Transfer fees could go if Fifpro wins legal action against Fifa

[Steven]

Transfer fees could go if Fifpro wins legal action against Fifa

Where are the fans interests in all of this. After all without fans there is no professional football.   

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/18/fifpro-transfer-fees-could-go-fifa-brussels

 

 

The union that represents footballers around the world will on Friday launch a landmark legal action against Fifa in the hope of outlawing the transfer system and fundamentally changing the professional game.

Having run out of patience with Fifa and Uefa following long-running negotiations over reforms to the transfer system to protect players better, Fifpro’s lawyers will electronically file a complaint in Brussels with the European Commission.

Fifpro wants to abolish transfer fees and make it easier for players to move between clubs while respecting contracts. It believes its members have less freedom of movement than other workers when a club is able to demand a fee for a footballer under contract. Its lawyers also plan to argue that the existing system is anti-competitive because it places disproportionate power in the hands of elite clubs who can afford to pay large transfer fees.

 Government may impose levy on Premier League’s TV money – minister

 

Read more

Other Fifpro objectives include an end to the loan system, restrictions on squad sizes and the capping of payments to agents.

“Whatever happens, it is a historical moment not only for Fifpro but for professional football,” said Fifpro’s general secretary, Theo van Seggelen, who claims to represent 65,000 players across 65 countries. “We were responsible for Bosman, we were responsible for the declaration of objectives in 2001. We thought we had a good position then but we were tackled from behind.

“We’ve tried to solve this problem internally with Fifa and Uefa but I am 100% convinced that they have left us with no choice. I have been used to negotiating my whole career, with Fifpro and the Dutch union. But it has come to an end.”

Its lawyers believe it will result in the most seismic changes since the Bosman case to a transfer market they believe has become badly warped and no longer serves the best interests of players, fans or clubs. Moreover they will argue that it entrenches the dominance of the biggest clubs and damages the wider game.

“If we win this case and the European Commission declares it illegal, it will be like what happened after Bosman,” Van Seggelen told the Guardian, referring to the 1995 case that guaranteed freedom of movement for players when they reached the end of their contract.

“They have to change it. And if they don’t do it, there will be a declaration of objectives where they have to change it by a certain deadline.”

In the complaint to the Directorate General of EU Competition, Fifpro will argue that several opt-outs from European law agreed under a 2001 settlement have not been adhered to and are no longer in the public interest. They plan to argue that the transfer system is anti-competitive and also breaches European law on restraint of trade and freedom of movement.

The Commission could take six to 12 months to reach a decision and, if it rules in favour of Fifpro, lawyers estimate that it could take one to two years of horse trading beyond that to come up with a new set of rules.

Fifpro will argue that the transfer system breeds instability, with small clubs gambling on selling one or two star players to sustain themselves.

It will also point to new research from the economist Stefan Szymanski that shows that the argument that there is a “trickle down” effect from the transfer system from the biggest to the smallest clubs no longer holds water.

“The transfer system as it currently operates is intended to achieve a number of pro-competitive benefits in football markets by placing restraints on football players,” said Szymanski. “These restraints significantly impact the economic and social wellbeing of the players both in theory and in practice.

“Even if it were possible to justify these restraints because of the wider benefit to football, there is little evidence that these wider benefits have materialised. But in reality, it remains the case that there are better alternatives to achieving the stated policy goals, as observed by Carl Otto Lenz Advocate General at the European Court of Justice in the Bosman case 20 years ago.”

Szymanski’s 20-page analysis concludes: “As it currently operates, the transfer system sustains the dominance of the elite clubs by ensuring that they are the only ones with the financial muscle to afford the transfer fees payable for the very best players. Thus, as it currently operates, the transfers system is not only unfair to players, it also promotes the opposite of what was intended.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Manchester City’s squad size was cited as an example of the game’s imbalance by Fifpro’s Theo van Seggelen. Photograph: Paul Ellis /AFP/Getty Images

Van Seggelen said it was difficult to be specific about what the future might look like if transfer fees were abolished. But he argued the biggest clubs had nothing to fear.

“Without a transfer system, the best players will still play at the best clubs,” he said. “The contracts will be shorter. But that’s not enough. So we also have to come up with alternatives to be sure that we will not have an unintended effect. We also need stability – you can make the contracts one, two, three or four years. You can say it will be very difficult for a club or a player to breach their contract.”

