by Ifonly |
I believe the situation is that if we want to be involved in international football, then we need to follow FIFA's rules. And if FIFA want to exist in Europe, then they need to follow the EU's rules. So, in other words, Brexit makes no difference unless the FA withdraws from FIFA which won't happen. |
Logic really I suppose. Fk the EU! | | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 15:36 - Oct 4 with 1417 views | Ifonly |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 15:05 - Oct 4 by saint901 |
We're not of course in the EU so the ruling of the European Court makes no difference.
There will be a problem with players moving from/to Europe and the UK.
The ruling is based on freedom of movement of people and capital. Those rules can override terms and conditions in contracts to a certain extent but if the contract is "fair" and written in compliance with the rules, it's hard to see how club/player could walk away from it.
Some contracts will not comply of course - perhaps those between a player a feeder club to a larger club - and these may fall. |
Not true because:
- we have to follow FIFA's rules for domestic transfers too, so this doesn't only relate to European transfers
- the exisitng rules said that a contract could be broken if it was unfair, the new ruling says that it doesn't even have to be ruled unfair because even fair contracts restrict freedom of movement
- Diarra had signed a contract which paid a lot of money but he then decided he didn't like it and broke it. The case went to FIFA and they ruled that he had to pay compensation to the club and a transfer fee had to be paid to allow him to play elsewhere i.e. they ruled that the contract was fair. The EU court has overruled those decisions and said that FIFA needs to change its rules such that players would be allowed to do what Diarra did and walk away, irrespective of whether the contract was fair or not. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 16:57 - Oct 4 with 1353 views | arfurdent |
a lawyer friend thinks this may have wider implication for business employment contracts |  |
| And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's off with her head |
| |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 18:35 - Oct 4 with 1272 views | Ifonly |
A few other points about how this will apply in the UK:
1) Diarra's contract was with Lokomotiv Moscow, which is not an EU based club. So if he had been complaining that he wasn't being allowed to walk away from a UK club without compensation, the court would have made the same ruling i.e. they would have ruled that no compensation was payable to the UK club.
2) The Bosman ruling was also made in an EU court, but it is now applied globally e.g. I believe our recent Brazilian signings were based on their contracts running out.
3) Since the news was announced a number of comment pieces have been published. None of them say this only applies to the EU. Also, from the BBC piece:
"The result could mean far-reaching consequences for the transfer system, similar to how the Bosman Ruling affected transfers in 1995," sports barrister Yasin Patel told BBC Sport.
"Players may now be able to move more freely to other clubs by breaking with a contract as opposed to being tied to the club and contract. In addition, buying clubs may not have to pay compensation or claims."
Futher on down it says: "More widely, it demonstrates again that football cannot behave like it does not have to work within the same employment laws that apply to any other industry."
That's the real issue because if I work for Tesco and want to go and work for Lidl, there is no transfer fee payable. | | | |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 20:31 - Oct 4 with 1205 views | InTimeAddedOn |
| If you thought the Bosman ruling was bad... on 11:04 - Oct 4 by saintwizzler |
Games gone |
Spot on. If this comes in, then well & truly gone, and gone for good.
Clubs like ours will be no better off because the scumbag agents will want every penny of what was the transfer fee for the player they represent as an even more over inflated signing on fee or alternatively paid in chunks as higher wages every month. In that scenario it would be pointless us signing Ramsdale, for example, let’s say we paid him £10m signing on fee in lieu of a transfer fee and maybe an extra £25k a week also in lieu of a fee then in December let’s say Newcastle’s keeper gets the same injury Bazunu got and off Ramsdale goes without any financial compensation to us. Just would not be worth the risk as the better off club’s would literally pick off all the best players as and when they wanted to.
The only benefit I can see would be if players no longer have a value we could simply get rid of the likes of Ross Stewart without having to pay off a huge contract, if you are not getting anything for a player when they leave then why have them on anything other than a three month rolling contract? Same for managers for that matter! And loyalty bonuses can go in the trash bin as well. Also, might as well scrap the Academy because if you produce a Dibling he’ll be gone for nothing with four weeks notice so what’s the point?
All I can see is the clubs with rich owners getting further and further away from the rest of us, so as you rightly say, the game’s gone.
RIP Association Football for the majority of us, the plastics will inherit the earth. [Post edited 4 Oct 20:34]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.