General Football 2013/14: Page 115 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

General Football 2013/14

Irishgunner

Holy fuck, possibly a massive ruling in Belgium today :o

The Dahmane case in Belgium: players can cancel their contract by paying a maximum of one year's wage.

A court in Belgium has ruled that players can cancel their contracts by paying double of their remaining season's wage with a maximum of 100% of a years salary and a minimum of 50%. The court's motivation was the fact that professional athletes should be considered as normal employees.

It could possibly (probably imo) be the end of transfer fees in Belgian football.

Could it be for the rest Europe? Could this be the end of transfer fees?

Kurtz

I doubt most average players have a years wage lying around. And even if they did most would rather wait it out instead of handing over money. This might just make the real transfer fee of a player his years wages which the buying team can provide, sort of a cheaper version of Spain's buyout clauses. But I am not a lawyer.

Irishgunner

Kurtz wrote:
I doubt most average players have a years wage lying around. And even if they did most would rather wait it out instead of handing over money. This might just make the real transfer fee of a player his years wages which the buying team can provide, sort of a cheaper version of Spain's buyout clauses. But I am not a lawyer.

There's nothing stopping the buying team from giving the player the necessary capital. That would be taxed, but wouldn't be in the slightest bit problematic in light of how small a sum it would be.

invisibleman18

Interesting. The Bosman ruling came from Belgium aswell didn't it?

Irishgunner

invisibleman18 wrote:
Interesting. The Bosman ruling came from Belgium aswell didn't it?

Yes, it did.

Klaus

Couldn't you, in theory, just circumvent this with contracts where the players specifically waive that right in exchange for some form of economic incentive? I don't imagine many clubs would be keen to sign players who could up and leave at any time.

Kurtz

But that's the point of the ruling isn't it? Making players like the normal employees of other sectors in the economy, where people can leave at any time. I see your point though.

Klaus

Kurtz wrote:
But that's the point of the ruling isn't it? Making players like the normal employees of other sectors in the economy, where people can leave at any time.

Yes, and the point with a contract where they waive that right would be to circumvent it. In other sectors of the economy the employment contract is whatever you decide it is. I used to work for a research lab. The important people there were all legally prohibited from taking up work at other companies within the field for a certain amount of years, should they decide to quit. Why wouldn't football clubs work the same way? Which club is actually going to pay ridiculous salaries to players who can walk out on them at any time and join a direct competitor instead? Which club would even employ such a player to begin with?

Burnwinter

Non-compete clauses are quite a disgrace as well in my opinion.

You have a point though Klaus, footballers' stringent contracts probably do contribute to their high remuneration in some cases (and in others the opposite applies).

Imagine if clubs could simply terminate the contracts of players who were misfits.

Klaus

Or just pay a year's salary and then be done with a 28 year old player on a long-term contract who has just suffered a leg break. Imagine the outrage.

I don't like restrictive clauses either at heart, but I gotta say, I find the whole argument that footballers are somehow denied some basic human right by being held up to a legal agreement they've agreed to sign more than a wee bit offensive. They aren't treated like normal workers because they arent normal workers, and this is reflected in the unproportionally large wages they take. Most of them who are good enough to be transferred make more in a month than 90 percent of us do in a year. They belong to the top 2 percent. It's disingenuous to frame it as a "normal employee of other sectors in the economy" problem.

Burnwinter

Oh no, I agree. It's very tricky to justify concern for the footballers we watch on the pitch in any sense regarding their employment.

A middle of the top flight professional footballer earns what I'll make in the next several years in a handful of months. And what is considered "waged work" for them pushes the usual boundaries of the idea.

If they suffer a career-ending injury, then the disappointment of thwarted sporting aspiration aside, in effect they get to retire early as investors with an established network and special access to opportunities of certain kinds.

End of the day if something like this clause comes in across Europe it'll just be another recalibration of some of the financial parameters of the sport. Footballers will still be paid and clubs will still employ them. Bosman didn't change everything, Webster didn't change everything, and this wouldn't either.

This Belgian ruling sounds pretty similar to Webster to me, but I don't understand the details.

Irishgunner

Burnwinter™ wrote:
This Belgian ruling sounds pretty similar to Webster to me, but I don't understand the details.

The Webster ruling meant that players could buy out the rest of their contract when they had 2 years left. Paying all of the salary that was left.

This ruling means that players can buy out their contract at any point, paying a maximum of 1 years salary regardless of how much time is left on the contract.

Burnwinter

Oh right, didn't realise the Webster ruling had that 2 year limit. Ok, that is another change, but in roughly the same direction.

Webster hasn't had that much effect, certainly much less than Bosman which now rules contract and transfer considerations.

Klaus

Has any prominent player ever used the Webster ruling? Has anyone even threatened publicly to use it apart from Hleb?

JazzG

Klaus wrote:
Has any prominent player ever used the Webster ruling? Has anyone even threatened publicly to use it apart from Hleb?

All the clubs have an agreement between themselves that they won't sign a player due that ruling. I wouldn't be surprised if players have privately threatened to use it to get out of a contract.

Irishgunner

Klaus wrote:
Has any prominent player ever used the Webster ruling? Has anyone even threatened publicly to use it apart from Hleb?

Don't think anyone has ever used it. Rooney allegedly threatened to use it though.

marv3llous

Frimpong has been released by Barnsley.

speedy

Klaus wrote:
Has any prominent player ever used the Webster ruling? Has anyone even threatened publicly to use it apart from Hleb?

Yea there was a player in Spain. But there was some kind of court of arbitration case and settlement for 10m after. So they ended up paying more than his value.

Lukazan

marv3llous wrote:
Frimpong has been released by Barnsley.

More interested in twitter and acting gangster than he is a football career.

Clrnc

Such a shame, he have some serious talents but wasted all of it.

« Previous Page Next Page »