One vision of the future would provide a “protected period” where neither club nor player could break their contract within the first two or three years (unless there were extenuating circumstances where they were not getting a game). Then the player would be able to buy out the remainder of his contract and switch clubs. It would also limit contracts to a maximum of, say, four years.

If the brave new world went hand in hand with other governance reforms – capping agents’ fees, limiting squad sizes, getting rid of the loan system – Van Seggelen argued it would not remove the advantage of the biggest clubs but would stop money flowing out of the game and produce more stability.

“If the agents are going to decide where a player is going to play because a club will give him €20m, that is a problem we have to tackle,” he said. “That is why we have to put restrictions on the intermediary fees. Otherwise you will create another problem. We have already thought about that.

“You have to think about squad size limits – you can’t have a Manchester City squad with 60 players – and we have to forbid the loan system. It’s logical. And get rid of the agent fees. Those are the points we have to think about.”

He also argued that wholesale reform of the transfer system to better protect players and create more stability should go hand in hand with measures to improve competitive balance in the game across Europe.

“It’s a packet of measures – you also have to look at the distribution of money. I look at all the countries,” he said. “In Slovenia football is small. We are not in a communist situation where everyone will become equal. The product from England is fantastic. They will still have the most money. That is not the problem.”

The impasse has come about because Fifpro claims the biggest clubs wanted to link new rules around guaranteeing payment of salaries – a major issue in some smaller leagues – to concessions elsewhere.

Fifpro has maintained that new rules on “overdue payables”, ensuring that players get paid on time, should be a given and not linked to the wider negotiation over the transfer system.

A 2012 Fifpro study across 12 countries showed that 42% of players did not receive their salaries on time. Van Seggelen insisted the biggest clubs in Europe had nothing to fear from getting rid of transfer fees and that smaller clubs had plenty to gain. He argued the only losers would be the agents and middle men taking money out of the game. Fifa’s own figures show that agents’ fees on international transfers rose to £155m in 2014.

“We are not the only ones complaining about the ridiculous system with the transfer window. There is the press, the fans,” he said. “Everybody understands that you want to end the season with the same team you start with. We are not saying ridiculous things.”

The Dutch secretary general, a former player, said the landmark case was a fitting way to mark the organisation’s 50th anniversary and insisted the widespread stereotype of footballers being concerned only with their own pay packet and position was unfair.

“Top players know where a player in the second division is coming from,” he said. “They know it could have been them. The solidarity of the players is unbelievable.

“I speak with players from all over the world, from Japan to Bolivia. The only difference between players is that one has a second-hand bike and the other has a Ferrari. All the players have to sacrifice to become a professional player.

“Our top players promote Fifpro, they are happy to be in our world XI, they are happy to be treated like everyone else. That is why the top players in Spain demanded that players in the third division were paid two years ago. We represent 60,000 players and we are united.”

 

[davieG]

Surely the big club dominence  will continue as they will be able to use the transfer money to offer even more obscene wages.

 

As much as I dislike the exorbitant transfer fees and loan system that allows clubs to stockpile players this will only work if there is a club based pay cap and the surplus cash is ploughed back into development and fans.

 

Goodbye £50 mill transfer fees Welcome £1mill + match fees.

[jimmeh]

Without transfer fees then wages would go through the roof. You can't get rid of transfer fees. Also players would only be at clubs for short times.

[adam]

This would be a disaster .It Would turn into how county cricket Is. All the best players end up at the club's with the most money .The richer clubs get richer and the poorer clubs run out of money .Happy days.

[Guest MattP]

Would end the sport as we know it. The power of the top clubs would render the rest of us pointless.

 

Don't Chelsea have something like 35 players out on loan now and that's with transfer fees?

[Finnegan]

Absolutely filthy money grabbing wankers. Absolute *****, that's really wound me up.

I agree the current transfer market is ridiculous but this is ****ing disgusting. Disloyal, self interested scum came up with this idea.

You sign a contract you should ****ing honour it. Want it to be easier to leave a club? Don't sign a sodding five year contract for mega bucks then you pricks. Take a bit of a pay cut and maybe your club will agree to let you only sign a couple years.

Ugh. I should stress I've had a few beers but still, that's absolutely appalling.

[Jordan]

Absolutely filthy money grabbing wankers. Absolute *****, that's really wound me up.

I agree the current transfer market is ridiculous but this is ****ing disgusting. Disloyal, self interested scum came up with this idea.

You sign a contract you should ****ing honour it. Want it to be easier to leave a club? Don't sign a sodding five year contract for mega bucks then you pricks. Take a bit of a pay cut and maybe your club will agree to let you only sign a couple years.

Ugh. I should stress I've had a few beers but still, that's absolutely appalling.

What a bunch of greedy ****ers, trying to get FIFA/UEFA/member associations/clubs to have a transfer system that actually abides by EU law and doesn't rip off smaller clubs and their players.

[The Doctor]

What a bunch of greedy ****ers, trying to get FIFA/UEFA/member associations/clubs to have a transfer system that actually abides by EU law and doesn't rip off smaller clubs and their players.

It will rip smaller clubs off though, what it'll mean is smaller clubs have to bankrupt themselves just to keep themselves static. What it'll mean is the big clubs collect players like stickers and the smaller clubs lose everyone. Not to mention there's no incentive to develop a good generation of players when you'll lose them for nothing and not have any chance of keeping players.

[Guest ttfn]

What a bunch of greedy ****ers, trying to get FIFA/UEFA/member associations/clubs to have a transfer system that actually abides by EU law and doesn't rip off smaller clubs and their players.

This has got nothing to do with EU law and everything to do with funnelling transfer fees into the pockets of players rather than clubs.

[Finnegan]

This has got nothing to do with EU law and everything to do with funnelling transfer fees into the pockets of players rather than clubs.

This.

Imagine if Leicester get nothing for the sale of Riyad or even worse - Schlupp, having pretty much created his career.

If you sign a contract you should honour it, especially when you're being paid millions to do what you love.

Remember when Ronaldo claimed he was like a slave at United? That's the mentality behind this. Absolutely disgusting. Tragic that even the players are losing touch with the common public.

If this ever happened I think I'd quit football for good.

[Jordan]

This.

Imagine if Leicester get nothing for the sale of Riyad or even worse - Schlupp, having pretty much created his career.

If you sign a contract you should honour it, especially when you're being paid millions to do what you love.

Remember when Ronaldo claimed he was like a slave at United? That's the mentality behind this. Absolutely disgusting. Tragic that even the players are losing touch with the common public.

If this ever happened I think I'd quit football for good.

Just because something is, doesn't mean it always will be. Do you think the transfer system is fine the way it is?

Completely banning transfer fees makes good copy, but there cannot be a system where clubs aren't compensated in some way for losing a player to another club that had signed a long-term contract. The players are most likely using legal action to force ECA/UEFA/FIFA to come up with a plan. FIFPro has been talking about and trying to come up with a deal on these issues for years, but the fat cats just keep kicking the ball into touch because they're just fine with a labor system unlike anything else in Europe, and one in which they make a ton of money.

If any other group came up with a plan to kill this insane loan system, cut agents' fees, reduce squad sizes, and create more parity within the club game, they'd be lauded as heroes. But just because the players are acting in their self-interests, they have to be greedy? Why shouldn't they be the ones raking in the lion's share of the money in the game?

Ronaldo detached from the public? No shit, how many people in the world can do what he does? But what if "slave" Ronaldo, or Sterling, or what have you, also had to pay out of his own pocket and contract to switch clubs?

Think about a real world where most clubs are being sold fool's gold with this transfer system instead of imagining a hypothetical sale of one or two players at one club.

If this is what's going to cause you to quit football instead of the current system in place--the one of Blatter and Platini, of corruption, of a completely corporate sport with money and power flowing into fewer hands (and into Cayman Island bank accounts), of Oystons and Ashleys, of a transfer/agent system that has a hand to play in the trafficking of African players, of transfer fees going unregulated and untaxed--than you have a bizarre value system. I doubt you do, so why not just stop using hyperbole to make your points? This way, we can have a discussion where we both pretend to be experts on the economics of football, and you'll still be able to watch football.

[The Doctor]

If any other group came up with a plan to kill this insane loan system, cut agents' fees, reduce squad sizes, and create more parity within the club game, they'd be lauded as heroes. But just because the players are acting in their self-interests, they have to be greedy? Why shouldn't they be the ones raking in the lion's share of the money in the game?

 

 

But this won't do any of those - abolish transfer fees and there will be less parity, it will literally be just a game of who has more money (it's nearly there now, but at least smaller clubs can resist somewhat), the money saved from transfer fees will go to agents and players and it will enable bigger clubs to stockpile players for less, with smaller clubs unable to even take them temporarily.

[Vlad the Fox]

Cap wages, cap transfer fees, ban loans except for progressing academy players, all transfers should be negotiated by salaried FA/euafa/FIFA agents paid for from a fund drew from a small percentage of players wages thus banishing agents from the game.

[Captain...]

This.

Imagine if Leicester get nothing for the sale of Riyad or even worse - Schlupp, having pretty much created his career.

If you sign a contract you should honour it, especially when you're being paid millions to do what you love.

Remember when Ronaldo claimed he was like a slave at United? That's the mentality behind this. Absolutely disgusting. Tragic that even the players are losing touch with the common public.

If this ever happened I think I'd quit football for good.

 

You do know that can happen now? When the contract is up they can walk away for free.

 

Scrapping transfer fees doesn't mean clubs will get no money, it just means that the money the club gets will not be a transfer fee, a club should be compensated for the premature end of a contract, this is not a transfer fee but contract cancellation fee. The burden of which should fall on the player (who will obviously be re-imbursed by the club he signed for) and so should be negotiated and agreed at the point of signing a contract same way you would a notice period.

 

It would basically set out all costs up front, there would be no bidding wars and protracted transfer sagas the like we saw with De Gea and it forces players to consider the cost of buying out their contract when they sign a new one. If you want the security of a 5 year contract, it will cost more to buy it out, if you want a higher wage it will cost more to buy out of it, but it will also give clubs a greater incentive to renegotiate contracts every summer to ensure that one of their stars can't leave for a pittance.

 

I actually brought this up before, and my proposal would be that to buy out your contract it would cost you whatever is remaining as your untaken salary, if you are earning millions a year then a club values you at millions, so they will need millions in compensation to replace you with someone else earning millions a year, it is a little simplistic and doesn't take into account young players so it should be factored up for younger players yet to reach their potential. It would also be possible for a club to use the same buy out clause to get rid of an unwanted player, so players with a low buy out clause would have added flexibility but also added risk.

 

There are obviously a lot of factors and caveats, such as relegation clauses, but also a release clause for not being included in the 25 man squad for players over 23, this wouldn't completely dismantle the loan abuse, but it would limit it.

 

The biggest impact could be on the loan system, if not being in the 25 man squad triggers a lower release clause, then players wouldn't need to go out on

[Dan]

Yeah, there isn't enough player power as it is after all

 

They lost me when they said "we're not quite sure what happens in the future". What utter nonsense.

 

I actually quite like the transfer system (minus loans and agents). It isn't perfect but you need to be prudent and I do like that. It's only a mess in England because of the amount of money English clubs get (and often waste).

[davieG]

You do know that can happen now? When the contract is up they can walk away for free.

 

Scrapping transfer fees doesn't mean clubs will get no money, it just means that the money the club gets will not be a transfer fee, a club should be compensated for the premature end of a contract, this is not a transfer fee but contract cancellation fee. The burden of which should fall on the player (who will obviously be re-imbursed by the club he signed for) and so should be negotiated and agreed at the point of signing a contract same way you would a notice period.

 

It would basically set out all costs up front, there would be no bidding wars and protracted transfer sagas the like we saw with De Gea and it forces players to consider the cost of buying out their contract when they sign a new one. If you want the security of a 5 year contract, it will cost more to buy it out, if you want a higher wage it will cost more to buy out of it, but it will also give clubs a greater incentive to renegotiate contracts every summer to ensure that one of their stars can't leave for a pittance.

 

I actually brought this up before, and my proposal would be that to buy out your contract it would cost you whatever is remaining as your untaken salary, if you are earning millions a year then a club values you at millions, so they will need millions in compensation to replace you with someone else earning millions a year, it is a little simplistic and doesn't take into account young players so it should be factored up for younger players yet to reach their potential. It would also be possible for a club to use the same buy out clause to get rid of an unwanted player, so players with a low buy out clause would have added flexibility but also added risk.

 

There are obviously a lot of factors and caveats, such as relegation clauses, but also a release clause for not being included in the 25 man squad for players over 23, this wouldn't completely dismantle the loan abuse, but it would limit it.

 

The biggest impact could be on the loan system, if not being in the 25 man squad triggers a lower release clause, then players wouldn't need to go out on

Apart from the size of the 'fee' nothing much will change if players know that the 'buying' club will reimburse them for the loss of any wages. so the burden will not fall on the player it will just make it easier for them to chop and change clubs irrespective of any commitment they've given.

 

The money the big clubs save on transfer fees will probably be used to scoop up a better bigger collection of footballers plenty of whom seem to be happy to sign up to a big club on a big salary with little or no prospect of ever playing for the first team.

 

Let's face it the players aren't in favour of this for benevolent reasons or for the good of football in general they just want the best of both worlds.

[Guest]

 so why not just stop using hyperbole to make your points? 

 

Is this a new expectation for all forum users or just finnegan? Coz i've only just come to terms with grammar-criticism-as-counterargument, so it might take me a while to adjust to any additional policies.

[Captain...]

Apart from the size of the 'fee' nothing much will change if players know that the 'buying' club will reimburse them for the loss of any wages. so the burden will not fall on the player it will just make it easier for them to chop and change clubs irrespective of any commitment they've given.

The money the big clubs save on transfer fees will probably be used to scoop up a better bigger collection of footballers plenty of whom seem to be happy to sign up to a big club on a big salary with little or no prospect of ever playing for the first team.

Let's face it the players aren't in favour of this for benevolent reasons or for the good of football in general they just want the best of both worlds.

Regardless of the money or profile involved a person should not be forced to work for a company in an environment where they are not happy.

If it was any other job, and I know it isn't, and an employee said they wanted to leave then they can't stop them, there may be compensation issues, and other things to sort out, such as notice period but if you were the Berahino equivalent in any other industry you could not be forced to work.

Putting the burden on the player means they are responsible for ending their contract should they want to leave. Imagine if at the start of the Summer Berahino handed in his notice paid the 8 million in compensation or whatever it would be and went to speak to Spurs rather than this protracted saga that ended with nobody really being in a better position.

Of course the sticky issue would be clubs tapping up players and meeting with them to unofficially make offers, but that happens all the time anyway. I do think you will see more and more contracts with release clauses in them because it is not helping anyone having these ridiculous sagas and it would mean, as in the case of aranguiz, no bidding wars, 2 clubs come in for a player, they meet the buy out clause the player then can choose the best club for him and not be pressured into leaving because one club has offered a stupid amount.

[davieG]

Regardless of the money or profile involved a person should not be forced to work for a company in an environment where they are not happy.

If it was any other job, and I know it isn't, and an employee said they wanted to leave then they can't stop them, there may be compensation issues, and other things to sort out, such as notice period but if you were the Berahino equivalent in any other industry you could not be forced to work.

Putting the burden on the player means they are responsible for ending their contract should they want to leave. Imagine if at the start of the Summer Berahino handed in his notice paid the 8 million in compensation or whatever it would be and went to speak to Spurs rather than this protracted saga that ended with nobody really being in a better position.

Of course the sticky issue would be clubs tapping up players and meeting with them to unofficially make offers, but that happens all the time anyway. I do think you will see more and more contracts with release clauses in them because it is not helping anyone having these ridiculous sagas and it would mean, as in the case of aranguiz, no bidding wars, 2 clubs come in for a player, they meet the buy out clause the player then can choose the best club for him and not be pressured into leaving because one club has offered a stupid amount.

I'm  not a fan of transfer fees, the loan system or winging footballers. The point I was making is that the player won't end up paying the £8 mill or whatever it is. This is more to do with tapping up than unhappy players, sure if a player is being sidelined then they should have the opportunity to opt out of their contract in someway but the chances are there's  a reason why and there  probably wouldn't  be that many wanting them or prepared to pay for them. Besides it's  not unknown for a player  to buy out their contract now it's  just that most won't because  they don't  what to cough  up the money so they start making them selves a pain in the are. 

 

If a player signs a contract they should honour it, fundamentally  it's not about freedom it's  about getting more money in the vast majority of cases at least if there was some sort of wage cap we'd be more sure that players were wanting to break their contract for genuine reasons that's  why I believe anything like this needs to have one incorporated  in the system. It would also benefit football generally. 

[AyewJoking]

Would these proposals have helped us sign Aranguiz or made it easier for him to go where he wanted?

 

More importantly would it have scuppered the 100 pages of crap amounted in transfer talk?

[Captain...]

Would these proposals have helped us sign Aranguiz or made it easier for him to go where he wanted?

More importantly would it have scuppered the 100 pages of crap amounted in transfer talk?

Depending on how it is implemented, but it would have basically set his transfer fee, so it would have been down to us or Bayer to convince him where to go, and his club would get the same regardless of which club he chooses.

One alternative is instead of having signing on bonuses have completion bonuses or loyalty bonuses so instead of giving a lump sum to sign for them spread that amount over the course of the contract, so instead of giving them £4m to sign a 4 year contract they get £1m at the end of every completed year.